What If He Had Been Christian

By Semperpapa

On October 2009 in Peoria Arizona, Noor Almaleki was brutally killed by her father Faleh Hassan Almaleki, an Iraqi Muslim immigrant that had grown frustrated by his daughter having become so westernized.
In this clear instance of “honor killing” the man sought his 20 year old daughter, who had moved out the parents’ home, and run her down with his car, even backing up and running over her again to insure that she would not survive.

The critically wounded young woman in fact died few days later from her injuries.

In November 2009, Faleh confessed to the Arizona State prosecutor Stephanie Low that he had premeditatedly committed the murder to avenge the shame and dishonor that the daughter had brought upon his family.

The mere confession to premeditated murder should be a open-shut case for the prosecution, with the request for the death penalty. It should be, right?
Not so fast.

Even with the confession made to the prosecution, Almaleki has been allowed to plead not-guilty in court and the prosecutor is not going to ask for the death penalty.
The reason given was that he did not want to appear as a Christian seeking to execute a Muslim, so the worst that could ever happen to the monster Alaleki is that he will be given a life sentence.

So to recap, a Muslim commits a honor killing, brutally murdering his young daughter, confesses to the crime and instead of being on his way to the final injection, he is going to get a nice day in court, where we will probably see CAIR show up and claim that the application of American laws upon a member of the religion of peace goes against the religious rights of the Iraqi.

After all, Almaleki application of Sharia law must be respected by the infidels according to the First Amendment.

I want to now go back to November 2 2010 and the days following, when the state of Oklahoma voted on a state proposition that prohibited state legislatures to ever consider Sharia law, or any other set of rules outside of the Constitution and the laws of our Nation, in the adjudication of criminal cases.
The proposition passed with a 70% margin, but was immediately attacked by, surprise surprise, CAIR who accused it to be unconstitutional, and by sheepish apologists who contended that there was no real reason for such law on the books.

Well, as luck wants it, this case in Arizona is the exact reason because such sort of legislation is absolutely necessary, considering the sick and perverted state of political correctness that has been plaguing our country.

If the perpetrator of that vile act would have been a Christian, the prosecutor would not have any qualm, or fear, to impose the law, the full extent of the law, in assessing the punishment the man deserved.
Instead, those in charge of carrying out the laws of our Nation are caving in because of their unwillingness to stand up for what is the right thing to do, and that is to apply the full extent of the law regardless of the religious beliefs of the defendant.
In reality, then, just the simple fact that prosecutors are changing their conduct based only upon the fact that the man is a Muslim, is somewhat of a condoning of the man’s action, a justification. That translates into allowing Sharia law to control the application of our very own laws and punishments.

So the type of proposition Oklahoma passed is not only constitutional, but it is also the absolute right thing to do. If Arizona would have had a similar legislation, Mr. Faleh Almaleki would get the punishment he deserved.

Just my thoughts!