I do think its simplistic to just say Taliban follow Medieval practises.
I'd go a bit further than you and say that it's wrong for multiple reasons to say that the Taliban follow medieval practices. Firstly because the term 'medieval' refers to the Middle Ages in Europe, and extending that term to the rest of the world is tough because the history of the rest of the world doesn't conform to Europe's historical timeline until much later, with the advent of colonialism. For example, the age of classical Islam in the Middle East could be said to have lasted until the 1870s, and someone's life would've been little different in 1850 when compared to 1400. The same critique could be applied to much of the world outside of the most developed capitalist countries of Europe, so the use of the term medieval when speaking about countries outside of those developed capitalist countries is awkward.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, in the classical period of Islam (which I'd say lasted until around 1877) very few of these so-called medieval practices would have been carried out. For example, the level of evidence required for a person to be stoned to death for adultery went far beyond the level of evidence required to be convicted under contemporary English common law. As such, truly brutal punishments would have been very rare. The question we should be asking is why are the Taliban, and regimes like them, carrying out such punishments with little regard for the classical Islamic rules of evidence?
My answer would be that they have no use for the procedural hurdles that these evidentiary requirements create, because they are an authoritarian regime that rules by fear, with a particular emphasis on the subjugation of women. Also, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, actual engagement with the sources of Sharia and Hanafi
fiqh is incredibly limited in Afghanistan because much of the population is illiterate.
Stoning to death for adultery? Sounds pretty medieval to me. Do they do crucifixion also?
See above. Calling the Taliban medieval actually does a disservice to classical Islamic law, which, while not progressive by modern standards, was streets ahead of English law until well into the 19th century (on women's rights, capital punishment, and many other things).
A thread on Deobandis and the Taliban, in case anyone wants to know.
For what it's worth, the thread is good in parts but really falls down in some places too. For example, the 'clash of civilisations' framing of the issue, the simplistic solution, and the determination to link Deobandis with Wahhabis.
www.reuters.com
