60:8 Allah Permit Respect of Infidels ... (Abraham, paradise, verses, punishment)

[mahasn sawresho]

Originally Posted by Alandros

We are not saying that the Bible free from mistakes
But those mistakes were especially at a certain stage
But Christian said that it was out of date
This is the beginning of the New Testament with Christ in his teachings
I think you know well

Judaism is not a missionary religion
Especially in the one people of the Hebrews is the Jewish
Judaism has Nchaet in very difficult circumstances
The tribes surrounding rejects one God
Because of their faith have been subjected to fare worse kinds of persecution and the clans that were harsh on the Jews, Chaldeans and Assyrians
Knowing I am proud I am in the Chaldean and Assyrian
But I see history as it is

And also look to the Torah it is a struggle for survival in order to remain one God which is the essence of the Jewish faith

Jews were not able to get out all their history outside of Palestine, a homeland original
So the Bible does not call for totalitarian terror
And also
The prophets in the Bible admit the mistakes
Daoud and the prophet says
In the Psalms
You alone Akhtaet and evil before you made
So the Torah rejects evil

But with Islam, it is very different
Islam declared hatred to the people
Thus he announced his refusal to Jewish efforts to get them to call unification
Islam said he holistic
Islam does not recognize the mistakes committed by Muhammad and his followers
But the Christianity they are free from all evil
And the teachings of Christ and the clear
But what did you do to follow Christ
They did so according to their own interpretations
And not from the texts of Alange

Yes, Christ did not abolish the Torah
But he said he fulfilled the law
And wants the law literary
The formal rejection of the law
Christ was the fact that the image to the transfer of ownership of the concept of God to the people of the world
And declared it the message of salvation

Christ and his disciples did not raise a sword
And his disciples were martyred in Rome and India
In order to spread the word of God
God was with them
While Mohammed was killed and enchant women and spoils
And the followers of Muhammad were more than a bloody monsters
They have distorted the image of Islam is God's truth that Namsha in Christianity and in the best names for God is love
This is the name and the character does not know the Koran

Well Thou shall not kill was OT, but I'm being pedantic.

Hitler did it and helped the Muslims too
And made contacts you Husseini
The Iraqis also were with Hitler
Arabs and Muslims were like Hitler because he killed Jews
Hitler did not say he was sent from God
While Mohammed Zboukhm he says it's God's commands
The difference between truth and lies and clear
Hitler did not announce that he has orders from God or the Gospel

Mohammed also lied to the human
When he said he was from God, while the Koran is to collect and paste which is evil in his image truth Of

.

Christianity does not believe in slavery
Because Christ was the first editor to humans
Christianity is the empire that changed Romania
But Christianity mistakes it allowed the Islamic evil distorts the image of God
Yes, zero tolerance is not good

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

I am not putting words into your mouth, you are clearly proposing so.

Exactly! When you say "unconditional" it means unconditional "even if".
That's what is meant by "unconditional". I have exposed a big hole in your argument. "Absolute Moral Maxim" does not work in reality as it would be totally unfair and make people sitting ducks for the criminals.

What "big hole" in my argument??
In this case [Philosophy of Morality] you are merely like a kindergarten student who think he has discovered an error in Einstein Theory of Relativity!

Note I would consider myself a near-expert on the Philosophy of Morality.
Try understanding the concept of the Categorical Imperative of Kant;

The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
(In Kantian ethics), the categorical imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.

Note all conditions, ifs, but and "even-ifs" i.e. the fact that one mentioned the 'even ifs' as in the case of 60:8-9 with is associated qualifications.

Absolute Moral Maxim, is for example like;

Thou Shalt Not Kill [Period]!

There is no mention of any ifs, buts and "even if".
That "even if" can be vulnerable to misinterpretations.

That would force Muslims to be kind to non-Muslims when the non-Muslims would be waging wars on Muslims. That can't be Moral, would it? Where is justice in that?

Your views are very narrow and shallow. Not all Muslims are zombies who are incapable to using their discretion when their instincts are triggered.
Being human beings with instincts the majority of Muslims will not be stupid and they will defense themselves and fight as soldiers [as professionals with integrity] but they can still be kind to their prisoners of war as commanded by the Maxim 'Be kind to all human beings.'

The maxim 'Be kind to all human beings' is fool proof in one way because even if mistaken in any sense, being kind will not cause harm to anyone.

The point to note is that "Absolute Moral Maxim" is justified ONLY in time of peace. It cannot be just and moral at ALL times. Islam has taken this reality into account in 60:8-9.

Based on the absolute good principles of Morality, an "Absolute Moral Maxim" is effective in ALL circumstances [war, peace, whatever and wherever] and time.
What is allowable to be conditional is within consequential ethics by humans which is independent from the Absolute Moral Maxim from a God.

And that's what is proposed in the combined verses of the Qur'an (including 60:8-9). The point in your argument against the Qur'an has been excluding the 60:8-9.

Yes that is proposed in your 60:8-9 which is conditional.
God will not issue a conditional ethical rule.
Therefore 60:8-9 can only be issue by humans.
Therefore the Quran was authored by a human or a group of people.

IF the Quran is from God,
it will not contain such a conditional ethical rule like 60:8-9.

IF the Quran is from God,
it would have contain an Absolute Moral Maxim.

Then defending in the Qur'an is morally correct.

There would be no justice in this world if one couldn't defend because of your "Absolute Moral Maxim". America does not accept this Absolute Moral Maxim nor does Britain, France, Israel, Australia, China, Russia or any other country in the world. Why do you even propose such unfair and unilateral Absolute Moral Maxim should have been in the Qur'an?

