Why is this happening?

[chrisse]

**Okay, Islam teaches “There is no compulsion in (any) religion.” That is a golden rule for the christians a nd Muslims to adopt every where.

I will remind the christians here that in the life time of our prophet Muhammad, delegation of christians came to Madinah from Najraan to discuss religious matters. It was a big delegation.

Our prophet put them up in the only big mosque in Madinah. Then the christians needed to pray and could have been told to go out of mosque to ring their bells and make prayer outside the mosque.

But the prophet told them that they could live and pray inside the mosque as they liked. How was that?

Another one. When Jarusalem was liberated and the 2nd Caliph (Umar) went there to make peace agreement, he was welcomed by the priests of Jarusalem. I am sure those priests were more capable than the Catholic posters here. Those priests took Hazrat Umar around a tour of the big beautiful cathederal. During the tour of the Cathedral, it was time for the Muslims afternoon prayer (Asr?). Umar said he had to go outside to offer his prayers. The priests said there was no harm. It was a house for prayers and Umar could pray inside the Cathedral. (Just note the permission of the preists).

Umar said that he would not pray inside the Cathedral because if he did so, the later time Muslims may capture (snatch) the Cathedral as a place for Muslim prayers. So he went outside and prayed outside.

The priests had allowed Umar and his team to pray inside the Cathedral. It could be a good lesson for the Catholics of today.**

1. No compulsion in religion in Islam - but there is the command to force shariah on the land and within shariah non-muslims are to be dhimmi’s and restricted and humiliated, or killed/enslaved, or convert. That is compulsion Planten, no matter how many times you skip around with maypole with flowers in your hair singing “there is no compulsion in religion in Islam”.
2. Please provide sources, unless you provide the sources then we can only ignore these claims as propaganda and baseless. The source allows us to verify the statement and discuss.

 

[chrisse]

We had a nikah. So the contract was based on islam.

Oh, so you made the islamic sex contract.

 

[LilyM]

What did Jesus say when he was asked to deny truth?

How is an interfaith exchange between Muslims and Catholics - such as St Francis himself undertook when he went to the Holy Land - which involves Catholics defending our truth as well as Muslims defending their faith, a denial of truth?

What part of the word DIAlogue (two parties, EACH expressing their own opinion - in other words an EXCHANGE of views, not a one-sided speech or MONOlogue) do you not understand?

Jesus never that I can recall forbid people from saying things in His presence with which He disagreed. Instead He let them speak, then spoke His truth in turn. Some left Him in John 6 - He allowed them to go.

So the Church would have to cover them up or remove them too; after all, we can’t hurt Muslim sensibilities at any cost.

Muslims in my experience are quite happy with most images in non-worship contexts (with the exception of depictions of Mohammad, and maybe some of the other prophets). They have pictures in their homes and businesses, from what I can gather, like the rest of us.

This dialogue would be just such a non-worship context, so you’ve made a totally unjustifiable leap into illogic in assuming that there were any demands for any changes to the chapel at all, let alone that any such changes were actually made

 

[sedonaman]

… Islam teaches “There is no compulsion in (any) religion.” That is a golden rule for the christians a nd Muslims to adopt every where.

Define “compulsion.”

 

[sedonaman]

How is an interfaith exchange between Muslims and Catholics - such as St Francis himself undertook when he went to the Holy Land - which involves Catholics defending our truth as well as Muslims defending their faith, a denial of truth?

Catholics always want to do the charitable thing and develop understanding, but see how “understanding” in the case of Islam plays out over time:

“…It is instructive and sobering to consider a case study of a well-known American seminary, to see how sharply different ideas about Christian outreach and dialogue with Islam have played out over time. … Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, one of America’s oldest theological schools, was founded in 1834 by Calvinists who left Yale College to found a new institution of Christian learning. In the early decades of the twentieth century Hartford was a leading institution in the evangelization of Muslims. … in 1973, Hartford created the Duncan Black MacDonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Its mission is to nurture Christian-Muslim understanding. In 1998, the center hired Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian-born convert to Islam with a doctorate in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago, to direct the chaplaincy program. Mattson is also the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America. In 2000, an Islamic chaplaincy program was launched at Hartford to train Muslims for chaplaincy roles in the American military. The number of students taking the Islamic chaplaincy training has steadily increased since then. … Today, Muslims make up 35 percent of the student body at Hartford Seminary, an institution which a few generations ago was training Christians to evangelize Muslims.

