How can we prevent the suffering of millions? Fund local NGOs directly

Last week, the UN launched the biggest aid appeal on record. The amount requested by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – $20.1bn (£13bn) – is five times the amount requested just a decade ago.

 Five reasons funding should go directly to local NGOs

Jennifer Lentfer

 

Read more

Faced with escalating conflicts and disasters and a growing number of affected people, we need to ask whether current approaches to aid and development are really the most effective ways to prevent the suffering of millions of people.

The data suggests not. The number of people in need of aid has more than doubled in just over a decade, according to OCHA.

So where is the money going? Not, unfortunately, into the hands of those on the frontline. Despite existing among the poorest and most vulnerable populations, and with a unique understanding of the communities they serve, local and national NGOs received just 1.6% of total NGO funding between 2010 and 2014.

And it’s not just the amount of funding that’s shrinking; the number of organisations sharing the money is also declining. At the same time, the UN’s share of humanitarian assistance continues to grow, along with that of international NGOs – just 10 INGOs received 36% of all NGO funding last year.

Investing in prevention

Local and national NGOs have long been thought of as indispensable to quick, effective and relevant emergency response, as well as critical development work. But the localisation of aid is still resisted, at a time when local and national NGOs must address humanitarian needs within increasingly complex and protracted crises.

What’s more, when emergencies have subsided and INGOs have left, local and national organisations stay behind, helping communities and governments to rebuild lives. This is essential to developing resilience to future crises. They can apply local knowledge to solving problems, and can access populations in areas that remain beyond the reach of international agencies.

12 ways the UN, donors and NGOs can work better with local humanitarians

 

Read more

Perhaps even more importantly, the worst impacts of many crises – especially those that destroy livelihoods and wreak devastation through famine and malnutrition – could be prevented or even avoided if local and national NGOs were better equipped.

This is why donors must fund local and national NGOs directly. The current funding landscape is so mired in appraisals, assessments, projections, and estimations that local aid workers cannot navigate its complexities, or afford fundraising and grant management staff to do so.

A new funding model

Advertisement

The most practical way to overcome these funding obstacles is to set up a transparent and well-managed pooled fund specifically for local and national NGOs. Such a fund would put money and power into the hands of those who are often excluded from decision-making and denied the opportunity to influence and advise on how money can be better spent. This funding would also help local and national NGOs build leadership capacity and give them some room to experiment, grow and learn – opportunities INGOs had at their beginnings.

By empowering these organisations to better address man-made and natural threats early, and funding them to build local resilience, we can reduce the need to mobilise massive and costly emergency response later.

The World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 may be the most timely opportunity to make an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the current system to deal with the sector’s “new normal” of finite resources and unlimited challenges.

 Five reasons donors give for not funding local NGOs directly

Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah

 

Read more

Let’s not waste that opportunity. We can put people back at the center of aid and instill a sense of humility and service that is in danger of being lost to self-interest. Local or international actors alone cannot hope to stem the tide of misery blighting more than 125 million people around the world. But by working in a fair and equitable partnership, we can hope to limit future suffering and provide shelter, sustenance and hope to those who will not be so lucky.

This originally appeared here

Understanding Conflict Dislacements

A phenomenal number of people have been displaced as a result of conflict. It is now estimated by the UN that almost 60 million plus people have been displaced, making it the highest since 1945 (World Humanitarian Summit). On top of this, it is now estimated that it will take about 17 years on average for people to be displaced, which means that the refugee crisis becomes prolonged putting a strain on humanitarian financing. Already this is beginning to show for example out of total $19.5bn pledged by the UN in 2014, less than 70% UN funding requirement were met last year, leaving $7.5bn in unmet funding gap.

Underlying some of the causes for current conflicts are some cross-cutting characteristics including: the rise of violent non-state actors and the prevalence of civil wars; deep socio-political and ethno-religious cleavages; huge levels of mistrust and intolerance; constantly changing alliances, loyalties and relationships; changing frontlines and territorial control; destruction of social infrastructures and services; and links to natural resources. In many cases where there has been a cessation of violence and hostilities, peace agreements and the accompanying international apparatus to support their implementation have suppressed the violence but not addressed the causes of conflict. Accordingly, the risk of a re-eruption remains. One of the best indicators of where there is risk of future violent conflict is simply identifying where there was violent conflict before.

