In this interview, Baghi, who was released in 2003 after three years in prison, explains the difficulties of securing respect for human rights in Muslim countries as a result of the eclipse of a deeply rooted humanist tradition in Islam. In answers given to Fatemah Aman of Radio Farda, he sketches out the battle lines in debates about human rights -- within Islam, within Iran, between the secular and religious of all religions, and between tradition and modernity -- and argues that there are traditions both of Islamic law and Islamic mysticism in which modern concepts of human rights can be bedded. Tradition and modernity can coexist in Islamic society, he maintains, and those who want to promote human rights need to explore those religious traditions.

RFE/RL: The basic document of human rights is known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The term 'universal,' while primarily referring to the basic premise of the universality of human nature and human dignity, has a connotation that the principle is universally applicable both in the orient and the occident, but many in the West are deeply suspicious of the ability of the Islamic society to embrace human rights. That suspicion is also shared by many secular intellectuals in Islamic countries. Do you essentially see the issue of human rights as a Western concept, and can human rights exist within an Islamic context?

Emad Baghi: In recent years there has been a discourse -- reflected in numerous books and publications and represented within the Iranian religious circles by the supporters of Ahmad Fardid [a thinker considered to be an advocate of Islamic 'authenticity' as a remedy for 'West toxification'; he died in 1994, aged 90] -- that preaches that the West is entirely evil. This view charges that the West is constructed and governed based on man-made rules and laws, is entirely based on human egotism, and is therefore satanic. In contrast, they try to paint a spiritual and charismatic picture of the Orient. This is a dogmatic, undifferentiating approach to a complex problem. Advocates of this view proclaim the rejection of the West in its entirety rather than the selective reception and rejection of different aspects of Western culture. Ironically, though, these same people in practice adopt many elements of Western culture and technology; they fly in airplanes and wear Western-style suits, but when it comes to democracy and human rights they return to their dogmatic view.

On the other side of the aisle there are people who neither see the West nor the East as unified entities. Advocates of this view want to adopt those elements of the Western value system that are consistent with the indigenous culture.

RFE/RL: How does the latter group view the compatibility between human rights and Islam?

Baghi: Well, there are different views on this subject. One group believes that there is no conflict between Islam and human rights and that both can coexist. This view holds that if one side starts from a standpoint of logic and another from revelation both can reach the same point on the subject of human rights. Another group attempts to approach this issue from the angle of social sciences. This view considers the notion that there is a contradiction between Islam and human rights as a declaration of war on millions of Muslims around the world, and that this would push those masses to take up a position against human rights. So, the second group has a more political approach to the issue. However, whatever the source of their views, both these groups maintain that Islam and human rights are compatible.

Such views are opposed by a secular camp that sees religion and Islam in sharp contrast to human rights. This group argues that religion is based on worship, revelation, and the inflexible teachings of a god, whereas human rights are a secular phenomenon and a product of the modern world. Any attempts to forge an identity between the two would cripple the concept of human rights, advocates of this view argue. They think that any such attempt would only serve to rescue religion. This is a radical view based on secularism.

RFE/RL: And where does Emadeddin Baghi stand in this issue?

Baghi: I believe that we must first realize that the foundations of the modern concept of human rights were laid less than two centuries ago. Those have then been developed in more recent times. Central to the concept of human rights is individualistic humanism and human dignity. The judicial basis of the modern world is centered on this dogma. If we accept this as fact and look at our own cultural heritage, we see that such elements have indeed existed in our culture. In gnosis [the Irfan tradition of mysticism, particularly prevalent in Iran and Shi'ite Islam] and Sufism, there is little or no attention paid to religious expressions. It is often hard to determine whether a mystic is a Shi'a or a Sunni. An appreciation of human dignity is prominent in gnostic texts. There is an overwhelming body of evidence in this regard. Here, I would like to refer just to the poetry of [Sa'ad Uddin Mahmud] Shabestari [an Iranian mystic writer and poet (c.1250 – 1320)]. There are several references in his poems that emphasize the centrality of humans in his world view. Such examples can also be found in the Koran.

So we do have this philosophical, humanistic view both in our gnosis and in Islam. However, this view has been reduced and transformed into a view that is inflexible, limited, and based on jurisprudence. In fact, the entire religion has been reduced to jurisprudence and decrees issued in religious dissertations. It is this reductionism that has prevented the humanistic views expressed in our ancient literature from flourishing. If these views had not been victimized by religious reductionism, we would have had a much less totalitarian structure of power through the centuries.

The Eclipse Of Islamic Humanism

RFE/RL: I suspect we are entering into a highly controversial area. Scholars and intellectuals differ widely on the question of what caused the Islamic world to fall to a lowly position by almost all standards of modern civilization. Traditionally, intellectuals in the developing world tend to blame the West. Are you proposing a revisionist view?

Baghi: I believe that the demise of the humanistic view, which was deeply rooted in our classical literature, has resulted in the persistence of totalitarian systems in which human dignity has no place and in which everything is political and ideological. That is the main source of the decline of Islamic civilization. Some blame colonialism and imperialism for this failure. I believe that the main cause -- an indigenous cause -- was dictatorship and a lack of freedom, although colonialism contributed to this since these two phenomena were mutually dependent: naturally, the colonial powers needed stable and powerful governments in these countries to be able to exploit their resources – and only dictators could achieve that.

RFE/RL: I want to go back to our discussion of human rights. You admit that the concept of human rights is a modern phenomenon, although you believe that the concept existed in some form in Islam but failed to flourish. Is this specific to Islam or did other religions also praise human rights before it was invented by modern intellectuals?

