The deprivation of a person’s citizenship is an extremely draconian measure. The UK’s upcoming law regarding the deprivation of a person’s British citizenship without giving notice has been widely criticised by sections of the UK media.[1] According to the New Statesman magazine, “Nearly six million people in England and Wales could become eligible to be stripped of their British citizenship without warning…”[2] and that “non-white ethnic minority residents of England and Wales are eight times more likely to be potentially eligible for deprivation of citizenship than white residents.”[3]
In response, the Minister for security and borders, Damian Hinds MP, had argued that such powers will be “only used in exceptional circumstances in a small number of cases each year.”[4] Yet, many people remain unconvinced and deeply concerned, including many British parliamentarians.
Such concerns have been exacerbated by the brazen double-standards demonstrated by the UK government and media outlets in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict whereby the British (and other Western) government has ripped up its own rule book regarding sending people to fight in a foreign war.
This paper aims to present a brief factual analysis of the current legal position and the upcoming law contained in the Nationality and Borders Bill 2021 (“the Bill”). It highlights the British government’s recent use of citizenship laws, increasingly as part of the West’s war on terror. Finally, this paper offers a brief overview of the rights non-Muslim citizens are entitled to enjoy under an Islamic polity.
The Nationality and Borders Bill 2021
The Bill has passed all the stages in the House of Commons, and as at 06/03/2022, it is at the ‘report stage’ in the House of Lords, which means it is only a few steps away from becoming an Act of Parliament. However, there have been notable concerns raised during UK parliamentary debates because the Bill further relaxes the Home Secretary’s powers to revoke a person’s British citizenship.
During its second reading in the UK’s House of Lords, Lord Anderson observed that “…the deprivation of citizenship, covered in… clause 9… has a Cold War feel to it…”[5] and elaborated as to why he was concerned by the Bill. He stated,
“The tightly drawn powers to remove citizenship under the British Nationality Acts… were not used in the 30 years prior to the war on terror, but thresholds were reduced in 2003 and 2006 to the point where today, Ministers need be satisfied not that someone is a terrorist or a traitor but only that their removal would be “conducive to the public good”. Removal of citizenship is now relatively common… the power to deprive people of their citizenship on “conducive to the public good” grounds was exercised around 170 times between 2010 and 2018.”[6]
Similarly, the former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett, expressed his dismay regarding the Bill. He observed, “Withdrawal of citizenship without notification or explanation will be immoral. As has already been described, breach of international conventions… is totally unacceptable for a democratic nation.”[7]
It is clearly alarming that even a hawk like Blunkett is dismayed by the Bill, given some of the draconian terrorism laws Blunkett had passed during his tenure as the Labour Home Secretary, as part of the war on terror, much of which disproportionately affect the Muslim community.
Shamima Begum’s case
The British government has always retained the right to deprive a person’s British citizenship under s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA”). This power has been broadened in recent years in various stages. As Baroness Fox observed during a recent debate in the House of Lords,
“The power to remove citizenship was brought to the fore in 2005 by Tony Blair’s Labour Government, and was then used increasingly and with broader provisions, especially by Theresa May when Home Secretary…”[8]
It is noteworthy that the main three parties, i.e. the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats (during their coalition government under David Cameron) have been privy to laws that singlehandedly target and marginalise the Muslim community in the UK. Such Muslim-specific laws have been completely laid bare since the Russia-Ukraine conflict begun, as discussed below.
The case of Shamima Begum (“Shamima”), a British born UK citizen of Bangladeshi heritage, made a lot of headlines because her British citizenship was revoked by the UK government whilst she remains in Syria. Many in the UK’s Muslim community believe that Shamima’s case emerged not as a random systemic malfunction; rather it is part of a much wider negative trend in UK government policy towards Muslims generally since the inception of the West’s so-called war on terror. For example, many in the UK’s Muslim community see the Prevent strategy as disproportionately targeting and marginalising Muslims.
Shamima’s case was quite high profile, which had reached the UK’s Supreme Court by way of appeal in 2020. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Shamima’s appeal. This effectively meant that the government’s deprivation decision thus far remains valid. Any appeal by Shamima against the actual deprivation decision now has to be conducted from Syria and she cannot enter the UK to fight her case against the government’s deprivation decision.