Humanity [even without God] must progress towards Absolute Moral Maxims in ALL aspects of human life.
Even without God, humanity is slowly gravitating towards Absolute Moral Maxims.
Note humanity has now accepted the Absolute Moral Maxim, i.e.

There Shalt Be NO Slavery.

Note there is no 'ifs', 'buts' and 'even ifs' that are attached to this Absolute Moral Maxim.

The above is codified with the United Nations.

So I don't see how

"Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings"

cannot be implemented as an Absolute Moral Maxim.

The above 'kind and just' can easily be adopted as an Absolute Moral Maxim and codified within the UN but it is not done because it is such a common sense to abide by this maxim.

Note the difference between what is an Absolute Moral Maxim and what is being practiced, they are totally different.

The UN has codified the Absolute Moral Maxim of 'No Slavery', 'No Racism' but such a Maxim is not practiced by all at present.

What is critical here is the UN had followed and issued the Absolute Moral Maxim without any conditions which is a sign of maturity which any God [of exists] will do.

The fact that Allah in the Quran issued cheap immatured conditional maxims infer that the Quran cannot be authored by a God. Rather a conditional maxim can only be authored by man.

Note the above is an education to you on the Philosophy of Morality.

Your objection about 'ifs' and 'buts' is unjustified as it takes away justice in this world and thus makes such Absolute Moral Maxim unworkable and thus effectively stupid.

It is stupid of you to accused me of being stupid. You [kindergarten or ignorant of Morality-proper] is just ignorant of how an Absolute Moral Maxim really works in reality within humanity.
Note my long explanation of how Morality-proper should work and is working to a small degree within the UN at present.

No. It sets LIMIT beyond one can't go. Limits are set so that something can't be abused.
Setting limits are for the purpose of reducing abuse. The point you are ignorant about in your arguments about abuse is that if someone wants to abuse something he will do it anyway. Even limits and Absolute Moral Maxim can be abused by such people when disregarding them. This is why "do not kill" in OT hasn't stopped killings at any time since the Ten Commandments were given.

Yes it set limits but those in 60:8-9 are conditional limits and not Absolute Limits.

The Absolute Moral Maxim of 'DO NOT KILL' is very effective when controlled by a God.
If a believer ever abused the maxim, then the believer will go to Hell.
Knowing a divine Maxim of 'DO NOT KILL' or go to Hell with no eternal life and Heaven is a strong deterrence to the majority of believers.
Any believers who want to contravene this absolute 'DO NOT KILL' will have to think many times before they kill anyone.
However if someone has think many times and has good reasons that resulted in killing someone, they can seek repentance and God will like to forgive them, e.g. crime of passion, accidental killing, killing as a soldier, executioner, etc.

However if there are conditions or ifs but or even ifs, then it is not absolute and open to misinterpretations within God's permission. For example, in the Quran, SOME Muslims can kill even for drawing of cartoons and who can judge they are wrong and it is very likely Allah approve of it.

Therefore, 60:8-9 is morally clear and fair on non-Muslims. These verses set clear limit and rule of engagement with non-Muslims. Add 8:61 to 60:8-9 and you have peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Terrorists do not abuse but disregard these verses of the Qur'an. Even the "Absolute Moral Maxim" "do not kill" would disregarded by them as has been disregarded ever since it was included in the OT.

While 80% of Muslims may tend to the positive side of it, there is a potential pool of 300 Muslims who will tend towards the negative side of it and end up killing non-Muslims. That is the problem with conditional maxims.

So you want something in the Qur'an that will not permit Muslims to kill those who wage war on Muslims, force the Muslims to leave their homes, drop bombs on them and even destroy their country. That would be giving a free licence to the non-Muslims to keep waging wars on Muslims (threaten them, wrong them and make mischief in their countries).

Don't be stupid and assume I am that stupid.
All I proposed as explained above is a God must never issued moral maxims that are conditional.
A God [if exists] will always issued Absolute Moral Maxims and let nature takes its course and judge the sinful on J-Day.

I can understand the point you are making here but you are not taking into account the consequences of such Absolute Moral Maxim in a situation of war on Muslims.

What I say is a God [if exists] will never issue a moral maxim that is conditional like 60:8-9 and other conditional moral commands in the Quran [e.g. kill one kill all, no compulsion in religion].
As I had argued the majority* of Muslims are not zombies and with an Absolute Moral Maxim, e.g. 'Be Kind and Just to All Humans' they will use their discretion to defend and fight instinctively and naturally.
* It is possible for some really extremist to be kind and just regardless of how evil the enemy is but these minority [say 10%] can easily be educated. It is unfortunately they are stupid but at least this stupidity do not promote evil. In fact this is what is happening to some fundamentalist and extremist Buddhists and Jains who are blindly kind and just.

As explained previously, guidance in that kind of situation of mockery about Muhammad and Islam is clear; get away from such people (4:140). There isn't even one verse in the Qur'an that tells the Muslims to kill anyone just because he is mocking their religion. Therefore, killing of the right charlies was not commanded in the Qur'an but was against the command in 4:140.

As I have said many times, it is the overall ethos of the Quran and Islam with its 3,500 evil laden verses that influenced and inspired SOME evil laden Muslims to commit evils and violence. This is undeniable and proven by glaring evidence and facts.

You are talking about Muslims who "think" and take every verse in the Qur'an into account before doing anything. You will still have "Muslims" killing Charlies and even other Muslims even if there was 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' in the Qur'an. There is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' in the OT but that did not stop (but increased) the killings. 3000 were killed even on the very first day after they were told 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. What happened after that for 40 years until Moses died is much worse. What makes you think that this would have stopped Muslims killing both the non-Muslims and Muslims?

You still did not see the critical point.

