Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

[Niblo]

I didn't say they support terrorism...
I said they say to kill the infidel.

Let's try Qur'an 4:101

Ane when you (muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attach you, VERILY, the disbelievers are EVER UNTO YOU OPEN ENEMIES.

DISBELIEVERS are enemies of Muslims.
They are the infidel that can be killed...they are the enemies.

The verse you reference is from the sūrah Al-Nisa (Women):

‘When you (believers) are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you: they are your sworn enemies. (Verse 101).

Al-Nisa is a Medinan sūrah, revealed at a time when the Muslim community in that town were subject to attack by the Quraysh of Mecca, and their allies.

You will note that it is the Muslims who are in harm’s way. The following verse describes how they are to defend themselves (my emphasis):

‘When you (Prophet) are with the believers, leading them in prayer, let a group of them stand up in prayer with you, taking their weapons with them, and when they have finished their prostration, let them take up their positions at the back. Then let the other group, who have not yet prayed, pray with you, also on their guard and armed with their weapons: the disbelievers would dearly like you to be heedless of your weapons and baggage, in order for them to take you in a single assault. You will not be blamed if you lay aside your arms when you are overtaken by heavy rain or illness, but be on your guard.’ (Verse 102).

Are you suggesting that Muslims are not permitted to defend themselves when under attack?

Peace!

 

[Niblo]

I think I already said that the only peaceful Muslims are the ones that DO NOT practice their faith...

Are you suggesting that I am not a true Muslim because I refuse the kill my wife (a Christian); or my two daughters (also Christian); or three of my Christian grandchildren; or my sister (an atheist); or all the rest of my non-Muslim family? According to you, it is the terrorists who represent true Islam. It is they who truly understand what the Qur’an is saying.

Here’s the problem: If we are to believe you, then all the thousands of Muslim scholars today – all of whom draw their knowledge from the Qur’an and aḥādīth; and with this knowledge declare that terrorists are utterly wrong, and that their wanton violence is an evil to be fought against – are either fools who cannot comprehend their own texts, or else are deceitful liars, using their deceit to launch arguments against terrorists and terrorism.

And what of the 1.8 billion Muslims who live their religion day-by-day, according to their own texts, and never harm anyone? According to you, these people are also wrong. Worse, they are (according to you) not Muslims at all, since the only ‘true’ Muslim is – and must ever be – a terrorist!

Please explain the reason behind your unshakeable trust that terrorists are always right in their reading of the texts; and that the rest of us are always wrong in our reading of these same texts?

I’m at a loss as to what I – and Muslims such as I – have to do to gain the same level of trust in your heart as that secured by terrorists!

Peace!

 

[GodsGrace]

Are you suggesting that I am not a true Muslim because I refuse the kill my wife (a Christian); or my two daughters (also Christian); or three of my Christian grandchildren; or my sister (an atheist); or all the rest of my non-Muslim family? According to you, it is the terrorists who represent true Islam. It is they who truly understand what the Qur’an is saying.

How easily we misunderstand each other.
Is it any wonder the population of this world cannot even get along.

What did I say to bring you to believe the above?
Because I said that a muslim killed their daughter for dating an Italian man?
It could very well be due to how they were instructed in understanding their writings...
maybe they were not taught the same way you were.

OTOH, it could be what I was trying to convey:
That muslims tend to NOT want to become part of a community.
Any culture desires to stay with those of their own culture.
Italians want to stay with Italians, Greeks want to stay with Greeks...etc.

The difference is that the FIRST GENERATION of Italians or Greeks teach their children that they are to become a part of the country in which they live...let's say the U.S.

Do Muslim persons do this?
They do not. They teach their children that they are right and the others are wrong, and in every way.

Here’s the problem: If we are to believe you, then all the thousands of Muslim scholars today – all of whom draw their knowledge from the Qur’an and aḥādīth; and with this knowledge declare that terrorists are utterly wrong, and that their wanton violence is an evil to be fought against – are either fools who cannot comprehend their own texts, or else are deceitful liars, using their deceit to launch arguments against terrorists and terrorism.

Believe me?
DId I invent what I'm saying?
Is it what I see happening perhaps...or what I read perhaps?
I don't doubt that some Muslim scholars would like to see some change...but for that to happen
the Qur'an would have to be changed. I don't see this happening.