Whilst politics, faith, identity and rights are often the foreground factors for any conflict (i.e. these are the issues that people fight for and against), it is important to pay attention to the long-term systemic issues that increase conflict. In a nutshell there are possibly three strategic issues that will affect long term conflict dynamics (International Alert 2015) :

1)The world's population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 was about 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers - it is resources. When the global total reached one billion, just 3% - 30 million people - lived in cities. Today the world is 50% urbanised - that is 3.5 billion people live in cities. Projections put the percentage in 2030 at between 60 and 70% - over 5 billion. Urbanisation per se is by no means bad. Cities have many problems, but their emergence and growth is strongly and directly associated with growing literacy, a deepening culture, increased cooperation and social mobilisation for progress on political rights. However, growing urbanisation is also associated with increased output: economically, urban concentration is much more efficiently productive than rural decentralisation, which means increased consumption of natural resources. In addition, growing urbanisation provides a different set of issues with regards conflict. The Global Status Report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low- and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas , followed by Africa . The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low- and middle income countries of the Western Pacific .

2) Extreme poverty is conventionally defined as living on less than US$1.25 a day (in 2005 prices). According to the World Bank, 1.22 billion people were living below that line in 2010, down from 1.9 billion in 1990 - a major improvement, especially since the world's total population increased in the meantime. But 2.6 billion people live on less than US$2 a day and a total of 3.5 billion - half the world's population - on less than US$3 a day. Thus, while natural resources are consumed in abundance, half the world has very little. The problem is not just economic inequality but the unequal opportunities and access to what should be common goods, such as education, health services, clean water and safety, which flow from the economic facts. Further, the problem is not just inequality in all its dimensions, but the fact that today's information and communications technologies make relative wealth, status and prestige highly visible to those at or near the bottom of the pile. This is where the seeds of resentment lie that create fertile grounds for conflict entrepreneurs of all kinds. Countries where inequality is sharpest are often countries where inequality both fuels and is fuelled by the root and branch corruption of the governing system. Inequality is not a natural accident; it is a system of wealth and privilege that has been constructed, and is actively defended.

3) The consequent changes in our natural environment as a result of climate change has social, economic and, in many places, political effects. It thus offers new challenges to human security. Climate change is bringing more slow-onset pressures such as droughts, shifts in the timing of the monsoon in parts of south and Southeast Asia, and hotter summers and wetter winters in temperate zones. There will also likely be an increasing frequency and severity of sudden shocks - the extreme weather events such as hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones. These will put pressure on four strategic systems that are essential for the way we live:
• water supply;
• food security;
• energy supply; and
• natural resource supply chains.

These systems are also under pressure from other human-impelled changes in nature, such as the loss of biodiversity and the effects of different kinds of pollution. These changes combine to create many unknowns in the natural environment; in the long-term, economic progress is pushing up against the planetary boundaries of sustainability. It is not that life will become impossible, though some habitats will become functionally uninhabitable. Rather, these four strategic systems will become more vulnerable, more costly and more complex with conflict as one of the consequences.

Thus addressing the long term displacement means we need serious movement to tackle these three phenomenon.

This originally appeared in Huffington Post

Myanmar's Transition

With claims of genocide in Myanmar, the international community has failed to usher the country through its democratic transition.

Al Jazeera English recently broadcast a documentary, which was supported by a Yale Law School report, that accused the Myanmar government of an orchestrated campaign to trigger communal violence, and it claimed there was “strong evidence” of genocide against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority situated in the country’s Rakhine State.

Much of what the report discusses is nothing new to those who have been following the issue over the last few decades. To some extent, the findings justify the fears of many who had warned that Myanmar’s journey of “transitional democracy” was at best weak or at worst a superficial attempt at misleading the international community.

What the report and documentary do highlight is the embarrassing situation world powers find themselves in having not heeded these warnings.

Led primarily by British Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama, the international community has fallen over itself to “reengage” with Myanmar and to normalize relationships, while fulfilling childhood fantasies of meeting Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. In this haste, countries such as Britain and the United States have turned a blind eye to the violence meted out to the Rohingya and have had muted responses to the Andaman sea refugee crisis earlier this year.

