“A tidal wave of humanity flooding out of Ukraine, just as a tidal wave of humanity has flooded out of Syria, or Yemen, or Afghanistan, or wherever else you want to choose. So, what’s changed?
“Why are we suddenly seeing figures as high as 76% saying that [the UK] should take in refugees from Ukraine? Refugees fleeing precisely the same weapons that Putin was dropping on Syria, not long ago. When it was very hard to turn on your radio without hearing somebody claiming that we should be carbon dating the teeth of [Syrians] claiming to be children just in case they were lying about their ages. What’s changed?”
10am, and these were the words of James O’Brien, as he began his show on LBC Radio.
The international response, within three weeks of Russia launching its military assault against Ukraine, has been considerable and unprecedented. The extensive media coverage has fully supported the plight of the Ukrainian people; also every aspect of Ukraine’s defensive preparations; and also welcomed every one of the 3 million refugees that have so far escaped into Europe.
Clearly the hypocritical reaction was not lost on O’Brien.
“You’ll forgive me this morning for not holding in particularly high regard for the people who in this industry [media & broadcasting] that have led the line on the demonisation of human misery; the demonisation of refugees. You will forgive me, I hope, for not celebrating an apparent U-turn in British sensibility, until I understand where it has come from.”
I do not listen to LBC Radio, however O’Brien’s introduction has been widely circulated over social media, by Muslims. Which is precisely how I learnt about this broadcast. The unconcealed double standards from the European Governments have incensed Muslims significantly. The explosion of memes, re-tweets, and comments illustrate the shock wave of united astonishment from Muslims around the globe. And all of them have the same theme, the hypocrisy of the West.
For example, British Imam Ajmal Masoor posted on Twitter ‘What is common between Ukraine, Syria, and Chechnya? All of them have been carpet bombed by Putin and his murderous army. Ukrainian refugees are welcome to any EU countries, but Syrian refugees had to die in the sea because the door to Europe was shut for them.’
The American journalist Miriam Elder posted ‘It really is amazing how European governments are stepping up to welcome Ukrainians – and impossible to ignore the abject racism that prompted the opposite reaction to the Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans, and others who sought refuge in years past.’1
The Comparisons
It is not only the overwhelming volume of massive support that has touched peoples’ passions, but also the rapid pace that aid and assistance has been delivered. Within three weeks Britain has issued over 4,000 visas to Ukrainians (under the Ukraine Scheme). Although 4,400 applications for asylum were approved under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPR), that number took 4 months, from the start of the scheme, to reach that equivalent figure.
Homes for Ukraine, announced in the House of Commons on 16th March, is an additional sponsorship policy, which is aimed at the Ukrainians that do NOT have relatives living in the UK. Individuals and organisations can sponsor Ukrainians to come to this country, providing they can offer accommodation for a minimum of 6 months2.
Despite the political elation, this is not the first time such an initiative of sponsorship by ordinary people and charities has been implemented in the UK. In the summer of 2016, Amber Rudd and the Archbishop of Canterbury, announced the Full Community Sponsorship Scheme. Six months later, only two Syrian families had been successfully brought into this country, under this arrangement3.
In reaction to the lack of action from the UK Government, one of the charities supporting the Syrian community sponsorship, said the delay “risked squandering the resources of hundreds of volunteers happy to help save the government time and money”
As the Government has not set a limit on the number of Ukrainians that can be sponsored under the Homes for Ukraine, I suspect that target of two, will take no time at all to be equalled! In fact, it is very likely it has already been surpassed.
Next Comparison
It is not only the overwhelming support, but the inescapable veneration of the Ukrainian resistance that is also astounding. Reports and images of women, politicians and teenagers undertaking weapons training are admired as outstanding examples of defiance against Russian aggression. Foreign volunteers willing to join the Ukrainian military are pronounced as heroes4.
After a whole year of initial admiration and approval for the resistance against Bashar al-Assad, the Syrians motivated and committed to Islam, were rebranded as agents of Al Qaeda. Within years of that change, they were relabelled again as ISIS fighters. These opposition supporters have gone from heroes to terrorists, until finally pronounced being more dangerous to the world than President Assad.
The number of groups fighting the Syrian Government are extensively numerous. The vast majority having no links to either Al Qaeda or ISIS. In fact, many of these groups have fought Assad and ISIS forces simultaneously.