IF the Quran contain the Absolute Moral Maxim ''Thou Shalt Not Kill' and this principle is reflected in all other verses, then even if Muslims kill non-Muslims, no one will be able to blame the Quran and Islam in part at all.

Those who do not comply with the OT's Absolute Moral Maxim of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' will definitely be punished by God because it is so objective they went against God's command. If they have good sincere reasons to kill, then God will forgive them or punished them in accordance to the severity of the non-compliance.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

Even if non-Muslims are not kind and just to ALL Muslims? That will make no sense at all in every situation.

Not sure of your point.
If a holy text is from God [if exists] all will carry the Absolute Moral Maxim 'Be Kind and Just to All Humans'.
This is implied in the Golden Rule which is explicitly stated in most religions except in Islam.

It cannot be fair in every situation. It may sound good philosophically but morally it will lead to more killings as has since 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' in the OT. Even in the most civilized society today, there is no Absolute Moral Maxim as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Killings are minimum in such societies not because of such Absolute Moral Maxim as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' but because of limits set in their laws as to what one can and what one can't do. This is then made known to people through education. And that's the correct way to reduce killings. The same limits are set in the Qur'an but this is not made known to people through the formal education. As a result, there are too many cowboys and not enough Muslims.

The point is most civilized society at present are governed by human beings who are not 'all powerful' and thus can only do their best. The fact is humanity is doing its best and progressing with the establishment of setting Absolute Moral Maxims, note the examples I gave re the UN.

But in our case we are referring to an all-powerful God in relation to Islam.
Believers are under the mercy of all-powerful God who hold the stake of their eternal life. Therefore an all-powerful God [if exists] will logically issued an Absolute Moral Maxim and not a conditional rule.
The fact that we see a conditional moral rule of 60:8-9 and elsewhere in the Quran prove the Quran was authored by human[s] and not God.

You can trace such terrible acts and violence back to the onset of mankind. At least the Qur'an had set limit on which infidel can be killed (only those who had waged war on Muslims) but the killing spree in the OT is against ALL infidels.

It is a fact that evil can be traced to the emergence of humans and the acts [not termed evil] back to their ancestors the animals.
I agree the Quran at least set limits in that aspects but they are conditional limits.
Point is if the Quran was from God, then it will natural issue Absolute Moral Maxims and not conditional ones.
Therefore the Quran was authored by human[s] not a God [if exist].

What is happening today is due to the situation today. It was never like this before 1948. It began with injustice to Palestinians and I believe the situation will change once justice is done to the Palestinians in the Middle East. Blaming the Qur'an won't help the situation.

This is merely a deflection. History proper point to the evidence that SOME Muslims were committing terrible evils and violence as influenced and inspired by evil laden elements in the Quran and Islam.

It can't be the "fact" when 80% (your figure) of Muslims, who read, follow and comply with the same Qur'an.

It is a fact 80% of moderate Muslims do not commit evil upon being Muslims who are exposed to the teachings of the Quran.
It is a fact ~20% of Muslims who are unfortunately born with active evil tendencies are influenced by the evil laden elements in the Quran and Islam to commit terrible evils and violence around the world. The fact is these evils and violence are supported by glaring evidences.

Which humanity; powerful political leaders of the world (US, UK, Russia, China)?

Humanity meant the collective of every humans on Earth at any moment in time. I am optimistic humans will be able to co-operate on a global basis to resolve universal problems of humanity.
In the meantime all those who have active brains must start thinking deeply, widely, rationally, wisely, to understand the facts. You are not doing humanity a favor by denying the facts and that is selfish.

There is only one solution to create peace in the world; get rid of injustice wherever it may be in the world. As long as injustice and greed prevails, you can forget about solution to killings. I said it in 2001 and am saying even now. War on Terror will be won once the powerful political leaders of the world try to eliminate injustice in the world for the sake of humanity and mankind.

How are you going to do that?
I agree that must be done but that is a very long term measure.
In the meantime we must address the obvious root causes in relation of the terrible evils and violence committed by SOME unfortunate evil prone Muslims who are exposed to evil laden elements in the Quran and Islam.

Just as humanity are addressing and recognizing the evil laden elements in the various medias, movies, etc. are influencing and inspiring SOME vulnerable children and adults to commit evil and violence, humanity must do the same with Islam and the Quran [plus Ahadith, etc.].

Therefore humanity must start to be informed and understand the Quran and Islam in-PART contained evil laden elements that influenced and inspired SOME evil laden Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.

[10.44] Surely Allah does not do any injustice to human beings, but human beings are unjust to their own souls.

No point in blaming Allah for injustice done by the human beings!

Actually we cannot blame Allah or any God [if exists] because God by its attributes [or at least in theory] is all powerful, all-benevolent, morally perfect, all-knowing, all-present and will never include any evil laden elements in its holy text.

In the case of Islam the blame should fall on Muhammad [if he is the author] or the group of humans who compiled the Quran and started the religion Islam for some reasons.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

What "big hole" in my argument??
In this case [Philosophy of Morality] you are merely like a kindergarten student who think he has discovered an error in Einstein Theory of Relativity!

You talk Philosophically and I talk morally.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Note all conditions, ifs, but and "even-ifs" i.e. the fact that one mentioned the 'even ifs' as in the case of 60:8-9 with is associated qualifications.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is as far as it goes philosophically. In practical situations it is utterly unfair and morally redundant without at least some condition. This is why they never implemented it in practice. Therefore, it serves no purpose in practice.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Absolute Moral Maxim, is for example like;

Thou Shalt Not Kill [Period]!

There is no mention of any ifs, buts and "even if".
That "even if" can be vulnerable to misinterpretations.

