It started with a whisper in the provinces, but now it’s official law. The Taliban’s Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice recently dropped a bombshell that feels like a time machine back to the 1990s. Basically, the Taliban bans images of living things, and if that sounds extreme, it’s because it is. We aren't just talking about a crackdown on "provocative" content. This is a sweeping, literal interpretation of Islamic law that targets everything from news broadcasts to the family photos on your phone.
Honestly, it’s hard to wrap your head around the logistics. Imagine walking down a street where every billboard is blank or only shows a landscape. No faces. No eyes. Just trees and mountains. That is the reality the Ministry is pushing for as they roll out Article 17 of their new morality laws.
The Law Behind the Lens
The legal framework here isn't some fly-by-night decree. It is codified. The 114-page document outlines a morality code that covers everything from the length of a man’s beard to how women must cover their faces. But the specific part where the Taliban bans images of living things is what has the international community—and local journalists—in a total tailspin.
Why now?
Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada is a hardliner. He believes that depicting any sentient being—humans, animals, birds—is a form of idolatry. It's a "shirk" or a sin against the oneness of God. While many Islamic scholars globally argue that photography is just a reflection of reality and not "creating" life, the Kabul leadership isn't interested in that nuance. They want a visual vacuum.
The implementation has been staggered. In Kandahar, the spiritual heartland of the movement, the ban hit hard and early. Local officials were told to stop filming meetings. Then it spread to Helmand and Ghazni. Now, the central government is signaling that the national media must comply.
What "Living Things" Actually Covers
It’s not just people. If it breathes, it’s off-limits.
✨ Don't miss: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
- Television and News: Broadcasters are being told to switch to audio-only or show static images of buildings and nature.
- Advertising: Shopkeepers in Kabul have already started blurring out the faces of models on clothing posters. Some have just taped over the heads of mannequins.
- Social Media: This is the big question mark. Millions of Afghans use WhatsApp and Facebook. While the Taliban themselves use these platforms for propaganda, the law technically makes their own "selfies" a violation.
The Practical Nightmare for Journalists
Journalism in Afghanistan was already a high-stakes gamble. Now? It’s nearly impossible. If you are a cameraman, your entire profession has just been outlawed.
I spoke with a contact in Kabul who described the vibe as "waiting for the axe to fall." Reporters are still filing stories, but they are terrified of pointing a lens at a human face. Think about the impact on documentation. How do you report on a humanitarian crisis, a flood, or a protest if you can't show the people affected? You can't. That’s likely the point. By removing the face, you remove the empathy. You turn a person into a statistic or a ghost.
The Ministry spokespeople, like Akif Muhajir, have been somewhat vague about the "transition period." They say they will advise people rather than use force—at least initially. But "advice" from a Taliban morality officer usually comes with a heavy dose of intimidation.
The Hypocrisy Gap
You’ve probably seen the videos. Taliban fighters taking photos at amusement parks or posing with their weapons. Their own official accounts often post high-def videos of their leaders (though rarely Akhundzada himself).
This creates a bizarre double standard.
If the Taliban bans images of living things for the common citizen, but uses them for state-sponsored propaganda, the logic falls apart. It suggests the ban is less about theology and more about control. It’s about limiting the flow of information that they don't oversee. If you can’t take a photo of a human rights violation, did it even happen?
🔗 Read more: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
Economic and Social Fallout
The business community is reeling. If you run a digital marketing agency in Kabul, you’re basically out of a job. How do you sell a product without showing a person using it?
- Education: Medical textbooks are a huge concern. How do you teach anatomy without diagrams of the human body?
- Identification: People still need passports and ID cards (Tazkira). These require photos. For now, the government says "essential" images are allowed, but the definition of "essential" is shifting sand.
- Tourism: What little is left of the tourism industry is gutted. You can’t take a photo of your guide? You can’t take a photo of a local market?
It’s a move toward total invisibility.
The Global Reaction and E-E-A-T Reality
UNAMA (the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) has been vocal. They’ve pointed out that these laws further isolate Afghanistan from the global community. Organizations like Amnesty International have labeled this an "attack on freedom of expression."
But let’s be real: the Taliban doesn’t care about UN press releases. They are playing to an audience of one—their Supreme Leader.
From a historical perspective, this isn't new. During their first reign from 1996 to 2001, televisions were literally hung from trees. They were seen as "boxes of the devil." When the US-led invasion happened in 2001, one of the first things people did was rush to photo studios to get their pictures taken. There is a deep, human hunger to be seen and remembered.
Is it even enforceable?
Technically? Maybe. Practically? Probably not.
💡 You might also like: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
There are more smartphones in Afghanistan today than there were people in Kabul in 1996. You cannot police every screen in every home. The Taliban is attempting to enforce a 7th-century visual code on a 21st-century digital population. It’s a recipe for resentment. Even within the Taliban’s own ranks, there is pushback. Younger members who grew up with smartphones don’t want to give up their social media presence.
What Happens Next
The "image ban" is currently being "introduced" through "persuasion." That’s the official line. But in Afghan history, persuasion is the prelude to the lash.
If you are following this story, keep an eye on the state-run RTA (Radio Television Afghanistan). They have already stopped showing images of living beings in certain provinces like Kandahar and Takhar. If the Kabul headquarters goes dark or switches to 24/7 footage of mountains, the transition is complete.
Actionable Insights for Observers and Stakeholders
If you are an NGO worker, a journalist, or just someone trying to understand the shift, here is what you need to track:
- Watch the "Essential Use" Loopholes: Pay attention to whether the Taliban continues to allow photos for passports and diplomas. This will tell you if the state is actually capable of functioning under its own rules.
- Monitor Local Media Pivots: Notice how Afghan news outlets are adapting. Many are shifting toward infographics, heavy text overlays, and "scenic" b-roll to stay on the air without violating the ban.
- Document the Digital Resistance: Despite the ban, Afghans are still posting. The bravery of those continuing to share their lives on platforms like X and TikTok, knowing the risks, is the only real counter-narrative left.
- Support Archival Efforts: Because current life is being erased from the visual record, supporting organizations that archive Afghan media from the last 20 years is more critical than ever. We are witnessing the intentional creation of a "dark age" in the literal sense—a period with no visual record.
The reality where the Taliban bans images of living things is a grim reminder of how quickly a culture can be forced into silence. It’s not just about pictures; it’s about the right to exist in the public eye.