The UK government’s power to deprive a person of his British citizenship
The government can deprive a British citizen’s citizenship (i.e. revoke it) if the government regards that person’s presence in the UK as being contrary to the ‘public good’.[9] This term has a broad definition and may include, for example, a person who is perceived as a threat to the public, e.g. because he has committed a serious criminal offence. The government’s power of deprivation was previously restricted, if the deprivation would render a person ‘stateless’.[10] But this restriction is about to change. The government can now use its legal power of deprivation if a person became British citizen via naturalisation, which would by and large mean that he still retained his previous nationality.
For example, a Bangladeshi national who became British citizen via naturalisation would ordinarily be a dual citizen. Such a person can be stripped of his British citizenship if his conduct is regarded as seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, i.e. this person goes against ‘British national interest’.[11] In such instances, a person can be stripped of his British citizenship if the government believes that the person can lawfully secure nationality of the country of his origin, i.e. Bangladesh.
The government is obliged to give written notice to the person who is about to be stripped of his UK citizenship.[12] However, this is now about to change. Many people across society are concerned about this change in law, as they fear that the Bill will provide a carte blanche to the government in certain instances.
In essence, under the new power (to be inserted from the Bill), the notice of decision to deprive a person of his citizenship can be dispensed with if it would not be reasonably practicable to give notice, e.g. if the person is unreachable because he is abroad for whatever reason.[13] There can be many scenarios applied to this condition.
For example, a person may be regarded as unreachable when he is abroad and his citizenship can be revoked whilst he is absent, only for him to find out at the port of entry that he is not allowed back into the UK. This will potentially have a major negative implication for those British citizens travelling abroad, e.g. on charity convoys to distribute aid in conflict zones.
The government’s power becomes even more draconian because, if it believes that the notice of decision to deprive a person of his citizenship should not be given for ‘national security’ or other ‘public interest’ reasons, the government simply should not give notice at all. This appears to impose a positive obligation upon the government to dispense with notice.
Similarly, the notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship should not be given if the government (arbitrarily) regards it to be in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country. This has an element of foreign relations involved and might entail the UK’s opaque bilateral treaties with other nations, e.g. the UK’s treaty with Jordan regarding certain matters.
Implications of the Bill for Muslims
Terms such as ‘national security’ and ‘public interest’ can be quite arbitrary and are open to subjective interpretation. Although it is ultimately for the British courts to determine whether or not an act is in the public interest or against national security, as the case of Shamima shows, she clearly failed to prove that the deprivation of her British citizenship was not in the public interest.
The British judiciary often defer questions relating to national security to the government. Therefore the government will escape meticulous judicial scrutiny of its draconian citizenship deprivations by citing national security as a pretext for its decisions.
Furthermore, many in the Muslim community are worried that this law has the potential to render their citizenship ‘second-class’ compared to their white fellow citizens. They fear that the Bill will provide the government with a blunt instrument, which can be deployed as it sees fit and may well be used against any person, whether at home or overseas.
Therefore, this latest law is an extremely worrying development because there appears to be a lot of subjective elements inserted into it. The people at the receiving end of this law will be Muslims primarily. Such discriminatory law by a so-called ‘civilised’ nation exposes its inability to protect its Muslim minority community.
The British government’s hypocrisy exposed
The government’s immigration and terrorism laws imposed on the Muslim community over the past two decades have been laid bare by the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The terrorism laws were enforced disproportionately against Muslims. Those who went abroad to fight against oppressive regimes were regarded as engaging in terrorism.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (“CTS”) was drafted by the Cameron government to prevent people from fighting against the Assad-regime in Syria. The CTS allows the seizure and temporary retention of passports of persons suspected of intending to leave the UK in connection with ‘terrorism-related activity’.[14]
The Terrorism Act 2000 (“TA”) defines ‘terrorism’, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of serious violence against a person or cause serious damage to property and where they are designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.[15]
The Crown Prosecution Service, the UK’s prosecution authority, states,
“It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn’t actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.”[16]
Notwithstanding such laws, the UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss declared that “she would ‘absolutely’ support UK volunteers in the Russia-Ukraine war…” She said, “Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.” Yet, her assertion would clearly be in breach of the UK’s terrorism laws.[17]
Moreover, British media outlets did not hesitate to declare a Ukrainian “marine who blew himself up along with a bridge [as] a hero of Ukraine…”[18] British journalists and politicians have queued up to praise such ‘heroic’ fighting in Ukraine. For example, the Telegraph newspaper glorified such ‘heroism’ as follows,
“As the invasion continues, with civilians in the capital being urged by Ukrainian officials to prepare Molotov cocktails, we are seeing the emergence of everyday heroism – from the soldiers refusing to back down on Snake Island to the man who gave up his own life blowing up a bridge to prevent a Russian crossing.”[19]
The above examples demonstrate that unlike Shamima, those who travel from the UK to fight in Ukraine would not have their citizenships deprived, nor passports seized, nor prosecuted for terrorism. Such brazen hypocrisy has exposed the UK government’s discriminatory policies towards Muslims.