And what of the 1.8 billion Muslims who live their religion day-by-day, according to their own texts, and never harm anyone? According to you, these people are also wrong. Worse, they are (according to you) not Muslims at all, since the only ‘true’ Muslim is – and must ever be – a terrorist!

I did NOT say the above. My posts are not long...please read them carefully and don't put words in my mouth.

I said those that do not practice their religion are easier to get along with, are willing to integrate, and are those that are mostly against terrorism.

Those that practice their faith are not all terrorists...
some even might abhor this terrorism...
HOWEVER, they understand it and would like to see the rest of the world believe their version of society and God.

Please explain the reason behind your unshakeable trust that terrorists are always right in their reading of the texts; and that the rest of us are always wrong in our reading of these same texts?

The Qur'an is not clear in what it teaches. It leaves wiggle room.
Christianity leaves no wiggle room....
It states that war starts in our hearts (James) and it is our HEART that is to change.
The Qur'an teaches that UNBELIEVERS (the rest of the world) are not to be trusted...I see no peace here.

I’m at a loss as to what I – and Muslims such as I – have to do to gain the same level of trust in your heart as that secured by terrorists!

Peace!

Have some demonstrations against terrorism with your face uncovered.

But I doubt this will happen.

 

[GodsGrace]

The verse you reference is from the sūrah Al-Nisa (Women):

‘When you (believers) are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you: they are your sworn enemies. (Verse 101).

Al-Nisa is a Medinan sūrah, revealed at a time when the Muslim community in that town were subject to attack by the Quraysh of Mecca, and their allies.

You will note that it is the Muslims who are in harm’s way. The following verse describes how they are to defend themselves (my emphasis):

‘When you (Prophet) are with the believers, leading them in prayer, let a group of them stand up in prayer with you, taking their weapons with them, and when they have finished their prostration, let them take up their positions at the back. Then let the other group, who have not yet prayed, pray with you, also on their guard and armed with their weapons: the disbelievers would dearly like you to be heedless of your weapons and baggage, in order for them to take you in a single assault. You will not be blamed if you lay aside your arms when you are overtaken by heavy rain or illness, but be on your guard.’ (Verse 102).

Are you suggesting that Muslims are not permitted to defend themselves when under attack?

Peace!

Verse 101:
‘When you (believers) are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you: they are your sworn enemies. (Verse 101).

What does the above say?
THE DISBELIEVERS ARE YOUR SWORN ENEMIES.

What does this have to do with protecting yourself?
It tells me that unbelievers are my sworn enemies.
Not a good message that lends toward loving our neighbors.


verse 102 and other verses also...

WHY were so many against Islam that this even had to be said?

The first Jews were against the Christians...were the Christians taught to defend themselves?
Did Jesus defend Himself?
Were the Christians going to the lions defend themselves?

Come back to Christianity where you belong....


AND...are Muslims defending themselves under attack?
Or do they run because they know what their very brethren are capable of?

 

[Christ_empowered]

ok. on the one hand...

ideas (and religions) have consequences. i get that, I do.

on the other hand...

i still think improving educational opportunities, raising the status of women, working on the economy...offering....hope, basically...would go a long way towards reducing terrorism and probably violence in general, no matter what religion(s) (if any...'nones' are on the upswing...) are found in -any- nation, area, etc.

i mean, look at the US. angry, scared, struggling people cling to various ideologies (usually -very- right wing, but not always) and reworked versions of "Christianity" to justify hatred, extremism, cruelty, even violence....

does that mean conservatives are bad? that Christianity is a dangerous religion?


I'm not fond of most conservative ideology, but I don't think the concepts are dangerous or even always wrong....

and as a Christian, I obviously don't think of anti-abortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, anti-LGBTQ hatred, etc., as genuinely Christian in nature...

I just think the way the --world economy-- has gone, and is going (we're all so globalized now, its crazy), profits and revenue are flowing upwards, workers are getting the squeeze, and even nations that were once more generous with the masses have gone for 'austerity measures' (I'm thinking mostly of the UK, here), often in response to yet another crisis in the -sort of capitalism- dominated by a handful of elites.

so...honestly, i think a War on Poverty (probably international, given how everyone is interconnected, now) would probably yield far better results than a War on Terror or War on "radical" ideology, etc.

