Mediaboss Marketing

Following the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the ascendance of the Taliban, Facebook has found itself with a power nearly unprecedented in history: an American corporation unilaterally controlling the most popular means through which an entire foreign government speaks to its people.

After the Taliban assumed power in August, Facebook initially tightened its controls on the group, which it had already blacklisted. But internal company materials reviewed by The Intercept show that Facebook has carved out several exceptions to its Taliban ban, permitting specific government ministries to share content via the companys platforms and contributing to a growing tangle of internal policies on how the Taliban posts.

Facebook has for years officially barred the Taliban and myriad affiliates from using its platforms under the companys Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, an internal blacklist published by The Intercept in September. The DIO blocks thousands of groups and people from Facebook platforms and dictates what billions of people can say about them there. But unlike other banned groups on the DIO list, like Al Qaeda or the Third Reich, the Taliban is now a sovereign government engaged in the very real business of administering an entire country with millions of inhabitants.

An internal policy memorandum obtained by The Intercept shows that, at the end of September, the company created a DIO exception to allow content shared by the Ministry of Interior. The memo cited only important information about new traffic regulations, noting we assess the public value of this content to outweigh the potential harm, although it did not limit its exceptionto traffic updates only. A second DIO exception added at the same time provides a far narrower carveout: Two specific posts from the Ministry of Health would be permitted on the grounds that they contained information relevant to Covid-19. Despite the exceptions, however, Interiors Facebook page was deleted at the end of October, as first reported by Pajhwok Afghan News agency, while the Health Ministrys page hasnt posted since October 2.

The exception memo cited important information about new traffic regulations, noting we assess the public value of this content to outweigh the potential harm.

While no other government offices are currently allowed to share information, other exceptions to the DIO policy reviewed by The Intercept were even narrower in scope: For just 12 days in August, government figures on Facebook were permitted to recognize the Taliban as official gov of Afghanistan without risking deletion or suspension, according to another internal memo, and a similarly brief stretch from late August to September 3 granted users the freedom to post the Talibans public statements without having to neutrally discuss, report on, or condemn these statements.

While exempting the Ministry of Interior would permit Afghans to receive information about a variety of important administrative functions like public security, drivers licenses, and immigration matters, no such exceptions have been issued for other offices with responsibilities vital to the basic functioning of any country, like the ministries of agriculture, commerce, finance, and justice. Afghanistan is currently on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, according to a recent U.N. report, and the new Taliban administration is still struggling to establish itself.

Facebook spokesperson Sally Aldous told The Intercept that the Taliban remains banned from the companys services through the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, adding, We continue to review content and Pages against our policies and last month removed several Pages including those from the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Public Works. However, weve allowed some content about the provision of essential public services in Afghanistan, including, for example, two posts in August on the Afghan Health Page.

Its unclear how Facebook has arrived at this piecemeal approach to its Taliban policy, or how exactly it determined which government ministries to permit. Aldous declined to explain how the company drafted these policy exceptions or why they they werent publicly disclosed, but told The Intercept that Facebook does not make decisions about the recognized government in any particular country but instead respects the authority of the international community in making these determinations, adding, We have a dedicated team, including regional experts, working to monitor the situation in Afghanistan. We also have a wide and growing network of local and international partners that we work with to alert us to emerging issues and provide essential context.

Experts who spoke to The Intercept say these exceptions, even if well-intentioned, demand a public disclosure not only of their existence, but also of how the determinations were reached. Others criticized the policy exceptions as arbitrary in nature, underscoring the unchecked power the American company holds over the functioning of another countrys government, particularly in a society like Afghanistan where a lack of internet infrastructure creates a greater reliance on Facebook products. In 2019, a New York Times report noted thatFacebook messaging product WhatsApp has become second only to Facebook as a way for Afghans to communicate with one another, and with the outside world. While poorer countries are a lucrative and growing target for Facebooks advertising operations, years of reporting show these markets are often an afterthought in terms of content policy and moderation.

Masuda Sultan, co-founder of Women for Afghan Women, told The Intercept that while the potential for Taliban propagandizing is a concern, Facebook platforms in Afghanistan may present the only communication that many people have in order to relay messages with the entities in power, or for these entities to hear them. In August, Sultan made use of the now-shuttered Taliban WhatsApp hotline when her NGOs Kabul office was attacked amid the chaos of the American pullout. It was incredibly important for us to have access to them because the police had abandoned their posts and we had no one else to call, she added. Especially during an emergency, it is not helpful to have communications shut down between ordinary people and those in power.

