₦airaland Forum

free2ryhme: how then was she strangle to death ? was she kidnapped ? only one plausible deduction .. what was she doing alone late in the night? because she cant be strangled during the day

Somebody can't be strangled during the day? You must be living in a very peaceful and orderly part of the world bro... or you don't watch the news very often

Let me answer your last question first:

alexis: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”...

I think you mis-understood what I meant. Sino said no one complained about the prophet marriage to Aisha - I said that not correct as Aisha's father wasn't in support of the marriage initially.

Did you really consider the conversation at all?
First of all, is Abu Bakr The Prophet's brother? No! So why did he say he was the prophet's brother?

A bit of background..

Abu Bakr was the first adult male to become a Muslim and the Prophet had declared him to be a "brother" due to their closeness. Abu Bakr was under the wrong impression that being "brothers" made the marriage unlawful (as Aisha would then be the Prophet's niece). But The Prophet clarified that what he meant was that Abu Bakr was his brother "in religion" - and not by blood - which would have made marriage invalid. The marriages that are unlawful are well spelt out in Q4:23.

Abu Bakr wasn't against the marriage in principle - in fact he was honoured. This was the same person who had spent his entire wealth on the religion, was hand-picked by the Prophet to be his companion during their migration, and who succeeded the Prophet after his death. His fear was that the marriage may be invalid due to his "brotherhood" with the Prophet, a misconception that was later on allayed. If he had opposed Aisha's marriage to the Prophet due to her age, why would he then have betrothed her to Jubair (see next section)?

alexis: On point A, you are a student of Islam, you should know that if backing up anything, wikipedia shouldn't be your source., The Quran and Hadith are there and they are the authoritative text to use. I can log onto wikipedia and change the link you provided.

You are right. But Wikipedia does provide references as well, so people cannot just mangle a page. Her earlier betrothal to Jubayr is a historical fact. Martin Ling has detailed this in his biography of the Prophet (page 106). If you wish to verify this for yourself, I would send you a copy of the book. A google of "Jubayr bin Mut'im Aisha" should provide you with more information in any case.

alexis: On point B, you seem to make a mistake. Khawla did not mention Aisha, but rather she said: "the daughter of your friend Abu Bakr", meaning the older daughter Asma, not Aisha. It is more logical for her to mean 18 year old Asma, because Aisha was only 6. But Mohammed choose to marry 6 year old Aisha, why - we would never know.

What historical evidence do you have that Khawla meant Asma and not Aisha?! If Khawla had meant "Asma" and the she discovered during their conversation that the Prophet had misunderstood which "daughter of Abubakar" she was talking about wouldn't she have clarified her meaning in their conversation instead of setting out on her way to meet Abubakar?

In any case - not that it matters - Khawla did mention Aisha when she proposed the two names saying "Either 'A'ishah the daughter of Abu Bakr or Sawdah the daughter of Zarn'ah." Probably that was another version of the same story. (Ref available)

In any case, there is a good chance that Asma was already married at that time anyway. The Prophet was betrothed to Aisha 2 years before the Migration while we know Asma was already married before the migration.

alexis: Is there a moral law in this world (whether in 7th century Arabia or 16th century England), that would allow a 50 year old man marry a 6 year old child? That is the question that puzzles me. Now remember, he married Khadija who was 15 years his Senior, I don't have a problem with that. If he had married a girl of 15 or 18, we wouldn't have a problem with that.

(Actually, it will be more accurate to say it was a betrothal rather than a marriage as cohabitation and consummation was deferred until she was 9 years of age)

That's by the way.

So, is there any moral law in this world that would allow a 90 year old man on his last strengths to marry a 12 year old girl?

alexis: What is considered "under-aged". Your approach to this subject has been very very good. Sino tried to justify the fact that Mary was "12" when she married and as a result, it was alright for Mohammed to marry a 6 year old. I told him that 12 and 6 are way apart. A 12 year old can baby-sit and protect a 6 year old. A 12 year old is more matured in nearly every aspect that a 6 year old.

You're right in that a 12 year old is more matured than a 6 or 9 year old, but if I understand Sino correctly, it is the fact that both the marriage to a 12 year old and marriage to a 9 year old are aberrations in today's world.

But should we judge the historical people based on what is the norm now? Even they, would view many of the things that we do nowadays as aberrations.

alexis: I don't doubt that there were early marriages in Arabia and Europe and even in Africa during that time. However, I question the morality of a "Holy Prophet" marrying a child.

