I said I would respond to some of BluffThis's Quranic quotations a few weeks back but never got round to it, so I'll do it in response to this post, as you quote similar/some of the same passages. Both of you quote verses out of context, which often skews their meaning, and sometimes translations that seem designed to bring out the most belligerent possible meanings (in that there are other translations that give rise to less agressive, and often openly anti-agressive, meanings).
For example, you quote:
""Sura 8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made great slaughter in the land" ".
I’m not sure where you got this as I can’t find any online transcript that has exactly the same wording, but never mind, there are very similar ones out there. First of all there’s the issue of the translation: my translation of the Quran, the recent Abd al Haleem translation (which I strongly recommend; published by OUP), has this verse reading: “It is not right for a prophet to take captives before he has conquered the battlefield”, which is markedly less aggressive – no inducement to “slaughter” first, take prisoners later.
This version has “It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.”
Meanwhile
this version has “It does not behove a prophet that [he] should have captives until he engages in regular fighting”, and comments : “This verse lays down the general rule that captives should not be taken unless there is regular fighting and the enemy is completely overpowered. It cuts at the root of slavery. Only those who take part in war to destroy Islam and are defeated can be made prisoner. .
Thus while your interpretation of the verse is “Prophets must kill people before they can take prisoners”, these Pakistani Muslims’ interpretation, based on a different translation, is “Prisoners can only be taken [by Prophets] in regular battle” ie don’t resort to kidnapping or slavery. Neither of us have the knowledge of the text or classical Arabic to settle which interpretation is right, but clearly you should be wary of making generalisations about the entire religion based on out of context excerpts of contentious verses that are open top various translations and interpretations.
“Sura 9:73 "O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."”
First of all, this says “O Prophet”. It doesn’t enjoin anyone else to do this (note also that the previously discussed verse also refers to "Prophets", not people in general). One of your criticisms of the Quran has been that it makes general timeless commands to all Muslims, while you claim for example that the excesses of the Old Testament are only one-off messages to historical characters that don’t necessarily apply in general. Well note here that clearly isn’t the case (and often isn’t; many verses are addressed to the Prophet or refer to specific occasions). Also note that my translation says “strive against” rather than “make war”, which given the Arabic is jahada is certainly a plausible translation given that jahada (from which jihad comes) means to struggle or strive. The Hell reference is hardly much different from what most religions claim. So while you would presumably argue that this is an injunction for Muslims to make war on unbelievers, it is more plausibly a call specifically to the Prophet to strive against them in an undefined manner.
Note also that this verse is from Sura 9, as are the next two you quote, and as were most of BluffThis’s quotes if I recall correctly. The context here is absolutely key. You both quote the verses as if they were general, timeless commands to fight against/subdue/dhimmify all infidels or what have you. In fact, it refers to a specific historical context. The Haleem version presents it as referring to an occasion where God allowed the Muslims to break their pledges, although giving them four months notice first, to some non-believers because those non-believers had broken a treaty with the Muslims (by supporting others against them) and continued to fight against them. He uses some Arabic grammar to show that the reference to idolaters in 9:5, which you quote, refers specifically to those who broke the treaty. Neither of us have the knowledge of Arabic to know whether he’s right or wrong but given that he is a professor of classical Arabic, I think we’d have a hard time finding a reputable refutation of his point.
Now you can say that the Quran is timeless for Muslims and always valid. True, but what’s the lesson from this verse? You would presumably argue that it's “Always fight the unbelievers until they submit” as was permitted in this context. I think a more tenable one is “It’s legitimate to fight people who break treaties or fight you; but always be ready to be merciful (mentioned in the next verses).” Indeed much of the sura consists of specific condemnations of people who break their word rather than "unbelievers".
The point of all this is not that the translations and interpretations that I use are definitely right and your are wrong, although I do think the total lack of context perverts the meanings of your quotes. The real point is that the meaning, even the correct translation, of these verses are highly contested and depend on correct interpretation of an ancient language as well as a detailed knowledge ot textual and historical context - and even then how these should be applied to other contexts and situations is not going to be solved in a manner that would convince all people.
As the Quran says: “Some of its [ie scripture] verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambigious. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.” (Haleem, 3:7).