Much has been made about the transition to a democratic process after the first set of elections in 2010, which brought to power the military’s civilian proxy, and the first free and fair elections for 25 years taking place on November 8, 2015. It was assumed that that this would be the watershed moment for democracy in Myanmar. Yet the ban on voting for minority groups like the Rohingya casts a shadow on what is already a deeply contested and controversial process.

In its quest to encourage Myanmar to come in from the cold, the international community somehow failed to remember simple things. The country needed to conquer the longstanding fear of outsiders—an effect of decades of isolation, with an internalization of the regime’s propaganda. The fact that the population, which has so far been insulated, would have to learn to interact with far more non-Burmese, non-Buddhist and indeed Muslim communities should have been handled during this transition, offsetting the rhetoric coming out of the Buddhist clergy.

The report also exposes a weakness in the process the international community proposes as a country transitions into becoming more open. As with what happened in the Central African Republic, the emphasis is usually on holding elections as this seems to be the litmus test of democracy and a return to some normality.

However, as with many other countries in the region, democracy is not just about holding elections. It is about understanding the concepts of shared societies, which means developing socially cohesive societies that respect diversity. This process about understanding universal democratic principles and human rights should have been the focus, as opposed to allowing the consolidation of power based on religious-ethno-nationalist markings.

IN FROM THE COLD

The international community has also been woefully let down by its over-romanticized perceptions of Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Incidents over the past few years clearly show an apparent breakdown in the moral logic of Myanmar’s internationally vaunted opposition. This is equally a problem of the international community as it is with Suu Kyi and the NLD.

There are some serious questions we must ask ourselves: Have our own perceptions of the pro-democracy movement been colored—in terms of representing their battles against the junta as some sort of pure quest of good vs evil—when all they represented was just an opposition to the regime but not necessarily anything better? Did we mistake their opposition to the junta to be an acceptance of universal human rights and a commitment to tolerance?

These questions point to a deeper malaise within Burmese society that needs to be tackled, perhaps even from a deep theological basis.

This offers little respite to the people on the ground at the receiving end of violence. The fear is that the crisis will continue, thereby leading to another wave of refugees—or worse to support radicalization and militancy in the region.

The international community faces an interesting paradox: How do world powers deal with a new government in Myanmar knowing fully well that a portion of the voters were excluded? Should the ruling party return to power, how could they be dealt with knowing that they orchestrated a genocide campaign? Should Suu Kyi’s party come to power, how does she morally and ethically stand up to the scrutiny that she will be under to act on the report’s findings?

Either way, these are all unanswered questions that point to an uncertain future for Myanmar, its democratic journey and its treatment of minorities, especially the Rohingya.

Much of it lies in economic and security interests that Myanmar offers, particularly for world powers. Countries like Britain—as has been recently illustrated with the visit of the Egyptian president—are much more immune to these concerns, especially if there is an economic interest involved.

Whichever government comes to power following the November 8 elections in Myanmar, it will be one that is diluted by the fact that a portion of the voters were disenfranchised and that the lead-up to the vote was marred by an orchestrated campaign of genocide. The international community should do well to remember this when it engages and further encourages Myanmar to come in from the cold.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

The role of Islamic social financing in humanitarian action

The recent Briefing Paper from Global Humanitarian Assistance ‘An Act of Faith: Is Islamic charitable giving a promising new resource for future humanitarian assistance?’ makes for interesting and pertinent reading. The very nature of the question that it asks points to a paradigm shift in thinking with regards not only to fundraising for humanitarian causes but ultimately program implementation as well. The former to some extent determines the latter in terms of resource allocation and implementation.

We are all too aware of the number and scale of humanitarian crises facing our world today, not least in Syria where an estimated 220,000 people have died in the four year conflict at a rate of more than one death every ten minutes and now in Yemen. These spiralling needs mean we also have a record shortfall in assistance with US$7.5billion of humanitarian funding requirements going unmet last year. More than ever, humanitarians are having to start thinking creatively about how humanitarian assistance is raised, processed and used.