((finished, for now))

 

[Truthfrees]

Well, so far Dearborn hasn't caused anymore nor any less trouble than neighboring Detroit Suburbs.

I read Truthfrees article, and what I gathered was that the majority of terrorist attacks are against Muslims, but not necessarily by Muslims. The article starts with Churchill, and discussed the amount of terrorism against Muslims in Europe as you brought up.

Why America doesn't have the issues Europe has I don't really understand.

But, if I understand your post, you seem to think terrorism against Muslims in Europe is justified, and if your attitude reflects that of your European brethren, then perhaps that can give us some insight why European terrorism against Muslims is so high.

Regardless, I joined this thread not to discuss the atrocities radical Islam is clearly guilty of, but rather I posted because the Spirit really pushed me to live out my faith.

You may not agree, but I have given my view of the good Samaritan, and how it applies to everyone, regardless of their religious belief and regardless what those with differing religious beliefs have persecuted my religious belief. I stand unwavering that not all atheists or Muslims or any other beliefs that have persecuted my belief are bad people. Instead, Jesus teaches me to look beyond the stigma, and look at the person.

Part of love I hope, and I will not lose my hope because when one looses their hope, then we risk becoming blind and we can't see our neighbor when they are next to us. And if we lose sight of who our neighbor is, then don't we falsely accuse them and fail to live out one of the greatest commandments.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not deny, not do I support the atrocities radical Islam is guilty of and the last thing I want anyone to think is that I am minimizing their atrocities or ignoring the issues within Islam, radical or not.

As Christians, our thoughts and actions are to be wrapped in scripture and scripture tells us how to treat our enemies. If we look back to the time of Nero, his rhetoric against Christians was so hateful that Christians got blamed for things they were not guilty of. History has a habit of repeating and we see similar rhetoric against the Jews as Hitler slaughters them.

You see, when we stop looking at people as individuals and we demonize them, they no longer are viewed as humans with any worth. As Christians, Jesus tells us to be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves. This means we don't stick our head in the sand to the atrocities around us, but unlike the world, we live out our faith and point the way to Christ.

I believe Romans 13 or 14 address this as well.

i didn't mean to sound like i was against muslims - it is the ideology - including the command to lie while they advance islam/sharia

islam does not mean peace - it means submission - and that is the core goal of islam and sharia

i know peace-loving muslims who try to avoid the muslim community because they want to stay off the radar - they don't want to be targeted for not accepting islam

i know muslims who claim to be peace-loving but they give themselves away by their statements - it's hard to pretend to be peace-loving when deep down you believe infidels are a stain on the earth

ex-muslims who were born into islam are the most trustworthy on this subject imo - they love muslims but are extremely opposed to the islamic ideology

 

[GodsGrace]

ok. on the one hand...

ideas (and religions) have consequences. i get that, I do.

on the other hand...

i still think improving educational opportunities, raising the status of women, working on the economy...offering....hope, basically...would go a long way towards reducing terrorism and probably violence in general, no matter what religion(s) (if any...'nones' are on the upswing...) are found in -any- nation, area, etc.

i mean, look at the US. angry, scared, struggling people cling to various ideologies (usually -very- right wing, but not always) and reworked versions of "Christianity" to justify hatred, extremism, cruelty, even violence....

does that mean conservatives are bad? that Christianity is a dangerous religion?


I'm not fond of most conservative ideology, but I don't think the concepts are dangerous or even always wrong....

and as a Christian, I obviously don't think of anti-abortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, anti-LGBTQ hatred, etc., as genuinely Christian in nature...

I just think the way the --world economy-- has gone, and is going (we're all so globalized now, its crazy), profits and revenue are flowing upwards, workers are getting the squeeze, and even nations that were once more generous with the masses have gone for 'austerity measures' (I'm thinking mostly of the UK, here), often in response to yet another crisis in the -sort of capitalism- dominated by a handful of elites.

so...honestly, i think a War on Poverty (probably international, given how everyone is interconnected, now) would probably yield far better results than a War on Terror or War on "radical" ideology, etc.