You say this because you are a Child of the 21st century. You grew up seeing your sisters, female friends and relatives finish primary, secondary and university before getting married. The age of marriage is even pushed further, as there's greater societal pressure on women to be gainfully employed just like their male peers.

The age of marriage is fluctuating - just some few years back the Cross River government under Donald Duke raised the marriage age to 21 years for example making it illegal - and probably strange in the long run - for an 18 year old to be seen getting married, say, in 100 years from now.

That has been what you've always known; what you've grown up to hold as "normal". I understand your difficulty in grappling with how one could get married at such a young age.

How much different would your view have been had you been born a millennium ago? Where you grew up and found your 10 year old elder sister already engaged to an older man? It's difficult to tell, but I don't think you would have felt so strongly about this had that been the NORM all around you.

Like others have mentioned, girls in those times didn't face the same challenges as girls of nowadays do - of getting secular education and earning a job. I would imagine it is even more likely that physical development - rather than a person's age - was the yardstick that was used to determine if a person was "ripe" for marriage or not.

Let me end with a quote from a "Short History of Human Marriage" by Edvard Westermarck,

But at various times very youthful marriages have prevailed among the Jews: by the thirteenth century a large proportion of Jewish girls were married during their minority, and in the second half of the seventeenth century the bridegroom was frequently not more than ten years old and the bride was younger still (Page 40)

October 2016? Alright then. We'll put your prophecy to the test . If Nairaland hasn't been consumed by the inferno, perhaps I may resurrect this thread. Now, don't go about changing your username if events don't quite turn out as you have predicted. Shalom

@alexis

alexis: On point E, you are incorrect. If I provide a reference from the Hadith showing Abu Bakr questioning the marriage of Mohammed to Aisha - would that be sufficient evidence that there was at least ONE complaint

Please quote the reference so that I can reply your points together. Thanks.

alexis: ... and to refute his claim that no one complain about Aisha's marriage when she was 6.

No one complained about Aisha's marriage to the Prophet like you said. Aisha's betrothal and marriage to the Prophet was certainly not an "abnormal" thing in those days. Kindly consider the following:

a) Even before Muhammad, Aisha had been betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im whose non-Muslim father objected to the marriage. This fact alone rests the issue that the Prophet's marriage to Aisha was simply one of the Prophet's whimsicalities which even at that time was unusual. (Ref: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubayr_ibn_Mut%27im[/url])

b) On some accounts, it was Khawla bint Hakim who prompted the Prophet to marry again - after the death of his first wife Khadija - specifically to the daughter of his bosom friend, Abubakar who was also the first Caliph of Islam. It's easy to see why Khawla would suggest to the Prophet to marry a virgin, for his second wife, as he had been married to a much older woman for 25 years or so, being now over 50 years of age.

c) On receiving the proposal, the Prophet remarked that Aisha was still "young" being only 6 years at that time (and additionally he was with children who needed a step-mother). This was probably the reason why the consummation of the marriage was delayed till when Aisha was about 9 years old.

While Aisha stayed with her parents, the Prophet got married to yet another widowed woman - Sawda Bint Zam'ah - to take care of his children.

Note: Sawda Bint Zam'ah was over 50 years old and was older than the Prophet.

d) The fact that the marriage took place in Makkah is also particularly noteworthy. In Makkah the Muslims were weak and the Prophet didn't have the influence and power as he had in the latter stages of his life (I assume you are familiar with the Prophet's migration from Makkah to Medina?). In Makkah he was frequently being dismissed as being a poet, soothsayer or madman, would he then provide fodder to his enemies by veering into the anti-social?

Contracting an "obnoxious marriage" during the height of the Mekkan persecution when the Islamic Faith was still weak would be shooting himself in the foot and would certainly not be in his best interests.

e) There is no record of anyone at that time - Muslim, Mekkan or Jew - ridiculing the Prophet on the basis of marrying Aisha at that young age.

f) I was recently reading the biography of the Prophet by William Muir - a 19th century English critic of the Prophet - and I was surprised that he merely mentioned the Prophet's marriage to Aisha in passing, without raising a storm as he would normally do on other aspects of the Prophet's life. (I must add, I haven't finished the work though).

I believe this issue, probably "escaped" him as people at his time were not as sensitive to the issue of "child marriages" as we are at this time.

