Dr Martin Parsons
Dr Martin Parsons
  • Home
  • Campaigns -my priorities for Mersea and Pyefleet
  • Letters (Daily Telegraph, County Standard etc.)
  • Articles for national and local press
  • Videos
  • Successful campaigns
  • Annual Report
  • Contact

The threat to Afghan Christians - Christians in Afghanistan face being violently erased

8/8/2026

0 Comments

 

The Critic 8 August 2026

Five years after the Taliban seized Kabul Afghan Christians are at risk of genocide
Martin Parsons
11 September 1996 was the day Afghanistan’s main eastern city Jalalabad first fell to the Taliban. Shortly afterwards bin Laden moved into a compound just outside the city and began planning his future campaign of terror. Maybe that was why five years later the al-Qaeda leader chose that date to launch what we now know as the 9/11 attacks on America.

At the time I and my Norwegian housemate were some of the first western aid workers to live in Jalalabad. That morning I received an urgent message to go to a meeting at the aid agency’s head office in Peshawar, across the Pakistan border. I threw the office keys to Dag and headed to the bus stop. Later that night he also arrived in Peshawar having had to organise our staff evacuation as the Taliban unexpectedly seized Jalalabad. A few weeks later when the border re-opened we were able to go back and live under Taliban rule.
Not long after that a man in an outlying village told the Taliban, his neighbour, who he had fallen out with, was a secret Christian. The Taliban searched his house and found an Afghan Bible. They took the man outside, told him to renounce his Christian faith and return to Islam. When he refused and held firm to his faith – they hanged him.
It was a harbinger of what was to come, we heard stories of Afghan Christians being killed, some by being made to walk through minefields as human mine-clearers. Some accounts at least could be verified, but what we witnessed on a daily basis was the sheer brutality of the Taliban. People were beaten up in the bazaar, forced to go to the mosque to pray, bodies of ‘immoral women’ were dumped in the river. Women were banned from the street without a male family member, a decree which potentially condemned thousands of war widows to starvation.  While the roads were dotted with checkpoints where vehicles were searched by the Taliban, with each location adorned by confiscated cassette tape as the Taliban had banned music as unislamic.
The Taliban’s predictability
Today, part of me wants to say that nothing’s changed. The Talban’s actions are actually quite predictable. They are largely based on a sharia’a textbook known as the Hedaya that has been taught in Afghan and Pakistani madrassas for centuries.
There was a furore in the western media at the beginning of the year because part of the Taliban’s new criminal law mentioned ‘slaves’ and ‘masters’. Actually, that’s because those terms occur in the Hedaya, not just in the section on slavery but as a whole series of incidental references in other sections. Slavery of non-Muslims is in fact, legal in all the main schools of shari’a – it is just western style laws which make it illegal in most Islamic countries. So, it is perfectly possible that at some point the Taliban will formally reintroduce slavery and slave trading - just as Boko Haram and Islamic State did more than a decade ago. But, as far as we know they haven’t yet.
However, what should really concern us is the apostasy law. Execution within three days for any sane, adult male who leaves Islam and refuses to ‘repent’. Life imprisonment with regular beatings for women. While children are to be imprisoned until they reach maturity, with the adult penalty then applied.
That’s why for the last five years Afghan Christians, who possibly number 10,000 or so, have been living in hiding, constantly moving from place to place, seeking to avoid detection.
It’s not an unreasonable fear. Even before the Taliban seized Kabul in August 2021, Afghan Christians had been receiving letters and text messages saying ‘we know where you are, we’re coming for you’. Christians are uniquely vulnerable because, unlike other religious minorities their existence was never acknowledged by any of the western-backed governments that existed between the Taliban being ousted in 2001 and their return in 2021. That has allowed the Taliban the deny the existence of Afghan Christians and treat any they find as apostates from Islam, even though many are actually second or third generation Christians.
Before the Taliban seized Afghanistan in 1995-96 the country had sizeable religious minorities, including a Hindu and Sikh community estimated to have been 200-250,000 strong and a small Jewish community with a synagogue in Kabul. To identify them as non-Muslims, the Taliban forced Hindus and Sikhs to wear yellow cloth badges, not wholly dissimilar to those the Nazis forced on the Jews. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of the Taliban’s return led to almost all the surviving remnants of these three ancient communities, who had lived in Afghanistan for centuries, fleeing to India and Isreal respectively.
Today, Afghan Christians are almost the only non-Muslim minority left. They now fear the Taliban are about to complete the job of religiously cleansing the country of its entire non-Muslim population. Many people claim the killing of various groups around the world amounts to genocide. However, they generally fail to meet the requirement in the 1948 Genocide Convention for proof of the intention to commit genocide. However, the clear statement in the Hedaya and Taliban decrees that those deemed apostates should be killed, does almost does certainly provide the necessary evidence of intention. So, yes Afghan Christians are at risk of genocide.
