Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • House of Saud and British immigration policy


    by Rumbold
    23rd July, 2009 at 12:34 pm    

    There was a disturbing allegation in the Daily Telegraph recently, about how some asylum seekers from Saudi Arabia are turned away because the British government does not want to upset the House of Saud. The claim emerged after a Saudi Arabian princess was granted asylum in Britain. The princess, married to an elderly prince, had become pregnant by her white boyfriend and convinced her husband to let her have the baby in Britain to avoid a scandal:

    “She has now become one of a handful of Saudi citizens to apply to the UK courts for asylum. Such cases are not generally acknowledged by the British government for fear that highlighting the persecution of women in the strict Muslim nation would strain relations with the House of Saud.”

    The Independent expanded on the case by pointing out that ministers were now examining the cases of ten other Saudi asylum seekers. The Saudis tend to overreact whenever anyone attacks them. Yes, the intelligence they provide is undoubtedly valuable, but that doesn’t mean that they should be able to dictate policy (and the threat to withdraw co-operation is to a certain extent an empty one anyway- the ruling Saudis don’t want terrorists in their area either).


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence,Current affairs,Middle East






    35 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Leon — on 23rd July, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

      Yes, the intelligence they provide is undoubtedly valuable

      Yeah they did a great job in stopping September 11…

    2. The Common Humanist — on 23rd July, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

      Can’t wait till we leave oil behind and that cheque for those Typhoons clears and then we can start treating the Saudi islamofascists with the contempt and hatred the wahabbists deserve. They and their nazi creed bring nothing but shame on islam.

    3. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

      Have a care, O ye of PP!

      Mr Mahfouz, Irish citizen* and noted lawfarist, does not take kindly to those who badmouth the KSA and has eager and well-spoken lawyers at his beck and call.

      Common Humanist - the cheques for the BAe Systems wartoys are paid a drib and a drab at a time. At one time, KSA was in such drastic arrears with Lockheed [this became an open secret in the Kingdom] that the intervention of the White House was required.

      While petrodespotisms are rich, they are also cheap and crooked; the Russkis have had to write off vast debts owed by Gadhaffistan, as have the South Koreans.

      * Older readers will recall that in the days of Charles James Haughey and his immediate successor, Irish passports were sold over the counter like so many pounds of cheese to those willing to invest a few riyals or dirhams in the Republic.

    4. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      The British and western governments have been craven in bowing to the house of Saud for decades in return for their God -oil

      The result has been them allowing the Saudis to build loads of mosques here and spread their deviant cult of Wahabbism, which before oil money was just a minor sect - an ofshoot of the Khwarij given power by the British against the Ottomans, all over the UK- attacking traditional orthodox Islam and its respect for valid ikthilaf (differences of opinion eg the 4 schools of law) and sharia based Sufism, as well as great works of intellectual and artistic merit (entirely absent from wahabbism), intolerant to other Muslims and non Muslims, impoverishing us all . The result is Muslim youth who think they can ignore 1400 years of scholarship and intepret the sacred texts based on their own egos and who consider their own Muslim parents mushrikeen or the entirity of their Muslim ancestors ahl-ul-dalalah.

    5. The Common Humanist — on 23rd July, 2009 at 2:40 pm  

      Well put Munir and more temperate then mine!

      TCH

      p.s. “as well as great works of intellectual and artistic merit (entirely absent from wahabbism)”

      Quite. If there isn’t great art, poetry and architecture it can’t be islamic. And dancing girls.
      The classical Islamic world is awash with dancing girls. Well, the literature is anyway.

      Once I build that time machine am off to find out.

      And buy a sword in Damascus cerca 1050!

      Ok, and some silk for my Belly Dancing Missus.

      But NO carpets. Too much cliche is bad for the soul.

    6. Vikrant — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

      Yes, the intelligence they provide is undoubtedly valuable

      Wow! Its all about their oil, petrodollars and influence in Washington!

    7. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

      Munir -

      The Wahhabists-Salafists* control the Haramain and have all the prestige and all the dosh that oil wealth confers.

      Like it or not, their version of the Faith is the one which has the muscle behind it, not the laid-back Sufi version or the supposedly-heretical Ahmadiyya version.

      Imam Hayiti, a religious leader in Quebec and a Madinah graduate, has stated the Wahhabist- Salafist credo forefully and been snarled at in Canada in consequence; this link leads - at one further jump - to the complete text of Imam Hayiti’s definitive work, which we should regard as having the equivalent of Papal Infallibility, at least so far as goodthinkful Wahhabist-Salafist believers are concerned:

      http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html

      As I understand it, in Islam there is One Faith, One Truth and One Light and that’s it; no ifs and buts or arguing the toss.

    8. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

      * Wahhabism is Unitarianism and hardly a deviant cult, as Munir says.

      Those loyal to the teachings of Abdul-Wahhab are happier to be known as Salafists.

    9. Roger — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:06 pm  

      Your connexion does not go to the Daily Telegraph anD I didn’t find the reference on their site.
      Are the applicants “turned away” as in returned to S.A., or are they turned away as in they are not granted asylum formally but are allowed to remain in the U.K.? The latter would be a little less contemptible as a policy.