Our environment shapes our sensitivities. This is important.

I would be surprised if there was a single Nairaland member who doesn't have an "underage" ancestor at one time or the other.

Regards.

@Alexis About the Prophet "wearing Aisha's clothes" and "Aisha's father not agreeing to the marriage", can you please start a thread on those two issues so that we don't derail this one? Your misconceptions about those two issues can be appropriately dealt with there. Thanks.

@Alexis

alexis: You tried to justify the same with Jewish culture but proof, you no fit provide.

You are right that Mary's age was not mentioned in the Bible. It was not unusual for Jewish girls at the time to be married by the age of 12 (Note: a girl may be betrothed before that time). Ref: http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Kiddushin

We also have references to Mary's age in Christian writings for example in the Catholic encyclopedia: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6476 (scroll to the section title "marriage" ) and http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/marymotherjesus.htm

obadiah777: AND FROM FOLLOWING DANIEL 7 AND REVELATION 17 WE KNOW THAT BABYLON USA IS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THERE YOU HAVE IT

No we don't "know" that. I haven't seen anywhere in the above chapters you mentioned where it says the US is an offshoot of the Roman Empire. And which one is "BABYLON USA"? Your coinage or something?

Nothing has happened "exactly" except in your imagination. How's me asking about the America with the 10 horns/ 10 kings amount to scoffing? Or when did the Edomites (descendants of Esau) found the Roman Empire? Lastly, who are these wise men of America that you are talking about?

@obadiah777 I am not here to scoff. I believe the questions I asked are valid questions. Prophecies are like wide nets, and we can make them to catch whatever we want if we try. Good luck for the game.

obadiah777: WHY AMERICA ? WELL IF YOU FOLLOW THE TRAJECTORY OF THE EMPIRES IN DANIEL CHAPTER 7, THE LAST EMPIRE IS AMERICA

a) No I didn't see that. Daniel 7 says the fourth beast has 10 horns (i.e. Kings/Presidents/whatever). America has had more than 10 horns, no? On the strength of that, I can conclusively say the fourth beast doesn't refer to America.

b) If there were to be another Superpower in some years time - and it is possible with the way China is rising rapidly - would the prophecy then shift to fit China?

c)

obadiah777: WHEN IT SAYS THE BLOOD OF EVERYONE ON THE EARTH IT IS NOT TALKING ABOUT LITERAL BLOOD... THATS WHAT THAT VERSE MEANS

How do you know it doesn't mean literal blood? If you are talking from the "spirit" please say so, so that I can end my questioning ASAP!

d) v24 talks about the prophets and saints being killed - how does that hold true of America?

e)

obadiah777: THE WISE MEN OF AMERICA ARE CALLED CHALDEANS IN THE BIBLE

Really? . So who were the wise men of America (in History)?

f)

obadiah777: HOWEVER THE MODERN DAY CHALDEANS MARCHED THROUGH THE BREATH OF THE LAND AND TOOK EVERYONES LAND AS SAID IN HABBAKUK

Well America haven't exactly taken e v e r y o n e' s land have they? . Or maybe that will happen in the near future?

g)

obadiah777: THEIR HERITAGE IS EDOM BUT THEY FORMED THE ROMAN EMPIRE OUT OF WHICH CAME EUROZONE AND USA.

The Edomites formed the Roman Empire? *scratches head*

There's nothing "emphatic" about what you've said mate .

Before I reply, why are you writing in CAPS?

@Mistade Regal: Prove it!

@Obadiah
1) Revelation 18:23

a) Why would you think Revelation 18 was referring to America and not to any other city? Couldn't Babylon also have been the great Roman empire which is now no more? Or maybe USSR which was broken to pieces? Or maybe some other city to come after America?

b) v24 which you have not quoted seems to eliminate the possibility that Babylon is America, No?

2) Obadiah 3
This was talking about Edom, unless you mean to say Edom is America?

3) Habbakuk 1:8
This was about the Chaldeans punishing Judah. Again, nothing in the chapter to support the conclusions you have made.

sunkoye: Wondering y it took him whole eternity to say dat! One hell of a politician!

He has actually been criticizing BH for a long time now.

Believe me nobody knows! Any figures you see online are just estimates. Remember we all thought we had more women, when the last census showed that there are actually more men in Naija than women . The last census didn't ask for religion as well so we have nothing authoritative.