Facebook platforms in Afghanistan may present the only communication that many people have in order to relay messages with the entities in power.

While Facebook is a publicly traded company and at times consults and collaborates with both governmental experts and regional NGOs, the company remains under the complete and total control of one man, founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, and its policy decisions are ultimately his. Its unclear to what extent the future of Afghanistan is a priority for Zuckerberg, even while his companys undisclosed content policies continue to affect it.

The company has stumbled through issues of national sovereignty in the past throttling the military junta in Myanmars access to Facebook and banning the sitting president of the United States early this year but the magnitude of banning an entire government and then creating niche exceptions to that ban is a new test of the companys de facto control over the flow of information to billions of people around the world. Facebook has had to make these calls before, explained Jane Esberg, a senior social media analyst at International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, but the scale of it is new in the sense that it is both extremely political in the United States, and it is with an organization that is a designated terror organization.

While the Taliban is not listed as a terrorist entity by the State Department, it is subject to economic sanctions through the Treasury Departments Specially Designated Global Terrorist roster, a list of entities on which Facebooks own internal blacklist relies heavily. Facebook has repeatedly pointed to the SDGT list as the legal rationale behind its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, claiming it has no choice but to limit such speech, though legal scholars deny the company is under any legal obligation to censor the Taliban or any other SDGT entity, let alone censor those who want to mention them.

However, Facebook appears to be operating based on its own extremely broad and conservative interpretation of the law, one that critics say isnt grounded in the actual statutes at play but rather the companys corporate prerogatives. In a recent Twitter thread on this topic, Electronic Frontier Foundation senior attorney and civil liberties director David Greene wrote, I can confirm that for years weve been asking Facebook to provide the specific legal authority that compels them to remove these groups (as opposed to just deciding they dont want them). Ive always said there is none. And weve never had a specific law cited to us.

By notable contrast, Twitter continues to permit the Taliban to useits platform without legal penalty of any kind. Its completely unclear what the political logic is and whos driving the political logic internally, said Esberg, who emphasized the importance of some degree of transparency so that we understand what the logic is, what counts as information that the Afghan public needs to see versus whatever speech is deemed too dangerous for the platform. In a recent article for Just Security, Faiza Patel and Mary Pat Dwyer of New York Universitys Brennan Center for Justicerebutted the notion that the companys hands are tied by anti-terror statutes and sanctions compliance, writing: Facebook needs to set aside the distracting fiction that U.S. law requires its current approach.

The ad hoc exceptionto certain elements of the Taliban government makes Facebooks claims that its legally bound by the federal government to censor certain foreign groups even more untenable: If U.S. law mandates barring the Taliban regime from using its platforms, as the company and its executives repeatedly assert, then presumably theseexceptions would violate Facebooks expansive interpretation of its legal obligations. Facebook spokesperson Sally Aldous did not respond to a question on this point.

Ashley Jackson, a former aid worker with the U.N. and Oxfam and co-director of the Centre for the Study of Armed Groups, also criticized the companys approach. Why not exempt the Ministry of Education, or whatever else that deals with essential services? she asked. The post-2001 republic collapsed. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have absolute power over the government. It makes little sense to pick and choose.

The ban is all the more baffling because members of the Taliban can thwart it, Jackson added. I know that the Taliban have used Facebook to spread propaganda and wage the war because Ive seen it and written about it, she said. Ive even used Facebook to connect with Taliban commanders. All [Facebook] are doing is covering themselves and obstructing information.

Still, Facebook is no doubt under political pressure at home to deny the Taliban any benefit whatsoever, even if it means keeping Afghans in the dark.

What they are doing is a cynical PR exercise not actual safeguarding.

Facebooks stance reflects a much more contentious debate on legitimizing the Taliban, which has been marked by total and utter policy incoherence on the part of Western States, Jackson explained. It makes sense that Facebooks own policy is incoherent, but erring on the side of conservatism theyre trying to avoid public criticism. No private company should have this power, of course, but what they are doing is a cynical PR exercise not actual safeguarding.