Muslims returning from Syria, irrespective if they were there for non-military reasons, or fought with non-affiliated militia, were maligned with accusations of having links with ISIS. Accordingly, the UK Government denied these UK citizens permission to enter Britain, on suspicion of terrorism.
Recently, in separate cases challenging the Government, the women known as C3, C4 and D4 have all succeeded with appeals against their citizenship being revoked5. The court also ruled that the UK acted illegally when it did the same to the man known as C7. Despite that, these and many other British nationals have not been allowed back home.
I can never imagine that the Ukrainians will be branded more dangerous than Putin, nor any heroic UK volunteer being refused entry to Britain, after serving in the Ukraine.
Final Comparison
Last year, Muslim pupils in schools across the UK were keen to discuss and share the plight of Palestinians. This was in reaction to the extensive media coverage of security forces entering the Al Aqsa compound in Jerusalem, during the holy month of Ramadan, on 7th May 2021.
Many schools embraced the opportunity for pupils to explain what was happening and how they felt, even allowing pupils to give presentations during morning assembly. Other schools banned such activities and discussions.
Ilyas Nagdee, a former NUS black students’ officer who works on race equality in education, said he had received reports close to 100 cases of young people facing consequences for speaking up about Palestine. These included being accused of antisemitism, punished, excluded from school, threatened with being reported to the Prevent anti-radicalisation programme, and even being visited by police.
Nagee said: “At a time when young people are getting politicised and exercising civil action, we are seeing some school leaders do their utmost to stymie them and prevent them developing themselves politically 6.”
These examples of backlash against Muslim pupils took place in a time frame similar in length from the moment of Russia invading Ukraine until now (i.e. up to the time of my writing).
Not only are UK schools fully embracing Ukrainian pupils addressing school assemblies, but teachers can also access a lesson plan that is available on TES, the education resource platform.7
The First Casualty of War is the Truth
It was during the First World War that US Senator Hiram Johnson said “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth”
Western officials have reportedly said that they believe some of the young Russian troops do not want to fight, and are sabotaging their own vehicles, including puncturing fuel tanks. Is this true? After Johnson’s advice we should not be quick to accept such details as being absolutely reliable (note that the word believe was used by the media).
If I were the leader of Ukraine, I would absolutely exploit every propaganda opportunity that would persuade onlookers that the Russians are frightened and its troops are villains, while the Ukrainians are the brave heroes. Accordingly, I too would use phrases like genocide and deliberately targeting civilians.
It was inevitable that the western governments would oppose the actions of Russia, and therefore, we can expect news coverage to unquestionably accept Ukrainian propaganda. But also, because of its support, the British Government is likely to generate its own misinformation too.
It is widely reported that the Russian news coverage is exclusively biased in Putin’s favour. Meaning that the ordinary Russians are not able to receive the truth about the conflict. And I agree that is clearly the case. However, if western news networks were impartial, then they would be pointing out the same warning whenever relaying information from governments that are supporting Ukraine. Therefore, we should all carefully consider the ‘facts’ that are presented to us and be prepared to question their reliability.
Consider the targeting of civilian accommodation. Without a doubt that is happening. But there are three possibilities as to why Russian soldiers have done that:
- Firstly, Russian armed forces are deliberately targeting civilians, and this is a war crime.
- Secondly, this was unintentional or in error i.e. inaccurate firing that has missed its intended target or the target was incorrectly identified as military.
- Thirdly, in their view, Russian intelligence accurately identified the target as legitimate.
It is feasible that living quarters of business owners that are supplying the Ukrainian military, or the homes of senior military personnel have been identified for targeting. I accept this is speculative, however we do know that both the US and UK have undertaken military strikes on such targets in the past.
With regards to taking every measure to minimise casualties, the images of Mariupol are not too dissimilar to the images of Fallujah from 20048. In short, Britain and America cannot occupy the ‘moral high ground’ over how Russia is currently using its military. The civilians that were sheltering in the Fallujah football stadium are testament to this. Also, we currently need to accept that any information from the warzone requires verification, or at the least, speculative consideration, before the truth is finally learnt9.