The two images of the Taliban
What has changed since the first period of Taliban rule is that the Taliban are now far more tech and media savvy. Since 2013 they have had an office in Qatar, seeking to present a positive image of themselves to the west. In February 2020 they even wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled ‘What we the Taliban want’, which was published with the bye-line, ‘I am convinced the killing and maiming must stop, the deputy leader of the Taliban writes’.
The Taliban media offensive clearly worked, as less than a fortnight later, the US government signed the Doha agreement with the Taliban. US forces would withdraw in exchange for a mere reduction in the number of attacks and a promise that Afghanistan would never again be a haven for terrorists to attack the USA, as al-Qaeda had done.
Since seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban media offensive has continued. One of the most extraordinary aspects of this has been the Taliban’s attempt to promote an Afghan tourist industry. In fact, it is far easier to get a visa as a tourist, than as a journalist. Of course, no tourist guide who wants to survive is going to show westerners anything other than what the Taliban want them to see. But it is all part of an attempt to persuade the west that the Taliban are now different – and above all that the west should recognise them as a legitimate government. This is a kudos that the Talban leadership desperately crave, with Russia currently the only country to formally recognise them.
What we are now seeing is significant parts of the liberal media and political establishment in the west beginning to buy into that idea. Even Nigel Farage has talked about negotiating a returns deal with the Taliban, which would appear to necessitate removing them from the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations.
The power struggle within the Taliban
To date the Taliban actions towards Afghan Christians appear to have primarily focused on collecting data on who the Christians and who they are connected to. Since their return to power the Taliban have been routinely searching through people’s mobile phones at checkpoints and downloading data. This has caused outrage in this conservative Islamic society, as it lets them see pictures of other men’s wives and daughters. However, the Taliban have justified this breach of Islamic purdah on the grounds that they are collecting data about dissidents. Clearly they are collecting this data for a purpose, and at some point in the future they intend to use it to cleanse the country of its dissidents, with Afghan Christians being one of the largest such groups.
Whilst some Afghans have been executed for apostasy and there is evidence of extra-judicial killing of Christians, as far as we can tell there has not so far been any large scale killing of Christians as apostates. In fact, on a number of occasions the Taliban appeal court has actually commuted sentences of execution for religious offences down to terms of imprisonment. This appears to reflect a power struggle between the bulk of the Taliban who regard it as self-evident that the hudud penalty for apostasy should be applied and a section of the Taliban leadership, who want to hold off on doing so for now. The latter are prepared to countenance delaying this aspect of shari’a enforcement so as not to jeopardise the possibility of western recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate government.
So, can we trust the Taliban?
The short answer is no, and recent history sounds some pretty big alarm bells about this. Whilst the US kept its side of the extraordinarily lopsided Doha deal, the Taliban did not.
In fact, by mid-2023, less than two years after the withdrawal of western military forces, al-Qaeda were back in Afghanistan. A report to the UN Security Council that year revealed that at least two Taliban governors and the deputy head Taliban intelligence were actually al-Qaeda members and al-Qaeda had re-established suicide bomber training camps in eastern Afghanistan. While in February last year, the Taliban announced it no longer considered the Doha agreement valid, claiming its timeframe had ‘expired’. In other words, the Talban saw the Doha agreement as a vehicle to allow them to return to power and having done so regarded it as superfluous to their needs.
So what about the estimated 10,000 or so Afghan Christians? At the moment their fate hangs by a thread. The Taliban have clearly collected a whole mass of data on them and are just waiting to act on it. What appears to be holding them back at the moment is the glimmer of hope western diplomatic recognition. However, that hope is currently the only effective leverage western nations have over the Taliban. If the USA or the UK or any other western democracy actually recognises the Taliban that leverage will be as superfluous to the Taliban’s needs as the Doha agreement now is.
The lives of thousands of Afghan Christians now hang by that gossamer thread solely determined by how long the Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada decides to delay the imposition of the hudud penalty of apostasy on them.
Dr Martin Parsons is CEO of the Lindisfarne Centre for the Study of Christian Persecution and was an aid worker during the first period of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. He is lead author of a new report on Christians in Afghanistan.

