@ RanMan
Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was not only a prophet but also a political and military leader. For this reason you can completely misunderstand his general message if you only rely on some isolated suras, because they may or may not have a general or absolute quality.
The passage from the sura (9:28-31), that you quoted, refers to the "campaign to Tabuk" and it has - according to Muslim sources - the following historical context:
Quote:
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.
source
So, there was apparently a very strong reason to go to war at this time. And don´t tell me, that Christian nations today - or 1000 years ago - would have "turned the other cheek" here.
@ Kinji:
Of course it´s unlikely that Jesus - if we look at his attitude as a whole - would have approved of the terrible things, that were committed in his name.
About this question:
Quote:
What about a non-muslim thats not under protection?
Please see my first message on this topic. I could only repeat myself here.