As the UK fully supports Ukraine in this conflict, then it is inevitable that there will be clear bias in the reporting of the Ukrainian conflict. Is this being pointed out in schools tackling the Russian invasion? Has the Education Secretary issued schools a reminder that “School leaders and staff have a responsibility to ensure that they act appropriately, particularly in the political views they express.”?
Pupils should be offered a “balanced presentation of opposing views” when political issues are raised. “Schools should not present materials in a politically biased or one-sided way”
Because Gavin Williamson did last year, over Palestine!
I Am Sick
Several of my work colleagues, that are not Muslims, have expressed damning sentiments just like as I have outlined above. One even said, “It makes me sick!”
In the first fortnight of the conflict, either wearing yellow and blue or having the Ukrainian flag on display, the various senior managers began every meeting with a message of support and solidarity for Ukraine. At work, I have never seen anything like this during my whole career.
Witnessing the constant actions of blatant hypocrisy just simply ‘eats away at you’. It grinds down your empathy to the point of insensitivity for the plight of the Ukrainians. It is only after enormous amounts of concentration and ignoring my emotions, that I remained convinced that the response from the international community for Ukraine was correct. The level of support and sympathy for Ukraine is precisely what the world should expect, even from my employer.
However, that recognition leads to the conclusion that the rest of the world has always received an outrageous short fall of assistance. It is not Ukrainians, rather it is the international community that has provoked peoples’ emotional remonstrations. The actions since 24th February from the international community have demonstrated that the world powers have never consistently delivered global justice.
Reaction options
The immediate examples of injustice that Muslims find themselves constantly enduring, currently include, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine. At this impasse, Muslims have the option to react in one of two ways.
- To campaign for the international community to offer improved levels of support for other conflicts around the world.
- Or to finally acknowledge the genuine role of the international community.
O’Brien asked an important question, “What’s changed?”. Why has the UK Government adopted a different approach with welcoming Ukrainians, when compared to other refugees?
To answer, an appreciation of the origins of the international community is required.
Between 1803 and 1815 the French ruler, Napoleon Bonaparte, had unleashed a war machine that went against every recognised convention of that time. It was not just the unpredictability of the aggressive manoeuvring of his Army, it was also Napoleon’s antagonistic cessation of trade agreements and peace treaties that shocked Europe. Eventually the leading European powers realised Napoleon could never be trusted.
With the war ending after Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo, the leading European powers concluded that a future policy to maintain order was required. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 determined that the chaos and destruction conducted by Napoleon would never be repeated. They agreed that whenever one state overextended its power, peace between nations was threatened. Therefore, it was essential that the balance of power was maintained.
The Congress of Vienna, therefore, set the protocols that would ensure that another international war would be prevented. Peace would be maintained by the following principles:
- The five leading Nations would maintain the balance of power10
- The five leading Nations were agreed to defend the existence of the conservative governments that existed at that time – that meant smaller European States should be prevented from consolidating power to the extent they could challenge the dominance of the leading powers.
- The leading Nations also recognised that the biggest threats to the status quo (Monarchy and Conservative) were from political activists calling for the alternatives of Nationalism or Liberalism – therefore, military intervention by the leading nations would be authorised to supress any internal or external political threats
- Maintaining the status quo and the balance of power would ensure that the leading powers would not initiate war in Europe between themselves. All-out war between the leading powers was absolutely to be avoided at all costs.
The consensus from historians is that this diplomatic agreement, known as the ‘Concert of Europe’, secured peace in Europe for 99 years. There may well have been no major war in Europe during that time, however warfare and oppression were not spared across the rest of the world. And many of those wars were orchestrated by European countries.
Ultimately, the measures devised at the Congress of Vienna did not prevent the First World War. So, in 1919 it was replaced by the League of Nations:
- Based on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the League would maintain the balance of power.
- Membership of the League would be expanded to include 58 countries.
- Accordingly, the united effort of collective security and mutual disarmament would prevent war.
- International disputes would be settled by means of arbitration and negotiations only.
- The Permanent Court of International Justice was established to settle legal disputes between nations.
- The concept of military intervention was retained. This would be authorised by the permanent members of the Executive Council to enforce League resolutions. Italy, Japan, plus the empires of Britain and France would provide the military forces for the League11.
- Starting war was made illegal in 1928.
- All-out war between nations was to be avoided at all costs.
