Browsing by Author "Sulaiman binti Kamarudin"

This study begins by analysing the differences and similarities between Modern International Law and Classical Islamic Law regarding asylum and treatment of refugees. The following conclusions were discovered: Classical Islamic Law is in line with basic fundamental principles of Modern International Law in regards to matters of asylum and treatment of refugees. Classical Islamic Law on matters of asylum and treatment of refugees are more liberal in comparison to Modern International Law. Islamic Law on matters of asylum and treatment of refugees may be applicable to modern state systems, especially in a Muslim majority state like Malaysia. The second part of the study observes Malaysia's treatment and policies on asylum seekers and refugees since the 1970s till today. Findings based on the author's interviews with refugees, local authorities and the Malaysian public as well as reports by International and local Human Rights groups confirm that Malaysia does not conform to either Islamic Law or Modern International Law on matters of asylum and treatment of refugees. This situation is mainly due to effects from Malaysia's Immigration Laws which does not differentiate between asylum seekers and refugees and illegal economic migrants. The reasons behind these laws lie in Malaysia's policies which are driven by economic, social and political factors. The author concludes by making recommendations to alleviate this situation. Implementation of these suggestions would create a favourable atmosphere for asylum seekers and the treatment of refugees.