such as Pakistan, and they haven't used them to wipe out the followers of Jesus yet. Why is that? Because they are tolerant of us right up to the point of us trying to convert them. There, fixed it for you.

This may be hard for you to believe, but christians don't have a monopoly on tolerance or rationality. In fact, it could easily be argued that christians are some of the least tolerant and rational of all. Did muslims start WWI or WWII? How about the US Civil War? Or perhaps the Russo-Japanese War, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide, or the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the Franco-Prussian War, or the Hundred Years War, just to name a few. Now, for bonus points, name the religion of the nations that started or were involved in all of those wars. Got it? That's right, almost every single nation in those conflicts was CHRISTIAN. So, if we are to learn anything from history, it is that nominally christian nations are far more bloodthirsty than muslim nations have proven to be over the past 1000 years. As there seems to be a paucity of situations where a muslim nation has started a war with a christian nation, it would seem that the more tolerant religion would be islam now, wouldn't it?

Far be it from me to pretend I'm smarter than you when it comes to Islam, because you're such an authority on the subject ...

Have christians and muslims peacefully co-existed? Uh, they sure have, Butthead. I think history is a testament to that - Jerusalem, Europe, here ... and, AMAZINGLY, we're all still ... alive. No conversion by sword, no camels running roughshod through the neighborhoods ...

But you keep up with your bigotry and hatred towards muslims ... ignorance looks good on you.

I wonder if your kid will ever figure out what a pussy his father is ...

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

Who I do not believe to be the son of God, just a really nice guy with some good ideas...

"But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. Be merciful as your Father is merciful. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

-Hmmmm, nothing about slaying ANYBODY there.... Do we see a difference ahywhere in the faiths?

Class dismissed...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Once again, pin head...those who disbelieve, those that are infidels, are the IDOL worshippers. They are not Christians and Jews.

Hadith cannot be quoted as the same as the Koran. It is under dispute even among the Muslims because it is second-hand accounts of what happened and what was said, it is not considered the word of God. A lot of the Hadiths are not considered genuine by Islamic scholars. Thjey are like our Christian legends...some people believe them heart and soul, but the scholars say they are not necessarily true.

A lot of the references to smiting in the Koran are not all that dissimilar to ones in the Bible. God smites those who disbelieves in Him. Hell is the chastisement of those who disbelieve. A grievious chastisement is Hell.

You have a pretty poor translation of the Koran with you. Who translated it?

I will trust commentary from scholars of Islam over what you have to say.

Here is some commentary from Maulana Muhammad Ali
http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

29a. The last word on the wars with the idolaters of Arabia having been said, this
verse introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews
had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians in their struggle to uproot Islåm, the
great Christian power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection
of the new religion, and the Tab∂k expedition followed, which constitutes the
subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this chapter. As the object of this
Christian power was simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final
vanquishment by the Muslims is spoken of are different from those dealing with the
final vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’ån neither required that the idolaters
should be compelled to accept Islåm, nor was it in any way its object to bring the
Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the idolaters wanted to suppress Islåm by
the sword, and the Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim Arabia under subjection.
The fate of each was, therefore, according to what it intended for the
Muslims. The word jizyah is derived from jazå, meaning he gave satisfaction, and
means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the
Muslim Government whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection; or,
according to AH, because it is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed
them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military service.
The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously. The word yad (lit., hand) stands
for power or superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of the superiority of man
over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement of
your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH). It may also be added that the permission
to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first
take up the sword, Fight in the way of Allåh against those who fight against you
(2:190). The Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his followers. He fought
against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition
against the Christians when the Roman Empire first mobilized its forces with the
object of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that, when he found that the
enemy had not yet taken the initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but returned
without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies
of Islåm and fomented trouble against the newly established Muslim Kingdom, as a
result of which both these empires came into conflict with the Muslims and, notwithstanding
the fact that both the Persians and the Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited
resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same
time to subjugate Islåm, the result was what is predicted here in clear words — they were
both reduced to a state of subjection by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

73a. Jåhada signifies he strove or exerted himself, and jihåd is the using one’s
utmost power in contending with an object of disapprobation (LL). It is in a secondary
sense that the word signifies fighting, and it is repeatedly used in the Holy Qur’ån in its
primary significance. It is a fact that those who professed Islåm were never fought
against, even though their professions were insincere — as on this occasion and on the
occasion of the battle of Uƒud. “The correct rendering is that jihåd signifies striving, or
exerting oneself, and there is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be
effected by the sword or by the tongue or by any other method” (Rz).
The Prophet is commanded here to carry on a jihåd against disbelievers as well as
hypocrites. Hence the only significance that can be attached to these words is that he
must continue to preach forcibly both to the disbelievers and the hypocrites.

