My alma mater, The University of Chicago, was recently in the news for an overtly politically correct act for replacing its historic Bond Chapel's pews for Muslims to worship. This act is raising hackles reminiscent of the university's other, recent, tone-deaf decision to demolish the childhood home of former President Ronald Reagan, on its campus, and replace it with a parking lot and a commemorative plaque.
The school, founded by the Rockefeller family in the late 19th century as a Baptist-affiliated institution of higher learning, with an English-style undergraduate college, and German-style graduate research school, today positions itself as completely non-denominational research university.
However, being a non-denominational organization means that the organization is Christian, in terms of values, but does not express its Christianity in a particular form, welcoming all baptized Christians, regardless of denomination.
There are a number of wonderful, non-denominational churches on campus, including the Rockefeller Cathedral, and the Bond Chapel, providing space for communal worship for Christians on Sundays, and holidays and as a beautiful setting for weddings.
Yet, it appears that the administration has developed a new understanding of exactly what non-denominational means. The university permanently removed pews from Bond Chapel in the name of religious tolerance, so that Muslims in the school community could conduct their prayer services. The pews from the Bond Chapel were shuttled across town to the Museum of Contemporary Art, where they are on exhibit as some sort of cultural relics from an ancient civilization.
The Joseph Bond Chapel was designed by the architects Coolidge and Hodgdon at the end of the Gothic revival period in the U.S. The chapel was donated by Mrs. Joseph Bond in memory of her husband, a former Trustee of the Baptist Theological Union, the predecessor institution of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. The Divinity School is one of the most important divinity schools in the U.S., rivaled perhaps only by Harvard, Yale, and Duke.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/removing-church-pews-for-muslim-prayer-mats-in-the-name-of-religious-tolerance-97928/#YlCKTDcb3HAPy3Ro.99

good of them

Wish muslims particularly in northern Nigeria will tolerate all citizens regardless of religion and tribe.

The prophet allowed the jews of his time access to the mosque

deols: The prophet allowed the jews of his time access to the mosque

The prophet also beheaded jews.

FACT

i wish in deols' saudi, it'll be possible.

jammyng: i wish in deols' saudi, it'll be possible.

what do you mean by deols' Saudi?

deols:

what do you mean by deols' Saudi?

can a mosque do that in Saudi

jammyng: can a mosque do that in Saudi

Saudi has makka and madinnah and that is all to it. Dont judge Islam by what Saudis do. You can judge me with how I use the power I have and not with what others do with theirs.

what Saudis do is their cup of tea. If the prophet allowed the jews access to the mosque, it is enough proof.

deols: The prophet allowed the jews of his time access to the mosque

Hallo deols,

Does this 'access' allow them to worship in the mosque as Jews? If yes, evidence please.

Logicboy03:

The prophet also beheaded jews.

FACT

Hmmmm....

I am guessing here that you believe the prophet did wrong by killing those Jews.

Do you think a government is justified to sentence a man to death if he is guilty of treason?

striktlymi:

Hmmmm....

I am guessing here that you believe the prophet did wrong by killing those Jews.

Do you think a government is justified to sentence a man to death if he is guilty of treason?

You might want to read about the incident before you talk out of ignorance. That was a clearly unjustified war.

Logicboy03:

You might want to read about the incident before you talk out of ignorance. That was a clearly unjustified war.

I am familiar with the 'incident' at Banu Qurayza quite alright.


Can you answer the question now?


#and it was not a war.

striktlymi:


I am familiar with the 'incident' at Banu Qurayza quite alright.


Can you answer the question now?


#and it was not a war.

It was a war, ignorant one

The Invasion of Banu Qurayza,[1] also known as the Massacre of Banu Qurayza, took place in the Dhul Qa‘dah during February and March of 627 CE (5 AH).[6]
The Islamic Prophet Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza for 25 days until they surrendered.[1] One of Muhammad's companions decided that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgement,[7][8][9][10][11] after which all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were beheaded.[2][12] According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14.[13][14] The Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600-900 being executed.[1][3] The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but state that all males were killed and 1 woman (the 1 woman is according to Sunan Abu Dawud).[15] The rest of the woman and children were sold in exchange for weapons and horses, according to Islamic sources.[1]


According to Ibn Kathir, Quranic verses 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 are about the attack against the Banu Qurayza.[2][16][17]
The Banu Qurayza were allied to Muhammmad and during the Battle of the Trench they lent tools to the Muslims to defend themselves in Medina, but they did not participate in any fighting. The Qurayza were deeply offended by Muhammad's recitation of revelations which strongly attacked Jews, and according to Islamic sources (such as Al-Waqidi[18]) they negotiated with the Meccans.[19] Waqidi claims that Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Norman Stillman and Watt believe such a treaty was "doubtful" to have existed, though Watt believes the Qurayza had agreed not to assist Muhammad's enemies against him.[18][20] Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable.[21] According to Mubrakpuri, Peters, Stillman, Guillaume, Inamdar and Ibn Kathir, on the day of the Meccans' withdrawal Muhammad led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. According to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel (Jibraaiyl

Logicboy03:


It was a war, ignorant one

Oh, my bad! I gave you too much credit....you do not know about what happened at Banu Q.