Baghi: No. This is not specific to Islam. Many Western scholars point to the roots of the concept of human rights in Christianity and argue that progressive Christian clergy -- and particularly the Christian gnostics -- prepared the ground for the development of the human-rights concept. At the same time, though, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human-rights documents are absolutely silent about the influence of religion on the human-rights paradigm. This is regrettable given that many of the founders of this world view and activists of the struggle for human rights were indeed religious figures and intellectuals. Perhaps they wanted to avoid controversial issues or it may relate to the fact that at the time that these documents were produced half the world was under the rule of Marxists while in the West secular governments were in power. However, history is clear on this issue. In both Islam and Christianity there are different interpretations: some are anti-human and anti-human rights, and others preach tolerance and respect for human rights. Several scholars actually believe that the key to the initial rapid success of Islam was this tolerance and the humane treatment of followers of other religions and even of non-believers. That is exactly what human rights is. These scholars believe that the expansion of Islam only stopped when tolerance was replaced by religious dogmatism and rigidity.

Human Rights, Tradition, And Modernity

RFE/RL: Given how deeply rooted dogmatism and rigidity are, do you think it was even possible to spread human rights in Islamic countries?

Baghi: To answer this question we have to go back to a more fundamental question, and that is the relationship between tradition and modernity. There are two views on this issue. In the first view, modernity starts where tradition ends. In the process of its development, society disconnects itself from tradition and enters the era of modernity. The other view considers modernity and tradition as a continuum. One cannot absorb modernity at the expense of a total denial of tradition. Indeed, experience shows that those societies that have adopted modernity slowly while continuing to nurture their traditions have a more robust modern structure. Societies can reconstruct, redefine, and reinterpret their traditions; by applying the positive elements of their cultural heritage and adapting them to the principles of modern life -- such as, human rights -- they can create a solid basis for modernism. The elements of modernity need to be internalized and adapted to indigenous values.

I tend to believe in the second approach. The history of modernism in Europe teaches us that this approach would result in more stable and better-rooted modern relationships within society.

It is the first approach that serves as a basis for the conclusion that human rights is essentially a Western concept since the first declarations of human rights were produced in the West. Well, if we go back to Iranian history we find many documents from Cyrus the Great on human rights. Would it be right to label human rights as an Eastern concept because of these historical documents? That would be as wrong as the first conclusion. East and West have influenced each other tremendously over the course of history. William Durant [an American philosopher, historian, and writer who lived from 1885 to 1981] argues that experimental thinking was adopted by Westerners from Muslims during the course of the Crusades. We should not have a geographic view of these processes. We should not create a false dualism between these two geographic entities and expand this to issues such as modernity and human rights. Culture should not treated in the same way as machines and technology. These are fluid issues; they are the software of Nature. If we approach modernity in this way or attempt a complete departure from tradition, modernity will become a crisis in itself.

A Dynamic, Non-Ideological Approach

RFE/RL: So, as I understand it, you are setting limits on modernity and accept it only when it does not repudiate tradition.

Baghi: I believe we should have a critical approach to both views. Some people try to adapt human rights to religion or tradition and accept only those elements of human rights that agree with that religion and discard all other elements. On the other side of the aisle, some do the same with modernity. You cannot do the same with modernity that fundamentalists do with religion. In other words, you should not transform modernity into an ideology based on eternal, inflexible values and accept religion only where it completely agrees with these values and discard the rest. We need to approach these concepts critically and realize that all these concepts are dynamic and in the process of development. When we talk about religion, we are actually talking about the human perception of religion that has materialized in the writings of religious thinkers over the centuries. The human perception of religion is fluid and dynamic and has constantly changed, just as human understanding of nature and society has. The concept of human rights is also one of these dynamic human perceptions. So we should see this process of evolving perceptions as a continuum in which human experience has developed refined versions of certain concepts. Instead of condemning tradition and religion in its entirety, we need to refine it. The same principle also applies to concepts of modernity. If we do not do this, we make a religion out of modern concepts such as human rights. An ideological approach to human rights would prevent it from being developed. For example, the initial concept of human rights was based on individualistic liberalism. However, this was criticized and challenged by socialists and by Marxists. There is now a third generation of the human-rights concept, which is influenced by socialist teachings but still maintains elements of the individualistic liberalism. Many aspects of the new human-rights concept are social rather than individual. In the early days of human-rights discourse, human rights was considered a natural and instinctive right. But many philosophers challenged this view later.

Many agree on the philosophical basis of human rights but disagree on aspects of the practical forms it has assumed in real political life. There are others who may challenge the concept at its philosophical root but agree with it as a form of policy.

RFE/RL: To which group does the ideological mentor of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, belong?

Baghi: Mr Mesbah belongs to a third group that does not believe in either. They may verbally support certain aspects of human rights, but these are not major issues for them. They do not believe in the most basic principles of human rights.

We have seen these types of dilemmas in the West too. Many philosophers disagreed with the notion that human rights have a basis in natural and instinctive rights. At the same time, many of these philosophers did respect the content of the human rights as a social contract. So we see that these challenges and discussions existed in the West. If they had treated human rights as a religion, the concept would have never developed to its current degree. To make a long story short, I believe that we have to confront both religion -- or, it would be better to say, the human understanding of religion -- and modern concepts such as human rights using an approach that is critical and free of dogma. Both fall within the category of human knowledge and we cannot mystify one and then try to adapt the other to it.

RFE/RL: One of the criticisms that you have expressed toward thinkers, such as the Iranian philosopher Abdolkarim Soroush, is that you want them to avoid the type of language that could provoke religious people and elicit harsh responses from the clergy. Do you think that modernist Islamic intellectuals could use a different approach to convey their message that would be more acceptable to Muslims? Or are you appeasing the religious conservatives?

Baghi: For a thousand years ago we have had one principal paradigm that has served as the basis for the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. This is about the division of Shari'a instructions into two groups: primary rules, and secondary rules. Primary rules are those spelled out in Islam's original text, namely, the Koran. These rules come directly from God.