0 Comments

We need to define what a refugee actually is

7/31/2026

0 Comments

 

Conservative Home 31 July 2026

Many people have heard the chicken nuggets story – the Albanian man who entered the UK illegally, gave a false name and nationality and was later given a two year prison sentence for fraud. Despite this, he was allowed to stay in the UK supposedly because his son couldn’t eat the type of chicken nuggets that are sold back in Albania. Actually, I suspect there was a bit more to that case than that, but it certainly raised perfectly reasonable concerns about the extent to which human rights law is being used in some asylum claims.
What should probably concern us more, is the guidance the Home Office issued a few years earlier, stating that senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood should be granted asylum as they were at risk of persecution in Egypt. For those who don’t know the Muslim Brotherhood was founded by Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) the founding father of modern Islamism and continues to be the vehicle for his ideology.
Those sorts of issues arise because we have departed from the original principles set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention and instead focused on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which not only encompasses a much broader range of rights than are really refugee issues, but has and continues to develop its own case law, which in some respects goes well beyond either the Refugee Convention or what those who drafted the ECHR ever intended.
It might sound obvious, but if we are to weed out the wheat from the chaff among the 100,000 or so people who claim asylum in the UK each year, around 40 per cent of whom arrive on small boats, then we need to define much more clearly what actually is a refugee.
The 1951 Refugee Convention
For example, the Refugee Convention assumes, though does not explicitly state that a refugee should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – with Article 33 prohibiting signatory countries from returning a refugee to “the frontiers” of any territory where their life would be at risk.
It also assumes that refugee status should be temporary with Article 1(c) stating that where “the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist” he should return to his own country.
While Article 2 specifically states that refugees have a specific obligation to obey the laws of the country giving them asylum, implying that any serious breach of laws could justify that country removing their right to remain.
Article 33 on the expulsion of refugees is quite explicit  on this, stating that whilst a refugee may not be expelled or returned to the frontiers of a country where their life would be threatened, this does NOT apply to
“a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”
So, yes, as far as the Refugee Convention is concerned, extremists and terrorists can be deported back to their own country – even if they would face torture or even execution there.
If you think all of this sounds somewhat far removed from many of the claims made today by people arriving in small boats, you would be right. Which is why we need to go back to first principles and define what actually is a refugee.
In fact, Article 36 of the Refugee Convention assumes that national governments will write their own laws to implement the principles set out in the convention.
We need a law defining precisely who is a refugee
Surprising as it may seem, there is actually no precise definition of what a refugee is in international law.
The 1951 Refugee Convention simply defines a refugee as someone who has fled their own country
“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
That of course begs the question of what exactly constitutes ‘persecution’?
However, rather unhelpfully the Refugee Convention simply assumes we all know what ‘persecution’ is and doesn’t actually define it.
In fact, almost the only other reference to ‘persecution’ in international law is the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which includes ‘Persecution’ in a list of things which constitute ‘crimes against humanity’ – and says that
“‘Persecution’ means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group…”
But again, somewhat unhelpfully, this doesn’t specifically define what those ‘fundamental rights’ are.
However, most people instinctively realise that there is a bit of a difference between ‘persecution’ and some other actions covered by the ECHR such as ‘discrimination’. But because asylum claims are now decided on the basis of ECHR rights, those responsible for assessing asylum claims sometimes struggle to know where to draw the line.
In fact, the word ‘persecution’ in the English language appears to largely owe its origin to Christian theology and Church History. Since the time of John Wyclif (1330-84), English Bible translations of Jesus’ warning in the Parable of the Sower that his followers would face “trouble and persecution”, have maintained that distinction. The former referring to various forms of pressure put on people because of their faith, the latter to people needing to flee because of the risk of being killed or at least imprisoned.
As such, it would be helpful for a UK refugee law to specifically set out that
  1. A refugee is someone fleeing persecution because of their religious or political beliefs etc.
  2. Persecution means a serious threat to their life, imprisonment for those religious or political beliefs, or certain specific crimes against humanity such as enslavement, torture, forced deportation etc. in the country they have fled from.
Defining who can claim refugee status
As I said above, the Refugee Convention assumes that someone fleeing persecution will claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. It absolutely does not envisage the sort of asylum claim shopping that many migrants arriving in small boats have clearly engaged in, travelling across various European countries before reaching the UK.
Granted we now live in a time when international travel is much easier and cheaper than when the Refugee Convention was written. But that does not negate the basic principles set out in it.
It is therefore wholly legitimate for a country to pass a law stating that someone will not be eligible to claim asylum if after leaving the country where they claim to have faced persecution, they have travelled through another safe country where they failed to claim asylum when they could reasonably have done so.
However, to do so, it would need to leave the ECHR. Contrary to some of the wilder claims made in the media, that does not mean we would be abandoning human rights. Although the Refugee Convention and the ECHR were written around the same time, they were entirely separate. There was actually a significant debate in the UK at the time as to whether the UK needed to join the ECHR because over the centuries, we had led the world in developing freedoms which in some respects provided better protections for the individual citizen than the ECHR did.
A compassionate and fair refugee policy
Neither does this mean that we shouldn’t have a compassionate refugee policy that provides a place of safety and refugee (the original meaning of refugee) for those fleeing persecution from brutal authoritarian regimes and jihadist violence. The problem we have at the moment is that the criteria for who is a refugee has become so muddled that that sometimes we actually end up refusing asylum applications from people who face a genuine threat to life in their own country, while sometimes allowing in the very people who persecute them, such as those who espouse jihadist violence.
Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.




