Session 2
Immigration and Asylum
Mr. Mahmud Al-Rashid
(DRAFT: Not to be cited without the consent of the speaker. This draft transcription has yet to be approved by the speaker.)
Thank you very much Dr. Al-Shahi. I was reading the little biography of myself, I didn't write it, there are so many ex-es and former-s there that I feel like a has-been. But I hope what I have to say today is beneficial. I want to talk about asylum and immigration, that's the subject I've been given, and I think people here want to hear a Muslim perspective because after all the conference is subtitled "understanding Muslims and responding to the Islamic World". Now I hope to say at the outset that I am not an Islamic scholar will become apparent as I speak, but I'll make it clear now that I'm not an Islamic scholar. Neither in the classical sense or traditional sense. I have no training in classical Islam. Nor in the modern sense. I have not studied Islamic studies and perhaps the best place to make that definition is here in St. Antony's which has got, of course, the excellent reputation that it has on Islamic studies. Now asylum didn't start with the 1951 refugee convention. We see the concept of sanctuary and asylum in the Justinian code. But what the Koran did was elevate it to a level of piety, personal, religious piety and righteousness and that is so in the second sura, sura ba'kara, verse 177, which is known as the verse of piety. It gives certain criteria of who or what makes a pious Muslim. And one such criteria is 'he who spends of his substance on the ibn s'abii', which literally means 'son of the road' and Muhammad Assad in his translation of the Koran has translated that as to mean 'a person who for any reason whatsoever is unable to return home'. For example a political exile or a refugee. So there you have the Koran in that soora elevating this concept of asylum and refuge to a level of personal piety. Now of course in the life of the prophet Muhammad we see how he personally benefited from refugee status and asylum, first of all from his uncle Abu Talib, without his protection it is acknowledged that Muhammad would not have been able to preach his message. And when Abu Talib died that was the year that was known as the 'year of sadness', together also with the death of his wife, particularly because of that reason, because persecution intensified at that time after the death of Abu Talib. But before that because the Prophet himself had the protection of Abu Talib, others didn't, and some of them fled to Abyssinia and were instructed to do so by the Prophet because he said they will get protection there from a Christian ruler, the Negus, and indeed they did get protection and were treated generously. After the year of sadness Muhammad was at a loss with no protection from anyone and then there was a humiliating incident in Tarif where he was chased away by slaves and children. He had nowhere to go and then he turned to one person, Nutim of Nawful, and he's the one who granted him protection and he was able to reenter Mecca on that ground, on that condition. Of course then we move on to Medina and the protection and the treaties and the covenants that were signed there with the security and protection that was granted. So the concept of asylum and the granting of refugee status and protection is something very dear to Muslims. We see the prophet himself benefiting personally. Coming to asylum here today in Britain, how do the Muslims feel about asylum and integration? I think there's a balanced view. I was listening to Imam Hamza Yousef a couple of months ago giving a lecture, he's an American scholar, and he was saying that, he was giving examples how a beautiful tradition if it's abused can be degraded and he was talking about asylum in a place called Alsatia in London or Whitefriars back in the 15th, 16th century. And there dissidents and debtors could go and they were safe there, it was a sanctuary like the harams in Mecca and Medina and Jerusalem. It was a place of safety, nobody could touch you there. Like also the Mecca Madrees in Fez in Morocco, nobody, the law cannot enter there. But that became abused in Alsatia and finally Henry VIII had to send in the musketeers because criminal gangs developed there. And there is a feeling in Britain that the asylum system is also being abused and some Muslims feel that as well. However, our arguments for granting asylum, certainly opening the doors for asylum, are essentially based on the fact that Britain has a large responsibility, and this was admitted by the former, still, the Secretary of our State for Foreign Affairs, Jack Straw [audience laughter] – that wasn't a Freudian slip. That was admitted, I think he wrote in the Prospect Magazine a while ago, admitting and acknowledging Britain's role in its colonial history and the role in Palestine and, of course, in elsewhere. And I think many Muslims feel that we ought to pay for those mistakes. We ought to atone for those sins. They were wrongs. And people coming from those countries, fleeing persecution, ought to be welcomed in this country. That is certainly one strong argument for opening up the borders. But we also understand the genuine concerns of the wider British community, but some if it is not justified. For example, if you look at the figures, according to the UNHCR, the figures for 2001, there are 12 million refugees worldwide. Asia holds the largest number – 5.8 million. Africa – 3.3 million. And 2.2 million in Europe. One third of refugees are Afghans. And one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know why that is the case. Look at what has happened to that country for the last 20 years. Pakistan actually holds, hosts the largest number of refugees – 2.5 million. Iran is next with 2 million. Britain is 20th with 200,000 refugees. The Home Office figures for 2002 indicate that the top five nationalities of asylum seekers in the U.K.: number one are Iraqis – 4,900, this is for 2002; number two are the Zimbabweans – 7600; Afghans are third – 7,300 [ed: perhaps he got his figures mixed up]; Somalis are next – 6,600; and then the Chinese – 3,700. They're the top five refugee producing countries as far as Britain is concerned. In 2002, the number of Iraqis doubled from 2001. Again, one doesn't need to be very clever to know why Iraqis, who don't have a long tradition of migration, why they should be fleeing their country. So there is one myth that harsher laws would have a deterrent effect. But according to the Independent Race and Refugee News Network, rises and falls in asylum applications are country-specific