60:8-9 is not vulnerable to misinterpretation. It can be ignored, just as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is often ignored, but it can't be misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Your views are very narrow and shallow. Not all Muslims are zombies who are incapable to using their discretion when their instincts are triggered.

Discretion IS using 'ifs' and 'buts'. Thus 60:8-9 is practical and takes reality into account. It is real teeth of elephant; not those for show only.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Being human beings with instincts the majority of Muslims will not be stupid and they will defense themselves and fight as soldiers [as professionals with integrity] but they can still be kind to their prisoners of war as commanded by the Maxim 'Be kind to all human beings.'

They won't be that stupid that they will be kind to a human being about to kill them. 'Be Kind to All Human Beings' is going to be misinterpreted anyway in that real situation. So why not be morally honest as the Qur'an 60:8-9 is?

Originally Posted by Continuum

The maxim 'Be kind to all human beings' is fool proof in one way because even if mistaken in any sense, being kind will not cause harm to anyone.

It certainly will in many situations. Another human being can even kill you whilst only you are sticking to this maxim.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Based on the absolute good principles of Morality, an "Absolute Moral Maxim" is effective in ALL circumstances [war, peace, whatever and wherever] and time.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not effective in ALL situation as it is morally unfair in some situation in a war. This is why war is particularly mentioned in the Qur'an 60:8-9. Author of the Qur'an was well aware that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is applicable only in time of peace, the reason it has never been complied with in time of war.

Originally Posted by Continuum

What is allowable to be conditional is within consequential ethics by humans which is independent from the Absolute Moral Maxim from a God.

God understands all that and has taken it into account when revealing the verses 60:8-9.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Yes that is proposed in your 60:8-9 which is conditional.
God will not issue a conditional ethical rule.
Therefore 60:8-9 can only be issue by humans.
Therefore the Quran was authored by a human or a group of people.

God will not issue an unfair code that will help only the criminals. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' was not issued by humans but God and then qualified it by conditions even in the OT.

Originally Posted by Continuum

IF the Quran is from God,
it will not contain such a conditional ethical rule like 60:8-9.

Even in the OT, it is conditional unless you rip out just four words out of the whole OT and completely disregard the rest to do with this issue.

Originally Posted by Continuum

IF the Quran is from God,
it would have contain an Absolute Moral Maxim.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is Moral Maxim only in the time of peace. It has never been Moral Maxim during a war. Therefore, in practice it has never been an Absolute Moral Maxim.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Then defending in the Qur'an is morally correct.

If defending is morally correct then it is morally correct to kill as a last resort whilst defending to save your own life. Even UN won't change that.

The Qur'an 60:8-9 is dealing with the reality and not with something limited in its use to words only.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Humanity [even without God] must progress towards Absolute Moral Maxims in ALL aspects of human life.

I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Even without God, humanity is slowly gravitating towards Absolute Moral Maxims.
Note humanity has now accepted the Absolute Moral Maxim, i.e.

There Shalt Be NO Slavery.

Humanity never created such Moral Maxim. God has been leading humans to this Moral Maxim. I have no doubt that without the OT, the NT and the Qur'an the world would still be backward morally despite the assumed bad image of religion today. These books are foundations of morality. It is up to us human beings to build on these foundations and make further progress.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Note there is no 'ifs', 'buts' and 'even ifs' that are attached to this Absolute Moral Maxim.

The above is codified with the United Nations.

So I don't see how

"Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings" cannot be implemented as an Absolute Moral Maxim.

'There shalt Be No slavery' is easy to implement without being unfair to anyone at any time but "Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings" will not be fair to implement as it will be morally correct only in a peace situation but not fair and morally correct in a war situation in which your enemy is going to kill you. Therefore 60:8-9 take into account the two different real situations.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The above 'kind and just' can easily be adopted as an Absolute Moral Maxim and codified within the UN but it is not done because it is such a common sense to abide by this maxim.

UN is aware of the practical problem in implementing it as an Absolute Moral Maxim. To begin with, USA would be the first to veto such a move.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Note the difference between what is an Absolute Moral Maxim and what is being practiced, they are totally different.

Please note that Absolute Moral Maxim is not Moral Maxim if it can't be morally just, fair and correct in ALL situations at all times.

Originally Posted by Continuum

What is critical here is the UN had followed and issued the Absolute Moral Maxim without any conditions which is a sign of maturity which any God [of exists] will do.

Which Absolute Moral Maxim, 'Thou shalt Not Kill', 'Thou Shalt be kind and Just to ALL human beings' or 'There shalt Be No slavery'?

Originally Posted by Continuum

The fact that Allah in the Quran issued cheap immatured conditional maxims infer that the Quran cannot be authored by a God. Rather a conditional maxim can only be authored by man.

Note the above is an education to you on the Philosophy of Morality.

Please note that Allah issued through the Qur'an 60:8-9 the perfect Moral Maxim. No human in the UN will ever improve it in each of the two situations; peace and war.

Originally Posted by Continuum

It is stupid of you to accused me of being stupid. You [kindergarten or ignorant of Morality-proper] is just ignorant of how an Absolute Moral Maxim really works in reality within humanity.
Note my long explanation of how Morality-proper should work and is working to a small degree within the UN at present.

Just like you analogies, you are talking about unrelated issue. Come back when the UN issues 'Thou shalt Not Kill', and 'Thou Shalt be kind and Just to ALL human beings' as Absolute Moral Maxim. Until then you have no leg to stand on when rejecting the Qur'an 60:8-9 as Moral Maxim which has never been improved so far.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

You talk Philosophically and I talk morally.