((finished, for now))

I can agree with you.
The problem is that Islam does NOT WANT change.
It wants to stay in the dark ages.
Some countries that are Islamic are more progressive,,,I'm not sure why this is.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

ok. on the one hand...

ideas (and religions) have consequences. i get that, I do.

on the other hand...

i still think improving educational opportunities, raising the status of women, working on the economy...offering....hope, basically...would go a long way towards reducing terrorism and probably violence in general, no matter what religion(s) (if any...'nones' are on the upswing...) are found in -any- nation, area, etc.

i mean, look at the US. angry, scared, struggling people cling to various ideologies (usually -very- right wing, but not always) and reworked versions of "Christianity" to justify hatred, extremism, cruelty, even violence....

does that mean conservatives are bad? that Christianity is a dangerous religion?


I'm not fond of most conservative ideology, but I don't think the concepts are dangerous or even always wrong....

and as a Christian, I obviously don't think of anti-abortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, anti-LGBTQ hatred, etc., as genuinely Christian in nature...

I just think the way the --world economy-- has gone, and is going (we're all so globalized now, its crazy), profits and revenue are flowing upwards, workers are getting the squeeze, and even nations that were once more generous with the masses have gone for 'austerity measures' (I'm thinking mostly of the UK, here), often in response to yet another crisis in the -sort of capitalism- dominated by a handful of elites.

so...honestly, i think a War on Poverty (probably international, given how everyone is interconnected, now) would probably yield far better results than a War on Terror or War on "radical" ideology, etc.

((finished, for now))

If we are in a position to help that's great. But often we can't help address the issues that are bigger then our reach (talking about the economic hopes and helping workers not get the squeeze, now more then anything else). Instead I think regardless of our oppurturtunity or our reach to help there should be a guiding line of thought. In all things we should put God first and follow Him on His reasoning or His ways. For instance the teachings for slaves to obey their masters as in extension of obeying God, as well as rich men to pay their workers what they've earned instead of robing them of their earnings. These two things make me think to do something as if your doing it for God regardless what it is. But know that everything is in God's hands more then our own. I don't think we can change the world to be better even if we have the reach to do well in some areas that need it.

As for education. I've started to become wary of education as a whole instead of separating what good education is and promote that. I remember going to a community college and looking at some of the classes in the catalogue to search for electives. Some of those classes made me do a double take that it was actual class being taught as if it's a respectful subject. (Most of that was about human sexuality classes and the vibe I got to teach about all the different kinds of fetishes or worse acts and being open to them sort of thing).

I don't mean that education is bad, but I do think there is bad education out there.

Just some thought from reading your thoughts Christ_empowered.

 

[Niblo]

it's interesting your post ends with wrestling islam from the extremists - that may be a valid point but funny how we hear of no islamic groups condemning terrorism and actively working to wrestle islam from terrorism

proofs for lying /deceiving infidels
1. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

2. https://www.meforum.org/3181/tawriya-creative-lying-islam

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya -

4. http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/terror...ts-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml

5. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Lying_and_Deception

6. https://www.politicalislam.com/sacred-deception-taqiyya/

if you want more proof then i suggest you do a search as you claim 60 years of study on islam and other religions - also search for testimonies of ex-muslims - this might round out your study

This was your original claim:

‘There is also a command to lie and deceive infidels to advance the cause of Allah.’

I asked you to provide proof of this claim. In reply, you posted links to various sites, making no attempt to present an analysis of their content, or to draw out of them any quote from either the Qur’an or aḥādīth in support of your claim (by the way, the 15th century word ‘infidel’ does not exist in the Qur’an).

It is necessary to understand what is meant by the expression ‘in the cause of Allah’. It means – quite simply – that we should strive to uphold His commandments, and to turn away – in condemnation – from all that He has forbidden. We should strive to excel in prayer; in charity; in good deeds of all kinds; in standing up for what is true against what is false; and yes, in fighting when we have to – but only in self-defence, or in the defence of those who are helpless in the face of aggression.

I intend to focus on the anonymous author in the site ‘What Makes Islam So Different’.

The author quotes verse 106 from the sūrah Al-Nahl; stating that it: ‘Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.’

Here is the verse:

‘With the exception of those who are forced to say they do not believe, although their hearts remain firm in faith, those who reject God after believing in Him and open their hearts to disbelief will have the wrath of God upon them and a grievous punishment awaiting them.’