and bear no relationship to changes in asylum law. For example in the last quarter, the last three months of 2000, there were 21,000 claimants in the U.K. This reached a low point of 16,000 in mid-2001. And peaked again to 23,000 in the last quarter of 2002. And the authors of the report are saying this rise and fall does not correspond to asylum laws which have become progressively harsher, therefore it is wrong to believe, for example, restricting benefits will have a deterrent effect. The second myth is about refugees being economic migrants. The Immigration Minister, Lord Rooker said that most asylum seekers are single men who have deserted their families for economic gain. Research by the Oxford Center for Refugee Studies show that the top ten countries sending the most refugees to Europe, out of them, seven had experienced war, and the other three, Turkey, Iran and Romania, had a history of repressing minorities. So the research shows something different, that people fleeing are actually fleeing from countries where there has been war and repression. And my own personal experience of representing asylum seekers in court proves that. Just two weeks ago, I'll give an example, I was representing a Congolese asylum seeker. And the astonishing thing was he was refused first by the Secretary of State, this is a man who was in the army under Mobutu, but left because he disagreed with Mobutu's policies and became a civilian, but still an influential civilian. His training was here at Sandhurst and in America. He'd been to Britain at least 50 times before, but it was deemed that he was an economic migrant, even though in Congo he had lots of land, inherited from his forefathers. All his ten children went to private school, he had a life, a luxurious life there and here he was saying he was surviving on 35 pounds a week and his heart bleeds for his children who cannot understand why he has abandoned them. And I don't think, actually, that he's an economic migrant. Secondly, just on Thursday, I had a conference with a client, this one a Libyan. He's been on the run since 1978 from Qaddafi, initially settled in Italy, then moved to Egypt, where he has a factory, employed 50 people, lots of land. He's been to Britain about 30 times, on this occasion because of the agreement between Qaddafi and Mubarak where he was specifically mentioned that Qaddafi wants him back from Egypt. He was a tipped off and he came to asylum on this occasion. And again he's been refused. We await to see what happens with the appeal. By the way the Congolese appeal, we won that. But we await to see what happens with the Libyan. So that's my own personal experience in representing refugees and asylum seekers in this country. Going back to the Muslim perspective, of course, there are some arguments against Muslims also. Muslims also argue against the increased number of asylum seekers and those seeking refuge. Perhaps for selfish reasons? Every society has that, they perhaps feel that competition in the economic field would degrade their own positions, but again, the Home Office paper 2002 called the migrant population in the U.K. fiscal effect shows that in the year 1999-2000, migrants contributed 31.2 billion by way of taxes to the British state and they consumed 28.8 billion by way of state benefits and services. So that was a net fiscal contribution of 2.5 billion. Now apart from that, apart from the financial benefits of contribution, of course, there are wider social and cultural benefits. And costs, let us not be extreme about this, there are costs as well and we witnessed some of the disturbing effects of that. But people like the late Huram Rad [ed: chk spelling] influenced a lot of the younger generation of Muslims and they've changed the mentality to a large extent. And they've changed the mentality to a large extent and made us realize that we have to see Britain as our home. Unlike our parents' generation, my own father, I was born in Bangladesh, he came here to work in a factory and he thought he would save enough money, this is a common pattern of migration, save enough money and go back to Bangladesh. It didn't happen. He brought his family over. He stayed here, he never went back and so much so that both my father and my mother are now buried in a cemetery in Luckbrow [ed: chk spelling] and these people have become their flesh and blood, have become now part of English soil. And that was certainly not their intention, but that's the way it's developed and this myth of return has been exposed by many people, Professor Anwar for one. Moving on very quickly, I think of my children's future, because, though to a certain extent I have 'settled', there are still difficulties. And I wonder what it will be like for my children, because they're different. They are being brought up as Muslims, but on their mother's side they trace their family back to the Norman conquest, a very, very long time ago, older than the royal family, I think, here. Their grandfather was a teacher to a former British Attorney General. Their grandfather was a member of the Royal Air Force. Can they be more English? I don't know, but I anticipate they will have problems because of their religion. And I don't want to go into that, I don't have time to go into that assessment or analysis as to why that should be the case. But there are worrying developments for Muslims settling in Britain. The BNP specifically targeting Muslims now and the irony is that it has managed to get the help of some Sikhs and some Jews as well, we find that so astonishing, in targeting Muslims and in distributing specific literature attacking Muslims. So just to conclude, what do I see for the future of Muslims in Britain, that's a very big question. Despite all the problems, from both sides, from the Muslims as well as from institutions in Britain, despite the problems, I think we will integrate, if we're allowed to. If David Blunkett will get off our backs and not decide who we should marry and where we should marry or not decide for us how many languages we should learn. And if the community itself increases its ijtihad, that's very important, I think we will integrate in Britain and it may be a better place, because that's been the record of Muslims, I think, in most places they have gone. They have enriched that society and made it a better place. And certainly I hope and I want to do that following the footsteps of my forefathers. Thank you very much.
St Antony's Home | Conference Home | Conference Programme | Papers | Participants | Links to related sites
© St Antony's College
design by oxogen