The secondary rules are ones derived from the religious reasoning of individual Ulemas [Muslim clergy]. The belief is that, through this process of reasoning, the Ulemas endeavor to comprehend the primary rules. They try to interpret the verses of the Koran, but that does not necessarily mean that the verse is understood. This interpretation of the primary rules is what we call the human understanding of the Shari'a, as opposed to the primary rules themselves, which is what we call religion. What is termed as "religious comprehension" by the Ulemas is equivalent to the secondary rules or the religious reasoning of the Ulemas. According to the Shi'a conviction, a jurisprudent who tries to interpret the primary rules is doubly rewarded if he succeeds in making the correct interpretation. But he may be wrong in his interpretation, in which case he will be rewarded only once, for attempting to understand the law. We should not equate our understanding of the primary rules with the religion itself.

Sometimes issues are presented in a way that would provoke opposition by some of the Ulemas who have been teaching many of these ideas for years, so the manner of presentation could create a misunderstanding. Instead of trying to portray modernity and human rights as a concept that contradicts some aspect of our religious understanding, we should say that contradictions are of a solvable nature.

Avoiding The Extremes

RFE/RL: I want to turn to another point that you have raised in your writings. You indicate that radicals and extremists from different religions or political tendencies somehow converge. Can you elaborate?

Baghi: Sometimes people use language that produces a result that is the opposite of the one intended. They explain modern concepts in a way that prompts rejection by religious people who in fact may in essence agree with those concepts. However, it is presented in a manner that appears as if it is totally against the religious beliefs of people. They are actually transforming modernity into a religion and, as such, are granting it eternal originality and sanctity. A century ago many supporters of human rights expressed similar views and suggested that the era of religion had come to an end. They could not foresee how the human-rights concept might change in the years ahead. They were treating human rights like a religion. Turning human rights into an ideology is as dangerous as turning religion into an ideology. When I say we should not turn it into an ideology, I mean we should avoid presenting it as holy and unchangeable.

That is how the advocates of extremist views converge on the same point. Both fanatically religious people and the fanatically secular arrive at a sacred entity. Both share an ideological approach; both are dogmatic. In Al-Qaeda's view one can kill for the faith. On the other side, we see that certain people believe that one can kill to promote democracy.

RFE/RL: But is that a fair comparison? I don't think anybody advocates killing for democracy.

Baghi: How can we explain the events in Iraq? Scores of thousands of people have been killed there. Research shows that 75 percent of the victims of wars are civilians. The invasion of Iraq was conducted on the pretext of promoting democracy.

The other example is the dilemma of religion and democracy. Two groups, both in the West and in Islamic countries, claim that religion and democracy are incompatible. In Islamic world this is interpreted as an incompatibility between Islam and democracy. Some, such as Mesbah-Yazdi, attack human rights to protect Islam, Islam as they understand it. The other group wants to marginalize Islam to protect democracy. Both reach the same point and support each other in the notion that Islam and democracy are incompatible. I am not saying that all secular people have declared war on religion. But just by expressing such an incompatibility, they are creating anxiety among Muslims. When you portray the issue as if promoting human rights requires weakening Islam, many religious people are driven away from the idea of democracy, because thy would rather protect their religion. This policy plays very well into hands of people such as Mr. Mesbah. They manage to direct people's religious emotions against human rights. Even when secular people limit this discourse to the academic level, it will be used by religious fanatics for this purpose. By doing so, we may impose an unnecessary burden on democracy movement, a burden that could break its back. There are enough obstacles on the path to democracy; we do not need to add more.

Russia’s Supreme Court removed Afghanistan's militant Taliban rulers from its list of banned terrorist groups in a step toward recognizing the group that seized power in 2021 as international forces withdrew from the war-torn country.

Russian state news agencies said that in its ruling on April 17, the Supreme Court sided with a petition from the Prosecutor-General's Office, a sign the move is a coordinated policy change with support from top legal and political authorities, who designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization more than 20 years ago.

The suspension of the terrorist designation does not amount to full diplomatic recognition of the Taliban government.

Amid poverty and unrest in the country, the Taliban rulers have made moves to open ties with the rest of the world. But Western nations have been reluctant to engage with the extremist group amid complaints of widespread human rights violations, especially against girls and women.

Russia has not officially recognized the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, nor has it re-established ambassadorial-level relations. However, the April 17 ruling may lay the legal groundwork for expanded cooperation, investment, and potentially future recognition.

Russia officially banned the Taliban in 2003, aligning itself with international counterterrorism standards and reflecting concerns over jihadist movements in Central Asia and Russia's North Caucasus region.

Still, Russia has been one of the few major powers to keep its embassy in Kabul operational during the Taliban regime.

Russian diplomats, intelligence officials, and even business interests have since engaged with Taliban authorities — especially on regional security, counter-narcotics, and economic cooperation, such as potential mining and energy projects.

Russia Looking To Gain Influence

With Moscow eager to strengthen its influence in Central Asia amid growing competition with the West and China’s expanding footprint, Afghanistan has become a critical piece of the regional chessboard.

The court’s decision may also be linked to Moscow’s concerns about the Islamic State–Khorasan group, which has claimed responsibility for several high-profile attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even within Russia itself — including the deadly Crocus City Hall terrorist attack in March 2024.

Some analysts say Russian officials likely view the Taliban as a lesser evil or even a potential security partner.

The suspension of the ban may spark unease in Central Asian countries such as Tajikistan, which has historically viewed the Taliban with deep suspicion.

While some regional governments have engaged with Kabul out of necessity, fears remain about Taliban-inspired radicalization, border security, and cross-border militancy.

In September 2024, Kyrgyzstan removed the Taliban from its list of banned terrorist organizations, aligning with similar moves by neighboring Kazakhstan earlier that year.

Another Central Asian nation, Uzbekistan, has been at the forefront of engaging with the Taliban, emphasizing economic cooperation and regional connectivity.

China is also cautiously increasing its engagement with the Taliban, including through infrastructure and investment talks under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The Taliban carried out public executions of four individuals on April 11 -- the highest single-day number since it returned to power -- prompting a wave of condemnation from groups around the world.

Local Taliban officials confirmed that the individuals — who were accused of murder — were executed in front of crowds gathered in the western provinces of Farah, Nimroz, and Badghis.

Eyewitnesses at one of the sites, who spoke to RFE/RL's Radio Azadi on condition of anonymity, said family members of the victims shot the accused.