Facebooks Taliban problem began as the militant group took control of Kabul in August, pitting the social networks opaque and U.S.-centric content moderation policies against the undeniable reality on the ground. As the last American planes were escaping the city and Taliban officials were setting up shop in government buildings, Facebook terminated a WhatsApp emergency hotline created by the group for civilians to report violence, looting or other problems, the Financial Times reported. The move immediately drew a mixed reaction, satisfying foreign policy hard-liners while disturbing others who said it would only deprive an already beleaguered Afghan public of receiving information from their new government, however loathed in the West.

But even though Afghanistan now occupies a diminished space in the American public consciousness and media, Facebooks role there remains no less fraught. Theres a real tension between wanting to keep certain information on the platform, including propaganda and misinformation, said Esberg, and allowing these actors to actually govern, and not completely scuttling their attempts at governing a country that is already facing a pretty severe crisis in and of itself.

View original post here:
Facebook Grants Afghanistan Government Limited Posting Rights - The Intercept

The international community must stand by its long-term commitment to support womens rights inAfghanistan, said Amnesty International, ahead of a new campaign highlighting the achievements of 16 remarkable Afghan women.

To mark this years 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violencean annual international campaign celebrating women in every region of the world who fight gender-based discrimination and stand up for womens rightsthe human rights organization is sharing the stories of 16 trailblazing Afghan women who had overcome huge barriers to participation across public life over the past two decades. In their own words, women from diverse public spheres including law, politics, academia, and the media recount their professional paths, their feelings about the Talibans return, their hopes and fears for the future, and their recommendations to the international community on how to continue supporting womens rights.

These stories offer a powerful and timely reminder of just how far Afghan women had come over the past twenty years, in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. They also provide a sobering insight into how life has transformed for women and girls since the Talibans return, said Samira Hamidi, Amnesty Internationals South Asia Campaigner.

Its astonishing that, at a time the country is facing an economic and humanitarian crisis, these women and thousands more like them are being barred from public life

Its astonishing that, at a time the country is facing an economic and humanitarian crisis, these women and thousands more like them are being barred from public life.We urge the Talibanto respect, protect andfulfilthe rights of women and girls. We call on the international community to engage directly with Afghan women to understand their reality, listen to their pragmatic recommendations, and work with them to support womens rights.

Since taking control of Kabul on 15 August 2021, the Taliban have imposed severe restrictions on women and girls. Apart from healthcare workers and a few other isolated exemptions, women have been told they cannot return to work or travel in public without being accompanied by a Mahram (male guardian). Since 20 September, girls above the age of 12 (grade six and above) have not been allowed to go to school, while rigid gender segregation at universities has severely curtailed women in higher education.

Businesswoman Sediqa Mushtaq told Amnesty International, When I heard the news that the Taliban had entered Kabul, I felt as if I fell and broke into pieces. I fell from a bright place into darkness with no light to be seen.

Preventing women from working has exacerbated economic problems for many families, which had previously enjoyed steady professional incomes, while removing women from government jobs has left a huge hole in the states capacity to govern effectively. Women now also face increased threats of gender-based violence and severe restrictions on their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, including on even their choice of clothing.

Fawzia Amini, formerly a senior judge inAfghanistans Supreme Court, said: The Taliban have institutionalized discrimination against women; they are denying our fundamental rightsthey want to wipe women from the face of society and make us all prisoners in our own homes.

While much work remained to be done, womens rights had improved significantly since the fall of the first Taliban regime in 2001. There were 3.3 million girls in education, and women had actively participated in the political, economic and social life of the country. Despite ongoing conflict, Afghan women had become lawyers, doctors, judges, teachers, engineers, athletes, activists, politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, business owners, police officers, and members of the military.

The Taliban have institutionalized discrimination against women; they are denying our fundamental rights

Former police officer, Zala Zazai, said: The international community must pressure the Taliban to ensure womens rights and they must do everything to ensure that women are part of the new government. The Taliban cannot eliminate half of the population ofAfghanistan.

Background

The briefing,They are the Revolution: Afghan Women fighting for their future under Taliban rule,is available here.

The 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violenceis an annual international campaign, which starts on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November and runs until Human Rights Day on 10 December. It provides a platform for individuals and organizations around the world to call for the prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls.

