Special order given to man, 45, who married girl, 6, in sick ceremony
It's an act so disturbing that it even left the Taliban 'horrified', a 45-year-old man has married a six-year-old girl.
The man, who is already married to two other women, bought the young girl from her family before marrying her in the Marjah district of Afghanistan. Since the news emerged, the child's father and the groom have since been detained but not formally charged.
The Taliban says it's 'horrified' that a man has wed a child so young and as instructed the groom to wait until the child reaches nine before he can take her home.
In Afghanistan there is no clear law regarding the age a girl can legally get married - instead it's determined by Islamic law interpretation, with many deeming puberty the age when girls can wed.
Child marriage is rampant in Afghanistan, with families selling their daughters into matrimony so they can afford to eat.
"There are many families in our village who have given away their daughters for money,' a local activist named Mahbob told The Afghan Times. 'No one helps them. People are desperate."
This bartering of girls for marriage, known as walwar, involves trading them for cash based on attributes like appearance, health, and education.
However, financial desperation isn't the sole motive; some girls are traded to settle blood feuds between enemies.
Amiri, 50 from Uruzgan, opened up about marrying off her 14-year-old daughter to a 27-year-old man for 300,000 Afghanis.
She admitted, "I knew she was too young, but we had nothing at home. I used the money to feed the rest of my family."
The practice had dwindled after the US-led invasion but has surged again since the Taliban's 2021 resurgence. Under their rule, women's freedoms have been drastically cut, requiring them to be fully covered when out in public and not speaking too loudly. They're also banned from travelling alone and must have a male relative with them.
Last year, a UN report found this renewed oppression has sparked a 25 per cent rise in child and forced marriages. The International Criminal Court slammed the treatment of Afghan women as a crime against humanity and has issued arrest warrants for two top Taliban officials.
The court said it has "reasonable grounds" to believe Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani are responsible for the persecution of women and girls since the Taliban's comeback.
But the Taliban rebuffed the accusations, deeming them "a clear act of hostility" and an insult to Muslims around the world.
Last summer, 17-year-old Saliha Sadath thought she was going on a family holiday to Turkey - but instead of heading to a villa, she says she was taken to Afghanistan to forcibly marry a 30-year-old cousin.
When she dared to question the situation, Saliha claims relatives threatened to have her stoned to death. Miraculously, she was able to secretly contact a charity and a lawyer in the UK who helped her escape.
She said: 'I now call myself a forced marriage survivor. I'm very lucky to be alive, I should have been executed. There was no embassy, I had nobody to help me and nowhere to go. I want to raise awareness to make sure other girls don't go through this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos show the aftermath of a fatal fire at an assisted-living facility in Massachusetts
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump's hazy Ukraine arms announcement marks a tonal U-turn
For those looking for details, Donald Trump's rambling half-hour press conference in the Oval Office with the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, offered only a handful of clues. The US will sell weapons to Ukraine, the president said, with other Nato countries paying the bill – but otherwise specifics were scant. No sums of money were mentioned – making it hard to calibrate how much of a difference the proposed weapon supply would make to Kyiv. Details were light on what munitions would be supplied though Trump mentioned complete Patriot missile systems and Rutte added there would be 'missiles and ammunition' too. It is hard to know precisely what amount of military purchases would make a difference and perhaps force Vladimir Putin to consider calling for a ceasefire. But in the crudest sense, any package worth more than $10bn would certainly send a signal to Moscow, when considered in the light of the $67bn previously given by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, to Ukraine over nearly three years. There was one specific threat to Moscow. Trump did promise to levy a 100% tariff on Russia if Putin did not agree a deal to halt the fighting within 50 days, although the president's previous record on levying and dropping tariffs has been so confusing that it cannot be presumed what will come to pass if Russia does not comply. But make no mistake, tonally, Trump's statements on Monday amount to a significant moment. Although the president did not sound annoyed or angry with Putin when he said 'we're very unhappy – I am – with Russia', there was a clear measure of exasperation with his Russian counterpart. The US president came to office convinced he could do a deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, in discussions that at first seemed to involve Ukraine as an afterthought. But, as Trump made clear, conversations with the Russian leader have slowly led him to conclude Putin has so far not been serious. In this, Ukraine's most influential lobbyist may have been Melania Trump, the president's Slovenian-born wife. 'I go home and I tell the first lady: 'I spoke with Vladimir today, we had a wonderful conversation,'' Trump said. 