"Their families offered blood money to spare their relatives' lives, but the victims' relatives refused. People here don't fully understand these issues — this kind of event leaves a serious psychological impact," the person said.

In Nimroz province, the Taliban invited civilians, civil servants, and military personnel to witness the execution at a stadium in Zaranj.

"The man was shot by the victim’s family. Watching this scene was unbearable. No one wants to witness a killing, even if it is declared a divine punishment," said one local resident.

The executions, part of the Taliban’s hardline interpretation of Islamic law, are described by the regime as "qisas," or retributive justice.

Since they seized power in August 2021, the Taliban have resumed corporal punishments and public executions, echoing their repressive rule of the 1990s. So far, at least 10 individuals have been publicly executed.

Rights organizations say these punishments are a clear violation of international law.

They say the use of executions as a public spectacle is not only inhumane but also contributes to a culture of fear and trauma in communities already scarred by decades of war and violence.

In a statement posted on X, Amnesty International condemned the executions, calling them "deplorable."

"Afghanistan: The deplorable public executions of four people in Nimroz, Farah and Badghis in Afghanistan today point to Taliban’s continued alarming abuse of human rights in the country. The Taliban de facto authorities continue to flagrantly flout human rights principles," it said.

"The international community must put pressure on the Taliban to stop this blatant human rights abuse and help ensure international guarantees are upheld in Afghanistan."

The Taliban claim that the executions followed "transparent investigations and justice procedures," but the United Nations and multiple human rights bodies have consistently disputed such assertions, citing the absence of a functioning judicial system and lack of due process in Taliban courts.

"We are appalled by executions of four men in the Badghis, Nimroz and Farah provinces this morning," the United Nations rights office said on X, urging "the de facto authorities in Afghanistan to place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty."

Thousands of Afghan refugees in Pakistan have left via the Torkham border crossing as part of Islamabad's large-scale deportation campaign.

The government initially set a March 31 deadline for Afghan nationals to leave voluntarily, but the deadline was extended to April 10. Still, thousands have been forcibly removed since the beginning of the month.

The stepped-up deportation campaign comes as Pakistani authorities charge that "illegal immigrants" pose security concerns and economic challenges.

The Pakistani government has frequently linked Afghan nationals to militant violence and criminal activity -- claims the Taliban-led administration in Kabul firmly denies.

The deportation campaign has sparked strong criticism as authorities move forward with the controversial policy.

Human rights organizations warn that those forced to return to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan may face serious dangers including persecution, violence, and extreme economic hardship. Particularly at risk are vulnerable groups such as women, journalists, human rights advocates, and former government employees.

Pakistan's deportation drive targets Afghan Citizen Card (ACC) holders, undocumented migrants, and those who arrived after the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.

There are roughly 800,000 ACC holders and 1.4 million Afghans with Proof of Registration (POR) cards issued by the UN refugee agency. While POR holders are currently exempt from deportation -- at least until their permits expire in June -- ACC holders lack such protection. Their temporary residency in Pakistan is subject to the federal government's discretion, with no assurance of extension beyond official deadlines.

This policy creates complications, as members of the same family may have different legal statuses.

Many of those being forced to leave have never lived in Afghanistan and see Pakistan as their only home.

Pakistan’s plan to deport millions of Afghan migrants has drawn sharp criticism as the country begins implementing its controversial policy.

Rights groups warn that many returnees face severe risks in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, including persecution, violence, and economic hardship. Vulnerable individuals such as women, journalists, human rights defenders, and former government officials are particularly at risk.

The government had initially set March 31 as the deadline for Afghan migrants to leave voluntarily or face deportation. However, the deadline was postponed until April 10 due to the Eid al-Fitr holidays marking the end of Ramadan, officials said.

The delay provides a brief reprieve for tens of thousands of Afghans but does not alter the government’s goal of expelling up to 3 million migrants by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, around 40,000 Afghans in Pakistan await uncertain resettlement to third countries, mostly in the West. Many fled after the Taliban’s 2021 return, fearing retribution due to ties with the United States, NATO, and other Western organizations.

Who Is Being Deported?

The deportation campaign targets Afghan Citizen Card (ACC) holders, undocumented individuals, and those who arrived after the Taliban’s return to power.

There are around 800,000 ACC card holders and 1.4 million Afghans who have been issued Proof of Registration (POR) cards by the UN refugee agency. POR card holders are not yet being deported, Pakistani officials say, as their permits expire in June.

ACC holders are granted temporary permission to reside in Pakistan, but the validity and duration of their stay are determined by the federal government. Unlike POR cardholders, ACC holders do not have guaranteed protections against deportation beyond the government’s specified deadlines.

This poses another problem, as members of the same family can hold different immigration statuses.

That’s the case for Rehmat Khan, a man in his 50s who is facing immediate deportation because he is an ACC card holder, while the other members of his family are POR card holders.

“I don’t know how I can leave my family behind, and I don’t know who will support them when I am deported to Afghanistan,” he told RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal.

Rehmat Khan is one of approximately 20,000 Afghans who live in Jalala refugee camp, some 150 kilometers northwest of Islamabad. Residents of the camp have been formally notified to prepare to leave.

Most of the Afghans in the camp are descendants of refugees who migrated to Pakistan after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Many are in their 30s, meaning they have never lived in Afghanistan and consider Pakistan their home.

The camp functions as a small village, with several schools, houses mostly made of mud, and a makeshift bazaar.

“I am in 11th grade. Sending me back to Afghanistan at this point in the school year will ruin my future,” a student who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons told Radio Mashaal. “There are no educational opportunities there, and I am unfamiliar with the education system. I was born and raised here, and I know this place better than Afghanistan.”

A holding camp to process the relocation of refugees has been established in Landi Kotal in Peshawar, where Frontier Corps paramilitary forces and local police are deployed.

While no refugees are currently housed in the camp, officials expect an influx of families in the coming days as the repatriation process gains momentum.