    10. Mysteryman — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:14 pm  

      The princess, married to an elderly prince, had become pregnant by her white boyfriend and convinced her husband to let her have the baby in Britain to avoid a scandal:

      why is this site obsessed with whites all of a sudden? First sunny and now rumbold. The word you are looking for is Kuffar not White. If it were just a race thing then the woman would be at a much lesser risk. Still, that aside I dream of the day when the Brits invent some kind of energy replacement for oil. Finally free of our poisonous relationships we’ll be able to rebuild our economy and the ummah can go back to what they would have always been without the geological accident of oil, nothing !

    11. MaidMarian — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:26 pm  

      ‘Such cases are not generally acknowledged by the British government for fear that highlighting the persecution of women in the strict Muslim nation would strain relations with the House of Saud.’

      Sorry, is the treatment of women in Saudi a secret, as the DT seems to suggest?

    12. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 6:55 pm  

      Yes, Mysteryman -

      Kuffar is the right term for all non-believers, whatever their skin colour, just those who convert to Islam are proud to call themselves ‘reverts’ which always sounds like they’ve taken up smoking again.

      Maid Marian has not grasped that even respected newspapers written for the literate assume their readers are totally ignorant and need to be told that Thailand is in S-E-Asia and that women in Saudi Arabia are prohibited from driving.

    13. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

      Edna Welthorpe
      ” Wahhabism is Unitarianism and hardly a deviant cult, as Munir says.”

      Thats precisely the point “edna” - all Muslims are unitarians (believers in one God) if you arent you arent Muslim- the wahabbis calling themselves “unitarians” is stating other Muslims arent which is clear kharijism and deviance

    14. munir — on 23rd July, 2009 at 7:11 pm  

      Edna Welthorpe
      “this link leads – at one further jump – to the complete text of Imam Hayiti’s definitive work, which we should regard as having the equivalent of Papal Infallibility”

      er no - there is no Papal equivalent in Islam

    15. anobody — on 23rd July, 2009 at 7:27 pm  

      munir,

      The salaffiyah are not a sect. The salaffiyah follow the salaf as an example. The Saudi Royal Family are not an example of those who take on the example of the salaf. They themselves are deviants. Traditional orthodox Islam - as you put it - is the Islam of the sahaaba, the tabiyyeen and the taba at tabiyyeen .

      Allah knows best.

    16. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2009 at 8:43 pm  

      Roger:

      “Are the applicants “turned away” as in returned to S.A., or are they turned away as in they are not granted asylum formally but are allowed to remain in the U.K.?”

      I get the impression that it is the former, but no one really seems to know.

      The orginal link is here:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/5869038/Saudi-Arabian-princess-seeks-asylum-in-Britain-over-illegitimate-child.html

      MaidMarian:

      “Sorry, is the treatment of women in Saudi a secret, as the DT seems to suggest?”

      No, but I think the situation is a bit like it was for MI6 for many years- officially denied but everyone knew about it. The question is what pressure the government has put on the immigration/asylum system to stop them from accepting too many candidates from Saudi Arabia.

    17. Edna Welthorpe — on 23rd July, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

      Munir @ 14

      For the poetic but imprecise allusion to Papal Infallibility it would have been more precise to have said that Imam Hayiti’s teachings may be considered in accordance with the opinions of the Ulema of Makkah [whom some consider to be merely placemen appointed directly or indirectly on Royal whim*]

      * As were the senior clergy of the Church of English once upon a time long ago

    18. Roger — on 23rd July, 2009 at 9:33 pm  

      Sorry, Rumbold, what I was looking for was the link for “some asylum seekers from Saudi Arabia are turned away because the British government does not want to upset the House of Saud.” The link you give says applications are not publicised, but that’s a rather different matter.
      In fact, if I remember rightly, there was a rather amusing case of an astrophysicist who gained asylum because he thought the Saudi interpretation of islam was too milquetoast. I remembered it because of the contrast between his religious and scientific views.

    19. Claire_M — on 23rd July, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

      My understanding of kuffir is that it’s roughly equivalent to ‘nigger’, in its offensiveness. That aside, on the substance here: gender is not recognised by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention as a category of people who can be persecuted by the state. That’s what UK asylum law is sourced from. Haven’t a clue about the US, but that’s the UK position.

      Either women were, as usual, at the bottom of the pile and unthought of at the time the convention was drawn up. Or, and the view I tend towards, there was probably a fear that so many women’s lot was so bad countries would be swamped by claims. So they were excluded from asylum protection.

    20. Don — on 24th July, 2009 at 12:53 am  

      Claire M,

      Good point, well made.

    21. Roger — on 24th July, 2009 at 3:24 am  

      “My understanding of kuffir is that it’s roughly equivalent to ‘nigger’, in its offensiveness.”
      Rather worse, perhaps: kuffir suggests that the people in question are enemies of god and will go to hell for it.