One thinking that has emerged over the last few years has been the potential for Islamic Social financing led by zakat. Islamic financing is a surprisingly underexplored territory. Surprising because previous estimates suggest that anywhere between US$200 billion and US$1 trillion is spent in the form of Islamic charitable giving (zakat) across the Muslim world each year, and the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme’s research published today indicates that this area of finance is potentially in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with a significant proportion already going on humanitarian efforts.

These numbers speak not only to the duality of increasing religiosity and wealth in the Muslim world, but also the globalisation of increasing poverty made more immediate through social media. It is estimated that ¼ of the Muslim world is living on less than $1.25 a day (calculated by IRIN based on 2011 HDI) with new spaces opening up in the Muslim world such as Somalia, Syria, Mali (and so on) for humanitarian and peace-building responses.

The concept of charity is central to social justice, which is a sacred value in Islam and a central tenet of the faith. Indeed the Qur’an considers an act of charity as more than just a good deed because of its function in balancing social inequalities. The Qur’an also has numerous references to the importance of creating a just society and provides a framework for justice in inter-personal relationships, toward the poor and needy, and connections between communities and nations.

Zakat, the mandatory Muslim practice of giving 2.5% of one’s accumulated wealth for charitable purposes every year, is one of the main tools of Islamic social financing. It is explicitly intended to reduce inequality and is widely used in Muslim countries to fund domestic development and poverty-reduction efforts. There are clear parallels to be drawn between the eight individual categories of eligible recipients of Zakat listed in the Qur’an and people in need of humanitarian assistance.

The GHA findings show that it is currently impossible to accurately find out how much zakat is being collected globally, where it is being spent, and what opportunities it could present for the humanitarian world. With estimates ranging from the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and only a handful of countries formally reporting a proportion of the zakat that is given by their populations, there is a lot of work to do.
However the World Humanitarian Summit does offer an opportunity to take on the challenges to discuss as it strives to seek alternate sources of funding. Islamic Social Finance contributions have to be part of the discussions of humanitarian funding going forward. The task for the WHS is to offer models of operation and partnership.

this originally appeared here

World Refugee Day: The Case for Revisiting Islamic-based Teachings on Refugees

June 20th marked World Refugee Day. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) came out with the sobering statistic that "one in every 122 people on the planet is now either a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum". A large portion of these are coming from Muslim countries. The question then to ask is why isn't the Muslim world providing more support to them, prompting a further question as to 'What is the treatment of refugees from an Islamic perspective"? There is surprisingly very little work that has been done on this basis, the most notable recently being done by Islamic Relief.

The lack of work is not because of a lack of treatment within the faith teachings or principles on the subject. In fact an examination of Islamic precepts reveals the falsity of such allegations, especially with regard to refugees and asylum. The lack of mechanisms is more to do with the lack of understanding on these issues and lack of scholarly work on the role of Islam in issues of asylum and refugees.

In Islam, asylum is a right of anyone seeking protection. In studies of asylum in the Arab- Islamic tradition, scholars argue that asylum "is an integral part of the islamic [sic] conception of human rights". Islam's most important scripture, the Qur'an, speaks explicitly about the issue of asylum seekers and refugees: "And if anyone of the disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah, and then escort him to where he will be secure" (Surah 9:6)

In particular, there are two major incidents in the early days of Islam which bear testimony to Islam's response to a climate of hostility and persecution through migration. The first is the emigration in 615AD to Abyssinia by a small group of Muslims who found asylum under the rule and protection of the Christian King. The second is in 662 AD, when Prophet Muhammad fled persecution in Mecca and sought refuge in Medina. This hijrah, or migration, came to symbolize the movement of Muslims from lands of oppression to those of Islam. It is a term that along with its derivatives is mentioned 27 times in the Qur'an.

