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.
“Child molester given longer sentence as victims are Asian,” Telegraph, September 17, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
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.”…

Don McKellar says
Moslem lives have been worth more than others in Britain for some time now, and sharia law trumps British law. It is politically incorrect to speak up against that, and will get you banned from entering Britain. And that’s a fact — as we can see from Robert Spencer’s case.
Diana says
Advocating sharia should be an act of treason.
Sharia is directly linked to ISIL, who have declared war on us. People who support sharia are supporting the enemy.
Any paying money to terrorists, accepting money from terrorists, making sharia judgments in mediation, preaching sharia in schools or mosques or demanding sharia restrictions on free speech are therefore acts of treason.
People who advocate sharia ought to lose right or residence (or be locked up if they are British-only people) even if no other crime is directly established.
RichardL says
it has become a pattern: when you think liberals cannot get stupider and more evil, they promptly prove you wrong.
And remember: the UK has completely disarmed all law-abiding citizens.
Argumentum says
Sad, but look on the bright side .. at least he’ll be locked away for a bit longer!
Regardless, *4 years* for assaulting a minor seems way too little.
ECAW says
Right that this is a travesty and a betrayal of both the principle of equality before the law and of the indigenous girls of Rotherham whose lives were also fairly severely affected.
But, on the evidence we have it is wrong to say this is shariah. All we know is that the victims are Asian. This is used as code for Muslim but not exclusively so. Muslim rapists have also targeted Sikh and Hindu girls, whose marriage prospects would I imagine also be affected since they also have very conservative sexual cultures.
My guess is that this judge has no idea of shariah or her duties as a dhimmi. She was just bending over, as any self respecting PC/MCer should, to be nice to any group other than her own.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Since when is pedophilia a Sharia crime? That’s not the Holy Prophet Mohammed I know. Let’s see some Sunnah, pu-leeze. These jurists in England are outta control. They should read the Holy Ko-Ran before handing down such a horribly silly ruling. Is this trending on Twitter? I’ve got a full 140 characters of protest I wanna to throw down on this, no kidding.
cranky.white.woman says
What’s your twitter name? I’d like to follow you.
Januk36 says
“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.”
—
Shocker.
Isn’t that racist ?
Angemon says
“Rightly”, eh? So if his victims were white it would seem reasonable that he got away with a lighter sentence?
*looks at mugshot*
*looks at perp name*
Ah, so he was, *ahem*, “Asian” as well – I was wondering why this wasn’t being paraded around as “islamophobia” by the usual grievance-mongering taqqyia artists.
Because arranged marriages are apparently a thing in England now…
But because his longer sentence was due to the “ethnic and religious” origins of the victims that makes it ok…?
R Cole says
Clearly the court ruling took into consideration Islamic law. They must also feel vindicated in the knowledge that Islam does not place as much seriousness on the rape of non-Muslim women. As we can see – in places like Pakistan and Egypt – a Muslim man can rape [gang], kidnap and even kill a non-Muslim Hindu or Christian girl with impunity.
Moreover with possibly 100,000 vulnerable underage girls in the UK raped by Muslim men – this case represents insult to injury.
::
Asian girls are married for passports – that her 1st cousin off in Asia – would refuse such an opportunity to immigrate to Britain through marriage – is laughable.
One law for all!!
cranky.white.woman says
To be fair, “Asian” girls who are sexually violated probably do fare far worse than their infidel counterparts because, after the rape, they have to always look over their shoulders since they might be murdered by their fathers and/or other male family members for being raped. Those girls already have one strike against them in the Muslim community: they had the nerve to be born with vaginas. Rape is Strike Two.
Western Canadian says
Wrong. ANY victim of rape by muslims has to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, on guard for what muslims may do to them. And if the rape victim is white, they will be shunned, lied to, lied about and sold out by the white ‘elites’.. White ‘elites’ being a term for those who lick muslim boots.
Jay Boo says
Wow!
Congratulations judge. It was not easy
Judge Cahill even managed to work up a hint of moral indignation while simultaneously seeking reassurance by scanning all Muslims in the courtroom for expressions of Islamic permission.
Jax Tolmen says
What.
I thought everyone was equal before the law? You cannot have double standards like this and not expect the seeds of conflict to start to spread. This is an atrocity.
Even with it being an inflated sentence, it should be much, much higher. Rape is rape – and rape is one of the most heinous crimes known to man. It doesn’t matter who it’s done to. Those found guilty should be sentenced to the maximum possible sentence and left to rot.
White lives do matter. White women matter. These judges disgust me.
Edward Coke says
Sally Cahill “QC” is one of the now over-common type of hyper-ambitious, principles-schminciples attorney who have infested legal institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.
Cahill was allowed to hear the case because she is being groomed to become a judge. Faced with the facts – Muslim rapes (apparently) Muslim victims, she correctly sensed that the high-level legal establishment on the Court of Appeal would go along with her craven discrimination AGAINST NON-MUSLIM VICTIMS.
The real and not so hidden lesson to Muslim and other rapists is to STAY CLEAR OF NICE MUSLIM GIRLS and RAPE “CHRISTIAN” GIRLS INSTEAD.
Cy Halothrin says
So a child molester can receive a longer sentence if his female victims are “Asian” (ie Muslim). I bet all those black Muslims from Somalia and Nigeria are surprised to learn that they are transformed into “Asians” the moment they arrive in the UK. Equally amusing (or not), I bet all those Chinese and Indian (Hindu, Sikh) immigrants are surprised to learn that they are no longer Asians once they move to the UK (unless they also happen to be Muslim). I suppose a white blond-haired blue-eyed person can be instantly transformed into an “Asian” if he or she converts to Islam.
I used to think that one thing you couldn’t change was your genes. Apparently, I was wrong about that.
John Hartley says
Obviously, in the woodwork under the judge’s grey wig, there lurks no common sense.
alyn21 says
Well just when you think that Britain could not sink any lower they manage to drain a little bit more from the pool so to speak. I guess now muslim rapists will learn from this experience and make sure that they only rape non muslim girls from now on.
If the British don’t vote in Liberty GB in the next election then they have no chance of survival. Their lives are now officially second class according to their courts
Bonnie Prince Charlie says
If it had been Jewish girls he had been molesting, he would probably got away with an admonishment.
Sam Hawkins says
EVERY child molester, Muslim or not, should be crammed into a burlap sack with a bunch of rocks then thrown off a tall bridge. This is the ONLY area where sharia law is ahead of ours.
Emjay See says
Judges, normally work to a tariff agreed by a panel of very senior and very experienced judges. I think if the earlier court comments are accurate then there are grounds for appeal. One time Magistrate
doreva says
in terms of “indemnity” or the “value” of a human being if a womans value is half a mans (a muslim woman) and a jew or christian is worth a third of a muslim then is a jewish or christian woman a half of one third in value, and a zoroastrian woman half of one fifteenth of a muslim. is that “one third” and “one fifteenth” value also 1/3 or 1/15 of a muslim woman or a muslim man? oh dear, trust a kafir to ask impertinent questions!
doreva says
oh yes, and another impertinent kafir observation or question : if he’s a muslim moslester, and if uk is to give deference to the “cultural differences ” of muslims not really understanding “kafir” laws, then how can he be a pedophile if the “victims” are over age nine?