When Muslims ask why do Catholics worship idols it must be explained to them that the Kaaba is made of stone , and Muslims circle it, knowing it is not God. Similarly the statue of Our Lady, remind us of the sacred.God has created her without sin, as the Mother of God and with an important role for the end times.
When Muslims go on a pilgrimage to Mecca they throw stones at a stone wall.It is called stoning the devil.These objects at Mecca are made of stone,just like the Catholic statues.
Then though Muslims say God is one, and unknowable, when they pray they take the name of a human being.
The Wahabi cleric in Syria , who is shown on a video destroying a statue of Our Lady(1), will begin his prayers reciting the name of a man, Mohammad.When Muslims pray they repeat the name of a man.The man who asked them to do so.
TRINITY
If a Muslim would ask me how can you believe in three Persons in One God, I would say just as you believe a woman can give birth to a child without relations with a man, we can believe in the Holy Trinity. It's about something supernatural.
Those who know about Jesus and the Church and its necessity for salvation from Hell, according to Vatican Council II (LG 14), and who do not enter will not be saved. Mohammad the Koran shows, knew and did not enter.
He did not have'faith and baptism'(AG 7) needed for salvation. This is also the fate of other Muslims.
The religion of Mohammad like othe religions, is known also for its 'errors, deficiences and superstion'(Dominus Iesus).
Those Muslims who die for Jesus and the Church can be saved as martyrs. This is a possibility if God wills it. In general, even Muslims martyrs for the Catholic Faith, need the baptism of water for salvation.
Without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, we don't know of any Muslim in 2013 who wil be able to see Paradise, while remaining outside the visible boundaruies of the Catholic Church.
This is the way God chose for all to be united with Him.The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood(CCC 845).
In Italy, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and members of Christian denominations know about Jesus and the Church. They are not in invincible ignorance.They have an obligation to convert for salvation.
The ordinary means of salvation for all non Catholics is Catholic Faith with the baptism of water.
There are good things in the religion of Mohammad, a medieval army general. There is the to prayers, believing in one God, and the Judeo-Christian moral code.However the religion is a false path to salavtion.
At Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI asked what new thing did the religion of Mohammad bring except...? (2)
According to Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church, before and after Vatican Council II Islam is not a path to salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
2.
Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture:
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture
In fact the line doesn't appear in the Conan Doyle books, only later in Sherlock Holmes' films. He does come rather close at a few of points. Holmes says "Elementary" in 'The Crooked Man', and "It was very superficial, my dear Watson, I assure you" in 'The Cardboard Box'. He also says "Exactly, my dear Watson, in three different stories.The phrase was first used by P. G. Wodehouse, in Psmith Journalist, 1915 
Posts