There is no compulsion here. This verse merely gives permission to outwardly deny one’s faith when under duress – provided that one’s heart remains firm in that faith; and that one is acting under coercion. This is the process known as ‘taqiyyah’.

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr reminds us that ‘taqiyyah’:

‘Is etymologically related to “taking care” and “being wary” and is lexically related to taqwā, or reverence.

‘Those who fear death or great harm through persecution at the hands of the community in which they live can hide their faith through words but not through actions, which is to say they can deny to others that they are Muslim, but they cannot then violate the major rules of Islam by, for example, murdering, stealing, or committing adultery under the cover of this denial.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Where in Al-Nahl 106 does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

The author then refers to verse 28 of the sūrah Al‘Imran; stating that the verse: ‘Tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.’

Here is the verse:

‘The believers should not make the disbelievers their protectors (awliyāʾ) rather than other believers – anyone who does such a thing will isolate himself completely from God – except when you need to protect yourselves from them. God warns you to beware of Him: the Final Return is to God.’

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘In this context, protectors renders awliyāʾ (sing. walī), a multifaceted word that can mean “protector,” “ruler,” “ally,” “client,” or “friend” depending on the context. The subject matter here is not friendship in the ordinary sense, but allegiance and group alignment in which the political stakes go beyond mere confessional identity.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Where in Al‘Imran 28 does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

The author then quotes a part of verse 3 from the sūrah Al-Tawba. Here is the complete verse:

‘On the Day of the Great Pilgrimage (there will be) a proclamation from God and His Messenger to all people: ‘God and His Messenger are released from (treaty) obligations to the idolaters. It will be better for you (idolaters) if you repent; know that you cannot escape God if you turn away.’ (Prophet), warn those who ignore (God) that they will have a painful punishment.’

According to the author, this sūrah concerns ‘the dissolution of oaths (with) pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture’. The sūrah is, in fact, Medinan – revealed while the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was still resident there – and not Meccan. It gives notice of the severance of the treaty with the idolaters of Medina, because they had broken it. The sūrah continues:

‘As for those who have honoured the treaty you made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfil your agreement with them to the end of their term. God loves those who are mindful of Him.’ (Verse 4).

Where in verse 3 of this sūrah does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

The author quotes only the second verse of sūrah Al-Tahrim, thus depriving it of context (a form of deception, by the way!). Here is the verse in its proper place (my emphasis):

‘Prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful to you in your desire to please your wives? Yet God is forgiving and merciful: He has ordained a way for you (believers) to release you from (such) oaths – God is your helper: He is the All Knowing, the Wise.

‘The Prophet told something in confidence to one of his wives. When she disclosed it (to another wife) and God made this known to him, he confirmed part of it, keeping the rest to himself. When he confronted her with what she had done, she asked, ‘Who told you about this?’ and he replied, ‘The All Knowing, the All Aware told me.’ If both of you (wives) repent to God – for your hearts have deviated – (all will be well); if you collaborate against him, (be warned that) God will aid him, as will Gabriel and all righteous believers, and the angels too will back him. His Lord may well replace you with better wives if the Prophet decides to divorce any of you: wives who are devoted to God, true believers, devout, who turn to Him in repentance and worship Him, given to fasting, whether previously married or virgins.’ (Al-Tahrim: 1-5).

Professor M.A.S Abdel Haleem informs us that Al-Tahrim is:

‘A Medinan sura that discusses episodes in the Prophet’s home life. It chides two of the Prophet’s wives for an incident when a confidence was betrayed (verses 3–5).

Haleem also states that: ‘If a Muslim swears an oath which may be counter to what is right, he is allowed release, provided he gives expiation.’ (‘The Qur’an’ – my emphasis).

Where in verse two of this sūrah does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

The author references verse 28 of sūrah Ghafir; stating that: ‘A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.’

Yet again he rips the verse from its context. Here it is, in its correct setting (my emphasis):

‘We sent Moses with Our signs and clear authority to Pharaoh, Haman, and Korah and they said, ‘Sorcerer! Liar!’ When he brought the truth to them from Us, they said, ‘Kill the sons of those who believe with him; spare only their women’ – the scheming of those who reject the truth can only go wrong – and Pharaoh said, ‘Leave me to kill Moses – let him call upon his Lord! – for I fear he may cause you to change your religion, or spread disorder in the land.’ Moses said, ‘I seek refuge with my Lord and yours from every tyrant who refuses to believe in the Day of Reckoning.’