“The case of Hartford Seminary shows how the laudable desire to understand Islam and Muslims has brought a Calvinist foundation with a strong missionary emphasis to the point of using its resources to train and equip Muslims to strengthen other Muslims in their faith.”

One should observe that this transition took place over a period of 37 years – probably longer than the tenure of those who started the “dialog”. Thus, the original goals of the program were long forgotten. Are things going to be different this time? Maybe, but remember, Islam hasn’t changed in 1,400 years.

The Muslim posters here might be well-meaning folks, but that is designed to get Christian readers to make the mistake of thinking that since some Muslims are nice that Islam is good. Given Islam’s history, this would be a fatal error.

 

[algebra]

Oh, so you made the islamic sex contract.

Its a marriage contract. the sex contracts pertain to temporary marriage allowed to muslims.

Sunnis claim that they are forbidden, Shias still practice temporary marriage.

Apparently the prophet allowed it initially. I have never seen the ahadith that forbids it though.

 

[LilyM]

Catholics always want to do the charitable thing and develop understanding, but see how “understanding” in the case of Islam plays out over time:

“…It is instructive and sobering to consider a case study of a well-known American seminary, to see how sharply different ideas about Christian outreach and dialogue with Islam have played out over time. … Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, one of America’s oldest theological schools, was founded in 1834 by Calvinists who left Yale College to found a new institution of Christian learning. In the early decades of the twentieth century Hartford was a leading institution in the evangelization of Muslims. … in 1973, Hartford created the Duncan Black MacDonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Its mission is to nurture Christian-Muslim understanding. In 1998, the center hired Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian-born convert to Islam with a doctorate in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago, to direct the chaplaincy program. Mattson is also the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America. In 2000, an Islamic chaplaincy program was launched at Hartford to train Muslims for chaplaincy roles in the American military. The number of students taking the Islamic chaplaincy training has steadily increased since then. … Today, Muslims make up 35 percent of the student body at Hartford Seminary, an institution which a few generations ago was training Christians to evangelize Muslims.

“The case of Hartford Seminary shows how the laudable desire to understand Islam and Muslims has brought a Calvinist foundation with a strong missionary emphasis to the point of using its resources to train and equip Muslims to strengthen other Muslims in their faith.”

One should observe that this transition took place over a period of 37 years – probably longer than the tenure of those who started the “dialog”. Thus, the original goals of the program were long forgotten. Are things going to be different this time? Maybe, but remember, Islam hasn’t changed in 1,400 years.

The Muslim posters here might be well-meaning folks, but that is designed to get Christian readers to make the mistake of thinking that since some Muslims are nice that Islam is good. Given Islam’s history, this would be a fatal error.

Since when is charity anything other than a virtue? Did Jesus not say ‘do good to those who persecute you’, ‘return good for evil’ and the like? Your gospel seems to be ‘all bets are off with those who are mean to me in any way’

The fact that our charity, our good deeds, may not be reciprocated, is absolutely no reason to stop being charitable, stop doing good, or worse to become uncharitable and start doing evil ourselves.

In fact Our Lord in His above words is basically warning us not to expect reciprocation, but to keep on in charity nonetheless.

 

[Hypothesis]

no - sunni

Your wife is a sunni muslim…and she married an agnostic jew? I bet that went over well with the family.

 

[planten]

Its a marriage contract. the sex contracts pertain to temporary marriage allowed to muslims.

Sunnis claim that they are forbidden, Shias still practice temporary marriage.

Apparently the prophet allowed it initially. I have never seen the ahadith that forbids it though.

**The temporary marriage is called Mutah (by the Shias). It is a sort of secret unrecorded marriage for a short time. Such a marriage was never allowed in Makkah or Madinah. But the soldiers who were far away from home for long time, they practiced it…

algebra, when Mutah was not allowed, there was no need to forbid it. If you knew the agreement that was signed between General McCarther and the Japanese in 1945 A.D. you may understand something. It was told to the Japanese that American forces will enter Japan, in various cities.

No Japanese person will look in the eyes of the Americans. If any will do, s/he will be shot on the spot. This was an order for six months only. So the Americans had a free hand to handle very young Japanese girls and some of them were laid on the roadside.