The problem with your morality is it is not philosophical.
I wonder whether you understand what is the meaning of Philosophy in its true sense.
Philosophy generally [in essence it is more complicated] is love of wisdom. Thus a philosophical based morality is based on wisdom and other relevant knowledge.

If you only talk about morality without philosophy, then your morality could be the bastardized form any one can promote and talk about which could in part end up with evil laden elements.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is as far as it goes philosophically. In practical situations it is utterly unfair and morally redundant without at least some condition. This is why they never implemented it in practice. Therefore, it serves no purpose in practice.

Your above understanding is based on ignorance of what is philosophy. Note the essence of philosophy is 'wisdom, and wisdom is the optimal application of sound knowledge into practice.

All wise religion has the absolute Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' as an overriding maxim but provide allowances for practical situations, e.g. I have stated above, if one killed with justifications then they are not punished severely or is forgiven by a God. So you are ignorant the absolute Moral Maxim is not applied in practice. The critical point is with the introduction of the Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt Not kill' there are none or minimal evils and violence that end up in killing committed by evil prone believers when influenced by the evil laden elements.

Islam is the only religion that do not adopt the absolute Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' Period. Rather Islam has merely a conditional Moral Maxim and the consequence is SOME evil prone Muslims [unfortunately born with evil tendencies] committing terrible evils and violence when influenced and inspired by the evil laden elements in the Quran and Islam.

Your arguments are full of holes and it has resulted in the real terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone Muslims.

60:8-9 is not vulnerable to misinterpretation. It can be ignored, just as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is often ignored, but it can't be misinterpreted.

My point is 60:8-9 cannot be an overriding absolute moral maxim because it has conditions.
There are no overriding absolute moral maxim in relation to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" from Allah in the Quran. This is why SOME evil prone Muslims are committing terrible evils and violence as inspired by the evil laden elements in the Quran.

Discretion IS using 'ifs' and 'buts'. Thus 60:8-9 is practical and takes reality into account. It is real teeth of elephant; not those for show only.

It has some use but its principles is not absolute thus leaves room for SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils as sanctioned by Allah.

They won't be that stupid that they will be kind to a human being about to kill them. 'Be Kind to All Human Beings' is going to be misinterpreted anyway in that real situation. So why not be morally honest as the Qur'an 60:8-9 is?

60:8-9 is morally incompetent because it is conditional.
Once there is an absolute 'Be Kind to All Human Beings' in a holy texts, it will be judged by an all knowing God and no believers will dare to simply interpret it and abuse to their advantage.

It certainly will in many situations. Another human being can even kill you whilst only you are sticking to this maxim.

You are conflating and deflecting this two different points. One can be kind to another but being kind do not mean stupidly allowing another to kill oneself. You are off point in this case.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not effective in ALL situation as it is morally unfair in some situation in a war. This is why war is particularly mentioned in the Qur'an 60:8-9. Author of the Qur'an was well aware that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is applicable only in time of peace, the reason it has never been complied with in time of war.

The absolute moral maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is an overriding maxim that is applicable in principle to ALL situations as the ultimate rule where necessary. But it does not mean one cannot kill if one is a soldier or executioner by profession because of the circumstances. It is also does not mean one cannot kill if the other person is about to pull the trigger right in front of you.
Therefore it one has to kill but has justified reasons, then the punishment [if any] will be more lenient.Despite the above justifiable killings, the overriding absolute moral maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' must remain permanent.

The additional advantage [of the absolute moral maxim] is because there is variance or gap between what is absolute and that there is still killing going on. In this case, the wiser people will study why there is a variance and thus this motivate humanity to strive to find solutions to close the moral-practical Gap.
For example, the Absolute Moral Maxim expects Zero Killing but in practice there are 10,000 of all sorts of killing in one year.
Thus there is a variance or gap of 10,000 killings that must be resolved, prevented, etc. At present it may not be possible to reduce the number of killings to Zero but society are motivated to close this gap progressively with continuous improvements.

In the above case of wars, humanity should strive to prevent wars. If there are no wars, then there is no need for soldiers and thus no killing by any soldiers.
If there are executioners, then humanity must get rid of executioners and capital punishment while at the same time reduce all sorts of crime.

My above proposals may not be achievable at present, but because my philosophy of Morality adopts the absolute Moral Maxim, it provide the impetus for humanity to improve on the current situation towards the ideal. The ideal may be impossible but what is critical here is the drive for continuous improvements in the moral quotient of humanity.

Your Islam with conditional moral rules do not provide or encourage such a basis because what Allah had set [low quality morals] are supposed to be perfected.

God understands all that and has taken it into account when revealing the verses 60:8-9.

Note my point above. Once Allah had set such a low quality moral, there is no room for improvements because what is set by Allah is supposed to be perfect and thus cannot change with time and circumstances.
Problem is your imperative emotional and very blind clinging to your religion has blinded you to any improvements and progress of the morality of humanity.

God will not issue an unfair code that will help only the criminals. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' was not issued by humans but God and then qualified it by conditions even in the OT.

You are right, God [if exists] will never issue an unfair code and low quality morality that will help the criminals, i.e. evil prone.
But the Allah of the Quran issued low quality morality that helped the criminals, i.e. evil prone. Evidence and proofs of this is glaring from what is going on at present by the evil prone Muslims.
Thus such low quality moral cannot be from a God, therefore the Quran was authored by humans who are only capable of issuing low quality morals.

Even in the OT, it is conditional unless you rip out just four words out of the whole OT and completely disregard the rest to do with this issue.

In the OT 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' stood by itself without further qualifications of ifs, buts or even if.
There are obvious evil laden elements related to killing in the OT but if the believer disregard the absolute moral maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' s/he will have to face God's judgment on J-Day. There are many debates and polemics surrounding the evil laden elements in the OT but regardless the OT has an overriding absolute moral maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' The reality is there are less evil prone Jews committing evils and violence at present in comparisons to the very terrible evils by evil prone Muslims.