So no need to go into this discourse then.

striktlymi:

Oh, my bad! I gave you too much credit....you do not know about what happened at Banu Q.

So no need to go into this discourse then.

lol.....lwkmd!

After your ignorance is explicitly exposed, you claim that I dont know and then your run!




See anonyism!

Logicboy03:


lol.....lwkmd!

After your ignorance is explicitly exposed, you claim that I dont know and then your run!




See anonyism!

How can one run when a discourse has not even begun?

I asked a very simple question with the assumption that you know about the events that lead to the killing of these Jews but you came in with an accusation (the hallmark of one who does not have the intention of having a civil discourse) instead of answering the question.

Next you tried without much success to demonstrate your knowledge of the incident but any Tom, D*ck and Mariah can go to wiki to copy and paste whatever...this does not demonstrate know how as far as this matter is concerned.

striktlymi:

How can one run when a discourse has not even begun?

I asked a very simple question with the assumption that you know about the events that lead to the killing of these Jews but you came in with an accusation (the hallmark of one who does not have the intention of having a civil discourse) instead of answering the question.

Next you tried without much success to demonstrate your knowledge of the incident but any Tom, D*ck and Mariah can go to wiki to copy and paste whatever...this does not demonstrate know how as far as this matter is concerned.

1) Did Muhammad behead Jews as I claimed?
2) Was the incident a war as I claimed?


Simple. If the answer to those two questions is "yes", just shut up

Logicboy03:

1) Did Muhammad behead Jews as I claimed?

Yes!

Logicboy03:
2) Was the incident a war as I claimed?

No! The so called war was ended before the incident.

Logicboy03:
Simple. If the answer to those two questions is "yes",

The answer to the two is not Yes.

Logicboy03:
just shut up

I would be happy to but before I do, the 'yes' response was with a caveat...I do not think Muhammad did wrong strictly speaking based on the time and events.

striktlymi:

Yes!



No! The so called war was ended before the incident.



The answer to the two is not Yes.



I would be happy to but before I do, the 'yes' response was with a caveat...I do not think Muhammad did wrong strictly speaking based on the time and events.

So, you separate a war from killing the "enemy"?

You are not thinking properly.

Logicboy03:

So, you separate a war from killing the "enemy"?

War in this context has to do with the declaration of armed conflict between two or more opposing parties. In that 'war' there was no armed conflict only a battle of wits...the pagan opposition gave up the war and went back to whence they came which officially marked the end of the conflict (which did not even take place).

What happened with the people of Banu Q, took place after this 'conflict' ended. So technically there was no war but a situation whereby Muhammad tried to restore law and order in the region. You might disagree with this but that was what happened according to the records.

Logicboy03:
You are not thinking properly.

And this is supposed to mean? If you are not ready for a discourse just say so and I will stop.

striktlymi:

War in this context has to do with the declaration of armed conflict between two or more opposing parties. In that 'war' there was no armed conflict only a battle of wits...the pagan opposition gave up the war and went back to whence they came which officially marked the end of the conflict (which did not even take place).

What happened with the people of Banu Q, took place after this 'conflict' ended. So technically there was no war but a situation whereby Muhammad tried to restore law and order in the region. You might disagree with this but that was what happened according to the records.



And this is supposed to mean? If you are not ready for a discourse just say so and I will stop.

Anony has caused all this nonsense. People now think that writing a lot and using some terms make a great argument.

Guy, everything you wrote in bold is nonsense. Just sophistry.


The fact of the matter is simple.

/
There was a disagreement on a treaty and muhammad went into war with the Jews. Muhammad besieged their lands and then they surrendered after some time. When they surrendered, the males were beheaded and women taken as captives.


^^^
#everything I just wrote in bold is the war that happened. It is even listed as one of muhammad's conquest. So you can lie to yourself.

Striklymi, to even show how silly you are;

If the incident happened outside the war, it is even worse as it makes it a crime. There is no justification to behead every male in a land in a time outside war.

But as a christian, your morality might be psychopatic, you might try to justify it.

Logicboy03:

Anony has caused all this nonsense. People now think that writing a lot and using some terms make a great argument.

Guy, everything you wrote in bold is nonsense. Just sophistry.

The above is empty!

Logicboy03:
The fact of the matter is simple.

/
There was a disagreement on a treaty and muhammad went into war with the Jews. Muhammad besieged their lands and then they surrendered after some time. When they surrendered, the males were beheaded and women taken as captives.


^^^
#everything I just wrote in bold is the war that happened. It is even listed as one of muhammad's conquest. So you can lie to yourself.

You just demonstrated that you do not know about the events that took place.

There was a treaty quite alright but the war did not arise because of any disagreement on the said treaty like you claim.

The war came about because some Jews managed to convince the pagans to fight against Muhammad.

The Jews of Banu Q were dragged into 'the mess' because they allied with the pagans against Muhammad and not because they disagreed with the treaty.

