Mark Steyn: “Obama talked the talk, and these savage murdering fanatics today in Paris walked the walk.”

Mark Steyn, appearing on the Kelly File Wednesday night, went on an absolute tear against the cowards in the media who willingly waved their free speech rights in reaction to Islamic threats against free speech in the past.

Lauding the courage of of the French satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, Steyn said, “it’s only because the NY Times didn’t (publish Mohammed cartoons), and Le Monde in Paris didn’t, and the London Times didn’t, and all the other great newspapers of the world didn’t — only Charlie Hebdo, my magazine in Canada and a few others did, that they were forced to bear a burden that should have been more widely dispersed.”

He also criticized the NY Daily News for censoring the Charlie Hedbo’s Mohammad cartoon  in their report on the massacre, charging that they are dishonoring the dead in Paris.

He savaged the French speaking John Kerry, who mumbled something Wednesday about “a battle between civilization and [pregnant pause] forces that are against civilization.”

“Perhaps he’d like to be a little more specific, Steyn quipped. “Because these men all have something in common and John Kerry isn’t prepared to address it.”

Steyn then harkened back to Obama’s “disgraceful” speech before the UN in 2012, in which he said, “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

“For a start, under American law, and  under the laws of all civilized societies, you can slander a bloke who died in the 7th century,” Steyn noted. “But secondly, the head of the country that has the 1st Amendment, shouldn’t be standing up in front of the United Nations indicating that he’s willing to trade off freedom of speech!”

He proceeded to hit the president between the eyes with this zinger, “Obama talked the talk, and these savage murdering fanatics today in Paris walked the walk.”


Andrew McCarthy, NRO: Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism’

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliancem13.2–3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

Meanwhile, via the Weekly Standard, the White House vows to “redouble its efforts” to explain “what true tenets” of the Religion of Peace actually are.

“There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.



One thought on “Mark Steyn: “Obama talked the talk, and these savage murdering fanatics today in Paris walked the walk.”

  1. Pingback: Mark Steyn, Barack Obama and Charlie Hebdo - BitsBlog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s