Rights Groups Alarmed by ‘Cruel’ Deadline

The United Nations has expressed alarm over the plan, warning that some people would be at risk once in Afghanistan.

“We urge Pakistan to continue to provide safety to Afghans at risk, irrespective of their documentation status,” said Philippa Candler, UNHCR's country representative, said in a statement on February 5, when the initial deadline was set.

Amnesty International has also condemned the deportations, calling them a violation of international human rights law.

“The Pakistani government’s unyielding and cruel deadline to remove Afghan refugees shows little respect for international human rights law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement,” Amnesty’s deputy regional director for South Asia, Isabelle Lassee, said on March 26.

She added that portraying Afghan refugees as a threat is “disingenuous” and scapegoats a community that has fled persecution.

Despite mounting criticism, Pakistani officials defend the policy as necessary for national security and resource management.

The Pakistani government has often blamed militant violence and criminal activity on Afghan citizens, allegations rejected by the extremist Taliban-led government in Kabul.

More than 800,000 Afghans who fled Afghanistan after the Taliban’s takeover in 2021 live without papers in neighboring Pakistan.

These undocumented Afghan refugees and migrants face a rapidly approaching deportation order issued by Islamabad requiring them to leave the country by March 31.

Another 1.4 million Afghans who are formally registered with the Pakistani government and who hold a Proof of Residence card issued by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) have until June 30 to return to their homeland. Many have lived in Pakistan for decades.

The fate of an additional 40,000 Afghans who are waiting to be resettled to third countries, mostly in the West, is unclear.

Pakistan initially said these at-risk Afghans, a group that includes activists, journalists, and former members of the defunct Western-backed Afghan government and its armed forces, must leave or face deportation by March 31. But a source at the Pakistani Interior Ministry told RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal that the deadline for them to leave the country has been extended to June 30.

Among this group are some 15,000 Afghans who are waiting to be resettled in the United States, although their status remains unclear after President Donald Trump's administration announced that the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) would be suspended for at least three months starting on January 27.

“We are left in a deep despair,” said Hina, a 25-year-old Afghan woman who lives with her family in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar.

Her family had been cleared for resettlement in the United States and even booked their flights from Islamabad. But now they are in limbo.

“Our dreams of building a safe future [in the United States] have been shattered,” added Hina. “We can’t return to Afghanistan where our lives will be at risk, nor can we build a stable life in Pakistan.”

Growing Fears

Pakistan has already forcibly deported more than 800,000 undocumented Afghans since 2023, when it launched a major crackdown, according to the UN.

The deportees have returned to a country gripped by devastating humanitarian and economic crises, and many have struggled to access shelter, health care, and food and water.

The deportations have coincided with tensions soaring between the unrecognized Taliban government in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Islamabad has accused the Taliban of sheltering Pakistani militants, a claim rejected by the Afghan militant group.

Ahead of the March 31 deadline, Pakistani police conducted night raids and arbitrarily detained and arrested hundreds of Afghan refugees in the capital, Islamabad, and the nearby city of Rawalpindi, according to international rights groups.

Videos shared on social media show Pakistani police using loudspeakers to order undocumented Afghans to leave Islamabad.

"The problem is that our children go to school here and we have jobs here,” Obaidullah, an undocumented Afghan refugee living in Peshawar, told RFE/RL’s Radio Azadi. “What will we do in Afghanistan?”

Dire Situation

The tens of thousands of Afghans who are awaiting resettlement abroad face a race against time.

Many of them are in a dire financial situation in Pakistan, said Maiwand Alami, who leads an NGO to help Afghan refugees in Islamabad.

“They have sold their homes in Afghanistan, but that money has since run out,” Alami told RFE/RL. “But [their] biggest problem is uncertainty about their immigration cases. Everybody is anxious about it.”

“Afghans in Pakistan are now required to extend their stay every month. It costs 20,000 rupees [about $71] per person which is a lot of money here, especially if you don’t have any income,” Alami said.

The resettlement of Afghans to the West is uncertain amid increasingly anti-migrant sentiment across Europe and the United States.

Trump said the United States “lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans.”

He ordered the suspension of USRAP “until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.”

An American woman has been released by the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan after being detained since February, the second freeing of a US citizen in the past eight days.

In a video posted by US President Donald Trump on March 29, Faye Hall said she had been released by the Taliban after being detained in the war-torn country last month.

"I've never been so proud to be an American citizen," Hall said in the video. "Thank you, Mr President…God bless you."

Trump thanked Hall for the comments and added: "So honored with your words!"

Former U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad first announced the release hours earlier on X, saying it had occurred on March 27. He said she was in the care of the Qatari delegation in Kabul.

"American citizen Faye Hall, just released by the Taliban, is now in the care of our friends, the Qataris in Kabul, and will soon be on her way home," said Khalilzad, who has been part of a US team seeking the release of hostages held by the Taliban.

The development came a week after George Glezmann, 66, was released from detention in Kabul following the first visit by a senior US official to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in the wake of the withdrawal of international troops in August 2021.

Hall had been detained in February while with a British couple in their 70s, Barbie and Peter Reynolds.

British media said the Reynolds had been operating school projects in Afghanistan for 18 years and had remained in the country despite the Taliban’s return to power.

Reuters quoted a US official as saying Adam Boehler, Washington's special envoy for hostage affairs, had worked with Qatari officials and others to win Hall’s release.

There was no immediate information on the British couple. Their daughter has pleaded for their release, citing health concerns.

Several Americans are still detained in Afghanistan.

Upon his release, Glezmann also thanked Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others who helped free him.

He told Fox News he was abducted in the streets of Kabul and thrown "into a dungeon with no windows no nothing."

Two other Americans held in Afghanistan were exchanged in late January for a Taliban man imprisoned for life in California on drug and terrorism charges.

Ryan Corbett and William McKenty were swapped for Khan Mohammed, who was sentenced to two life terms in 2008 and was incarcerated in a US prison.

