The relationship between religion and war appears to be a very complex one. Whether loved or abhorred they have always coexisted despite the fact that religion has continuously condemned acts of pillaging, destroying, or devastating. In essence, religion functions as a powerful force in fashioning the contours of all essential perceptions of war and peace; whereas, war mirrors and shapes human identity and purpose in a dreadful context of struggle where killing of 'others' is rendered not only urgent and legal, but also honorable. For the ancients, war was the means by which gods retained their divine order. It was declared against the enemy who had sinned against the gods, thereby making this 'just war.' Aristotle was among the first to comment on the theory of "just war," for whom war was not an end in itself but a means to justifiable ends. His famous expression " war must be for the sake of peace" (Politics 1333b37) was influential on all those early modern English playwrights who were willing to translate the wars of religion fought between the Muslim Turks and the Christian Europeans to the English stage. Tamburlaine the Great Part I and II were the first plays Christopher Marlowe wrote for the Elizabethan audience with the purpose of playing up the popular sentiment of hatred against the Ottoman Turks, whose military victories in Europe had earned them the title of 'the present Terror of the World.' In this paper, I intend to argue that Marlowe's rhetorical style transforms his military hero, Tamburlaine, from a merciless tyrant, indulging in the unjust profiteering of plundering, ravaging and killing to satisfy his insatiable lust for dominion, into " the Scourge and Wrath of God," a divine agent adorned with God-ordained madness, to mete out punishment to those who have sinned against the God. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
