I don’t know where anyone could possibly get the idea that Islam teaches violence.
Here is something from the Guardian that might explain matters.
Politicians condemn ‘incursion on press freedom’ after Charlie Hebdo‘s Paris headquarters are torched and website hacked
Muhammad cartoon sparks attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo.The French government has rushed to the defence of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after an arson attack on its headquarters as it published an edition featuring a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad on the cover as “guest editor”.The Paris offices of the magazine were gutted after a fire broke out at 1am following reports of a petrol bomb being thrown through a window.
The blaze happened just before the special “Sharia Hebdo” edition hit newsstands on Wednesday morning in what the paper mockingly called a “celebration” of the victory of the moderate Islamist party An-Nahda in the Tunisian elections and the Libyan transitional executive’s comments on Islamic sharia law as a main source of the country’s law. On the front page a cartoon prophet Muhammad said: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”
Charlie Hebdo’s website also appeared to have been hacked to show images of Mecca.
However, French politicians defended the magazine. The prime minister, François Fillon, said: “Freedom of expression is an inalienable value of democracy and any incursion against press freedom must be condemned with the utmost force. No cause justified violent action.”
I wonder how long the French dhimmis are going to pretend they care about free speech.
Then there is this.
François Hollande, the Socialist presidential candidate, told Le Monde newspaper the incident demonstrated that the struggle for press freedom and “respect of opinions” was a permanent battle, adding that “fundamentalism must be eradicated in all its forms”.
Those fundamentalist Catholics are a real problem in France, or maybe he means the Huguenots.
So far though, French Muslims are comdemning the violent act.
The main representative body of the Muslim faith in France, the French Muslim Council (CFCM), condemned the fire, while its president pointed out that caricaturing the prophet was considered offensive to Muslims. “The CFCM deplores the deeply mocking tone of the newspaper towards Islam and its prophet, but reaffirms with force its total opposition to any act or form of violence,” it said.
Tareq Oubrou, head of the Association of Imams of France, said the attack was “an inadmissible act”. He added: “Freedom is very important. It is nonetheless important to underline the sensitivity of the situation we face today. I call on Muslims to treat this lucidly and not succumb to what they consider provocations regarding their religion … I personally call on Muslims to keep an open mind and not take this too seriously.”
Which is good, so far as it goes. We should also allow for the possibility that some other group is behind this, though given past acts when their prophet is insulted, I suppose the most likely suspect is a radical Muslim.
In any event, here is the offending cartoon.
I guess I would be offended too, if I were Muslim, but probably not enough to bomb the magazine.
Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for this.
A while back I mentioned that I was starting to read the Hadiths of Sahih al-Bukhari. I thought I would write a post now and then over what I have been reading. It would be nice to try something like David Plotz‘s Blogging the Bible which he later expanded into “The Good Book“, or Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Koran, but I don’t have the time or energy for such an ambitious undertaking. Instead, as I said, I will write about some of the more interesting things I come across.
The Hadith of al-Bukhari is divided into nine volumes. There are 93 books divided according to subjects, mostly issues of behavior or jurisprudence. There are some books about Islamic beliefs, and Mohammed’s actions, which, of course, serve as an example to Moslems to this day. I have already described the structure of each hadith, the isnad or chain of narrators and the matn or actual anecdote, etc.
Incidentally, there is a former Moslem over at Islam Speaks who is featuring some of the sillier or objectionable stories from Islamic scriptures, especially the Hadith, but he is not reading it from beginning to end.
I can hardly wait for the Caliphate to be established. According to Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni, I’ll be able to go right down to the slave market and buy me a slave girl whenever I feel the need.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point–there is no disagreement from any of them.
These are called slaves. The Prophet (PBUH) talked about them in the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari in his Book of Jihad: “Allah is delighted at a people who enter the Garden in chains.” Also as narrated by Abu-Dawud: “They are led to the Garden in chains.” Naturally, many people might not understand someone being jerked along in chains in order to enter the Garden. This is because all people, even the worst of the unbelievers, say the garden is for them and no others. They run to the Garden without anybody pulling them in chains.
The meaning of the hadith is this: these slaves were in a religion other than Islam. However, when they were conquered, and defeated, and taken prisoner, they came to live in the land of Islam. Then when they witnessed the justice, compassion, and mercy of Islam, they became Muslims. These did not convert to Islam except in the chains of war. If they had not been chained, bound, and had their freedom taken from them, they would not have converted to Islam. Therefore this hadith is referring to these slaves.
I am very shocked and surprised at those who say that we permit slavery. We don’t call people to become slaves. In fact, there are vows to free the necks (i.e. slaves). The same Islam which permits us to take slaves, also urges us to free their necks.
Oh, joy. I can go on jihad and take booty and prisoners.
When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards. Now, the country that I entered and took captive its men and women–does it not also have money, gold, and silver? Is that not money? When I say that jihad–offensive jihad–with the well-known conditions that I already mentioned from the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), from the hadith of Burayda in Sahih Muslim, the coffers of the Muslims were full. Would someone who is pious and intelligent–would he say that this is a type of poverty? Or that it is a type of wealth? No–this will fill the coffers of the Muslims with riches and wealth, but as we said, with the recognized conditions. […]
I think I will avoid the rush and convert to Islam right now. Then, I’ll start to work on repealing the thirteenth amendment, against the Koran you know.
Come to think of it, so is the first amendment. How can the dhimmis feel properly subdued if there is freedom of religion. And freedom of speech only invites blasphemy. Oh brave new world…
I’ve started to read the Hadiths lately. Hadiths are collections of the sayings and deeds of the false prophet Mohammed. They were transmitted orally from narrator to narrator for over a hundred years until they started to be written down. There are several collections of these anecdotes, with Sunnis and Shi’ites using different ones, but the most reliable among the Sunni is considered to be the collection of Sahih al-Bukhari, which is the one I am reading.
The Hadith are second only in importance to the Koran in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. In fact, given the obscurity of much of the Koran, the Hadith play a valuable role in explaining and illuminating the circumstances in which various portions of the Koran were “revealed”. Also, since Mohammed is considered to be the perfect role model for all Muslims, the Hadiths tell Muslims what the prophet did in various circumstances and so serve as a guide for Muslims.
Naturally, since it was over a century since the Hadiths were written down, it is likely that many anecdotes have been distorted in the transmission and many were even fabricated after the time of Mohammed. Islāmic scholars are aware of this and so they have classified hadiths according to how reliable they are considered to be. A hadith may be sahih (sound), daif (doubtful), or mawdu (fabricated). They also classify them as hasan (good) or munkar (denounced). Since the Muslim scholars were, of course, classifying these Hadiths before the development of modern Western textual criticism, the method they used was to examine the chain of narrators and compare the Hadiths to each other for inconsistancies. A Hadith from a more reliable or trustworthy chain of narrators is considered more reliable than one from a doubtful chain.
Each Hadith has two parts; the isnad, which is the chain of narrators, and the matn, which is the actual anecdote. I can’t comment very much on the contents of the Hadiths yet, as I have only just begun to read the collection. The text is clearer and easier to understand than the Koran, which has many obscure parts. It is very repetitive, as often the same anecdote or saying will be repeated over and over through different chains of narrators with slight variations of wording. Some of Mohammed’s actions seem rather strange, given the huge cultural gap between the modern West and seventh century Arabia. I get the impression, sometimes, that Mohammed was obsessive-compulsive, or at least more than a little superstitious.
I’m not sure reading the collection from front to back is the best or usual way to read it. I get the impression that a collection of Hadiths is more of a reference work. Still, that is the only way I know to do it.