Thus the concept of asylum within Islam is based on a spiritual principle imposed by the will of God, which means that there are moral, religious and legal obligations (especially with reference to the Qur'an and Hadith) as well. Hence from an Islamic view point, the exacting rules of human conduct are recognised as positive divine law, which that for a believer - whether an individual or a ruler - asylum is "a right and a duty". Consequently a refusal to grant asylum will not only entail dishonor and contempt but also the violation of an oath. In other words, since asylum is mentioned in the Qur'an, it becomes a sacred duty, the breach of which "constitutes a challenge to the will of God. The result is that asylum constitutes both a subjective right for the individual and an obligation of the community"

Islam obliges host societies to give asylum-seekers a generous reception, for which the hosts will be rewarded as it is said in the Qur'an: "He that flees his homeland in the way of God, shall find numerous places of refuge in the land and abundant resources" (4:100). Islamic law or Shariah also affirms the practice of providing sanctuary to persecuted persons and the sacredness of some places, such as the Kaaba in Mecca. However, asylum according to Shariah law is not confined only to sacred places - it is also granted to certain urban areas such as homes and designated communal places under the protection of Islam. At the heart of this obligation to protect asylum seekers is the verse in the Qur'an:

"... the men who stayed in their own city ... love those who have sought refuge with them; they do not covet what they are given, but rather prize them above themselves, though they are in want." (Surah 59:9)

In particular, once asylum is granted protection, assistance offered to forced migrants cannot be resented, and hosting communities are obliged to privilege the needs of forced migrants above those of their own, even where they themselves are in need of protection and assistance.

However, despite its significance in Islam, hijrah is rarely invoked by Muslim states today. In fact from a shariah perspective, there is no comprehensive legal system for the protection of refugees or displaced people at least according to current understandings of protection. Hence this tends to nullify the obligation of Islamic states to provide asylum according to the shariah.

Wider thinking on this issue and the promotion of 'Islamic understandings' of refugees and how they are to be treated could encourage Muslim states to widen their acceptance and protection of Muslim refugees. This is the obligation for the future to avoid the figures of refugees increasing

This originally appeared on Huffington Post

The Role of Islamic Social Financing in Humanitarian Action

The recent Briefing Paper from Global Humanitarian Assistance 'An Act of Faith: Is Islamic charitable giving a promising new resource for future humanitarian assistance?' makes for interesting and pertinent reading. The very nature of the question that it asks points to a paradigm shift in thinking with regards not only to fundraising for humanitarian causes but ultimately program implementation as well. The former to some extent determines the latter in terms of resource allocation and implementation.

We are all too aware of the number and scale of humanitarian crises facing our world today, not least in Syria where an estimated 220,000 people have died in the four year conflict at a rate of more than one death every ten minutes and now in Yemen. These spiralling needs mean we also have a record shortfall in assistance with US$7.5billion of humanitarian funding requirements going unmet last year. More than ever, humanitarians are having to start thinking creatively about how humanitarian assistance is raised, processed and used.

One thinking that has emerged over the last few years has been the potential for Islamic Social financing led by zakat. Islamic financing is a surprisingly underexplored territory. Surprising because previous estimates suggest that anywhere between US$200 billion and US$1 trillion is spent in the form of Islamic charitable giving (zakat) across the Muslim world each year, and the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme's research published today indicates that this area of finance is potentially in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with a significant proportion already going on humanitarian efforts.

These numbers speak not only to the duality of increasing religiosity and wealth in the Muslim world, but also the globalisation of increasing poverty made more immediate through social media. It is estimated that ¼ of the Muslim world is living on less than $1.25 a day (calculated by IRIN based on 2011 HDI) with new spaces opening up in the Muslim world such as Somalia, Syria, Mali (and so on) for humanitarian and peace-building responses.

The concept of charity is central to social justice, which is a sacred value in Islam and a central tenet of the faith. Indeed the Qur'an considers an act of charity as more than just a good deed because of its function in balancing social inequalities. The Qur'an also has numerous references to the importance of creating a just society and provides a framework for justice in inter-personal relationships, toward the poor and needy, and connections between communities and nations.

Zakat, the mandatory Muslim practice of giving 2.5% of one's accumulated wealth for charitable purposes every year, is one of the main tools of Islamic social financing. It is explicitly intended to reduce inequality and is widely used in Muslim countries to fund domestic development and poverty-reduction efforts. There are clear parallels to be drawn between the eight individual categories of eligible recipients of Zakat listed in the Qur'an and people in need of humanitarian assistance.