Aid worker Corbett, 40, and Mahmood Habibi, 37 -- who led the Afghan Aviation Authority under the previous Afghan government -- were detained separately in August 2022.

The world community has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, although some countries -- including Russia, China, and Turkey -- still maintain embassies in Kabul.

Qatar has also maintained direct contact with the Taliban and has helped broker negotiations for the release of US hostages.

Amid poverty and unrest in the country, the Taliban rulers have made moves to open ties with the rest of the world. Western nations are reluctant to engage with the extremist group amid complaints of widespread human rights violations, especially against girls and women.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Azadi, Reuters, AFP, and AP

The new school year started in Afghanistan on March 22, but for the fourth consecutive year, millions of teenage girls were barred from attending classes.

Among them was Khalida, who was in the ninth grade when the Taliban seized power and banned education for girls above 12 years old.

“The ban has had a big impact on my life,” Khalida, now 18, told RFE/RL’s Radio Azadi. “I used to spend all my time on my studies. Now my time passes aimlessly.”

The school ban has had a catastrophic impact on an estimated 2.2 million girls in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has erased women from public life and severely restricted their fundamental rights.

There has been a surge in forced, early, and child marriages. Child marriages have increased by around 25 percent since the Taliban takeover, according to the UN.

The lack of educational and professional prospects for women has fueled a rise in female suicides, making the country one of the few in the world where more women take their own lives than men.

"The lack of access to education not only threatens our future but also hinders our country from progress and development,” said another teenage Afghan girl, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

“We have the right to study, progress, and have a bright future," she told Radio Azadi.

UNICEF, the UN's children's agency, said the repercussions of the school ban will last for generations.

“The ban negatively impacts the health system, the economy, and the future of the nation,” UNICEF said in a March 22 statement.

“With fewer girls receiving an education, girls face a higher risk of child marriage with negative repercussions on their well-being and health.”

The agency warned that over 4 million girls will be out of school if the ban lasts until 2030.

Calls To Do More

Senior UN officials and Afghan female activists have termed the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan girls and women as “gender apartheid.”

They have called for the international community to put more pressure on the Taliban to reverse its ban on education for girls beyond the sixth grade.

No country has recognized the Taliban’s government, which is under international sanctions. But a growing number of countries, including some in the West, are cooperating with its government on trade, security-related issues, and immigration.

"The Taliban still go around and travel freely,” said Pashtana Durrani, a prominent Afghan education activist who lives in exile.

“They give interviews. They have bank accounts. Their families live abroad yet they have banned Afghan women from getting an education.”

She added: “The international community should be asked whether they truly want the Taliban to open girls’ schools or not?”

For over three years, Syed Abdul Samad Muzoon, a middle-aged former Afghan security official, has lived with his wife and their teenage daughter in Pakistan to pursue immigration to the United States.

During Washington’s nearly two-decade-long war in Afghanistan, he worked for the Afghan security forces in sensitive roles, he said, helping the US war effort.

Yet, there is still no clarity on whether they will ever be able to make a fresh start in the United States because of new curbs on immigration.

In January, hundreds of Afghans cleared for resettlement in the United States were prevented from traveling to the country after President Donald Trump immediately suspended Washington’s refugee program and foreign aid after assuming office on January 20.

On February 18, Reuters reported that the State Department's program to manage Afghan resettlement in the United States will be shut down in April.

Media reports suggest that the Trump administration could impose a new travel ban to bar the entry of people from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would close all pathways for Afghans to move to the United States.

The State Department, however, disputes this. “There is no list,” Tammy Bruce, its spokesperson, told journalists on March 17.

Trump has been elected twice on an anti-immigration platform. In a Gallup poll from 2024, a majority of Americans (55 percent) said that they believed there should be less immigration to the United States.

Since the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Washington has helped some 200,000 Afghans resettle.

But Muzoon and many more Afghans might never have a chance to begin a new life in the United States. Tens of thousands of them have been living in Pakistan, Qatar, Albania, and other countries for years as they wait for a final decision on their refugee and immigration cases. Fearing retribution by the Taliban, many are fearful of returning to Afghanistan.

'Extreme Predicament'

Advocacy groups estimate that up to 200,000 more Afghans may be eligible for US immigration. Meanwhile, after reviewing government documents, CBS reported that more than 40,000 Afghans who have already been cleared to leave the country are now stranded.

“I and other Afghan refugees here are in an extreme predicament,” Muzoon said.

Since late 2023, Pakistan has expelled more than 800,000 Afghans, and in the capital, Islamabad, Afghans face constant harassment and police brutality.

Muzoon and 20,000 more Afghans in Islamabad now fear repatriation to Afghanistan after the Pakistani government announced it would forcefully deport some 1.5 million documented and undocumented Afghans if they fail to leave by the end of this month.

“I am suffering from the uncertainty and the seemingly endless wait for our cases,” he said.

Muzoon said threats to his life and family prompted him to flee Afghanistan soon after the Taliban seized the Afghan capital, Kabul, on August 15, 2021, as it toppled the pro-western Afghan republic.

He is among more than half a million Afghans, mostly educated professionals and officials who were integral to running the Afghan republic, who fled the Taliban’s takeover.

Most feared being persecuted for working with the US-led international forces in Afghanistan. Others were senior officials in the Afghan government or worked in the civil society sector.

Three years on, those still waiting for a decision on their US immigration are stuck.

“We are living in extreme despair,” said Maiwand Alami Afghan. He leads an informal association of Afghan refugees in Islamabad.

'Hanging By A Thread'

He said most families in Islamabad sold their properties and belongings in Afghanistan, but that money is now running out.

“Most of us are hanging by a thread,” he said.

Afghan said he had worked for US-funded development projects, which, he fears, makes it impossible for him to return to Afghanistan because the Taliban have persecuted some Afghans associated with the US presence in the country.

“We will still be refugees in our own country, because we don’t have a house, job, or any prospects to earn a livelihood,” he said.

Washington, however, does not look like it will be welcoming any more migrants. During his election campaign, President Trump promised stricter controls on immigration.