Although membership of the international community expanded, in essence European values were retained. The original concepts from the Vienna agreement of 1815 were modified, however the parallels are self-evident.
The League of Nations failed in preventing the Second World War.
The rise of two new superpowers followed the Second World War. Although Britain and France remained as powerful nations with huge influence over global affairs, their position of supremacy was over. They were both superseded ideological, economically, and militarily by the dominance of the USA and the USSR.
From the shadow of the League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) was established at the end of 1945. And it was a new world order divided between East and West that required to be maintained. The ‘cold war’ had begun and the biggest threat to world peace was nuclear warfare.
- The United Nations expanded to include 193 Member States.
- The Security Council would be responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. It would be made up of 15 Member States with each Member having one vote.
- 10 of the Members are elected by the UN General Assembly.
- The remaining 5, are the Permanent Members of the Security Council – Britain, France, USA, China, and the USSR (now Russia).
- Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.
- Hence UN resolutions would be recognised as a source for International Law.
- The Security Council has the authority to impose trade sanctions or military intervention to enforce International Law.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established to legally prosecute Members that violated International Law.
- Outside of the Permanent Members the development of nuclear weapons by other nations would be strictly controlled. Usually, countries are banned from developing nuclear weapons.
- The balance of power would be maintained
It should be noted that throughout this period of 200 years the Europeans ravaged the continents of Asia and Africa. War was instrumental in securing territory and exploiting the colonized populations and resources. In other words, world peace and security were provisions reserved for the European powers only. In effect, the Balance of Power was not a principle that ensured peace, but the means to maintain the dominance of leading powers over global affairs. As history demonstrates, these same European nations never hesitated in using violence to maintain their domineering status quo.
The hypocrisy over Ukraine is not a U-turn from the international community, it is merely an example of what the International Community has always done. Maintained European interests.
The world’s leading power may well now be the United States of America, however what values is their culture based on?
The Status Quo
The current sanctions imposed upon Russia has affected British society in a manner not necessarily anticipated. Outside of trade and business, it has already affected the cost of living and sport. This impact has exposed other areas of hypocrisy. For example, sport is called upon not to involve itself with oppressive regimes, however the arms industry has always had a legitimate interest whenever supplying instruments of death to violators of human rights.
The actions of Governments are no different.
The US fully supported Ferdinand Marcos, former President of the Philippines, and President Suharto of Indonesia. Both these individuals were not pleasant people (I accept that was an understatement) and are amongst the numerous examples of brutal regimes that the USA has fully endorsed.
Britain was responsible for the coup that brought Idi Amin to power in Uganda, and like the US, many more examples exist that expose the strategies of both Britain and France in supporting brutal regimes. Putin is no doubt a murderer, however, is the West going to protect the rest of the world from murderers?
During two hundred years of propagating universal values, the continent of Africa was enslaved, pillaged, abused, brutalised, butchered, and mercilessly exploited.
The Palestinians received their injustice 70 years ago at the hands of the United Nations, and the international community continues to maintain that status quo of injustice.
The world is witness to numerous victims of unrestrained murderous rulers. For example, the Rohingya and the Uyghur have not been protected by the international community.
As the European powers established the international community, then there should be no surprise that Christians from Europe have been treated more favourably than non-Europeans. European values and European interests have always been at the heart of the international community. Hence, it is a mistake to campaign for the delivery of an equal level of support and justice for all. The international institutions will never provide impartial fairness.
Racism
The Syrians are known for their cosmopolitan nature, whilst many Ukrainians are notoriously xenophobic and right-wing. Ironic which nationality the UK has shown preference for.
I am not denying the existence of racism, nor that there is a racist element to the events we have witnessed. However, racism is the manifestation of the values espoused by the western powers, and not the root of the problem. In other words, racism is merely a symptom and not the cause. Hence, attributing all this hypocrisy to racism is ‘a red herring’, as it distracts attention from the real area of concern. What should be questioned are the euro-centric values the international community has been established to propagate and sustain. Historically, the leading powers ensured it was their self-serving values that were adopted as the shared ‘Universal Values’. And largely achieved by the institutions established by the European Nations.
The same powers that destroyed Africa, the Ottoman State and other regions, are the same powers that call themselves the peace makers.
