مجموعة ٢٥/ ١٨ "مراسيم ملكية بريطانية: قطر: السلطة القضائية على الأجانب في قطر" [و‎‎٢‎٣‎٨] (٦٣٥/٤٧٥)

because SA hypothesi both (a) the subjects of the
Sultan of Muscat and (b) the subjects of the Shaikhs
of Bahrain, Kuwait and the Trucial States are persons
properly enjoying His Majesty's protection in Qatar,
and there is ; therefore, a need for a specific exclusion
of (b) but not a specific inclusion of (a). It is
practically inexpedient as it exhibits the subjects of
the Sultan of Muscat as not being persons properly
enjoying His Majesty's protection in Qatar or by necessary
inference in Kuwait where their treatment as British
protected persons for the purposes of the Kuwait Order
rests on the hypothesis that they are persons properly
enjoying His Majesty's protection. The Government of
India therefore consider that the reference to the
subjects of the Sultan of Muscat should be omitted
from the definition.
(ii) "Qatar su bjects" and "foreigners g
The Foreign Office view appears to be that the criterion
in defining "Qatar subjects" should be not the religion
of the State but the religion of the nationals. This
view seems to the Government of India entirely reasonable
and in consonance with the trend of modem events and,
if acted upon, Moslem foreigners will be C&tar subjects.
It is however thought that this might lead to complications
seeing that in the neighbouring Shaikhdoms, the criterion
is still the religion of the foreign State and not that
of the subject. In the circumstances, the Government of
India suggest that in view of the fact that the expression
non-Moslem foreign power has been used in the correspondence,
it would not be in order to employ the expression "Moslem
foreigners* unless the Shaikh consents to it. Further, it
would be clearly inadvisable to have one criterion for the
subjects of Qatar and another for the subjects of the
neighbouring Shaikhdoms in the Gulf, where jurisdiction
is ceded to the British Government. For the sake of