In the long run it's irrelevant. If there are more Muslims than Christians - or vice-versa - it doesn't in any way prove which religion is the truth. Just do what you think is right and be true to your conscience.

@Afam4eva I hardly think so. They just didn't respect his beliefs/principles enough, that's all. It was plain mischief. Why continue drenching him even while he lay on the ground?

@Amelian
Alright then. I would say GO FOR IT! Sometimes we have to take risks in life, but at 29 years of age, he's not a kid. Find out from him what he thinks of the age gap... and how committed he is in the long term. If he has no problem with it, and he's what you want, why not? You won't be the first, and won't be last woman to marry a man younger than herself. Good luck.

@Amelian In your post you didn't mention if you told him YOUR OWN AGE . It's very important you know.

Will you prefer to marry just because u have a steady job or do u prefer to attain financial stability before thinkin of marriage?

What do you mean by financial stability? Is a "steady job" different from "financial stability". This your definition of "financial stability" nawao

@OP
Why are you posting the pictures of these girls' online? Do you think the Hijab is a form of fashion statement? Please take the pictures down.

To your post, Nigerian Muslim women cover up even more than some Arab countries. We have lots of women wearing the face-veil even. I can't speak of other West African countries though.

LagosShia: if that land was not pure,the blood of the Prophet (sa) through his grandson,would not have been spilled there.

I am not sure Abu Muhammad mentioned anywhere that the land was not pure.

LagosShia: Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansar (may Allah bless him and be pleased with him).its not "stones".its "soil".

Not saying this is true or not true, but I think a source would be nice.

LagosShia: But the Shi'ah prefer to prostrate on the earth of Karbala because of the importance given to it by the Prophet (s) and the Imams from his Family (Ahl al-Bayt).

The importance given to it by the Prophet is not sufficient justify that preference. For example, when Muslims prefer to prostrate in the Masjid Haram, if they are able to, they do so based on evidence. What saying of the Prophet supports this preference?

LagosShia: he didn't prostrate on it,but he never prostrated on rug or carpet as sunnis do today

LagosShia: these are sunni hadiths from bukahri/muslim about the insistence that prostration be done on earth.

There is an authentic hadith of the Prophet praying on a Khumrah. This provides sufficient evidence that praying on any other (pure) surface, other than the earth is allowed in principle. Is a person's prayer void he prayed on a rug? Where's the evidence for this?

LagosShia: This is the reason why Shi'ah Muslims carry small tablets, usually made from the earth of Karbala, which enables them to do prostration on this highly recommended object and to follow the sunnah of the Prophet (s)

I didn't get this part. How is "carrying small, tablets usually made from the earth of Karbala" following the Sunnah of the Prophet? Has the Prophet ever done this, or given instruction to do this?

@LagosShia Frankly, you sounded very harsh in your response to Abu Muhammad. I believe this is a question of fiqh which people could have divergent views. Can't we just peacefully disagree on some things?

@mastercee You've not provided a source for your post. How accurate are these 'facts'? I think providing references for your points will be very useful.

Interesting. What exactly is the "Word"?

This unfulfilled prophecy shouldn't be an issue at all. It's only an issue because of the assumption of the Inerrancy and Omniscience of Jesus by Christians, however, the Bible shows otherwise. Just after the "this generation" verse Jesus said:

1) Matthew 24:36, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This verse clearly shows Jesus wasn't omniscience and didn't know when the Hour will be. If that is the case, what makes it surprising that events didn't unfold as he had foretold?

2) Another instance is the case of Jesus and the Fig tree, which further buttresses the fact that Jesus is not inerrant.

Honestly, I don't see why it should be difficult to accept that this is a case of clear unfulfilment of a prophecy. We may approach this problem from a Faith-first basis rather than by a Reason-first perspective and force the least-likeliest interpretations on the verse in order to support opinions that we hold by reason of our Faith. If that's what we want, that's fine I guess.

@IBG
It's clear this issue has confused Christian theologians and many have come up with their interpretations. The article posted by @JeSoul leans towards "this generation" to refer to Jesus' "offspring" - the author himself clearly doesn't hold a strong opinion on the matter - but there is no proof in the context of the verse to suggest that that was what he meant. The only obvious thing that can be deducted from the verse is that it was a case of an unfulfilled prophecy. You can't prove otherwise without going about some "gymnastics" really.

Jesus has used the word "generation" in other places in the NT as well - was he referring to his offspring there as well?