That was bad of the Americans (?) and I do not feel that it could be counted as Mutah.**

 

[algebra]

Your wife is a sunni muslim…and she married an agnostic jew? I bet that went over well with the family.

I converted to islam to marry her.

 

[chrisse]

Its a marriage contract. the sex contracts pertain to temporary marriage allowed to muslims.

Sunnis claim that they are forbidden, Shias still practice temporary marriage.

Apparently the prophet allowed it initially. I have never seen the ahadith that forbids it though.

Islamic “marriage” is a sex contract, algebra. The mutah (shia) and misyar (sunni) are the temporary sex “marriage” contracts, yes. Only difference is the latter have a set time period. The woman is easily disposable if the man decides to. All she receives is what she “contracted” at the start of this islamic sex contract.

 

[sedonaman]

Since when is charity anything other than a virtue? Did Jesus not say ‘do good to those who persecute you’, ‘return good for evil’ and the like? Your gospel seems to be ‘all bets are off with those who are mean to me in any way’

The fact that our charity, our good deeds, may not be reciprocated, is absolutely no reason to stop being charitable, stop doing good, or worse to become uncharitable and start doing evil ourselves.

In fact Our Lord in His above words is basically warning us not to expect reciprocation, but to keep on in charity nonetheless.

I don’t think He meant we had to seek persecution. There’s nothing sinful about being careful.

 

[Booklover]

Since when is charity anything other than a virtue? Did Jesus not say ‘do good to those who persecute you’, ‘return good for evil’ and the like? Your gospel seems to be ‘all bets are off with those who are mean to me in any way’

The fact that our charity, our good deeds, may not be reciprocated, is absolutely no reason to stop being charitable, stop doing good, or worse to become uncharitable and start doing evil ourselves.

In fact Our Lord in His above words is basically warning us not to expect reciprocation, but to keep on in charity nonetheless.

Have you never heard the expression about giving someone an inch, and they take a mile? Where ever Muslims go, little by little they start taking over.

Vickie

 

[sedonaman]

How is an interfaith exchange between Muslims and Catholics - such as St Francis himself undertook when he went to the Holy Land - which involves Catholics defending our truth as well as Muslims defending their faith, a denial of truth?

What part of the word DIAlogue (two parties, EACH expressing their own opinion - in other words an EXCHANGE of views, not a one-sided speech or MONOlogue) do you not understand?

What makes you think this is going to be an “exchange”?

This dialogue would be just such a non-worship context, so you’ve made a totally unjustifiable leap into illogic in assuming that there were any demands for any changes to the chapel at all, let alone that any such changes were actually made.

We don’t know that it will be characterized by “non-worship” since Mohammed’s birthday is the occasion. I find it difficult to imagine a Catholic Church holding a celebration of Jesus’ birthday in a “non-worship context” so I don’t expect Muslims to do less on Mohammed’s.

My “totally unjustifiable leap into illogic” is not illogic. If anything, my speculation is base on what I perceive as the Church’s willingness to do anything to accommodate dialog, as though dialog was sought for its own sake.

As to how removal of the Host constitutes denial, consider a hypothetical: Suppose the pastor of your church was approached by a non-Catholic couple wishing to use the church building for their wedding. They would provide an official of their own. They proposed making a large cash contribution to the church in exchange. The only condition is the pastor would have to remove the Host. Could he do this? What would you think of the couple? Any other thoughts on this hypothetical?

I am not against dialog, but a “dialog” requires TWO parties of good will, not just one – that’s a “MONOlogue.” Lacking one party of good will leads to appeasement and eventual denial of your core principles, as my example of the seminary demonstrated.

In view of Islam’s past history, I will believe that dialog, true dialog, is possible only when Saudi Arabia opens itself to other religions. Until then, the Church must not compromise its own Truth for the sole purpose of “dialog”.

 

[planten]

I converted to islam to marry her.

algebra, pardon me. I thought that your wife was a Shia Muslimah. Forgive me for anything that I wrote wrong. God bless you all. Wassalam.

