The supreme leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), Sheikh Hibatullah Akhundzada, has emphasized the responsibility of religious scholars and government officials in guiding society, saying that the proper fulfillment of their duties would contribute to the reform of the entire population.

According to a statement shared by IEA deputy spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat, Akhundzada made the remarks during a gathering with religious scholars from Kandahar province’s districts and urban areas. The meeting focused on strengthening the Islamic system and reinforcing the responsibilities of religious leaders and officials.

Akhundzada said religious scholars and officials each have distinct but complementary roles in leading society within the framework of Islamic law. He described religious scholars as ulul amr (those with authority) in matters of religion, while officials hold responsibility for governance, reform and other state affairs in accordance with Sharia.

He said that people look to both groups for guidance and that their conduct has a direct impact on society.

“If religious scholars and officials properly fulfill their responsibilities, the entire society will be reformed,” Akhundzada said.

The IEA leader also highlighted what he described as the historical role of religious scholars in preserving Islam and Sharia, saying they have continued to teach and uphold Islamic principles through both peaceful and challenging periods.

“Allah has entrusted religion and Islam to religious scholars and officials and made them responsible for protecting it,” he said.

According to Akhundzada, government officials are responsible for safeguarding religion through the authority entrusted to them, while religious scholars are tasked with explaining and conveying Islamic teachings and rulings to the public.

His remarks come as the Islamic Emirate continues to stress the role of religious leadership and governance in implementing its interpretation of Islamic law across Afghanistan.

Germany will continue deporting Afghan nationals convicted of serious crimes, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said following a fatal knife attack in the western city of Trier that has reignited debate over migration and public safety.

Speaking in Berlin on Monday, Dobrindt described the deportation of convicted criminals to countries including Afghanistan as “necessary and unavoidable,” saying the government would not retreat from the policy.

“Society has the right to expect criminal asylum seekers to be deported,” he said, according to German media.

His remarks came after 22-year-old university student Marius Dick was fatally stabbed in Trier last week. Police arrested a 22-year-old Afghan national in connection with the attack. Investigators say there was no known relationship between the victim and the suspect, who has reportedly confessed to the killing.

Authorities have not established a final motive, and the investigation remains ongoing. German prosecutors said the suspect has been transferred to a forensic psychiatric facility after initial reports indicated he had a history of mental health problems and had previously received psychiatric treatment.

Officials have not determined whether his mental health played a role in the attack.

The victim’s parents have since spoken publicly for the first time, urging the German government to take stronger action to protect citizens. In comments published by Welt on Wednesday, they said the attack should have political consequences and called for changes to prevent similar incidents.

Dobrindt meanwhile argued that public safety must remain the government’s priority, adding that people suffering from mental health disorders can also commit serious crimes.

Germany has maintained technical contacts with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) to facilitate the deportation of Afghan nationals convicted of crimes. Berlin has repeatedly stressed that these contacts are limited to practical and consular matters and do not constitute formal recognition of the Afghan authorities.

The deportation policy has however been criticised by human rights organisations and refugee advocates, who argue that Afghans returned to Afghanistan may face significant risks. They point to the country’s ongoing humanitarian and human rights challenges, including restrictions on fundamental freedoms, concerns over arbitrary detention, widespread poverty, and limitations on the rights of women and girls.

The German government maintains that foreign nationals convicted of serious offences or deemed a threat to public safety should be deported wherever legally possible, while insisting that each case must comply with international law and individual protection obligations.

The Trier attack has intensified political debate over migration and deportation policy, with renewed calls from some politicians and the victim’s family for stronger measures to prevent violent crimes while Germany continues to balance public security concerns with its international legal commitments.

Amnesty International has called for an independent investigation into Pakistan’s airstrike on Kabul’s Omid Rehabilitation and Treatment Centre in March this year, saying the attack should be examined as a possible war crime after it killed at least 269 civilians.

In a report released four months after the 16 March strike, the rights organization said it found no evidence to support Pakistan’s claim that the rehabilitation centre was being used to store weapons or ammunition or was serving any military purpose at the time of the attack.

According to Amnesty, the strike breached the special protections afforded to medical facilities under international humanitarian law and violated the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality, which are designed to protect civilians during armed conflict.

“The attack on the Omid Centre constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law – possibly amounting to a war crime,” said Isabelle Lassee, Amnesty International’s Acting Regional Director for South Asia.

She said Pakistan should conduct a transparent, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the strike, including the decision-making process that led to the targeting of the facility, and make its findings public.

Amnesty said its investigation included analysis of more than 60 photographs and videos, over 30 satellite images and interviews with 11 witnesses, including employees, former staff members, victims’ relatives and people involved in rescue efforts.

The organization said it found no conclusive evidence that weapons or ammunition were stored at the site. It also said there was no indication that any warning had been issued before the attack, despite the facility’s protected status under international humanitarian law.

The Omid Rehabilitation and Treatment Centre, established in 2016 on the site of a former NATO base, was expanded into a 2,000-bed drug treatment facility after the Islamic Emirate returned to power in 2021. The adjacent Ibn-e-Sina Hospital also provided healthcare services to patients at the centre.

Amnesty said publicly available information, including media reports, satellite imagery and visible signboards identifying the site as a rehabilitation facility, should have made its civilian purpose clear.

The organization said videos released by Pakistan following the strike, which officials said showed weapons and ammunition at the site, did not provide conclusive evidence to support those claims. Amnesty’s weapons experts also said there was no indication of secondary explosions that would normally be expected if large ammunition stores had been struck.

The strike was one of several cross-border attacks carried out by Pakistan following an escalation in hostilities with the Islamic Emirate in late 2025.

According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), more than 750 civilians were killed or injured in Afghanistan between January and March 2026. UNAMA has independently verified that at least 269 civilians were killed and 122 others wounded in the Omid Centre strike.

Amnesty said it wrote to Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 9 July requesting details of any investigation into the attack and evidence supporting the claim that the site was a military target. The organization said it had not received a response by the time its report was published.

Pakistan has previously maintained that the airstrike targeted military infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities in Kabul. Amnesty rejected that assertion, saying its investigation strongly indicates that the Omid Centre was not a legitimate military objective under international humanitarian law.

The organization warned that failing to investigate the attack risks entrenching impunity and increasing the likelihood of further unlawful attacks against civilians.