1) In Matthew 23:33-36, not very far from Matthew 24:34, he had again used the phrase "this generation" - "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?.... Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation." Was he referring to his "offspring" here as well? If not, why not?

2) Matthew 16:4, "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah."

A second interpretation http://www.bible.ca/pre-mt24-this-generation.htm is that "this generation" refers to the generation of 30AD to 70AD, since a generation as they argue, is 40 years in the bible. They argue that the events being foretold are with regards the destruction of Jerusalem, but that doesn't hold water.

The question Jesus's disciples asked him was, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Suffice to say, it is apparent from the context of Matthew 24 that Jesus wasn't referring to the destruction of Jerusalem but of the signs of his coming, which was the question his disciples had put to him.

Sureteeboy said:

Sureteeboy: 3) The Bible verse you quoted about the killing in the bible.

-->It's a pity muslims quickly relate islamic killings to the one in
the old testament. I'll like to let you know some things
1) Islam had started when muhammad was killing but there was no
xtianity when the isrealites were killing.
2) Why did they kill? If you read the bible properly, You'll see that
Israelites were fighting for their land that time.

LoL. This is a joke right? So there was no Christianity when the Israelites were killing? . Christians quickly want to associate with the Old Testament when it is regards with prophecies fortelling the coming of Jesus, yet they always try to dissociate themselves when it is with some of the atrocities in the "old" testament.

A question for you, is the God of the OT different from the God of the NT?
Secondly, it can even be argued that it was Jesus that ordered those killings after all, Christians say Jesus is God himself.

And the excuse you give for the Israelites doesn't hold water. Does that justify the total slaughter where even children and animals are not spared as shown in the bible??

Sureteeboy: Do u know the number of wars china fought to acquire that land? Muhammad was plainly fighting for the expansion of Islam which clearly contradicts the Israelites' motive.

LoL, are you trying to use China as an example? And the case of Amalek that I quoted from the Bible is not of the Israelites fighting over their land. I'm sorry but are you trying to say all the killings in bible are about the Israelites fighting over their land?

The Prophet never fought to "expand" Islam. The Qur'an clearly says "There is no compulsion in religion" and you can't make someone to believe by the use of force. Please also see Qur'an 10:99.

Sureteeboy: 4) Our pastors don't teach us about those killings in church.

--> My church is Deeper Life. Every sunday, we have the search the
scriptures which we have been learning from the old testament. Our
pastors tells us about those killings, and how it applies to our lives
now, So, you only made a wrong assumption bro.

I don't expect your pastors to teach you about the killings. (Like I don't expect them to read from the Song's of Solomon and other chapters from the bible). The fact is you can't dissociate yourself from the OT.

@sureteeboy got in touch with me by email with other verses of the Qur'an, which he believes support violence, and I have decided to post my reply here for the benefit of others.

Sureteeboy said:

2) Quran only orders you to fight back when attacked

--> I laughed when I read that line. Anyone who says that is really
ignorant of the quran. Check these verses

Oh yes that is so. Your misunderstanding of verses of the Qur'an wouldn't change that fact. And yes, I am aware of the verses.

Sureteeboy said:

Qur’an-(9:5): “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and
slay the PAGANS wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them,
and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they
repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices
regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.”

Like, I said if you read the entire Qur'an - or a good deal of it - rather than picking verses here and there you will understand the Qur'anic message. You've quoted many verses from Surah 9 - that Surah was revealed when the Muslims were engaged in active battle with the Makkans. If you read that verse in Arabic, you will see that the Qur'an was referring specifically to the Mushrikun. Who are the Mushrikun? They don't refer to just any non-Muslim, they are the idolaters from Makkah who killed many of the Prophet's companions and forced them to flee their homes.

If you had bothered to read the verse before that, Qur'an 9:4, it would have cleared all your confusion.

"Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty to them for the end of their term. Verily, God loves those who are pious"

This verse sets the context for the entire of Surah 9, which you had quoted copiously. Let me go on to the next surah.

Sureteeboy said:

Quran-8:38 “And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression”

We have been commanded to fight until there is no more tumult or oppression. What's the problem with that? If there is not tumult and no oppression, then there is no reason to fight.

