The CBC’s Shanifa Nasser, her bio tells us, “holds a Master’s degree in Islamic Studies,” and here she is doing her best to transform a feel-good story about a teenage girl rescued from danger into something ugly and suspicious, from which the “far-right,” those ever-present bogeymen, will benefit.
“What happens the next time a teenage girl or adult woman from Saudi Arabia flees her family and declares herself to no longer be a Muslim, does that mean automatic sanctuary?”
Well, why not?
“In Saudi Arabia, leaving Islam is treated as a crime punishable by death.”
Nasser, despite her Master’s degree in Islamic Studies, neglects to inform us that the death penalty for apostasy is not just Saudi law, but Islamic law. The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”
“Who benefits from rescuing Rahaf? Questions linger after whirlwind story of Saudi teen’s asylum, by Shanifa Nasser, CBC News, January 14, 2019:
It was a whirlwind affair that began with a Saudi teen barricaded in a Thai hotel room bravely defying the laws of her country and against long odds, refusing to return to her allegedly abusive family.
Just days later, Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun was on Canadian soil flanked by smiling officials and local service providers amid the flash of cameras — a swift resolution to a story that could have had a very different ending….
Now, as Qunun begins a new life in a new country, questions are being raised about the reasons for Canada’s speedy decision to grant her asylum, the message it sends and its implications for the future of the country’s already-frosty relationship with Saudi Arabia, where an estimated 17,000 Canadians currently live.
“Canada and Saudi Arabia are in a political battle currently, so because this woman is Saudi, my sense is that there was some political motive in promoting the ‘rescuing’ of a Saudi girl,” said Ryerson University professor Mehrunnisa Ali.
“Of course, the rescuing of oppressed people is a Western narrative in many different ways, but the securing of a Saudi woman being oppressed by her family and her country sharpens this narrative in ways that may not have been possible otherwise.”…
Thai immigration police Chief Surachate Hakparn told The Associated Press Qunun’s father denies physically abusing her or trying to force her into an arranged marriage, which were among the reasons she gave for wanting asylum….
So why was it that Qunun’s case was processed so speedily?…
But at least one former diplomat said Canada’s privileging of Qunun’s case could set a “dangerous precedent.”
“The Australians were prepared, as I understand it, to accept her as a refugee claimant. What we did is go one step further and accept her not as a claimant but as a refugee. And that’s a process that in Canada typically requires an assessment of the claim, a vetting of the individual and a decision that typically can take as much as two years,” said David Chatterson, Canada’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009-2011.
“What happens the next time a teenage girl or adult woman from Saudi Arabia flees her family and declares herself to no longer be a Muslim, does that mean automatic sanctuary?” In Saudi Arabia, leaving Islam is treated as a crime punishable by death.
Asked on Sunday about how and why Qunun’s claim was processed so quickly, Global Affairs Canada was tight-lipped.
“When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) made a request of us that we grant Ms. Rahaf al-Qunun asylum, we accepted. Out of concern for her safety, we ask that her privacy be respected,” said spokesperson Stefano Maron.
‘A prop for our disputes’
For some, including senior research fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue Amarnath Amarasingam, it’s concerning how Qunun’s case is being celebrated by figures that often push an anti-Islam or anti-immigration message.
“Many on the far-right love ex-Muslims, and many ex-Muslims on the far-right often present themselves as so-called native informants presenting to the mainstream the real ‘truth’ about Muslims,” he said.
“It’s perhaps not surprising that many of these individuals on the far-right encouraged Canada to accept Rahaf after it was rumoured that she had abandoned Islam. To be clear, I’m very happy that Canada let her in but … I’m going to go out on a limb and say there are some ulterior motives there.”
Dennis Horak, who served as Canada’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia until he was expelled from the country last year, said the next few days could make a big impact on diplomatic relations between Canada and the kingdom.
“I would hate to see us use this to keep trotting her out and have meetings with the Prime Minister … various photo-ops things like that [and] that become the mallet with which we bash Saudi Arabia,” he said….
Meanwhile Ali, who was herself involved in sponsoring two Syrian refugee families — of which one case took almost two years to process — remains concerned with the message she said this high-profile case sends, including that winning public attention could make a claim more likely to proceed than another.
“That’s the biggest risk of power being exercised in a way that prioritizes some refugees versus others,” she said.
“The message that we may be giving is that rather than go through the system, reach a powerful person.”