I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE. O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day - unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company - then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be. So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy) but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; (8:12-17)

12a. The last sentence is apparently addressed to the fighting believers. Smiting
above the necks is either the same as smiting the necks, or it signifies the striking of the
heads, because what is above the neck is the head. And the striking of the finger-tips
indicates the striking of the hands which held weapons to kill the Muslims. The two
phrases respectively signify the killing of the enemy and disabling him so as to render
him unfit for taking further part in fighting. 14a. That is, taste this torment in this life as an indication of the chastisement of
Fire in the next life.
15a. Za√afa originally means he walked or marched little by little, and applies to
the crawling along of a child when unable to walk. Then za√f came to mean an army or
military force marching little by little towards the enemy, or heavily by reason of their
multitude and force (LL). Thus it became synonymous with war, as in a √adßth quoted
by T, farra min al-za√f, which means he fled from war (LL).
17a. Ramå carries a number of significances, throwing, flinging, casting, assailing,
smiting, shooting, going forth, etc. (LL). It is used in connection with fighting, and
therefore I adopt smiting as its equivalent, which, like its original, makes the meaning
clear without seeking an understood object. The first part of the verse refers to the
Muslims generally — So you slew them not, but Allåh slew them, the address being in
the plural; and the second part, being in the singular, is understood as referring to the
Holy Prophet. Otherwise there is no difference between the two passages. The Muslims
slew the enemy, but it is affirmed that really they did not slay, but it was Allåh Who
slew them; the meaning apparently being that Allåh’s hand was working in the battle,
which is also clear from the fact that three hundred, mostly raw, young men, equipped
with neither horses nor arms, prevailed against a thousand of the most renowned warriors.
The same meaning must be attached to the other passage relating to the smiting of
the enemy. Whether the Prophet actually threw a handful of pebbles at the enemy, which
discomfited the latter, is a different question. It is sufficient to learn that a powerful
enemy was discomfited by about a third of its number, while from the point of view of
efficiency and equipment even ten men from among the Muslims were not equal to one
of the enemy. It was Allåh’s hand that slew them, and it was His hand that smote them
and ultimately put them to rout. That the Prophet actually threw a handful of dust at the
enemy is in no way inconsistent with this explanation.
17b. Iblå’, though ordinarily meaning trying, and proving, like balå’ and ibtilå’ (two
other verbs from the same root), means here, by the unanimous opinion of all commentators,
the conferring of a favour (Rz). The lexicons also give it the same significance. Thus LL explains the words ablå-hu balå’-an √asan-an as meaning, God did to him a good
deed or conferred a benefit on him. The good gift or the benefit spoken of here is a victory
which strengthened the foundations of Islåm, and dealt a death-blow to the evil designs of
those who were determined to exterminate it, as is plainly stated in the next verse.

The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power (5:33-34)

33a. The words used here imply originally all those opponents of Islåm who waged
war on the Muslims and made mischief in the land by causing loss to the life and
property of innocent Muslims who fell into their hands. But it has generally been accepted
as including all dacoits and murderers who cause disorder in a settled state of society.
In fact, when war came to an end in Arabia and the kingdom of Islåm was established
over the whole peninsula, the enemies of Islåm, being unable to oppose its authority
openly, resorted to dacoity and murder to disturb the peace which was now established
in the land. Hence, though it is such enemies that are primarily spoken of here, the
words are general and include all cases of murder and dacoity.
The punishment described is of four kinds, which clearly shows that the punishment
to be inflicted in any particular case would depend upon the circumstances of the case,
as well as the time and place where the crime was committed. For instance, if murder
has been committed in the course of dacoity, the punishment would include the
execution of the culprit, which may take the form of crucifixion if the offence is so
heinous or the culprit has caused such terror in the land that the leaving of his body on
the cross is necessary as a deterrent. In other cases, the punishment may be imprisonment,
where the severer punishment of cutting off of hands is deemed unnecessary. The
judge would take all the circumstances into consideration and inflict such punishment as
he thought necessary. A particular case dealt with under this verse was that of a tribe
called ‘Urainah. Some men of this tribe came to the Prophet, and accepted Islåm. They
fell ill and were sent by the Prophet to a place at a little distance from Madßnah for
change of climate and recovery of health. But when they regained health, they killed the
very people who had served them and went off with their camels. Then they committed
dacoities and violated the chastity of women, and they were severely punished (B. 4:66,
and the comments on it in ‘Ainß). Many other cases of this nature are recorded by IJ.
33b. Yunfau min-al-ar˙ literally means they should be banished from the earth, but
according to Imåm Ab∂ Ïanßfah the meaning here is imprisonment (al-√abs), and most
lexicologists accept this (Rz). LA also accepts the interpretation that they should be kept
in the prison. The reason is apparent. No one can be banished from the whole of the
earth unless he is kept in prison. Deportation is included if we take al-ar˙ as meaning a
particular country.
34a. This verse speaks of people the course of whose life has been changed before
they are caught — those who repent before you overpower them. Repentance, of course,
here means a changed course of life which is apparent to all. It clearly refers only to
cases in which an enemy, who is guilty of crimes against life and property, becomes a
Muslim before he falls into the hands of the Muslims. He should not be tried and
punished for what he did when he was in the hostile camp.

Why don't you read the whole book and tell us what you find out?