‘A secret believer from Pharaoh’s family said, ‘How can you kill a man just for saying, “My Lord is God”? He has brought you clear signs from your Lord – if he is a liar, on his own head be it – and if he is truthful, then at least some of what he has threatened will happen to you. God does not guide any rebellious, outrageous liar. My people, as masters in the land you have the power today, but who will help us against God’s might if it comes upon us?’ But Pharaoh said, ‘I have told you what I think; I am guiding you along the right path.’ (Ghafir: 23-29).

In Ecclesiastes we are told there is: ‘A time to be quiet and a time to speak.’ (3:7). We have no idea who our ‘secret believer’ was, or why he chose keep his secret. Perhaps he felt it was not yet time to reveal it.

According to ‘Matthew’, Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) ‘sternly warns’ his disciples not to tell anyone that that he had cured a blind man (9:28-30); or that he is the Messiah (16: 19-20). I’m sure that Yeshua – like Pharaoh’s family member – had good reason for secrecy. What would the author make of this, I wonder?

Where in Ghafir 28 does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

The author then quotes verse 225 from the sūrah Al-Baqara. Here it is – in context – with my emphasis:

‘(Believers), do not allow your oaths in God’s name to hinder you from doing good, being mindful of God and making peace between people. God hears and knows everything: He will not call you to account for oaths you have uttered unintentionally, but He will call you to account for what you mean in your hearts. God is most forgiving and forbearing.’ (Al-Baqara:224-225).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘This verse is interpreted by some to refer to the habit of repeating “by God” (wa’Llāhi) for emphasis in everyday speech, which was a common habit among the Arabs and continues today even among non-Arab Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs. Others mention that it could refer to a situation in which a person believes something to be true, swears to it, and then finds out the belief is incorrect, in which case no expiation is required. This verse is also taken to exclude oaths taken in anger.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Where in Al-Baqara 225 does it say that lying is permissible in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

The author then quotes verse 54 of sūrah Al‘Imran. Here is the verse in its context (my emphasis):

‘When Jesus realized they (still) did not believe, he said, ‘Who will help me in Allāh’s cause?’ The disciples said, ‘We will be Allāh’s helpers; we believe in Allāh – witness our devotion to Him. Lord, we believe in what You have revealed and we follow the messenger: record us among those who bear witness (to the Truth). The (disbelievers) schemed (‘wamakarū’) but Allāh also schemed (‘wamakara’); Allāh is the Best of Schemers (‘l-mākirīna’).’.

In the Qur’an the noun ‘makr’ means deception, craftiness, slyness or trickery when applied to the evil intentions and deeds of people. When applied to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), on the other hand, it is a metaphorical reference to His power to thwart, or to defeat, the plots of the unrighteous. In reality, the Exalted has no need to plot, or to scheme; He need only say ‘Be’ and it is (Al’Imran: 47).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘God’s plotting is mentioned in several verses and refers to God’s ultimate control over the outcome of all events; it is frequently juxtaposed with the futility of human ‘plotting’ by comparison.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Where in verse 54 of Al‘Imran does it say that lying is permissible in order in order to advance the cause of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)?

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

The author then presents a distorted account of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. He writes:

‘Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) which allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Professor M. A. S. Abdel Haleem writes (my emphasis):

‘A ten-year truce was agreed, even though the terms were disadvantageous to the Prophet and the Muslims, but peace was a goal which the Prophet eagerly sought.

‘Within two years, however, the Meccans broke the treaty by helping the Banū Bakr with men and arms to attack and kill a number of the Banū Khuzā‘a (allies of the Muslims) even though the Banū Khuzā‘a sought refuge at the Ka‘ba. The Banū Khuzā‘a sent a delegation to the Prophet informing him that the Meccans had broken the treaty and killed some of them in the Sanctuary while they were kneeling and prostrating in prayer. As a result, the Muslims marched on Mecca, and took possession of the Ka‘ba and the Sacred Precincts.