See the original post here:
Afghanistan: Women call on the international community to support women's rights amid ongoing Taliban suppression - Amnesty International

When the story of the 2022 midterm elections is finally told, it could be that it motivated a generation of military veterans horrified by the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan to enter politics.

Enter Republican Cory Mills, a House candidate in Floridas 7th Congressional District. Mills, 41, saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, serving the Armys 82nd Airborne Division as a member of a special operations unit. Later, Mills went to work in the Defense Department under former President Donald Trump. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Mills ticked off the usual list of partisan motivations behind his bid for Congress that is sure to excite GOP primary voters: President Joe Biden is failing as a leader; the liberal agenda propagated by the Democrats on Capitol Hill is damaging the United States domestically and overseas.

Right now, were running on an America last agenda, said Mills, a recipient of the Bronze Star. Were prioritizing illegals over our military.

Were seeing certain things, such as the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline while allowing Russia to build more pipelines, he added. These are things that I dont believe in any way [constitute] an America first agenda.

REPUBLICANS USE RITTENHOUSE VERDICT TO COURT GOP VOTERS

But Mills was particularly passionate when fielding questions about the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Mills said he was horrified by the swift takeover by the Taliban and anguished over the Afghans left behind who assisted the American war effort during 20 years of conflict precipitated by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.I agree with the conditions-based agreement for withdrawal that President Trump had in place, Mills said. I was for the idea of withdrawing from Afghanistan.

However, Mills said he does not support the concept of complete withdrawal. He worries the U.S. faces a new terrorist threat because there are no American forces in Afghanistan to prevent al Qaeda from reestablishing a foothold there from which to plan and launch attacks. Mills is doubly concerned about China filling the vacuum left by the American exit from the region and putting the U.S. on the defensive, geopolitically, in the competition for influence and power with a rising Beijing.

China made overtures to the Taliban and moved to establish a presence in Afghanistan from almost the moment the last American plane lifted off from the airport in Kabul.

It would have been smart for us to leave a small counterterrorism force in place, Mills said. I dont think we should have handed over Bagram [Air Force base] to the Chinese.

Mills, a first-time candidate for public office, and his wife, Rana, run a Florida-based risk management firm they founded together that employs hundreds of people and advises law enforcement and other organizations. If Mills wins his Republican primary in late August of next year, next up would be Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy. Although redistricting could alter the boundaries of the 7th Congressional District, under the current lines, Mills would face an uphill climb. In 2020, Biden defeated Trump there by more than 10 percentage points.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If Mills ends up in Washington in 2023 as a member of Congress in a new Republican majority, he has not decided whether he would back House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California to become the next speaker of the House, even though at this point he could be the only Republican candidate running for the gavel. Its kind of a tricky question because we dont know whos going to be placing their hat in the ring, Mills said.

My focus is not about whos going to be speaker and whos not; my focus is on defeating Stephanie Murphy, Mills said. Its about us taking back America, thats my focus right now. How we deal with leadership thats further down the road.

The rest is here:
Military veteran seeks Florida congressional seat to right the wrongs of Afghanistan pullout - Washington Examiner

Efat left Kabul in such a hurry she didn't get a chance to saygoodbye to her parents and siblings.

The Hazara woman, who worked as an interpreter for Australian and US troops,knew a future in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was not an option for her.

The 28-year-oldspent two weeksin the heat, staking out the crowded gates of Kabul International Airport for anopportunity to flee Afghanistan,afterTaliban insurgents captured the country.

Once she saw a chance to leave, she had to seize the opportunity and didn't have time to go back and farewell her family.

Now livingin Adelaide, Efat, whois not usingher real name because ofconcerns for her family's safety,wants to urgentlybringher family to Australia.

She fears they could becometargets because of their Hazaraethnicity and her work with coalition forces.

"Every dayand every moment I'm thinking 'how should I get them out of that country?'because there is no life forthem [there]," she told the ABC.

"I am all by myself and I have not a single person of my family with me the problem is that I have in my mind that they're in a place that is not safe for them."

In the wake of the US withdrawal in August, Afghans who worked with the coalition forces have been killed.

The Talibanhave also beenevicting Hazara, who are Shia Muslims,from their homes and landwhile Islamic State have begun launching deadly suicide bombings on areas where they live.