The GHA findings show that it is currently impossible to accurately find out how much zakat is being collected globally, where it is being spent, and what opportunities it could present for the humanitarian world. With estimates ranging from the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and only a handful of countries formally reporting a proportion of the zakat that is given by their populations, there is a lot of work to do.

However the World Humanitarian Summit does offer an opportunity to take on the challenges to discuss as it strives to seek alternate sources of funding. Islamic Social Finance contributions have to be part of the discussions of humanitarian funding going forward. The task for the WHS is to offer models of operation and partnership.

(this was originally published here for the World Humanitarian Summit)

This originally appeared on Huffington Post

An Islamic Perspective on Refugees

The crisis of the Rohingya refugees in the Andaman sea with at least three Muslim countries refusing them support, has prompted many to pose the question as to the treatment of refugees from an Islamic perspective.  There is surprisingly very little work that has been done on this basis, the most notable recently being done by Islamic Relief.

The lack of work is not because of a lack of treatment within the faith teachings or principles on the subject.  In fact an examination of Islamic precepts reveals the falsity of such allegations, especially with regard to refugees and asylum.  The lack of mechanisms is more to do with the lack of understanding on these issues and lack of scholarly work on the role of Islam in issues of asylum and refugees.

In Islam, asylum is a right of anyone seeking protection. In studies of asylum in the Arab- Islamic tradition,  scholars argue that asylum "is an integral part of the islamic  [sic] conception of human rights".    Islam's most important scripture, the Qur'an, speaks explicitly about the issue of asylum seekers and refugees: "And if anyone of the disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah, and then escort him to where he will be secure" (Surah 9:6)

In particular, there are two major incidents in the early days of Islam which bear testimony to Islam's response to a climate of hostility and persecution through migration.  The first is the emigration in 615AD to Abyssinia by a small group of Muslims who found  asylum under the rule and protection of the Christian King.  The second is in 662 AD, when Prophet Muhammad fled persecution in Mecca and sought refuge in Medina. This hijrah, or migration, came to symbolize the movement of Muslims from lands of oppression to those of Islam. It is a term that along with its derivatives is mentioned 27 times in the Qur'an.

Thus the concept of asylum within Islam is based on a spiritual principle imposed by the will of God, which means that there are moral, religious and legal obligations (especially with reference to the Qur'an and Hadith) as well.  Hence from an Islamic view point, the exacting rules of human conduct are recognised as positive divine law, which that  for a believer - whether an individual or a ruler - asylum is "a right and a duty".  Consequently a refusal to grant asylum will not only entail dishonor and contempt but also the violation of an oath.  In other words, since asylum is mentioned in the Qur'an, it becomes a sacred duty, the breach of which "constitutes a challenge to the will of God.  The result is that asylum constitutes both a subjective right for the individual and an obligation of the community"

Islam obliges host societies to give asylum-seekers a generous reception, for which the hosts will be rewarded as it is said in the  Qur'an: "He that flees his homeland in the way of God, shall find numerous places of refuge in the land and abundant resources" (4:100).  Islamic law or  Shariah   also affirms the practice of providing sanctuary to persecuted persons  and the sacredness of some places, such as the Kaaba in Mecca. However, asylum according to Shariah law is not confined only to sacred places - it is also granted to certain urban areas such as homes and designated communal places under the protection of Islam.  At the heart of this obligation to protect asylum seekers is the verse in the Qur'an:

 "... the men who stayed in their own city ... love those who have sought refuge with them; they do not covet what they are given, but rather prize them above themselves, though they are in want." (Surah 59:9)

In particular, once asylum is granted protection, assistance offered to forced migrants cannot be resented, and hosting communities are obliged to privilege the needs of forced migrants above those of their own, even where they themselves are in need of protection and assistance.

However, despite its significance in Islam, hijrah is rarely invoked by Muslim states today. In fact from a shariah perspective, there is no comprehensive legal system for the protection of refugees or displaced people at least according to current understandings of protection.  Hence this tends to nullify the obligation of Islamic states to provide asylum according to the shariah.

Wider thinking on this issue and the promotion of 'Islamic understandings' of refugees  and how they are to be treated could encourage Muslim states to widen their acceptance and protection of Muslim refugees.  This is the obligation for the future to avoid future scenarios such as that faced by the Rohingyas.