Look to Islam
In a conversation outside the mosque, I was sharing some of these thoughts. There was a surprised reaction, and so I was asked, “Who do you support, [the West or] the Russians?”
I pointed out that Sultan Abdul Hamid II once said, that had he remained the leader of the Ottomans he would not have entered the First World War. Rather he would have utilised the time to strengthen the Islamic State whilst the Europeans were busy weakening each other.
Then I returned to the question, “How do you choose between the devil or the devil?”
Rather than be distracted by the hypocrisy over Ukraine, Muslims should be concluding that total justice cannot be secured outside of Islam.
The Muslims conquered Syria (Shaam) in 634 AD. Under siege, the City of Homs was prepared to surrender their arms in exchange for a settlement. The Muslims offered citizenship, in exchange for payment of the non-Muslim tax (Jizya). The people of the City of Homs agreed to pay the Jizya in exchange for the offer of protection. Their rights were secured by the Shari’ah and included the entitlement to continue to practice Christianity.
Not long after the surrender of the city, the Byzantine Emperor organised a huge counter-offensive to reclaim all the territory lost in Shaam. Abu ‘Ubaydah (RA), the commander in chief of the Muslim armed forces in Shaam, realised that the forces deployed in Homs were insufficient to repel the Christian army. Therefore, he ordered both the retreat of the Muslims and the return of all the Jizya collected.
By letter, Abu ‘Ubaydah addressed the people of Homs.
“We are bound by the same terms between us and you, and we will not retract anything so long as you do not do so. The only reason why we are returning your wealth to you is that we do not take your wealth when we cannot protect your land. We are simply moving to some other land and sending for our brothers (reinforcements) to come to join us. We will then face our enemy and fight. If Allah causes us to prevail, then we will fulfil our covenant with you, unless you change your minds.”
The people of Homs responded, “May Allah bring you back to us, and may Allah curse the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By Allah, they would not have returned anything to us, rather they would have confiscated whatever of our wealth, they could. Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer.”
80 years later the complete reimbursement of the Jizya was organised once again, this time to the citizens of Samarkand in Central Asia. It was ordered by the ruler Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah (SWT) be pleased with him) after he received a letter from the non-Muslims pointing out that the Believers had conquered their homeland by contradicting the laws of Islam.
Both these examples demonstrate what justice Muslims are prepared to dispense in their obedience to Allah (SWT). Principles based on the Qur’an and the example of Prophet Muhammed (SAW).
At the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammed (SAW) had the upper hand against the personalities that had persecuted him for two decades. For good reason the Meccan inhabitants were terrified. Retribution was anticipated and would have been justified.
Prophet Muhammed (SAW) addressed the people of Mecca, “Oh Quraish, how do you think I will treat you?”
The people (hoping against hope) replied, “We expect nothing but good from you as you are a noble and kind brother”
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) responded, “I say to you what the Prophet Joseph said to his brothers, ‘No blame shall lie on you this day.’ You are all free to go.”
This outcome is considered by numerous military historians, as the most extraordinary act of compassion in the history of Mankind.
Obedient Muslims are prepared to take what appear to be detrimental actions whenever the Shari’ah demands it. Muslims should always trust in Allah (SWT) and obey the principles set by the divine texts.
From the 15th Century, Jews were granted asylum by Muslims from the persecution of Europeans. The 450-year-old Jewish community of Sarajevo, although with only a small number remaining, have immense pride that they are an example of the descendants of this legacy. A legacy that we Muslims have immense pride in as well.
Muslims should reflect on Ukraine and note that the heritage of the international community is not only delivering injustice to Muslims, but also fails to deliver security and protection for other parts of the world too. Muslims should restore their confidence in Islam to save and protect Mankind.
That is our heritage.
Abdul Aziz 18th March
References
1 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/world/middleeast/refugees-ukraine-middle-east.html
2 Volunteers across Britain will be entitled to claim £350 per month for housing Ukrainians.
5 None of these women are Shamima Begum
8 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/14/iraq.iraq3
10 The five leading Nations in 1815 were, Britain, France, Prussia, Austria-Hungry, and Russia.
11 Britain, France, Italy, and Japan were the victors of the First World War and hence became the members of the Executive Committee of the League of Nations.
Abdul’s World 