Efat said she hadheld off submitting a visa application for her family because she didn't know how many family members she could bring to Australia.

But in response to questions by the ABC, the Department of Home Affairs said there was no limit on the number of close family members a humanitarian visa holder could propose.

Efat said while she was gratefulthe Australian government had helped people like herself evacuate, thegovernment should makethe guidelines around applying for visas for family in Afghanistan clearer.

"It is not only us who matters, it is them too because if they're not safe we're not safe anymore," she said.

"Please bring our families to us, please make us feel like we're going tosee our family members again," she said, holding back tears.

While someformer interpreters for Australian forceshave made it to Australia, others in Afghanistan are still waiting for visas.

The Australiangovernment has opened 3,000 humanitarian visas for Afghans wanting to flee, buta Senate inquiry last week heard none of those humanitarian visas had been issueddespite the government receiving more than 20,000 applications.

Veteran and lawyerGlenn Kolomeitzsaid Australia's humanitarian visa process for Afghans hadbeen "pretty disastrous".

"The Afghans who worked for Australian agencies in Afghanistan, they're entitled to a permanent visa," MrKolomeitz said.

"To date, none of those have been given permanent visas. Many have been given very short-term, temporary safe haven visas."

MrKolomeitz made a submission to a Defence and Foreign Affairs Senate inquiryprobingthe federalgovernment's two-stagevisa application process for former Afghan employees of Australian governmentagencies.

A prominent woman's rights activist and her family share their harrowingcrossing into Pakistan and their safe arrival in Australia.

In his submission, he said some former Afghan interpreters for Australia could not complete the second part of their application because Australia had already closed its embassy in Kabul.

The Department of Foreign Affairs did not respond to the ABC's request for comment.

MrKolomeitz told the ABCthe families of former locally engaged interpreters alsofaced a heightened risk of persecution in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and should be prioritised.

"All of our clients who are here in Australia have family in Afghanistan, that gives them a very strong link to Australia but these people are still not being prioritised," he said.

"What we're seeing is they're simply joining thepile of other applications from every other Afghan who was applyingto come to Australia on humanitarian grounds."

Ahmad,who worked with ADF soldiers in Afghanistan, also hasfamily in the country and fears the Taliban will target them.

The ABC is not using Ahmad's real name to protect his family's identity.

He said he hadcontacted migration lawyers and preparedvisa application formsto try and get his family an Australian visa.

Butwith thousands of other Afghans applying for just a few thousandvisas, he isworried his family will not make the cut.

"I know their families, they want to get their members, their loved ones over here but the amount of risk to the Afghan interpreters' families from [the] Taliban in Afghanistan ismore than any other thing you can think [of]," Ahmad said.

After promisingto honour minority rights, local Taliban leadersevicthundredsof Hazara families, leaving many displaced in rugged mountain areaswith no supplies.

"I've heard rumours and there has been some activitiesby the Taliban, that they are looking for the families of the Afghan interpreters."

He hasjoined calls toprioritise the families of Afghan interpreters for humanitarian visas.

"I[t]will be very good, if they can prioritise the visa for the Afghan interpreters' familiesfirst, especially their parents, because most of these interpreters were living with their parentsin one house," he said.

"If they cannot get out on time, sooner or later the Taliban will come and come after them."

MrKolomeitz said there was still hope for recently evacuated Afghans in Australia wanting to reunite with their families.

"We got a family out in the last week, whose interpreter family live here in Australia [and] are permanent residents," he said.

"But there are still many family members stuck in Afghanistan whowe and others are working on getting visas for and evacuating."

Inresponse to questions from the ABC, the Department of Home Affairs said priority would be given to persecuted minorities, women and children and those who have links to Australia.

For Efat, she just wants to see her parents and siblings again, out of harm's way.

"I have my brothers younger than me and they have not even started their life yet and they're struggling," she said.

See the original post:
Evacuated interpreters with family in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan push for visas to be prioritised - ABC News

The Talibans return to power in Afghanistan and their theocratic dispositions have once again put the spotlight on the different brands of Islam that have come to feature in the Muslim world. The Taliban claim that the Islam they practice is pristine. Yet, their version is not upheld by authorities in most of the Muslim world. Morocco is one of the Muslim majority states where Islam is revered and practised as a faith and way of life, but in variance to the Talibans extremist brand that is more back to the future.

