DuckCrow:
The image I have of God is a supreme being that is evil-free.
To me war, killings and destruction of lives are all evil.
When attributes such as fighting, and killing and war (in self defense or otherwise) are attributed to God, then that no longer is an evil-free God. And here is why:
All parties in a war will always claim their actions are based on self-defense, and they all will make absolute perfect sense from their standpoint. By the virtue that everyone is fighting the next person in self-defense you will end up having a hostile, evil environment in which there will always be fighting, killing and destruction of lives (which is God's greatest gift).
An evil-free God, will never even discuss wars, and fighting, and killings. Killings (regardless of the justification used) are illogical to even be discussed by an evil-free God. It is something that only man can come up with - and not an evil-free supreme being.
"(190) And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression -- for, verily, God does not love aggressors. (191) And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away -- for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.
The very first phrase of the above statements says: And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you.... What is God's cause and who is to interpret what God's cause is? Furthermore if the cause is from God (again an evil-free God whose teachings and causes are meant to benefit "all"), why would it cause for someone or some group to wage war against you? Afterall, God's cause - if genuinely from God - is meant to benefit everyone.
Just the very notion that this talks about Fighting and killing implies that this is not from God (or at least the evil-free God that I believe), but was written by a man for his self-serving purposes.
> It seems to me that these verses when taken in context are simply a commentary on waging war in self-defense against an aggressor.
But who is to tell who was an aggressor and who was the victim? Like I said, in a war all parties always claim the others were the aggressors and they are fighting for their self-defense. Hence the war can potentially go on for ever unless some parties are totally eliminated, or they are taken over.
The case of an aggressor and a self-defender is similar to the case of "who came first, the chicken or the egg>"
These two surahs are largely devoted to problems of war and treaties between the believers and unbelievers.
What is a believer and an unbeliever? In essence you can consider me as a non-believer because I do not believe in Quran, and I do not believe in Islamic way of life. Furthermore I belong to faith known as Zoroastrian which is not recognized in Quran (in the same manner as Christianity and Judaism have been recognized).
Yet, as a non-believer, I am a family man, who loves his wife and daughter to the death, tries to do good deed in this world, and tries his best to be as honest as he can possibly be, works hard, and does believe in a supreme being that may or may not be different than what you as a Muslim believes.
for example in Iran, Muslims are persecuting those who are the followers of the Bahai faith. Islamic thugs of the regime have destroyed and vandalized the graves of Bahaiis and have killed many of the followers of the faith. All in the name of Quran and their war against the non-believers! In your opinion is this something that can fit with the verses in question?
Regards, |
