This question is asked by Robert Spencer in an article at Human Events of which commenter Bruce Church made us aware: “Last October there was another in the growing number of Islamic honor killings in the United States when a Muslim in Peoria, Arizona, Faleh Almaleki, got into his Jeep Cherokee and ran down his twenty-year-old daughter Noor, as well as her boyfriend’s mother, Amal Khalaf.”
(By the Editrix)
Noor died not long thereafter, and Faleh Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. But prosecutors announced this week that he will not face the death penalty – it wouldn’t be multicultural.
Faleh Almaleki’s lawyer, public defender Billy Little, requested that the death penalty not be sought in this case because County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Christian and Almaleki is a Muslim: “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”
And indeed, the County Attorney’s office ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty, although it denied that Little’s request had anything to do with the decision: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison,” said County Attorney Office spokesman Mike Scerbo. “As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.”
This denial, however, did not ring true in light of the calculated nature of Almaleki’s actions: “By his own admission,” said county prosecutor Stephanie Low, “this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family.”
So far so good and now for something (to me) totally incomprehensible. The county prosecutor goes on to say:
“This was an attempt at an honor killing.”
What does this mean? As the killer doubtlessly DID murder his daughter, what was the “attempted” bit? This may express doubts about the “honour killing” quality of the murder, but then it either IS one or it ISN’T, but it’s not an “attempt at an honour killing”. Or am I, as a non-native speaker, missing a point here or a detail of the American law?
Robert Spencer continues:
If a cold-blooded, premeditated murder doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what murder does? If the death penalty is to be applied or contemplated at all, one would be hard-pressed to find a case more appropriate than one in which a father murders his daughter freely, not in the heat of passion, and with full intentionality, because she does not share his values.
[...]
This is a human rights issue that ought to merit the attention of anyone who cares for the lives lost to this barbaric practice. Yet American law enforcement officials are doing nothing to call Muslim communities in this country to teach against and work against this practice. And relativist multiculturalists like Billy Little seem to think that taking a strong stand against honor killing would be an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim.
[...]
… For the first time, the idea that all are not equal before the law, but that some are more equal than others, has been given credence by an American court. Despite the County Attorney’s Office denials, a precedent has been set that Islamic pressure groups are certain to exploit to the hilt.
I think it goes even beyond the politically correct attempt at preventing an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim. It takes ill will of Christians towards Muslims per se for granted, which is such a deliberate, evil, perverted perception of reality, that it defies belief.
3 comments:





























The United States does not appear to have the stomach to even try terrorists
not named McVeigh on capital punishment.
Most Americans think that Europe is on the way to become Eurabia. Unfortunately, they do not seem to realise that America is in far greater danger then Europe. The events in America with its Muslim population, even though they have far less Muslims, and have 9/11, indicate that truth.
When the Motoons were in full swing, it was noticeable that Americans kept writing that it could never happen in America because they had a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. It was then noticeable that us poor Europeans who had no such guarantee, actually published the Muhammad cartoons in various main papers, while the Americans with their much vaunted constitutional guarantee, chickened out. What are the uses of a constitutional guarantee if people are afraid to use it?
America also has the disadvantage, unlike Europe, that it has nothing intrinsic to itself that prevents Muslims to take over America when they have the opportunity. In such circumstances the US constitution becomes an agent for the America's destruction. Muslims have no stake in the US constitution, as they have the Koran, which trumps the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I would argue that Britain and Europe have a far greater stake of identification and ownership of the US constitution and the American Bill of Rights, then say 40% of all Americans. With continued immigration, the time not so far, when that figure will be more then 50%. When that happens, America will cease to be a culturally European nation. Such an eventuality is unlikely even if Muslims became a majority in some European country.
Whoa
What type of misinformation is this. Muslim immigration is a fraction as our immigrants mainly come from Latin America. The other thing is that they are able to get jobs. There is no patronizing system of hand outs in the USA.