Islam’s approach towards non-Muslim citizens
Let us have a brief analysis of Islam’s vision towards all citizens, including non-Muslim minorities. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution contains the following articles, which it intends to incorporate in a future caliphate’s constitution,
“Article 5: All citizens of the Islamic State are entitled to enjoy the divine rights and duties.
Article 6: All citizens of the State shall be treated equally regardless of religion, race, colour or any other matter. The State is forbidden to discriminate among its citizens in all matters, be it ruling or judicial, or caring of affairs.”[20]
The Muslim world has never been a land exclusively for Muslims. In fact, throughout the past millennium, whilst Jews were persecuted in Europe, the Muslim world had welcomed them and gave rights and protection. History demonstrates that non-Muslims have mostly lived peacefully alongside Muslims in most Muslim lands, e.g., in India, Egypt and Palestine. Allah, the Creator of all of mankind, tells the Muslims:
إِنَّمَا يَنْهَىٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ قَـٰتَلُوكُمْ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَـٰرِكُمْ وَظَـٰهَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰٓ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ
“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” [al-Mumtahanah 60:8]
Therefore, Islam strongly encourages Muslims to be righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Furthermore, Allah gave the People of the Book a special recognition in the Quran.
The non-Muslim citizens living under a caliphate are called ahl adh-dhimmah (meaning, the covenanted people) or dhimmi. The term dhimma means pledged, guarantee and safety. The state guarantees the protection of their life, property and honour in the same way as it does for Muslims. Therefore, non-Muslims can live under the protection of Islam and they will enjoy the protection of Allah, His Messenger and the Muslims.
In exchange for such protection, non-Muslim able-bodied men pay a jizyah tax to the state. In reality, the sum payable is a token amount. On the basis that the state’s currency is based on a gold standard, according to Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, the jizyah payable is 12 dirhams for people of lower income, 24 dirhams for middle income and 48 dirhams for the well-off sections of non-Muslims.[21] In the wider scheme of things, these taxes are truly quite small sums, given the level of protection they receive from the state. By contrast, most foreign nationals in the UK pay much greater sums in visa fees in return for much less protection.[22]
The jizyah should not be regarded as giving Muslims an unfair advantage over non-Muslims. On the contrary, they are servants of Allah who are endowed with the duty to protect the weak minority non-Muslim population. If they fail in that duty, they are accountable to Allah. This distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims is one of political administration and does not pertain to the fundamental rights of man.[23]
In exchange for their pledge, the non-Muslims enjoy protection from external threats as well as protection from internal tyranny and persecution. A good example of this obligation is manifested in the following case.
Towards the end of the 13th century, the Mongols had invaded Syria under the Mongolian army general Kutlushah, the son of Mangghudai Noyan. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah went to meet Kutlushah to negotiate and to ease the oppression on the people. Kutlushah agreed to do so for the Muslims but not for the non-Muslims. This was not acceptable to the Muslims. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah told Kutlushah that the Muslims would not accept peace for themselves alone because the Jews and Christians were under the Muslims’ protection.[24]
The Prophet’s companion, Ibn Mas’ud (ra) narrated that the Prophet (saw) said, “Whosoever hurts a dhimmi, I shall be his adversary, and for whosoever I am an adversary, I shall altercate with him on the Day of Resurrection.”
This hadith demonstrates the severity of the matter. The Muslims are absolutely prohibited from harming non-Muslims in any way whatsoever. This tradition of being just towards non-Muslims was practised by the Khulafah ar-Rashidun.
It is narrated by Imam at-Tabari in his historical works that when Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) was the caliph, he used to enquire of his delegates about the conditions of non-Muslim citizens and used to ask if any Muslims had harmed any non-Muslims in their lands. During the last days of the reign of caliph Umar (ra), even on his deathbed, he said regarding his non-Muslim citizens,
“I exhort my successor regarding the treatment to be meted out to the covenanted people by the Messenger of Allah. They should receive fulfilment of their covenant, and their life and property should be defended even if it requires going to war (with oppressors), and they should not be taxed beyond their capacity.”[25]
Islam confers rights and protection upon all the citizens residing within the caliphate irrespective of their faith. In this regard, Prof. Doi states, “The more important protection is to accord non-Muslims and Muslims protection from internal high-handedness, persecution, tyranny and injustice. The Muslims are duty bound to withhold their hands and tongues from hurting non-Muslim subjects.”[26]
These are not just empty words designed to appease the West. Islam’s positive track-record towards non-Muslims was inspired by the shariah and not secular liberal values. The history of Islam demonstrates that whilst Europe was persecuting Jews and minority Christians in their lands, Muslims had protected those persecuted minorities and gave them a safe haven.
