Is Quranic God Merciful

[Sumit]

. "(I begin this book) In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." (1*:1.)
C. ~ Q’uran is the Word of God, but it appears from the above passage that the author of this book was some person other than God, since had it been God himself, He would not have said: "(I begin this book) in the name of God etc." He would have, instead, said: "I write this book for the instruction of mankind." If it be said that by beginning His book in this fashion He means to teach men as to what they should say when about to do a thing, it cannot be true, since some men will do even sinful deeds in the name of God and thereby bring disgrace on Him.
If (the Mohammedan) God be merciful, why has He sanctioned that men should inflict great suffering on other creatures by killing them for their food? Are not these animals innocent? Are they not His creatures? He should have also advised men to begin only good deeds in His name and not evil ones. Thus the passage (under discussion) is quite ambiguous. Should even such sinful acts, as theft, adultery, untruthfulness in speech, begun in God's name? Very likely it is on account of this ambiguity that the (Mohammedan) butchers etc., mutter "In the name of God, the compassionate, the most Merciful as the moment of cutting the throats of cows and other animals."

 

[tariqkhwaja]

. "(I begin this book) In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." (1*:1.)
C. ~ Q’uran is the Word of God, but it appears from the above passage that the author of this book was some person other than God, since had it been God himself, He would not have said: "(I begin this book) in the name of God etc." He would have, instead, said: "I write this book for the instruction of mankind." If it be said that by beginning His book in this fashion He means to teach men as to what they should say when about to do a thing, it cannot be true, since some men will do even sinful deeds in the name of God and thereby bring disgrace on Him.
If (the Mohammedan) God be merciful, why has He sanctioned that men should inflict great suffering on other creatures by killing them for their food? Are not these animals innocent? Are they not His creatures? He should have also advised men to begin only good deeds in His name and not evil ones. Thus the passage (under discussion) is quite ambiguous. Should even such sinful acts, as theft, adultery, untruthfulness in speech, begun in God's name? Very likely it is on account of this ambiguity that the (Mohammedan) butchers etc., mutter "In the name of God, the compassionate, the most Merciful as the moment of cutting the throats of cows and other animals."

Your passage seems to be full of hatred for Islam and Muslims (who you do not care to call Muslims). Some of it is plain lies while other is misrepresentation of information.

So let it be understood that when these animals are sacrificed they are sacrificed to feed the poor, the friends, and finally the self. And there is nothing wrong with the killing of animals for food for the smaller is always sacrificed for the greater. Human beings benefit from several living beings (animals, plants, bacteria, etc.) all of which are continually created and sacrificed for the sustenance of our being. Such is the order of things that God has created and there is nothing wrong in this.

The Promised Messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stated:

It is possible that a person may develop mercy to a degree in which he would not permit himself to kill the germs that might be generated in his wounds, or might be so mindful of preserving life that he may not wish to harm the lice in his hair or the insects that are generated in his stomach and his arteries and his brain. I can believe that a person’s mercy might impel him to discard the use of honey as it is procured by the destruction of many lives and by driving the poor bees out of their hives. I can believe that a person may avoid the use of musk as it is the blood of a poor animal and is procured by slaughtering it and separating it from its young. I do not deny that a person might refrain from wearing pearls or silk as both these are procured through the death of worms. I can even understand that a person in pain might refuse to be bled by leeches and might prefer to suffer pain himself rather than desire the death of poor leeches.

I can even believe that a person might carry his mercy and regard for life to a degree that he might refuse to drink water in order to spare the germs in the water. I can accept all this, but I cannot accept that these natural conditions can be regarded as moral qualities or that they can serve to wash out the inner impurities which obstruct a person’s approach to God. I cannot believe that to become harmless to a degree in which some animals and birds excel man can become the means of the acquisition of a high degree of humanity. Indeed, I consider this attitude as amounting to opposition to the law of nature and inconsistent with the high moral quality of seeking the pleasure of God. It rejects the bounties that nature has bestowed upon us. Spirituality can be achieved only through the use of every moral quality in its proper place and on its proper occasion, and through treading faithfully upon the ways of God and through being wholly devoted to Him. He who becomes truly God’s cannot exist without Him. A true seeker after God is like a fish sacrificed by the hand of God and its water is the love of God.

Therein lies the answer to your question. And even more than that if you are but honest.