‘It is worth noting that, in approaching Mecca on this occasion, the Prophet sent emissaries to call out to the Meccans, ‘Whoever stays in his house is safe, whoever enters Abū Sufyān’s house is safe, whoever enters the Sanctuary is safe.’ He did not say, however, ‘Whoever becomes Muslim is safe or renounces polytheism is safe.’ Many Meccans entered Islam following the surrender of the city, but many living inside and outside the boundaries of Mecca remained polytheists. In 9 AH, the Prophet led a Muslim expedition to Tabūk to meet the Byzantine army who were thought to be marching to attack the Muslims. Some of the polytheists who had entered into treaties with the Prophet, whether at Hudaybiyya or subsequently, believed this was going to be the final and complete end of the Muslims, who could not possibly stand up to the mighty Byzantine army, and so openly reneged on their treaty. The Prophet and the Muslim army returned from Tabūk without engaging the enemy in combat, having found that the Byzantines were not coming after all.’ (Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’).

Comment:

According to Agha Ibrahim Akram, the entry to Mecca was not entirely bloodless, since a band of Quraysh attacked a column led by Khalid bin Al-waleed. The Quraysh lost twelve men, and the Muslims two ( ‘Khalid bin Al-waleed: Sword of Allah – a Biographical Study’).

According to Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani, four Quraysh leaders were tried, and executed, for war crimes. Two women, found guilty of murder, were also executed.’ (‘The Message’).


I invite you to analyse the content of each of the remaining links you posted; to extract any verse from the Qur’an or aḥādīth that supports your original claim; and to present these for consideration and discussion.

I await the fruit of your labours.

May the Exalted bless both you and your family.

 

[Niblo]

How easily we misunderstand each other.
Is it any wonder the population of this world cannot even get along.

I was responding to this comment (your emphasis):

‘The only peaceful Muslims are the ones that DO NOT practice their faith.’ (Post 175).

In order to avoid confusion, please explain exactly what you mean by this.

The following statement (again, your words) is not in Post 175:

‘I said those that do not practice their religion are easier to get along with, are willing to integrate, and are those that are mostly against terrorism.’

Peace!

 

[Anto9us2]

Since the Nicene Creed was finalized in 381 AD, I can't see how it has anything to do with either Calvinism or Islam.

 

[Walpole]

Since the Nicene Creed was finalized in 381 AD, I can't see how it has anything to do with either Calvinism or Islam.

Then why do Calvinists recite it?

 

[Anto9us2]

The creed is a part of the early church's expression of the faith, and against Arianism.

The Nicene Creed is no more "Roman Catholic" than it is Greek Orthodox, in fact, most of the bishops at the two sessions were Eastern.

It is therefore an error to say that "Catholic bishops" gave us the CREED, no, more so Orthodox Bishops, in a period of an "undivided Church".

Whatever I say of why Calvinists recite or believe the Nicene Creed will be said to be "misrepresenting Calvinism", like everything else I might say of Calvinism, but I will venture to say they see it as a valid product of the ancient undivided Church, and not as something "Roman Catholic" - it is not, except for the spurious addition to it (filioque) which was added much later.

Calvinists claim to be, and are, part of Christianity.

Therefore the CREED is part of their heritage.

How Islam got in this thread, I do not know.

My main point is that the CREED is NOT "Roman Catholic" or uppercase Catholic in any way, it is just as much if not more so uppercase Orthodox, and today's Protestants see it as a valid declaration of the undivided ancient church's beliefs, except for those Protestants who are non-Trinitarian, like Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians, and others who dubiously fall into the designation "Protestant", like JWs.

I don't understand, Walpole, your objection to PROTESTANTS "professing to the beliefs of a church they REJECT."

The creed is the beliefs of an undivided ancient church, more Greek Orthodox than Roman Catholic, but including all ancient Christianity united against Arianism.

 

[Walpole]

The creed is a part of the early church's expression of the faith, and against Arianism.

The Nicene Creed is no more "Roman Catholic" than it is Greek Orthodox, in fact, most of the bishops at the two sessions were Eastern.

It is therefore an error to say that "Catholic bishops" gave us the CREED, no, more so Orthodox Bishops, in a period of an "undivided Church".

Whatever I say of why Calvinists recite or believe the Nicene Creed will be said to be "misrepresenting Calvinism", like everything else I might say of Calvinism, but I will venture to say they see it as a valid product of the ancient undivided Church, and not as something "Roman Catholic" - it is not, except for the spurious addition to it (filioque) which was added much later.