'And she said: 'Oh really? Another city was just hit'' – prodding him gently to reconsider his warmth to the Russian leader, at least on this retelling. Four times, Trump said, he thought he reached an agreement with Putin but he reiterated that immediate Russian bombing of Kyiv and other big cities had led him to reconsider. 'And then the deal wouldn't happen because bombs would be thrown out that night and you'd say we're not making any deals,' he said. For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this is a moment of vindication. At the end of February, the Ukrainian president was essentially kicked out of the White House, after an ugly televised row. Weapons shipments to Ukraine were halted, intelligence sharing stopped, and though both were resumed the relationship seemed fragile. Less than a fortnight ago, weapons shipments were briefly halted again. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Instead Zelenskyy adopted a more cautious tone, expressing the hope in the spring that Trump would gradually come to realise that Putin was insincere. Over the past few days, it is the conclusion that Trump has come to reach. While for the moment the lack of detail may not be enough to force the Kremlin into suing for peace, the change in tone (and Europe's willingness to pay the bills) means that Ukraine's most important ally remains willing to support it in its fight for survival.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Asylum costs set to take up fifth of UK's shrunken aid budget, watchdog warns
Some £1.8 billion of the projected £8.9 billion budget for overseas assistance could be spent on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain in 2027-28, a report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) says. Despite the June spending review suggesting a reduction in such costs over the next three years, they are still on course to absorb a 'significant portion' of total aid funding, according to the watchdog. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced plans to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament after the National Audit Office said accommodation costs could hit £15.3 billion over a 10-year period. But progress in bringing down aid spending on so-called in-donor refugee costs remains 'slow', the ICAI said. International OECD rules allow governments to use their aid budgets to cover some of the costs of helping people claiming asylum in the first year of entering a country, such as housing and food. According to ICAI calculations, asylum costs are expected to take up £2.2 billion of total UK official development assistance (ODA) funding for 2026-27, £1.8 billion the following year and £1.5 billion by 2028-29. The Government slashed Britain's aid budget earlier this year from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in order to pay for increased defence spending. Total ODA spending is now expected to fall from £10 billion in 2026-27 to £8.9 billion the following year before increasing slightly to £9.4 billion in 2028-29. This means a fifth of the total aid spend in 2027-28 is expected to go towards asylum costs, before dipping to around a sixth in 2028-29. ICAI commissioner Harold Freeman, who led the new report, acknowledged the Government had already taken some steps to address 'flaws in the system' but said further changes would be likely to be needed. He said: 'The UK's development programme is at a turning point, with budget reductions coming against a backdrop of increasing global conflicts, climate threats and rising humanitarian needs. 'At the same time, UK asylum costs are likely to continue to absorb a significant proportion of our aid funding. 'The Government has already taken steps to address some of the flaws in the system for managing aid identified by past ICAI work. 'But further changes will likely be needed to maximise the impact and value for money of the remaining development budget.' The Government has been contacted for comment. Last year, the watchdog raised 'value for money' concerns after some 28% – or £4.3 billion – of all UK aid in 2023 was spent on hosting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain under the previous Conservative government. The amount of ODA spending on in-house refugee costs has risen dramatically since 2020, in part due to visa schemes for Afghan and Ukrainian people but largely linked to lengthy stays in so-called asylum hotels, the ICAI said. In response to its latest report, the Tories said the 'eye-watering cost' of housing asylum seekers was 'utterly indefensible, particularly when so many people are struggling to get by'. Shadow Home Office minister Katie Lam said: 'This broken system rewards delay and indecision, while the British taxpayer foots the bill. 'Those who have no right to stay here should not be languishing in hotels; they should be detained and deported within days – not years. 'We need a migration system that is firm, fair, and fast. 'Over the past 12 months, Keir Starmer has systematically dismantled every deterrent, while his joke of a migrant deal agreed with France last week will do nothing to stem the flow of migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel.' The One campaign, which aims to reduce poverty in Africa, said the report confirmed that UK aid had been 'stretched to breaking point'. Executive director Adrian Lovett said: 'While it's right that refugees are housed in safe accommodation, paying for this from the diminished international aid budget means there will be even less support for the world's most vulnerable people at a time of growing global need.' Mr Lovett added: 'The UK is at its best when it delivers a strong and growing aid budget, but also uses its political and diplomatic muscle to help create the conditions for sustainable solutions. 'We look to ministers to be creative and ambitious on both fronts in the months and years ahead.'
