The Taliban Banned Chess
Since retaking power, the Taliban has banned certain music, barred women from parks, and now outlawed chess. Authoritarians don’t just crush dissent—they criminalize joy.

Since the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the extremist Islamic group has unleashed sweeping draconian policies to transform the nation into a more traditional society that espouses the moral and religious values of Sharia law. The banning of girls from secondary education, forcing women out of work, and extreme media censorship have made headlines, but an equally insidious campaign has largely been missed. The Taliban has focused on dismantling leisure and joy, with its latest target one of humanity's oldest pastimes: chess.
On May 11, Afghanistan's Ministry of Sports issued a declaration stating the game's indefinite suspension, elaborating that "religious concerns" needed to be properly addressed. This declaration came after Atal Mashwani, spokesperson for the country's sports directorate, stated last year that the game was considered gambling under Sharia law. Until these religious objections are resolved, chess will remain in limbo.
The Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice effectively dissolved the Afghanistan National Chess Federation (ANCF), an organization that governs chess competitions in the nation and represents Afghanistan in the World Chess Federation. Speaking with Chess.com, president of the ANCF Ghulam Ali Malak Zad said the suspension halted all of the federation's official operations, even restricting casual, non-competitive play in public spaces.
This is part of a broader pattern. Since 2021, the Taliban have been targeting different forms of recreation, under the guise of improving morality. In 2022, the government barred women from entering public spaces such as gyms and parks, decreeing that "people were ignoring gender segregation orders and that women were not wearing the required hijab."
In 2023, the government burned musical instruments, claiming music "causes moral corruption." The founder of the Afghanistan National Institute of Music, Ahmad Sarmast, called it an act of "cultural genocide." Many musicians have fled the nation since 2021.
The Taliban are not only regulating morality—they are fundamentally eliminating voluntary activity. The bans reflect a political effect more than a religious one. Building a community and asserting some level of individuality outside the state's control is a grave threat to regimes that thrive on obedience and passivity. Furthermore, a game that promotes strategic reasoning, voluntary and friendly competitions, and independent thought is truly dangerous to a regime that demands conformity.
Authoritarian regimes don't just rewrite their constitutions or crush any form of political dissent; they slowly chip away at small freedoms that make life more enjoyable. When any government decides how people relax, think, or enjoy themselves, it isn't just about policing morality—it's about asserting political control.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Biden and Pelosi wept about what the withdrawal had done to women, but then it was time for dinner
The implication being the US should invade every country that doesn’t have a culture that treats women with a US, post-60s protestant morality.
Natural Law, my boy.What do about it is a separate matter.
Or at least that once we have invaded a country, we are obliged to stay until they reach that state of affairs.
Or at least if we do invade another country, leave a few McDonald’s, Wal Mart and Ford dealerships around as a way of saying how sorry we are about disturbing you.
How about some tax funded USAID tranny propaganda?
Why?
what would have been wrong with a punitive expedition?
You need to go back to the comments I’m responding to. I’m not saying that is what we should be doing, but that that is the implication of other people’s fretting about the consequences to women, chess clubs, etc. of the withdrawal.
You outrageously clueless REASON folks even have a post on this
Taliban Leader Promises His Fighters Won’t Go for a Power Grab After Foreign Troops Leave
OF COURSE WHEN STUPID BIDEN LEFT THEY WERE GOING TO MISTREAT WOMEN >>>>>>>OF COURSE
How the hell is this Biden’s fault? Getting us out of Afghanistan was one of the few useful things he did. It’s not remotely his fault we stayed until the Taliban effectively controlled every part of the country that didn’t have a US soldier or marine currently standing on it. It wasn’t his idea to prop up a central government universally viewed as incompetent and corrupt for two decades or blow a trillion bucks or so on boondoggles that delivered shoddy and useless results even when the money didn’t immediately disappear to line corrupt officials’ pockets.
If Bush had gotten us out of the country promptly instead of backing endless mission creep, things might have gone a little differently. Ditto for Obama. Making a more orderly withdrawal might still have been possible even under Trump. But instead he did exactly what he always does: make a “big, beautiful” deal and then leave it to other people to actually do the work.
How much longer should we have stayed, another 20 years? Should we have dumped another trillion dollars down the rat hole? And is there much chance the outcome would have been better if we had?
Your BDS is showing yet again.
Many musicians have fled the nation since 2021.
Just musicians?
Oh, way… WAY too local, Reason.
It’s no small wonder that their society is thriving.
of course they did but also maybe not the Taliban as your example of slowly chip[ping] away at small freedoms that make life more enjoyable.
Who care? Ship all the Muslims back to the middle east and let them kill themselves
“”and let them kill themselves””
Wasn’t our last two major wars an attempt to prevent that?
A large majority of Muslims don’t live in the middle east.
Send them there anyway. Let’s get them concentrated.
“Since retaking power, the Taliban has banned certain music, barred women from parks, and now outlawed chess. Authoritarians don’t just crush dissent—they criminalize joy.”
1. Oh, for crying out loud! Even Stalin, Hitler and Mao allowed their people to play chess.
2. This demonstrates once again fundamentalist Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization…or for that matter, ANY civilization.
3. Fundamentalist Islam makes fascism and communism look like freedom festivals.
Coming soon to the U.K.
There is no place in the west for Islam. Islam does not belong anywhere but in their own countries. Islam is totally incompatible with western religion, thought, society, politics and civilization.
They all belong back where they came from, not polluting the west with their radical turd world slimey mudslime religion.
Authoritarians don’t just crush dissent—they criminalize joy.
Sounds like public health officials in 2020.
Don’t forget about mostly peaceful game of #BlackPawnsMatter being played at the same time.
Chess, the game spread by Muslim to Europe, is not Sharia?
