Qatari/Shariah law mandates that all children carry their father's last name (as opposed to their mother's) -- so that rule gives them the lion's share of controlling power simply because of who his dad is/was.

Suppose (simply for argument's sake here) his dad was a complete wanker and his family members were not much better. Using your argument, they should still be given control over the child's moral upbringing simply because they are Qatari and the kid carries their last name -- regardless of what kind of role models they actually are.

Is that the kind of rule of law you want governing decisions like this? I guess so because that is essentially what Shariah law argues.

Do you really think all Qataris (and/or Muslims) are inherently better role models and guardians for a child than anyone else?

Personally, I think you'd have a hard time effectively arguing that is true (if you base it on facts and evidence and not religious books).

I would offer that each case should be looked at individually in terms of which parent/guardian would best serve the interests of the child (and that a range of factors need to be considered).

"If you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary."
- David Sedaris