Conclusion
All great nations inevitably contain minority populations who do not necessarily share the majority’s way of life. The subject of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islamic rule historically is not a new topic. For over a millennium, Muslims have ruled over millions of non-Muslims in a peaceful and just manner, although there were at times abuses by certain Muslim rulers in breach of their shariah obligation towards non-Muslims.
When it comes to Muslims in Britain and around the Western world, whilst there are some positives, one cannot ignore the oppressive nature of the immigration or terrorism related laws, which have hounded the Muslims recently. The present citizenship laws are a part of this negative trend whereby laws are deployed as a weapon against Muslim citizens in the war on terror.
Yet, the Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates that the UK government (and others) adopted a different approach because this conflict involves supposedly ‘civilised’ Europeans with “blond hair and blue eyes”.[27] History will judge such abuse of laws against a minority Muslim population as another dark chapter in Europe’s treatment of minority communities.
[1] Refer to articles such as, “Like Shamima Begum, I could soon be stripped of British citizenship without notice” by Naga Kandiah, The Guardian, 15/12/2021
[2] “Exclusive: British citizenship of six million people could be jeopardised by Home Office plans”, The New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/12/exclusive-british-citizenship-of-six-million-people-could-be-jeopardised-by-home-office-plans?_thumbnail_id=248394, 01/12/2021
[3] “Exclusive: Nationality and Borders Bill is “unconstitutional”, says top law firm”, The New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/01/exclusive-nationality-and-borders-bill-is-unconstitutional-says-top-law-firm, 18/01/2022
[4] Letters, The Guardian, 21/12/2021
[5] Lord Anderson, The Lords Hansard transcript, the Nationality and Borders Bill, Volume 817: debated on Wednesday 5 January 2022, The Lords Chamber: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-01-05/debates/5565C246-FDC7-4A38-86E8-52825DE21125/NationalityAndBordersBill
[6] Lord Anderson, The Lords Hansard transcript, supra.
[7] Lord Blunkett, The Lords Hansard transcript, supra.
[8] Baroness Fox, The Lords Hansard transcript, supra.
[9] s40(2) of BNA
[10] s40(4) of BNA
[11] s40(4A) of BNA
[12] s40(5) of BNA
[13] s40(5A) of BNA
[14] s1 of CTS
[15] s1 of TA
[17] “Liz Truss slapped down by Chief of Defence Staff after backing Brit fighters in Ukraine”, The Mirror Online, 06/03/2022: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-slapped-down-chief-26399326
[18] “Marine who blew himself up to destroy a bridge and halt advancing Russian troops is made a ‘Hero of Ukraine’ – the country’s highest honour”, The Mail Online, 26/02/2022: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10554439/Marine-blew-bridge-halt-Russian-troops-hero-Ukraine.html
[19] “Heroes of Ukraine: The ordinary people fighting for their lives in face of Russian aggression”, The Telegraph, 25/02/2022: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/25/heroes-ukraine-ordinary-people-fight-lives-russian-aggression/
[20] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, The System of Islam, , Al-Khilafah Publications, London, 2002, p-116
[21] ‘Abd ar-Rahman I. Doi, Shariah: Islamic Law, Ta-Ha Publishers, London, 2008 (2nd revised ed. 2013), p-649
[22] Arguably, the extortionate levels of visa fees paid by foreign nationals in the UK every couple of years to renew their visas, which include immigration health surcharge payments towards health-care for the foreign nationals, are potentially oppressive sums. Yet, most people who pay the jizyah tax would not be financially penalised in this manner.
[23] Doi, Shariah: Islamic Law, p-650
[24] Ibid, p-653
[25] Ibid, p-660
[26] Ibid, p-653
[27] Moustafa Bayoumi, “They are ‘civilised’ and ‘look like us’: the racist coverage of Ukraine”, The Guardian, 02/03/2022: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civilised-european-look-like-us-racist-coverage-ukraine