Calvinists claim to be, and are, part of Christianity.

Therefore the CREED is part of their heritage.

How Islam got in this thread, I do not know.

My main point is that the CREED is NOT "Roman Catholic" or uppercase Catholic in any way, it is just as much if not more so uppercase Orthodox, and today's Protestants see it as a valid declaration of the undivided ancient church's beliefs, except for those Protestants who are non-Trinitarian, like Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians, and others who dubiously fall into the designation "Protestant", like JWs.

The Creed is Catholic (uppercase) and Orthodox, since they did not split until the 11th century. However, the Orthodox do not reject the Church, but rather they are in schism. There is a big difference as Protestants positively reject the Church. (It is what the "protest" comes from in the name they gave themselves - Protestant.)

And while the majority of bishops at the Council were in fact from the East, the Council was convened by the bishop of Rome (the pope). While the pope was too old to personally attend the Council, he sent the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius (Osius), along with two priests from Rome, Vitus (Vito) and Vincentius, as his personal representatives at Nicea. These three representatives of the bishop of Rome were the first men the first to sign the official Acts of the Council; two of whom were but simple priests, signing ahead of the great Patriarchs of the East.

ETA: The reason why the Orthodox are unable to convene Councils since the schism is because they do not have the bishop of Rome.

I don't understand, Walpole, your objection to PROTESTANTS "professing to the beliefs of a church they REJECT."

The creed is the beliefs of an undivided ancient church, more Greek Orthodox than Roman Catholic, but including all ancient Christianity united against Arianism.

My objection is based on the illogicalness of Protestants professing belief in the Church they positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. For example, the Church at Nicea:

- Declared Christ as the same substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) of the Father - contra sola Scriptura (Ecthesis of the Council) - contrary to sola Scriptura
- Supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence (Canon 3)
- Instructed on preserving valid Apostolic succession by requiring three bishops present for the consecration of subsequent bishops (Canon 4)
- Declaring Rome as the authority to grant jurisdiction to other Churches (Canon 6)
- Ruled on ordaining men to the priesthood (Canons 9 & 10)
- Instructed on giving viaticum to the dying (Canon 13)
- Instructed regarding catechumens (Canon 14)
- Affirmed the ordained episcopate, priesthood and deaconate (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the Eucharist as the literal “Body of Christ" (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the priests and bishops as they who "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice. (Canon 18)

These are but a few examples, all of which are rejected by Protestants.

I am just trying to understand the logic in using a Creed composed by a Church with which one protests. For the very Creed composed by the bishops of the Church describes itself and professes a belief in it:

"...I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. Hence, my confusion. For it appears that Protestants either do not know what it is they are professing, or they do not actually believe what it is they claim to profess.

 

[Anto9us2]

FYI, I do NOT reject a "real presence" in the Eucharist, and I would not say I "totally reject" the Roman Catholic Church.

I may reject some of it's teachings, I probably reject more of the beliefs of Calvinists than I do of Catholics.

The Nicene Creed is a great UNIFYING FACTOR of all Trinitarian Christians, be they Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Why you seem to be trying to make it a DIVISIVE factor, is what is illogical to me.

I am not Sola Scriptura, I am Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Anglicans, Episopalians and Methodists ALL spring from Church of England, as opposed to actually being followers of one of the REFORMERS - Luther, Calvin. and Zwingli.

 

[Anto9us2]

How do I "positively reject" the Roman Catholic Church ?

(In fact I do NOT, I accept it as another valid Christian DENOMINATION, but not as "the one true church", same as I view Orthodox)

How long was Daniel in the Lion's Den ?

 

[Walpole]

How do I "positively reject" the Roman Catholic Church ?

By choosing to not be in the Church, you are positively rejecting it.

(In fact I do NOT, I accept it as another valid Christian DENOMINATION, but not as "the one true church", same as I view Orthodox)

Denominations originated with the advent of the Protestant religions and has as its root in the act of dividing. In historical Christianity, there were no denominations, but rather Churches. For example, since we have been discussing Nicea, if you read the Council's canons, you can see the Fathers never refer to other sees as denominations, but rather as Churches. (e.g. Canon 6)

How long was Daniel in the Lion's Den ?

One night.