In his speech to Congress on March 4, Trump said his administration “has launched the most sweeping border and immigration crackdown in American history.”

Steps taken by Trump after taking office have effectively blocked or suspended the two primary routes for Afghans to immigrate to the United States.

Under the Special Immigration Visa (SIV), Afghans who worked directly for the US government, such as embassy staff or translators for its forces, qualify for relocation. Afghans granted visas under this program can still relocate to the US without financial assistance from Washington, according to Afghans seeking relocation under the program.

“Those who have assisted us and worked with us, that’s been a policy and a dynamic that we’ve worked on from certainly even the previous administration, working to try to get that happening,” said Bruce, the State Department spokesperson.

The refugee program, which enabled former Afghan government officials, lawmakers, and civil society figures to immigrate to the US, is suspended for the next couple of months.

However, the suspension of the State Department's Afghan resettlement program has rattled Americans involved in or supporting the initiative.

“Right now, there's a lot of uncertainty,” said Shawn VanDiver, head of the Afghan Evacuation Association, a coalition of US veterans and advocacy groups that support Afghan resettlement.

'Nothing But Problems And Worries'

VanDiver is now lobbying the US Congress to remove the “complete stop” Trump’s executive orders have put on Afghan resettlement. He says that Congress had authorized Afghan resettlement through December 2027.

“President Trump needs to listen to the voices,” he said, pointing to the bipartisan support in Congress, veterans and service members, who want the immigration of Afghans to continue.

In a statement on March 18, the Afghan Evacuation Association said the ambiguity surrounding the immigration of Afghans “is unnecessary and cruel”. It called on Washington to provide “clear and unequivocal answers” to its wartime Afghan allies.

In media statements and letters, scores of lawmakers have urged President Trump to “fully restore humanitarian and refugee protections for our Afghan allies.”

Several courts across the United States are hearing cases regarding refugee and foreign aid suspensions. Some have issued injunctions against Trump’s executive orders.

A State Department spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “At this time, no decisions have been made” about its Afghan relocation program.

The spokesman said the department is “considering” the future of its Afghan relocation program, officially called Enduring Welcome and the Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE).

The spokesperson noted that it “continues to provide life-sustaining support to Afghan allies and partners previously relocated to our overseas case-processing platforms.”

In Islamabad, Muzoon has little understanding of how his future will unfold amid the domestic US wrangling over the fate of Afghans seeking immigration to the country.

He hopes to avoid being deported back to Afghanistan. He wants to move to the United States to send his daughter to school, treat his wife’s depression, and seek some treatment for his heart ailment.

“I have nothing but problems and worries,” he said.

The UN children’s agency has urged Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government to immediately lift a ban on girls' education beyond primary school, saying that if the ban continues until 2030 more than 4 million girls will have been deprived of their right to education.

Afghanistan's ban on girls' secondary education "continues to harm the future of millions of Afghan girls," UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said in a statement on March 22. “The consequences for these girls -- and for Afghanistan -- are catastrophic.”

The appeal by UNICEF comes as a new school year began in Afghanistan, where girls beyond sixth grade have been deprived of their right to education since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

The Taliban justifies the ban, saying the education of girls beyond the sixth grade doesn't comply with their interpretation of Shari’a law.

Russell called for all girls to be allowed to return to school.

“Afghanistan is the only country in the world that bans female secondary and higher education,” Russell said in the statement, adding that if the rights of young girls continue to be denied, “the repercussions will last for generations.”

She pointed out that the ban negatively impacts the health system, the economy, and the future of the nation.

“With fewer girls receiving an education, girls face a higher risk of child marriage with negative repercussions on their well-being and health,” she said.

The consequences of the ban will affect the number of female doctors and midwives, and this in turn will leave women and girls without crucial medical care.

UNICEF projects an estimated 1,600 additional maternal deaths and over 3,500 infant deaths because of the situation.

The Taliban has allowed limited exceptions to the ban in the health and education sectors, but these jobs come with severe restrictions and the number of women in the workforce continues to fall, according to the United Nations.

Pakistan hosted a global conference in January at which Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai condemned the state of women’s and girls' rights in Afghanistan as gender apartheid.

Yousafzai urged Muslim leaders not to "legitimize" the Taliban-led government and instead to "raise their voices" and "use [their] power" against the militant group's curbs on women and girls' education.

"Simply put, the Taliban do not see women as human beings. They cloak their crimes in cultural and religious justification," Yousafzai told the gathering in Islamabad.

With reporting by AP

George Glezmann, an American who was released from detention in Afghanistan on March 20, has arrived in the United States and been reunited with his wife, a State Department spokesperson said.

Spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said on March 21 that Ryan Corbett, another former American prisoner in Afghanistan who had been held in the same cell as Glezmann, was in a welcoming party for Glezmann at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington.

"After a brief ceremony, George and [his wife] Aleksandra flew to another location in the United States to rest and recover," Bruce told reporters at a regular State Department news briefing.

Glezmann, 66, was released from detention in Kabul following the first visit by a senior US official to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in the wake of the withdrawal of international troops from the war-torn country in August 2021.

Former US special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said on X that he and Adam Boehler, a senior adviser at the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, met with Taliban officials in Kabul on March 20.

"We succeeded in obtaining the release of an American citizen, George Glezmann, after two years in detention in Kabul. The Taliban government agreed to free him as a goodwill gesture to [President Donald Trump] and the American people," Khalilzad said.

Details of the negotiations were not revealed. The United States, like most countries, does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.

“I feel like born again,” Glezmann said on Fox News after arriving at Joint Base Andrews. “I’m just thankful. I’ve got no word to express my gratitude for my liberty for my freedom.”

Glezmann also thanked President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others who helped free him, he said on Fox News, recalling how he was abducted in the streets of Kabul and thrown "into a dungeon with no windows no nothing."

Boehler told Fox News he expects to see more Americans released.

“The Taliban understand that there is a new sheriff in town. That president Trump is that new sheriff and that’s why you are seeing something like this," he said.