Muhammad did not attack first. The pagans declared war and the people of Banu Q joined in with the pagans which prompted Muhammad to see them as enemies too.

Logicboy03: Striklymi, to even show how silly you are;

If the incident happened outside the war, it is even worse as it makes it a crime. There is no justification to behead every male in a land in a time outside war.

But as a christian, your morality might be psychopatic, you might try to justify it.

You still demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the events that took place. I say this with every ounce of respect for you. Some events prompted the killing that is why I asked you about treason in my OP.

deols:

Saudi has makka and madinnah and that is all to it. Dont judge Islam by what Saudis do. You can judge me with how I use the power I have and not with what others do with theirs.

what Saudis do is their cup of tea. If the prophet allowed the jews access to the mosque, it is enough proof.

ok my dear, but Saudi is the 'seat' of islam.

striktlymi:

You still demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the events that took place. I say this with every ounce of respect for you. Some events prompted the killing that is why I asked you about treason in my OP.

There was no treason.

There is no justification for beheading all the males in a land.

Keep Anonynizing and deceiving yourself. Enjoy

striktlymi:


The above is empty!





You just demonstrated that you do not know about the events that took place.

There was a treaty quite alright but the war did not arise because of any disagreement on the said treaty like you claim.

[size=18pt]The war came about because some Jews managed to convince the pagans to fight against Muhammad.
[/size]
The Jews of Banu Q were dragged into 'the mess' because they allied with the pagans against Muhammad and not because they disagreed with the treaty.

Muhammad did not attack first. The pagans declared war and the people of Banu Q joined in with the pagans which prompted Muhammad to see them as enemies too.

In bold, I have never heard that version. That is the biggest lie ever.


You dont know what you are talking about.

MY TAKE ON THE TOPIC IS THAT IT IS GOOD AND WORTHY & CHRISTIAN TO BE CHARITABLE TO PEOPLE OF EVERY OTHER RELIGION INCLUDING ISLAM BUT WHILE AT THAT ARM YOURSELF WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU CAN NEVER STOP A LION FROM DEVOURING BY SHOWING HIM KINDNESS.SAME WAY YOU CAN NEVER HALT THE EXTREME HATRED FOR CHRISTIANS BY PEOPLE OF ALL EXTREME RADICAL RELIGIONS EVEN IF YOU OFFER THEM YOUR ENTIRE INHERITANCE OR SAVED THE LIVES OF THEIR ENTIRE COMMUNITES.AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN A CHRISTIAN(INFIDEL),THEY'LL NEVER BE CONTENT TILL YOU ARE SLAUGHTERED & TORN IN PIECES IN THE MOST SUBHUMAN MANNER.

HOWEVER IT IS NOT CHRISTIAN TO HAND A SACRED PLACE OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP TO ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS BODY FOR WORSHIP OR CEREMONIAL PURPOSES.A CHRISTIAN PLACE OF WORSHIP CAN BE USED TO HABOUR OR SUCCOUR THE DISPLACED,SICK OR NEEDY IN TIMES OF CRISIS NO MATTER THEIR RELIGION BUT TO OFFER IT AS A PLACE OF OTHER RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IS TOTALLY WRONG.LEAVES ME TO ASK IF EVER AMERICANS STILL HAVE ANY 'SACRED' PLACE OF WORSHIP IN THE FIRST PLACE SINCE MOST HAVE TURNED THEIR CHURCHES TO CLUB HOUSES & GA`Y PROMOTING CENTRES.

Logicboy03:


There was no treason.

There is no justification for beheading all the males in a land.

Below are definitions for the word 'treason':

trea·son

1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

In any way you look at the events that transpired before the incident. It is very clear that the people of Banu Qurayza committed treason by going against the treaty they had with Muhammad.

Even today, treason is not taken lightly by any government. In England you get the maximum penalty of life imprisonment if you are found guilty of treason, talk less of the 7th century when this incident took place.

Logicboy03:
Keep Anonynizing and deceiving yourself. Enjoy

The above is still very empty.

Logicboy03:

In bold, I have never heard that version. That is the biggest lie ever.


You dont know what you are talking about.

Logicboy why do you continue doing this to yourself? There is no harm in saying that you are yet to research about the incident that lead to the killing at Banu Qurayza.

Since you trust wiki then let me give you evidence of the bold...check the items in bold red below:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Banu Nadir (Arabic: بنو النظير ‎) were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia until the 7th century at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). The tribe challenged Muhammad as the leader of Medina.[1] and planned along with allied nomads to attack Muhammad [2] and were expelled from Medina as a result. The Banu Nadir then planned the battle of the Trench together with the Quraysh.[3] They later participated in the battle of Khaybar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir

deols:

Saudi has makka and madinnah and that is all to it. Dont judge Islam by what Saudis do. You can judge me with how I use the power I have and not with what others do with theirs.

what Saudis do is their cup of tea. If the prophet allowed the jews access to the mosque, it is enough proof.

@deols are u denying ur holy land??