Surveys

Hanafi Jurisprudence as Basis for Settling Disagreements During Negotiations

November 2020

1,700 women in 7 provinces were polled on Hanafi Jurisprudence acting as the basis for settling disagreements during negotiations.

Download the PDF Report of this Survey

English

Dari دری

Pashto پښتو

Share this page

Summary

In November, 1,700 women and girls aged 18-60 in Herat, Balkh, Nangarhar, Helmand, Takhar, Bamiyan, and Kandahar were polled on Hanafi Jurisprudence Acting as the Basis for Settling Disagreements During Negotiations.

- Slightly more than half (55.90%) of the respondents said they were aware that Intra-Afghan Talks had slowed down during discussions on Hanafi Jurisprudence becoming a point of reference for settling disagreements in the negotiations.
- When asked if they agreed with the Republic Negotiation Team’s suggestion that Hanafi Jurisprudence should be a point of reference to settle disagreements but only if the right of other religious communities were also recognized without any discrimination, a majority (57.4%) agreed.
- A significant number (64.5%) of the respondents expressed concerns about Hanafi Jurisprudence being agreed upon as a point of reference to settle disagreements. They felt this could potentially jeopardize women’s fundamental rights as denoted in the Afghan Constitution.

Data Explorer

Welcome to our Survey Data Explorer. Using Microsoft Power BI you can see the results of this month’s survey, and use the interactive controls to explore the data in more detail.

Page Controls: Navigate through different pages of the dashboard by clicking on the page numbers or using the arrows to move forward or backward.

Full Screen: Click the arrows icon button located at the bottom right corner of the visualization.

Filters: Use the drop-down menus to filter the data based on specific criteria such as province, age group, or profession.

Analysis of Provincial Findings

In the first round of Intra-Afghan Talks in Doha, discussions over the rules of procedures were held and one point of contention that sparked intense disagreement was a proposal by the Taliban that Hanafi Jurisprudence should be made a point of reference to settle disagreements that arise during talks. The Republic Negotiation Team opposed the idea, stating it was discriminatory toward followers of other sects. They proposed that Hanafi Jurisprudence could be a source of reference but that the rights, religious principles, and private affairs of other religious minorities should also be recognized without any discrimination. In response, the Taliban told media outlets that the religious rights of other minorities, particularly those of the Shia community, will be respected in their proposition. However, this failed to calm rising concerns among the public and civil society actors who contemplated the implications such a decision could have on the existing Constitution, which in its second chapter, covers the fundamental rights and duties of all citizens.

Over half (64.5%) of the 17,005 respondents surveyed in Kandahar, Nangarhar, Bamiyan, Balkh, Helmand, Takhar, and Herat felt that this decision, if agreed upon, could potentially jeopardize the fundamental rights of women protected in the Constitution. Only one fourth (25.6%) said they were not concerned, and even a small portion (4.2%) said they were not sure.

Additionally, when asked if they agreed with the Republic Negotiation Team’s proposal to have Hanafi Jurisprudence as a point of reference to settle disagreements in negotiations provided that the rights of other religious communities were also recognized without any discrimination, a majority (57.4%) agreed with this proposal while 38.5% did not. When asked if the Taliban should make clear the areas and topics where they feel Hanafi Jurisprudence could be applied and where it could not, a majority (66.3%) said yes, such clarity should be provided while one fifth (23.4%) felt this was not required. Interestingly, unlike other issues that were discussed or had created contention among the negotiating parties in Doha, this issue and the deadlock it had created was one that a significant number of (43.50%) respondents said they had little awareness about.