Surah 8 (Anfal) was revealed after the battle of Badr which spells out what to do with booty from a war. The battle of Badr was the first battle between the Muslims and the Makkans after the Muslims were forced to emigrate from Makkah. Reading further in the Surah it says:

Qur'an 8:61 "But if they incline to peace, then also incline to it..

.

This surah was not revealed against peaceful non-Muslims who haven't done us any harm, but specifically against the violent Makkans at that time. And verse 38 and 61 of that Surah clearly state to stop fighting, if the enemy (1)inclines to peace (2)stops tumult and (3)desists from oppression. Once again, I don't see any problem here.

Qur’an (48:20): “….Allah promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture from the defeated infidels….”

Like Surah 8 above, Surah 48 speaks of the Makkans whom the Muslims fought on numerous occasions. The verse doesn't tell us to just go and fight against anyone simply because he doesn't believe in Islam. In another verse of the Qur'an (10:99) it says:

And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So will you then compel mankind until they become believers?

No one asks Muslims to compel others to believe. That is not possible as explained in the next verse:

It is not for any person to believe except by the Leave of God...

Sureteeboy said:

Quran-4:95: O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will
save you from a painful doom? You should believe in Allah and His
messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth
and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know. ... Allah
hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their
goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

For those believers who struggle in the way of God with their wealth and even their lives, there is reward for them with God. One's life is the greatest sacrifice a human-being can make for a cause. Most religions have their martyrs don't they? Nowadays, we have soldiers swearing their lives to their country even when their country is the oppressor. That is wrong.

Conclusion
The verses of the Qur'an were revealed at different stages of the Prophet's life. Some of the surahs like Anfal ( and Taubah (9) were revealed when the Prophet and his companion were engaged in active battle with the disbelievers - note, the Mushrikuns (Makkans) in particular, and that explains the tone of those particular surahs.

The Qur'an doesn't regard all disbelievers as the same. In the same Surah 4 that you quoted above, the Qur'an says in Qur'an 4:90:

So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then God has opened no way for you against them

.

You can use this singular verse to understand the context of all the verses of the Qur'an that deal with fighting.

Again, Surah 60 as I have quoted before says (60:7-:

Perhaps God will make friendship between you and those whom you hold as enemies and Allah has power and is oft-forgiving and most merciful. God does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily those who deal with equity

So who are those we are to fight? The Qur'an explains further in the next verse:

It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes...

Another verse of the Qur'an says (Qur'an 4:75):

And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors...

God doesn't forbid us to rescue others that have been wrongly oppressed by others on account of their weakness. Is God going to come down from His throne and fight Himself? No. Fighting when we have been oppressed, fighting against others who oppress a weak community are all just causes and believers shouldn't shy away from making the ultimate sacrifice, if the cause is just and good, as many of the companions of the noble Prophet, as well as several good men and women in History, have done in the past.

@OP Thanks for the beautiful piece

sureteeboy: But if u hide it after knowing fully well that it's there.......

LoL. What's there to hide? . The verses don't do anything but add strength to the OP's post, which I'm sure wasn't your intention . Let's look at the verses shall we?

1. Quran 2:190-193

a) The verses tell us to fight those who fight us. What exactly is the problem here? Is there any self-respecting country or community now that would fold it's arms when being attacked? Is there any self-respecting man that will turn the other cheek if someone were to storm his house and molest his wife and children? No. Commonsense rules such a person to defend himself. On the contrary we have countries nowadays attacking other countries that haven't fought them in the name of preemptive strike based on doctored documents.

b) "And do not transgress limits. Verily, God doesn't love the transgressors."

Even when we fight, when we have to, God tells us to avoid transgression. Brother, is there anything more beautiful than that? . No killing of children, women, animals, burning of trees, killing of monks, mutilating corpses and so on. This is in contrast to what goes on when a godless nation gets upper-hand over its enemies. And indeed in contrast to what obtains in the Bible.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ...

That's just one example. I'm sure your pastors don't read that to you in church or do they? Even if for the sake of history lessons? No? So what's the problem if God asks not to transgress limits, even when we are engaged in fighting?

c) "If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"

This clearly mentions that if the enemy inclines to peace, we should stop fighting except against those who still seek to oppress us. Is there any problem with that?

This above verse is further supported by another verse, Qur'an 60:8:

"God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice."

Honestly, I don't see what the problem is. I would advise you read the Qur'an - the WHOLE of it - rather than picking verses here and there. In that way, you will understand properly the context and the entire message of the Qur'an. Peace.