 

[chrisse]

Since when is charity anything other than a virtue? Did Jesus not say ‘do good to those who persecute you’, ‘return good for evil’ and the like? Your gospel seems to be ‘all bets are off with those who are mean to me in any way’

The fact that our charity, our good deeds, may not be reciprocated, is absolutely no reason to stop being charitable, stop doing good, or worse to become uncharitable and start doing evil ourselves.

In fact Our Lord in His above words is basically warning us not to expect reciprocation, but to keep on in charity nonetheless.

Charity is a virtue, suicide is not. A Catholic, nor any Christian, is expected to be so charitable, nor turn the other cheek, to such an extent that their own safety, the safety of their family, the safety of their community and the safety of their future generations would be put at risk. A Catholic, nor any Christian, is expected to be blind to the evil in others and not to protect themselves from it. A Catholic, nor any Christian, is not expected to be stupid.

Islam is a threat to the stability and security of any nation wherein it is dominant. Islam is a threat to Christianity itself (and Judaism and other non-muslims) wherever it is dominant. Islam contains explicit doctrines to that effect.

There is no compulsion in religion in Islam; however, Islam can force shariah on the society and non-believers can live as dhimmi’s (second class citizens overtaxed and subject to humiliation), Islam can kill non-believers, Islam can enslave non-believers. I’m sure you’ll have no trouble being charitable and turning the other cheek in that situation.

 

[Sister_Amy]

The way algebra is being attacked in this thread is rude and disgusting, really.

He married his wife–a marriage contract is not a “sex contract” as you put it. It was neither mut’ah nor misyar marriage. And for you to mock his marriage (and in so doing, mocking him, his wife, and his son) is incredibly low.

 

[planten]

** Yes, algebra’s life and wife are in good order, perfet union, no question need be asked and no need to malign the couple in any way. Their marriage is legal by all means.**

 

[chrisse]

The way algebra is being attacked in this thread is rude and disgusting, really.

He married his wife–a marriage contract is not a “sex contract” as you put it. It was neither mut’ah nor misyar marriage. And for you to mock his marriage (and in so doing, mocking him, his wife, and his son) is incredibly low.

Originally Posted by algebra View Post
We had a nikah. So the contract was based on islam.
Oh, so you made the islamic sex contract.

Incorrect, Sister Amy. I was referring to his islamic nikah contract.

I’m assuming he and his wife also have had a legal Western marriage, which is a different concept altogether, and wasn’t being referred to here.

 

[swariffin]

With the Vatican promoting Islamic finance, this is hardly a surprise. The dhimmi elements in the Roman Catholic hierarchy appear to be quite firmly entrenched.

“Archbishop Nichols defends use of chapel for event marking Mohammed’s birthday,” by Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog, March 12 (thanks to Tom):

The Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols, has defended the use of a Catholic university college chapel for an event marking the birthday of Mohammed. Unbelieveable, I know. But here it is:

    In a statement issued today, Thursday 12 March, Peter Jennings, Press Secretary to the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, and the Archdiocese of Birmingham, said: "The chapel at Newman University College, Birmingham, was properly prepared for this event which consisted of two talks and a discussion of an interfaith nature."

    Mr Jennings added: "Christian/Muslin [sic] dialogue is an important part of the Catholic Church's agenda. College authorities were fully aware of what was taking place."

I'm baffled. Last night I reported on this disturbing event, organised by the college's Islamic Society and sanctioned by its politically correct chaplaincy team. I know that priests in Birmingham archdiocese are outraged by what happened. Archbishop Nichols could so easily have distanced himself from this, but he hasn't. If, against the odds, he is named as the next Archbishop of Westminster, his failure to speak out now will haunt him.

Yet perhaps this astounding act of naivete has not met with approval at the highest levels:

As I noted this morning, Italian journalist Paolo Roderi has named Bishop Bernard Longley, auxiliary in Westminster, as the man chosen by the Pope to succeed +Cormac. But only last night Roderi was claiming that Benedict XVI was leaning towards Vincent Nichols, which implies that the Pope had a last-minute change of heart. If so, can you blame him? This response to an event that has enormously upset devout Catholics is inadequate, and that's putting it politely.

Oriana Fallaci had immense respect and admiration for Benedict XVI, for his awareness of the plight of Europe and the nature of Islamic supremacism and jihad. I hope we will someday see her hope in him borne out by his actions.

Did the muslim take down the crucifix in the chapels?