Martin Parsons
Related Posts

Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.




Martin Parsons
Related Posts

Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.



Martin Parsons
Related Posts

Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

0 Comments

Mersea Life June 2026

6/17/2026

0 Comments

 
​A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS....
And even longer is the gap between penning a magazine article and it arriving through people's letterboxes....
This situation has now been resolved by an emergency council meeting on 3 June (I had to come back from a family holiday for it!) which led to a Conservative led coalition with the Lib-Dems running Colchester City Council.
However, no-one should be in any doubt that the reason we ended up with the worst crisis on Colchester Council in living memory was that newly elected Reform councillors and 3 councillors who had fallen out with the Labour party voted against BOTH proposals for leader of the council without putting forward any positive alternative of their own. That meant BOTH candidates were voted down. The Labour councillors knew what they were doing. The newly elected Reform councillors were warned in advance of the likely consequences of their actions - and recklessly went ahead anyway....
Anyway - read the article and see how close we came to staring over the cliff edge as your local council because of their actions...
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life May 2026

5/8/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life April 2026

4/10/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life March 2026

3/13/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life February 2026

2/13/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life January 2026

1/9/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

How to take part in the local plan consultation (Mersea Life Dec 2025)

12/12/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Mersea Life December 2025

12/12/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Articles on specific issues

    Coastal erosion and sea level rise
    Sea level rise
    Challenges facing Mersea and mainland villages over the next decade

    Changes to local government
    D-Day and democracy
    ​Local plan
    Oysterland
    Sewage
    ​

    Archives

    August 2026
    July 2026
    June 2026
    May 2026
    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly