| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| A New Approach to Immigration |
04 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Even those countries that took a multicultural approach to immigrants such as the UK did not readily accept non-white immigrants. Large-scale non-white immigration into the UK followed the Second World War when there was a shortage of manpower in the UK. There were even concerns expressed in official circles about the ageing and declining British population. It was felt that Britain would lose power and influence to oriental nations if her population count were to decline. A Royal Commission was set up to investigate what, if any, measures should be taken in the national interest in influencing the future trend of population. The commission reported that the long-term solution to the population problem was an increased British birth rate but in the short term Britain had a need for immigration. However the commission qualified that it was important that immigrants were: "of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the host population and becoming merged in it." During the 1950s many coloured people from the British colonies came to Britain in search of employment. The response of the British establishment was non-discriminatory in trying to find ways to restrict the immigration of coloured people while at the same time allowing white people from the dominion countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to enter easily (white people from these countries were never defined as immigrants). This policy intent is clear in a Cabinet memo by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, dated September 1955, who said, "On the one hand it would presumably be politically impossible to legislate a colour bar and any legislation would have to be non-discriminatory in form. On the other hand we do not wish to keep out immigrants of good type from the old Dominions. I understand that, in the view of the Home Office immigration officers could, without giving rise to trouble or publicity, exercise such a measure of discrimination as we think desirable."
When it came to immigration in the 1950s there was no difference between the Labour and Conservative Party and the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act (CIA) gave large amounts of discretion to immigration officers to admit or refuse immigrants according to instructions - some secret - given by the Home Office. In the 1960s there was the fear that there were hoards of Asians who held UK and colonies citizenship that were trying to get into Britain from East Africa. They had lost the ability to earn a livelihood in these countries when countries such as Kenya had introduced a work permit system for non-nationals. In the days of empire Britain had encouraged the migration of this Asian labour to these countries. The fear of mass Asian immigration led to the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act which was rushed through parliament by a Labour government with heavy majorities. This led to a redefinition of British citizenship, so that the only citizen who would be free from immigration control would be if one of his parents or grandparents had been born or naturalised in the UK - something that did not apply to most of the East African Asians. The bill was deliberately rushed through the British Parliament to prevent large numbers of East African Asians rushing to Britain before the bill was passed. In the long run the British government were forced to accept many of these Asians because technically many became stateless and were not accepted by any other state.
These events of the 1950s and 1960s demonstrate the discriminatory stance that the British government took towards non-white and non-European immigrants. The fact that such immigrants who successfully entered Britain, were relatively easily given citizenship and were able to manifest their ethnic roots and culture, arguably reflects the British pragmatism in dealing with foreign cultures that was so successfully refined and used to rule over different cultures and people during the glory days of their world empire. Coupled with this pragmatism, was a sense of superiority of the British culture and civilization. At its peak, the British Empire was one of the world's leading military and trading powers and at the time the national mood was one in which British citizens had a confidence and sense of superiority of their western civilisation; a small number of white men ended up ruling millions of foreigners. This sense of superiority over others made them view foreigners and their cultures as being inferior. But for pragmatic reasons, during most of their rule they did not try to interfere in the culture, traditions and values of the natives. The sense of superiority was self evident to the architects of the British Empire like Thomas Macaulay who was instrumental in setting up British Education Policy in India in the early nineteenth century. In one of his famous speeches he stated, "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England."
Immigration in an Islamic state
An Islamic state is one that bases its legislation, culture and values on the Qur'an and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad. Such a state existed from the 7th century AD until the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924. It cannot be characterised as a nation state for its citizens who may be Arab, Indian, Chinese, Malaya, European, African or of some other ethnic origin; nor do the citizens need to share a specific mother tongue or even have the same religion. Such a society is not like any of the Muslim countries that were created from the ruins of the Ottoman state. Here colonial powers defined the territory of many of these countries using maps and rulers and then devised their constitutions. Consequently many of these countries have a weak, artificial and largely non-existent national identity. There is very little in common between an 'Islamic state' such as Saudi Arabia where a small ruling family misuses Islam to justify their authority, whose laws are highly discriminatory to both Muslims and non-Muslims, and an Islamic state that implements Islam, is not established on the basis of a nation state, where the rulers are elected and accounted, and where all citizens -both Muslims and non-Muslims - have rights defined by Islam.
In an Islamic state, immigration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity. One of the key divine obligations that Muslims believe in is to propagate and present Islam in an intelligent way to other peoples and societies. Within Islamic teaching this is considered to be a highly commendable activity. One of the established ways to realise this duty is for non-Muslim people to come and live under the authority of an Islamic State so that they can see for themselves the system and the distinct set of values and justice of the Islamic civilisation. Since immigration allows Muslims to present the Islamic civilisation to non-Muslims, immigration into the state and expanding the state's boundaries, where possible, would be actively pursued by an Islamic state. If non-Muslim immigrants who have come into the state do not wish to convert they are considered as non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state who have similar rights to the Muslim citizens of the state in societal matters. There is a cohesive bond between non-Muslims and Muslims within such a state in that they are all considered as citizens of the state, who have rights that the state or any group cannot usurp.
In light of this, the Islamic state would not try to limit immigration because of misplaced fears or concerns of existing citizens of the state. The duty of inviting others to Islam cannot be voted down by a national assembly since it is a duty defined by God - this is an activity that must be undertaken even if that means that the existing citizens of the state end up paying more taxes to support the arrival and support of immigrants.
Historically, the Islamic State originated in the seventh century in a town called Medina in the Arabian Peninsula. Through a process of expansion, the state expanded its authority from being a small city-state to cover the whole Arabian Peninsula, parts of Africa, India, Persia and Central Asia within a century. From almost the outset, the state was multi-racial since its citizens included Persians, Africans, Indians, and Arabs. It was unlike any previous empire in human history, since it did not serve the interests of a central race or group; in fact over a period of time the capital of the state moved from Medina to Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad and Istanbul. The policy of introducing non-Muslims to the Islamic state as a way of encouraging them to view Islam in action first hand was successful as the demographics of the Muslim world demonstrate. Where non-Muslim minorities did not want to convert they were left to practice their faith freely as is evidenced by the large numbers of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the presence of sizeable numbers of Arab Christians in Syria and Lebanon and the Hindu majority in India.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 2 3 4 5 >
Page 4 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
