The UK’s Mailonline reported recently that “a hero police officer suffered multiple skull fractures when an uninsured white van man tried to murder him in a savage machete attack.” After the perpetrator, a Muslim named Muhammad Rodwan, was arrested, Rodwan explained: “My life is worth more than his life.” Meanwhile, in northern Italy, according to the German-language site UnserTirol 24 “The higher regional court confirmed on Tuesday the first-instance verdict against Rabih Badr for the brutal murder of his partner Marianne Obrist (UT24 reported). Badr’s father was also present at the trial. The latter defended his son and accused Obrist of infidelity.” Badr’s father complained: “There was a problem between him and Marianne, namely the problem of infidelity. She was not loyal to him, he dedicated his whole life to her, but Marianne was not worthy of him.”

“My life is worth more than his life.” “Marianne was not worthy of him.” Is this just more Islamic “extremism,” or do Rodwan and Badr have a point?

Unfortunately, they do have a point – an Islamic point.

Reliance of the Traveller, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law, explains matter-of-factly that “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)

Sultanhussein Tabandeh, author of A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agrees, stating: “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.”

These ideas have lethal consequences. In Badr’s case, “according to judge Peter Michaeler,” Badr “‘beat her like a stray dog’ first with a stick, then with a baseball bat. Badr is said to have stabbed the 39-year-old with a knife….As was evident from Judge Michaeler’s reasoning at the time, the act was culturally motivated. Badr, who comes from Morocco, killed Obrist ‘without mercy’ and ‘bestially’ and exemplifies radical attitudes that are incompatible with the way of life of a Western woman….In Badr’s mind, the woman is subordinate to the man, the judge continued. As a result, Badr unjustly accused his partner of infidelity, and restricted and suppressed her. According to Michaeler, the motive was not jealousy, but the complete control Badr wanted to exercise over Obrist.”

As far as Badr was concerned, Obrist should have been under his total control, for she was not only a woman, but an infidel. She had no rights he was bound to respect. But of course, saying such things in the West today brings one charges of “Islamophobia.” Meanwhile, more women like Marianne Obrist will continue to be victimized and brutalized.