'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is Moral Maxim only in the time of peace. It has never been Moral Maxim during a war. Therefore, in practice it has never been an Absolute Moral Maxim.

Your thinking and wisdom is low and abysmal.
'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is an Moral Maxim that is universal for ALL circumstance and time and will never waiver in any circumstances.
During war, soldiers must still be guided by this absolute moral Maxim that they only kill under war conditions and not kill outside the scope of the war. That is why there are International War Tribunals to deal with killing-as-a-crime within a war.

If defending is morally correct then it is morally correct to kill as a last resort whilst defending to save your own life. Even UN won't change that.

The Qur'an 60:8-9 is dealing with the reality and not with something limited in its use to words only.

I have already stated many times, whilst no one can kill another is ALL circumstances as an absolute Moral Law, one can still kill if there are justified reasons.

A government can issued the following;
1.The Absolute Moral Maxim: Thou Shalt Not Kill [humans].
at the same time issued
2. Thou can kill in necessary within the Rules of War adopted with The Geneva War Conventions.

Therefore if a soldier rape and kill innocent people, he will be subjected to the Absolute Moral Maxim of humanity 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' even though this is not explicitly stated. It is implied within the General War Convention and the collective consensus of humanity [except Islam which do not go along with the rest of humanity].

Humanity never created such Moral Maxim. God has been leading humans to this Moral Maxim. I have no doubt that without the OT, the NT and the Qur'an the world would still be backward morally despite the assumed bad image of religion today. These books are foundations of morality. It is up to us human beings to build on these foundations and make further progress.

In my soldier example above, I have pointed out the Absolute Moral Maxim, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is implied within the collective consensus of humanity.
Yes, the OT, NT and many other religions [but not Islam] had adopted the generic absolute Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' without conditions, EXCEPT Islam which issue it with conditions.
Yes, with the introduction of the absolute Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' it has contributed significantly to the moral state of humanity in some way but the morality framework from religions are limited and only optimal to the time they first emerged.
Yes, it is up to us humans collectively to improve on it, thus the need for the highest quality of Philosophy of Morality.

'There shalt Be No slavery' is easy to implement without being unfair to anyone at any time but "Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings" will not be fair to implement as it will be morally correct only in a peace situation but not fair and morally correct in a war situation in which your enemy is going to kill you. Therefore 60:8-9 take into account the two different real situations.

It was only very recently that the UN was able to arrive with consensus on 'There Shalt Be No Slavery' but the point here to note is such moves take time but what is critical is there is a progressive trend at present which humanity can look forward to in the future with more progress.

If "Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings" is not implemented by the UN at present it does not mean Allah can implement it with conditions during the 7th century.
The point is what is from Allah is supposed to be perfect for eternity and cannot be changed.
Because of this 'perfected for eternity' statement, Allah should not have freezed solid the rule that "Thou Shalt be Kind and Just to ALL human beings" with conditions related to war etc.
This proof the Quran was authored by human[s] and not a God. A God [if exist] will never issue conditional moral laws that are perfected and fixed for eternity.

UN is aware of the practical problem in implementing it as an Absolute Moral Maxim. To begin with, USA would be the first to veto such a move.

I don't think the UN will ever issued a recommendation 'ALL must be Kind and Just to All' because this is a default of humanity and besides it is not as critical as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' on slavery, on racism and other critical issues.

Please note that Absolute Moral Maxim is not Moral Maxim if it can't be morally just, fair and correct in ALL situations at all times.

Your point is based on ignorance and don't try to teach me such nonsense in the philosophical [wisdom] sense.
All Absolute Moral Maxims are by default and by its nature morally fair, just, right, universal and good in ALL situations at all times.
There is no such thing as an Absolute Moral Maxim that is evil, because by definition what is 'moral' is always good by itself unconditionally.

Note when applied in practice an Absolute Moral Maxim will guide one to establish rules and judiciary laws to follow.
The question of just or fair will apply to the rules and Laws set by the various authorities.

Which Absolute Moral Maxim, 'Thou shalt Not Kill', 'Thou Shalt be kind and Just to ALL human beings' or 'There shalt Be No slavery'?

The one of "slavery" "racism" and the universal human rights. If I am not mistaken all [or many] Islamic Nations did not ratify the universal human rights declarations [need to confirm this].

Please note that Allah issued through the Qur'an 60:8-9 the perfect Moral Maxim. No human in the UN will ever improve it in each of the two situations; peace and war.

What Allah claimed to be perfect is not perfect realistically.
As I had stated the maxim to be kind and just to all humans is so basic that the UN need not have to put it to the book. I don't think the UN will ever bother with this default maxim of mankind.
Note most of the Eastern Religions has unconditional Be Kind and Just to all humans stated in their holy books.
Eventually all humans will be able to abide with it unconditionally in the future EXCEPT all Muslims because Allah made in conditional within 60:8-9 in the Quran which is perfected and thus cannot be changed.

Just like you analogies, you are talking about unrelated issue. Come back when the UN issues 'Thou shalt Not Kill', and 'Thou Shalt be kind and Just to ALL human beings' as Absolute Moral Maxim. Until then you have no leg to stand on when rejecting the Qur'an 60:8-9 as Moral Maxim which has never been improved so far.

As I had stated I don't think the UN will bother with the above two maxims because they are the commonly understood default absolute moral maxims of humanity.
'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is handed by the Judiciary function of all government.