Sir you can take that up with management.
Sir, you can take that up with management.
Uh oh, something changed in the Matrix.
Sarc was fooling with the Java script.
Lol.
Wish he had said js script, but he said Java.
guessing Persian
Yes and no. IIFC came from India to Persia and brought to Europe through Spain during the Muslim conquest of Iberia. Of course some medieval hipster probably got it sooner, and thinks everyone is lame for getting into so late.
gracias. I’m more a backgammon fan.
We should import more Islamists!
As food?
Islam is incompatible with happiness. The world will be a better place after it is eradicated.
First I don’t think it is going away. It certainly seems to be doing better than Christianity in retaining followers. Second I doubt that it is incompatible with happiness. Don’t let the rekigion distract you from the government.
Religious extremism is incompatible with happiness. The exact religion doesn’t matter.
Islam at its core is extreme. If you’re a Muslim and not extreme, you’re a revisionist.
Most authoritarian regimes need the population cowed and robbing them of any joy goes a long way towards this goal.
Somebody must have told them Trump was a master of ten-dimensional chess and they became so enraged they banned the two-dimensional version.
Look, the English language (and most other modern European languages) makes a distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” for a reason, Mr. Robledo.
Now, I don’t expect random people to be particularly clear on it. But if you’re going to write “on international affairs with a focus on . . . the effects of authoritarianism on free societies”, you really should learn the difference first. It’s rather quite important.
And that difference is what you get exactly wrong in your last two paragraphs. The Taliban is not an authoritarian regime crushing chess as a means of exerting political control. It is a totalitarian regime using the instruments of the state to try to rewrite the nature of the people it rules. The suppression of joy is, in fact, religiously rather than politically motivated, exactly the opposite of your claim.
An authoritarian regime might suppress chess because it has indirectly become, through symbolic associations or political activity centered around chess clubs, a threat to the authority of the state. But otherwise it won’t care and it won’t interfere; it has more important things to do.
A totalitarian one will suppress chess because it has decided that chess is contrary to virtue. Since its whole purpose is to remake the people into a virtuous one, it has nothing better to do.
Thus the C.S. Lewis quote about it being better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. “The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
And this is why Confucius went on so much about the importance of the “rectification of names”. When you correctly identify things, you easily avoid many gross blunders. Know the distinction between authoritarians and totalitarians, keep it in mind, and it becomes trivially easy to notice that, in fact, the Taliban is not an not an authoritarian regime acting for political reasons, but a totalitarian regime carrying out a religious vision. (As was the Soviet Union, for all its self-proclaimed atheism, in trying to reform its people into the “New Soviet Man” as part of the eschatological goal of “building True Communism”.)
One of my favorite quotes, next to George Carlin,” If you vote, you have no right to complain.”
C.S. Lewis was closer to the truth than he realized.
I’m not sure the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes is as clear-cut as DRM claims. But it did occur to me that authoritarian regimes often encourage people to spend their time on various recreational activities precisely to distract their attention and energy away from politics, hence the famous Roman “bread and circuses”.
So public health officials were totalitarian.
In practice the two forms shade together, of course (just as democracy and authoritarianism shade together in practice). There are often totalitarian factions within an authoritarian regime. And totalitarian regimes can lose their fervor and become all about just holding on to power (see the late Soviets). Further, people who don’t know better screw up the distinction all the time (see abuse of “imply” versus “infer”, or “faze” versus “phase”, or . . .).
But the distinction involved implicitly goes all the way back to the coining of the term “totalitarian” a century ago, was made sharp by John J. Linz in his 1964 analysis of Spain (mostly by giving definition to “authoritarian” as a type of its own rather than treating it as an imperfect totalitarianism), and was frequently referenced by Jeane Kirkpatrick, which helped the distinction become popularized when she became (moderately) famous in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
I tend to emphasize the reform-of-the-people element of totalitarianism, because it makes clear why the totalitarian needs total control, why he cannot tolerate people who try to put their heads down and mind their own business. The totalitarian has decided your very soul (metaphorically for a Communist, literally for the Taliban) is his business; therefore anyone who just tries to outwardly conform, rather than be reformed, is a rebel subverting the very purpose of the totalitarian regime.
Authoritarian regimes will often celebrate people (even high government officials) for being non-ideological, pragmatic, etc. But try to imagine the Taliban celebrating someone who says, “Eh, I just do my duty and leave the religion to the imams”!
In 2023, the government burned musical instruments
When I watched the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine movie way back when, I thought it was kind of attacking a straw man, since nobody would really try to ban music. I guess I was wrong.
I bet they won’t let a nude spa for women exist, let alone allow chicks-with-dicks to frequent them.
They would if the owner of the women was the only man allowed.
Biden put the US on this track
Facing the music: Teen with ‘nothing else to do’ throws rock at car, and girl dies
Now comes sentence of life in prison without parole, PLUS 60 years
By
Bob Unruh
June 3, 2025
Technological society leads to increasing numbers of people who cannot adapt to the inhuman rhythm of modern life with its emphasis on specialization. A class of people is growing up who are unexploitable because they are not worth employing even for the minimum wage. Technological progress makes whole categories of people useless without making it possible to support them with the wealth produced by the progress.
Jacques Ellul
C’mon, see the connection? banning chess vs not even knowing chess, having nothing to do, going full blown evil because you are an uncultured nobody vomited onto the streets by the Biden Education Shit Factory
The claim that chess constitutes gambling seems dubious. Betting is not an intrinsic part of chess and in fact people rarely bet on chess. Furthermore, it is not a game of chance. It is entirely a game of skill. So it doesn’t constitute gambling under any definition I’ve ever seen. I don’t know what definition the Taliban are using, but generally in Shari’a law gambling is defined as depending on chance.