Do Infidel lives matter? Not in Britain. Not anymore. This child molester got a longer sentence because his victims were Muslim girls, you see, and Muslim girls suffer more.
This is pure Sharia. In Islamic law, Muslim lives are explicitly worth more than those of non-Muslims. The Shafi’i Sharia manual ‘Umdat al-Salik dictates: “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” (o4.9)
The Shafi’i madhhab is not the only school of Islamic law that teaches this. The Iranian Shi’ite Sufi Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh explains: “Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
And now this same hierarchy of the value of different kinds of human beings has been adopted by a British court, to the shame of that court and everyone involved. This is not just a monstrous miscarriage of justice, but a disquieting harbinger of what lies ahead for Britain. I have many times sarcastically suggested that the shattered, staggering, dhimmi British elites just get it over with, adopt Sharia and install Anjem Choudary as Prime Minister. Now my lampooning of their capitulation is becoming reality.
A child molester who abused two Asian girls was rightly given a longer sentence than if his victims had been white because Asian sex crime victims suffer more, a leading judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir to have been given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian.
Ul Nasir, 32, carried out sex attacks on two young girls and was jailed for four years at Leeds Crown Court in December last year. He was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and four counts of sexual activity with a child.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an “aggravating feature” when passing sentence.
She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular “shame” in their communities because of what had happened to them.
Additionally, there were cultural concerns that the girls’ future prospects of being regarded as a “good catch” for arranged marriages might be damaged.
Lawyers for Ul Nasir, 32, of Liversedge, West Yorkshire, argued at London’s Criminal Appeal Court that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.
But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: “The victims’ fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.
“Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm cause to the victims by this offending. That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community”.
The argument that Ul Nasir was given a longer sentence due to his own “ethnic and religious origin” was based on “a misconception”, he added. “The judge who tried the case was in the best position to determine the correct sentence.”
Mr Justice Walker, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mitting, concluded: “There is no basis for saying that Judge Cahill adopted an incorrect starting point. This application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.”…