One of the other US citizens being held in Afghanistan is Mahmood Habibi, who also has been held since 2022.

Glezmann, an airline mechanic from Atlanta, was taken into custody by Taliban authorities while on a tourist visit to Afghanistan in December 2022 and had been deemed wrongfully detained by the US government.

Rubio called Glezmann's release "a positive and constructive step" that was aided by officials in Qatar, which has often hosted negotiations between Washington and the Taliban.

"It is also a reminder that other Americans are still detained in Afghanistan," he added.

The release comes two months after two other Americans held in Afghanistan were exchanged for a Taliban man imprisoned for life in California on drug and terrorism charges.

Ryan Corbett and William McKenty were swapped for Khan Mohammed, who was sentenced to two life terms in 2008 and was incarcerated in a US prison.

Aid worker Corbett, 40, and Habibi, 37 -- who led the Afghan Aviation Authority under the previous Afghan government -- were detained separately in August 2022.

Millions of Afghans in Iran face an uncertain future as Tehran prepares to implement sweeping restrictions that will cut off access to health care, education, housing, and other essential services for undocumented immigrants.

The new policy, set to take effect on March 21, has left many Afghans grappling with impossible choices between a hostile host country and an unstable homeland.

For Rasheed, an Afghan immigrant living in Iran, the consequences of these policies have already hit home.

Rasheed recently returned to Afghanistan after doctors in Iran refused to treat his elderly mother for her heart disease.

“I was told to return to Afghanistan because Afghans were not supposed to get any treatment here,” Rasheed recalled of his conversation with an official at a government hospital in Tehran.

“My mother’s condition was rapidly deteriorating, which prompted me to return to my country,” he told RFE/RL’s Radio Azadi. Rasheed requested that his real name be withheld to protect his identity.

In Karaj, a city near Tehran, Ehsan Zia, another Afghan immigrant, is devastated that his two teenage daughters can no longer attend school.

“Our hopes have been dashed,” he told Radio Azadi. “Even here, my daughters are being deprived of education.”

Zia moved to Iran three years ago after the Taliban banned teenage girls from attending school following their return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021. Despite having a legal visa to stay in Iran, Zia says he has been unable to enroll his daughters in school due to bureaucratic obstacles and shifting policies.

Who Will Be Affected By The New Policy?

Earlier this month, the Center for Aliens and Foreign Immigrants’ Affairs (CAFIA) at Iran’s Interior Ministry announced six categories of Afghans who will remain eligible for key services under the new rules.

These include Afghans registered as refugees, those with valid visas or work permits, former employees of the Western-backed Afghan government that was toppled by the Taliban, and families with school-going children who apply for visas.

Tehran has already deported more than 2 million Afghans over the past two years as part of a campaign targeting undocumented immigrants.

Nader Yarahmadi, head of CAFIA, defended the government’s move, telling the semiofficial ISNA news agency that “there is no obstacle to returning [to Afghanistan] due to the relative stability and declared policies of the current Afghan government.”

The United Nations' refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates that that some 4 million Afghans live in Iran, including more than 2 million undocumented migrants. Figures cited by Iranian officials and media vary widely, with some claiming that 8 million Afghans reside in Iran.

Risking Tensions With The Taliban

The crackdown on undocumented Afghans has coincided with rising anti-Afghan sentiment in Iran. Impoverished Afghan migrants are often scapegoated for crimes, insecurity, and unemployment. Such views have fueled mob violence against Afghans as well as mass arrests and brutal treatment by Iranian police and border security forces.

“Cutting off basic services to migrants will disrupt the labor market and drive more people into the underground economy,” said Graeme Smith, senior Afghanistan analyst at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

Afghan migrants make up a significant portion of Iran’s labor force in agriculture and construction -- sectors that could suffer if undocumented workers are expelled en masse.

Smith also warned that Tehran’s policies could worsen tensions between Iran and Afghanistan. The Taliban government has already clashed with neighboring Pakistan over its treatment of Afghan refugees.

“The Taliban may feel provoked to respond, for example, with restrictions on water sharing,” Smith said, referring to a long-standing dispute over water rights.

Experts argue that Tehran’s approach could backfire, both economically and geopolitically. An isolated and heavily sanctioned Iran needs stable relations with Afghanistan’s Taliban government to expand trade ties, maintain border security, and build a more integrated regional economy.

“Not only will this cause suffering for the Afghans affected,” Smith noted, “but it’s a self-defeating policy for Tehran.”

US citizen George Glezmann has been released from detention in Kabul following the first visit by a senior US official to Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in the wake of the withdrawal of international troops from the war-torn country in August 2021.

Former U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said in a post on X that after he and Adam Boehler, a senior adviser at the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, met with Taliban officials on March 20, the 66-year-old Glezmann was "on his way home to his family."

"We succeeded in obtaining the release of an American citizen, George Glezmann, after two years in detention in Kabul. The Taliban government agreed to free him as a goodwill gesture to [President Donald Trump] and the American people," Khalilzad said.

Details of the negotiations were not revealed. The United States, like most countries, does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.

No mention was made of another US citizen being held by the Taliban, George Mahmood Habibi, who also has been held in Afghanistan since 2022.

Glezmann, an airline mechanic from Atlanta, was taken into custody by Taliban authorities while on a tourist visit to Afghanistan in December 2022 and had been deemed wrongfully detained by the US government.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later confirmed the release, calling it "a positive and constructive step" that was aided by officials in Qatar, which has often hosted negotiations between Washington and the Taliban.

"It is also a reminder that other Americans are still detained in Afghanistan," he added.

The release comes two months after two other Americans held in Afghanistan were exchanged for a Taliban man imprisoned for life in California on drug and terrorism charges.

Ryan Corbett and William McKenty were swapped for Khan Mohammed, who was sentenced to two life terms in 2008 and was incarcerated in a US prison.

Aid worker Corbett, 40, and Habibi, 37 -- who led the Afghan Aviation Authority under the previous Afghan government -- were detained separately in August 2022.