Eventually in time [say next 100 years++] all humans will be able to spontaneously maintain their own personal moral standard to sustain within themselves the absolute moral maxim, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and 'I WILL NEVER KILL.'
On the other hand Islam, because it was perfected and cannot be changed, will carry the conditional command 'KILL if ..condition X applies' till eternity as a stigma from the year 2116 onwards.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

The problem with your morality is it is not philosophical.

It is of course not philosophical but practical in reality.

Originally Posted by Continuum

I wonder whether you understand what is the meaning of Philosophy in its true sense.

I do, the reason I have separated it from religion and morality in practice.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Philosophy generally [in essence it is more complicated] is love of wisdom. Thus a philosophical based morality is based on wisdom and other relevant knowledge.

Useless unless it is practical in real situations. Philosophy and poetry go hand in hand. Philosophers make good poets and poets are often also philosophers.

Originally Posted by Continuum

If you only talk about morality without philosophy, then your morality could be the bastardized form any one can promote and talk about which could in part end up with evil laden elements.

I talk about morality in practice, not the one in words and minds only but useless in real situations.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Your above understanding is based on ignorance of what is philosophy. Note the essence of philosophy is 'wisdom, and wisdom is the optimal application of sound knowledge into practice.

Therefore, it is useless if it can't be applied in real situations. Wisdom in 60:8-9 is for the real situations. An Absolute Moral Maxim such as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' cannot be wisdom in some situations as it will be of help only to the criminals and killers.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Your arguments are full of holes and it has resulted in the real terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone Muslims.

Nonsense!

Disregarding 60:8-9 has resulted in the real terrible evils and violence. The same can happen if one disregards 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

[juju33312]

Originally Posted by Khalif

It is of course not philosophical but practical in reality.

I do, the reason I have separated it from religion and morality in practice.

Useless unless it is practical in real situations. Philosophy and poetry go hand in hand. Philosophers make good poets and poets are often also philosophers.

I talk about morality in practice, not the one in words and minds only but useless in real situations.

Therefore, it is useless if it can't be applied in real situations. Wisdom in 60:8-9 is for the real situations. An Absolute Moral Maxim such as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' cannot be wisdom in some situations as it will be of help only to the criminals and killers.

Nonsense!

Disregarding 60:8-9 has resulted in the real terrible evils and violence. The same can happen if one disregards 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

This makes me laugh. How do you know what is practical? Philosophy. How do you know what is moral? Philosophy. What is the third major branch of philosophy? Ethics (morality). The trouble is, you only know BAD philosophies, like Islam.

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence, including how to gain and validate knowledge and proper moral values. You can't go anywhere without these PHILOSOPHICAL fundamentals.

WHY is killing wrong, fundamentally? Is it ever right? What about killing a few to save many? What else is immoral?

Only philosophy will tell you.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance....... As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown."
Ayn Rand

You choose to follow a philosophy that embraces pedophilia, slavery, rape, terrorism, hate, genocide, torture, slaughter, war, mysticism, dogma, irrationality, death as the ultimate value, evil. That is your choice and you will pay for it.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

It is of course not philosophical but practical in reality.

In the practical, humans can practice anything with no-holds-barred from the very-good to the very-evil.
How humans should stick to the good and avoid evil is they must 'think,' rationalize, be mindful and weigh the consequences before they act. This is the job of philosophy. The ultimate purpose of Philosophy is optimizing one's within all existing constraints and that require wisdom.

The problem with the Quran and Islam is the lack of high level Philosophy of Morality where it let the evil laden verses slip in and influenced SOME evil prone Muslims who are born [unfortunately] with evil tendency, to commit terrible evils and violence EXTENSIVELY upon humanity around the world.

Since you are uneducated to what-is-wisdom [the essence of philosophy] here a small note on it [you need addition research to understand more of it];

Wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.[1]

Wisdom has been regarded as one of four cardinal virtues; and as a virtue, it is a habit or disposition to perform the action with the highest degree of adequacy under any given circumstance, and to avoid wrongdoing.
This implies a possession of knowledge or the seeking of knowledge to apply to the given circumstance.
This involves an understanding of people, objects, events, situations, and the willingness as well as the ability to apply perception, judgement, and action in keeping with the understanding of what is the optimal course of action.
It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that the universal principle of reason prevails to determine one's action.

In short, wisdom is a disposition to find the truth coupled with an optimum judgement as to what actions should be taken. wiki

Note the last para, the essence of philosophy is wisdom, and the essence of wisdom is optimal actions in life, i.e. the most efficient practices and actions.

I suggest you read the above a few times to enlighten yourself and not be SO ignorant on what is philosophy.
The Philosophy of Morality thus comprised theory and how to act wisely.

I do, the reason I have separated it from religion and morality in practice.

As explained above, when one separate philosophy from morality, one will end up with corrupted ethics [not moral*] and evils. *Moral by default is always good.

Useless unless it is practical in real situations. Philosophy and poetry go hand in hand. Philosophers make good poets and poets are often also philosophers.

Practical in real situations is very subjective. To Hitler killing 6 millions Jews is practical. All the terrible evil doers in the word deem their actions to be the most practical.
The only effective way to ensure that whatever practical is good is to manage the practical via Philosophy, i.e. specifically Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Khalif:Philosophy and poetry go hand in hand.
This is one of the worse uneducated statement I have come across in relation to Philosophy.
Philosophers used all sort of relevant tools to communicate and only a very small % of philosophers used poetry to communicate their thoughts.
Some philosophers used short narratives but that is not poetry.
No modern philosophers used poetry for their serious work.
Philosophy is relies heavily on objectivity and poetry is subjective and thus not an effective tool for philosophy.
I suggest you research more into philosophy and I ensure it will definitely uplift your knowledge and wisdom in a wider and deeper perspective.

