(C) OpenDemocracy This story was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Abdul Ezedi’s conversion to Christianity doesn’t make religion an asylum loophole [1] [] Date: 2024-02 It is easy to look at the horrific alkaline attack that took place in south London last week and question how it was allowed to happen. A woman and her two children were among 12 victims when a man threw a corrosive substance at the family on Wednesday evening in Clapham. Police have identified Abdul Ezedi as a suspect and have appealed for information about his whereabouts. It has been reported that both the woman and Ezedi had come to the UK as asylum seekers from Afghanistan. It has further been reported that Ezedi had a conviction for a sex offence, and that his conversion to Christianity had formed part of his asylum application. But questions about how the attack was able to happen, and revelations about Ezedi’s past, are not an excuse to demonise those seeking asylum on a wider scale – as we are seeing with the spotlight now being thrown on individuals on the Bibby Stockholm who have converted. There are a lot of questions to be answered in this case, but the attacker’s religion is not one of them. Yes, people seeking asylum do convert to Christianity. It does not, as claimed by former home secretary Suella Braverman, make their claims “bogus”, nor is it a loophole that can be exploited. What do you think? Win a £10 book voucher for sharing your views about openDemocracy. Tell us Difficult as it undoubtedly is, we need to separate the discussion about this attack from the fact of people converting to Christianity in general. It would be a stretch, for starters, to suggest that someone cannot commit crimes if they are a “genuine Christian”. But more than that, there are good reasons why people convert when they are seeking asylum. Christians remain persecuted around the world. This means many people have been unable to demonstrate their faith in their home countries. For Christians, being open about their faith in countries such as Afghanistan can essentially be a death sentence. Even in countries such as India, Christians can remain highly persecuted in certain regions, if not the country as a whole. This makes the whole debate about conversion more nuanced and complex than is perhaps being reflected right now. Then there are the people who convert because they genuinely get a new perspective on their faith. There is an old saying that “there are no atheists in a foxhole”. This might sound flippant – but the reality is that highly traumatic experiences such as fleeing persecution can make people fall back on a belief in a higher power. This is hardly rare. Over the years, in my capacity as director of the human rights consultancy Stand For All, and working with other organisations, I have seen it happen countless times. Converting to Christianity is not a “quick fix” to getting asylum by any measure. Yet we often see an embedded attitude of disbelief when people who have converted are having their claims heard. The questions they go through can range from the intrusive to the ridiculous, such as what is often referred to as “Bible trivia” – questions, for example, like when Pentecost is, or the exact number of books in the bible. People’s lives and beliefs are put under the microscope, as – often – are those of the people vouching for them. None of this is to say that some people do not try and “play the system”, as is being claimed. But they are few and far between. As with LGBTQ+ individuals seeking asylum, in my experience, the Home Office is more likely to tell people to hide their beliefs so they can remain in their country of origin, than it is to grant them asylum as a result of them. People who convert openly to Christianity while their claim is being processed are often already seeking asylum on different grounds; by converting, they are not necessarily benefiting that claim, but may be putting an even bigger target on their back should they be returned to the country they have fled. Religion, by its very nature, is personal to many people, and reasons for conversion can be equally so. It is not some kind of way to “circumvent the system”: if anything, it is more likely to lead to someone having their claim questioned. To be recognised as genuinely in need of asylum based on religious grounds, you need to demonstrate that you have a “well-founded fear of persecution”. That is a lot more difficult than reciting memorised passages from the Bible. You also need to convince a priest, or someone similar, that your conversion is genuine. Again, this is not a simple task. That person then needs to be confident enough to persuade others that your faith is genuine. Each step is filled with complexity and obstacles. None makes it a simple way to have your claim accepted. The anger against the Clapham attacker is justified, but the way he is being used to cast aspersions on other people seeking asylum is not. We should be celebrating that we live in a country where people feel able to practise their Christianity openly and without fear. We have laws to protect us, and laws that prevent sending people back to a death sentence of persecution. These are things which we all benefit from. In too many countries around the world, religious conversions put people’s lives at risk. Whatever someone’s views on the reasons for an individual’s conversion, the reality is that it is a life-changing, and potentially life-threatening, decision that few take lightly. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/abdul-ezedi-clapham-alkaline-attack-christianity-conversion-daniel-sohege/ Published and (C) by OpenDemocracy Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/