    22. Cauldron — on 24th July, 2009 at 5:07 am  

      I’m quite surprised that the DT would publish any article showing the House of Saud in a bad light. During the BAe scandal they were absolutely craven in their coverage, and we know that for 30 years the KSA has been running a pretty effective and well-lubricated campaign to influence Fleet street editors.

    23. Rumbold — on 24th July, 2009 at 11:10 am  

      Roger:

      I don’t remember that case, but it sounds funny- I shall look it up.

    24. The Common Humanist — on 24th July, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

      I find Kuffir very offensive indeed.

    25. Raja Sahib — on 24th July, 2009 at 2:50 pm  

      “Can’t wait till we leave oil behind and that cheque for those Typhoons clears and then we can start treating the Saudi islamofascists with the contempt and hatred the wahabbists deserve. They and their nazi creed bring nothing but shame on islam.”

      Dear Commom Humanist,

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/24/israel-nazi-analogies-ban

      What is your opinion about the Lerman article?

    26. munir — on 24th July, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      Common Humanist
      “I find Kuffir very offensive indeed.”

      Well zionazi I find “Islamofascist” and “Islamist” offensive, as well as terms used by Judeofascists like “goy” “shiksa” “shaygetz” and “schvartze”

    27. Roger — on 24th July, 2009 at 3:36 pm  

      “goy” “shiksa” “shaygetz” and “schvartze” are simply yiddish words. The offence is in the ear of the hearer. “Kafir” has the suggestion of ignorance of “the truth” if they have not been offered it and an enemy of “the truth” if they have rejected it.

    28. Roger — on 24th July, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

      Rumbold:
      Mohammed al-Massari head of the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights.

      You can be pretty sure that someone who talks of “legitimate rights” takes a restrictive view of just what rights are.

    29. chairwoman — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

      Roger - ‘goy’ literally means ‘nations’, so that is the equivalent to foreigner, but ‘schwartze’ used as a noun is derogatory, and my mother always said that using ‘shiksa’ (non Jewish girl) or ‘shaygetz’ (non-Jewish boy) when referring to adults, was impolite, and she was one of the last fluent British-born Yiddish speakers this country had when she died.

    30. Roger — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

      I bow to your knowledge, or your mother’s knowledge, Chairwoman. All the same, i don’t think that even the most offensive racial term has the implications of “kafir”, especially when applied to dissident muslims. Like “heretic” in the eyes of some christians, there’s a smell of burning- moral and physical- associated with it.

    31. Sofia — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

      so if you dont’ believe in something why take offence to it…
      on the other hand, Muslims aren’t supposed to label ppl kafirs willy nilly

    32. munir — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

      Roger
      ““goy” “shiksa” “shaygetz” and “schvartze” are simply yiddish words. The offence is in the ear of the hearer. ”

      Likewise kafir (not a term I use incidentally)
      Kafir is an Arabic term. A Muslim could say for example ” I am a kafir in Christianity” (I am a disbeliever in Christianity)

      It is used in the Quran in a positive sense of rejecting /disbeliving in paganism

      لَآ إِكۡرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِ‌ۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشۡدُ مِنَ ٱلۡغَىِّ‌ۚ فَمَن يَكۡفُرۡ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَيُؤۡمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسۡتَمۡسَكَ بِٱلۡعُرۡوَةِ ٱلۡوُثۡقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

      Lā ‘Ikrāha FÄ« Ad-DÄ«ni Qad Tabayyana Ar-Rushdu Mina Al-Ghayyi Faman Yakfur BiÅ£-ŢāghÅ«ti Wa Yu’umin Billāhi Faqadi Astamsaka Bil-`Urwati Al-Wuthqá Lā Anfişāma Lahā Wa Allāhu SamÄ«`un `AlÄ«mun

      2:225 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (256)

    33. chairwoman — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

      Roger - Thank you. I only picked this up to avoid Munir going into hyperdrive.

    34. munir — on 24th July, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

      Roger
      “I bow to your knowledge, or your mother’s knowledge, Chairwoman. All the same, i don’t think that even the most offensive racial term has the implications of “kafir”, especially when applied to dissident muslims. Like “heretic” in the eyes of some christians, there’s a smell of burning- moral and physical- associated with it.”

      More hypocrisy. Islamophobes often bring out the canard that its OK to criticise Muslims as Muslims arent a race but a religion/belief (correct). By the same token non-Muslims arent a race - so on what basis would you have for criticising the use of kafirs (not I term I would use BTW)

      You are seriously suggesting kaffir (a non racial term) is worse than n*gger, p*ki or y*d?

    35. Roger — on 24th July, 2009 at 11:30 pm  

      “Kafir” isn’t a criticism of nonmuslims. It’s often an assertion of inferiority simply because the people concerned are nonmuslims. I realised something of the implications of the term some years ago when a muslim colleague attacked another muslim for calling him a kafir. In that respect it is every bit as offensive as nigger, yid (not always offensive- or rather not always offensively intended; I knew elderly East Enders who used yid exactly as they would Paddy, Jock, Taff or yokel,as joking sobriquets) or paki, with the addition that the offensive qualities are the fault of the kafir themselves.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.