I talk about morality in practice, not the one in words and minds only but useless in real situations.

Humans are endowed with the faculty of reason and intellect for good reasons, i.e. to facilitate the progress of humanity. Of course we must use our intellect and reason within limits and not to the extreme.
In the Quran, 'the men of understanding' are always highly praised than the lay Muslims who practice Islam like a 'chicken without head'.
It is obvious words alone without practice is useless for one well being and I am not into such extreme. I believe practice is 80% and words is 20%. However the 20% of words must be of the highest possible level and that is why Philosophy [words and practice] is so critical.
What the Quran lacks is that 20% of the highest possible theory [words] and it result in influencing SOME evil prone Muslims who are born [unfortunately] with evil tendency, to commit terrible evils and violence EXTENSIVELY upon humanity around the world.

Therefore, it is useless if it can't be applied in real situations. Wisdom in 60:8-9 is for the real situations. An Absolute Moral Maxim such as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' cannot be wisdom in some situations as it will be of help only to the criminals and killers.

As I had stated above it can be applied in real situation while at the same time back by the highest levels of intelligence, reasons and wisdom which has and inbuilt mechanism for continuous improvement of the well being of humans.
There is wisdom is 60:8-9 but the wisdom is very limited because it is conditional and thus leave holes to
influence SOME evil prone Muslims who are born [unfortunately] with evil tendency, to commit terrible evils and violence EXTENSIVELY upon humanity around the world.

Nonsense!
Disregarding 60:8-9 has resulted in the real terrible evils and violence. The same can happen if one disregards 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

60:8-9 is merely one 'blue moon' verse that has some good elements but it is full of holes because it is conditional.

60:8-9 [part] ..[if] those [infidels] who warred against you - on account of religion [alddeeni]

One point is the Quran present in many verses the infidels are always a threat to Muslims, thus the infidels are at war with Muslims in terms of ideology and psychology. There are thousands of verses where infidels as 'them' are condemned like pieces of sh:t.
Since the infidels [kafir harbi] are always at war against Muslims, this 60:8-9 lacks the teeth to be an absolute moral maxim.

On the other hand if Allah issued an absolute moral maxim 'All Muslims must be kind to All humans' with no ifs and regardless of the circumstance then it make a BIG difference.
There is no problem of people at war to be have a "kind" and "just" attitude to their opponents while at the same time do their professional duty as a soldier or on the other side.
Note 'kind' do not necessary mean 'pacifist', i.e. one who oppose killing.
To be brutal in war is being barbaric.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by juju33312

This makes me laugh. How do you know what is practical?

Practical Moral Maxim is something that is moral in ALL real situations and never unfair or unjust to anyone in any situation. An Absolute Moral Maxim, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', is philosophical and limited to words only and practical in peace time only. Islam accepts it as peace time Moral Maxim. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' has never been Moral Maxim during any war time, therefore, never practical or practicable in ALL real situations.

Originally Posted by juju33312

You choose to follow a philosophy that embraces pedophilia, slavery, rape, terrorism, hate, genocide, torture, slaughter, war, mysticism, dogma, irrationality, death as the ultimate value, evil. That is your choice and you will pay for it.

Keeping to the OP, rather than responding to your usual spewing of hate against collective 'you' (ALL Muslims):

I chose to follow:

[60:8-9] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) deen, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

The above is also in line with:

[8.61] And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

[5.8] O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be conscious of Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.

[juju33312]

Originally Posted by Khalif

Practical Moral Maxim is something that is moral in ALL real situations and never unfair or unjust to anyone in any situation. An Absolute Moral Maxim, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', is philosophical and limited to words only and practical in peace time only. Islam accepts it as peace time Moral Maxim. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' has never been Moral Maxim during any war time, therefore, never practical or practicable in ALL real situations.

Until every non-Muslim is dead or converted, Islam is at war and slaughtering is OK. Do you want a list of countries Islam invaded and where Muslims slaughtered the peaceful people living in those countries/ War is when one side attacks, and that side is often Islam. Just a few examples of Islam's aggression and slaughter...:

1. Surah (3:151) Aal-Imran

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers

2. Surah (4:89) Al-Maidah

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their rank.

3. Surah (8:12) Al-Anfal

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

4. Surah (9:5) At-Tauba

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the zakat then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

5. Surah (9:29) At-Tauba

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the zakat with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This is one of the last revelations from Muhammad. Note that believers aren’t being told to fight in self defense. They’re being told to fight unbelievers because they don’t believe (are resisting Islam).

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land."

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war 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"

This comes from one of the last sura in the Quran. Waging war against Allah and His messenger is NOT actual violence and attacks (as in a real war), it’s 'making mischief in the land': disrespecting Allah, Islam, the Quran and/or Muhammad. To this day, such disrespect is all the warrant needed for violent retaliation. Charlie Hebdo, anybody?

The hadiths show that Muhammed was the attacker and murderer.

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

Does this sound loving and peaceful to you?

Let's look at some history:

630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting "agreements" from northern tribes. They could enjoy the "privilege" of living under Islamic "protection" (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax.

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al-Walid. In Khalid’s day an unnamed Muslim remarks: "The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few." To this Khalid retorts: "How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many" (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Laden quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: "[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists" (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus.

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636).

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governorship.

732 The Muslim Crusaders are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance.

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids.

756 Foundation of Umayyid emirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids.

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid emirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia.

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem.

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy.

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.

831 Muslim Crusaders capture of Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy.

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France.

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia.

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969).

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places.

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo.

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East.

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids.

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed.

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses.

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (also known as Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate.

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine.

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.

1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

Timeline of the Islamic Crusades