Undoubtedly, at the macro level, all followers of Islam, irrespective of their sects and socio-political shades, believe in three essential components of the religion: that Allah (God) is the creator and mover of the universe, and He is omnipotent, omnicompetent, omniscient and beyond any form of reproach; that Prophet Muhammad is His messenger, commissioned to create Gods kingdom on earth; and that the Quran (Holy Book) is an unconstructed text of the words of God.

The Quran and the Prophets deeds (Sunna) form the primary sources for the construction of sharia (Islamic) law, within whose framework Muslims can organise and conduct themselves on the righteous path and manifest Gods greatness on earth.

At the micro level, different manifestations of Islam have emerged in the course of history. After the Prophets death in 632, Islam became pluralist from both within and outside and couldnt be as monolithic as originally envisaged. Islam experienced inner schism with the emergence of two main sectsthe majority Sunni and minority Shiaeach with different subsects and schools of thought, and interacted with different cultural and social norms and practices as it spanned diverse societies. In the process, the religionIslamisedmany aspects of these societies but also yielded to some of their social and cultural influences. Hence there are diverse ideological interpretations and applications of the religion, and its differentiated deployment as an ideology of resistance and reassertion for a range of societal transformations in different parts of the Muslim domain.

In todays world, different brands of Islam are operational. The Talibans Salafist and Deobandi Sunni Hanafi theo-political version, which is also pursued in some Sunni variation by such militant groups as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, stands very much on its own. The groups literary and narrow interpretation and practice of the faith stand in contrast to many others, including Irans specific Shia model, Saudi Arabias changing Wahhabi genre and the Moroccan moderate brand.

Not to cast our net too widely, lets briefly look at the Moroccan case that is opposite to that of the Taliban. As a predominantly Sunni Muslim state, Moroccos version exudes two important aspects in its promotion of an amiable Islam at the societal level. One is that the hereditary King Mohammed VI, whose lineage is traced back to the Prophet, has used his title of Commander of the Faithful and protector of Islam, along with his extraordinary constitutional powers, to promote an anti-extremist or what some might call progressive Islam. He has pursued this aim using a two-pronged approach that enables Islamists, formally and informally, to participate in the political arena while regulating their religious tone and dispositions in accord with the changing times.

He has leveraged the constitutionally enshrined multiparty electoral system of governance to provide the Islamists with participatory space in the political arena. In the five-yearly parliamentary elections, the Islamist Justice and Development Party is permitted to contest, along with other parties from the right, centre and left of the spectrum, for 325 seats, with the king appointing the prime minister as head of the government from the party that wins the largest number of seats. In the 2021 elections, the Islamist party suffered a historic defeat by winning only 13 seats. Yet, the fact that it is given the same opportunity as the other parties to contest the elections, as regulated as they may have been, is in contrast to many other Arab states where the Islamist parties are either banned or totally politically marginalised.

At the same time, compliance to an anti-extremist Islam is enforced. Under the kings leadership, the state holds conferences, cross-fertilisation forums and educational enterprises for religious figures to affirm the virtue of Islam as a religion of peace and a tolerant communal way of life. While such historical educational institutions as the University of al-Qarawiyyin and its peer institutions, including the High Council of Ulema, serve as sources of consensus-building, there has also been a growing emphasis on the revival of Sufism or Islamic mysticism, which calls for finding the truth of divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God.

Within this framework, Morocco has now also grown as a hub for training imams from many West African Muslim states and communitiesan initiative that has enabled the country to champion the cause of anti-extremist Islam beyond its own realm.

Of course, the Moroccan approach has its critics; the country is not exactly a liberal democracy but rather a form of constitutional monarchy. Even so, it has made a mark on how to limit the space for violent religious extremism through viable inclusionary, rather than exclusionary, processes.

Whatever direction the Moroccan religious march takes in the long run, it leaves the Talibans brand of Islam high and dry. The Taliban believe in neither election nor an elected head of state or a participatory system of governance. Pity Afghanistan and wherever else Islam is leveraged for notional gains, and where violence and human rights breaches are perpetrated in its name.

Originally posted here:
The contrasting manifestations of Islam: from Afghanistan to Morocco | The Strategist - The Strategist