Are Moslems more Tolerant than Christians?

[TheReasoner]

Historically yes Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity. The Koran has many clauses dealing with tolerence that were not in the Christian bible that helped promote tolerence through the ages. For example many none Abrahamic religions were allowed to still practice their faith even though they were considered non-believers as long as they agreed to a treaty and stuck to it. When in Europe with Christianity, there were no options of treaties and communties were slaughtered for being Pagan if they did not convert. Muslims were allowed to marry Christians and Jews but many Christian churches banned marriages outside ones Church in Europe.

There is more evidence of Islamic tolerence than there is for Christian tolerence.

Of course when someone has a personal or political agenda to achieve, those clauses are ignored, which is the case with the majority of the violent events in the last 10 years dealing with Islam and its followers.

Really?
How so?

 

[CCGirl]

Historically yes Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity. The Koran has many clauses dealing with tolerence that were not in the Christian bible that helped promote tolerence through the ages. For example many none Abrahamic religions were allowed to still practice their faith even though they were considered non-believers as long as they agreed to a treaty and stuck to it. When in Europe with Christianity, there were no options of treaties and communties were slaughtered for being Pagan if they did not convert. Muslims were allowed to marry Christians and Jews but many Christian churches banned marriages outside ones Church in Europe.

There is more evidence of Islamic tolerence than there is for Christian tolerence.

Of course when someone has a personal or political agenda to achieve, those clauses are ignored, which is the case with the majority of the violent events in the last 10 years dealing with Islam and its followers.

Interesting post! Thanks!

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Trust me -- This is NOT about Lebanon.

It's about the truth in general. The Muslims being so tolerant is a lie. Historically, and in some places still, to live in "Muslim" lands, which were ALL stolen from other groups, Christian, Jewish, and Pagan alike, a very high tax is levied, and no one else is allowed to publicly practice their religion -- MUSLIMS ONLY!

Well if you look around the world, the majority of the people live in lands that were STOLEN from other previous owners, that is just a part of human nature, conquering others. And genetics studies are helping us map were everyone came from and who is related to who on what lands. The "Muslim" lands as you call them were not stolen, the original inhabitants are genetically matching the current inhabitants in the of Muslim majority nations. Religion thrives by people converting based on what God gives them and when, people see wealth (blessings) amongst a group, they converted.

Please provide some evidence of non-Muslims being not allowed to practice their religion in the Middle East other than Iran and Saudi Arabia, both countries do NOT practice the same form of Islam as the majority of the rest of the Muslim population of the Middle East. It would be incorrect to label them as the sole representatives of Islam when they are only a minority of the group.

One cannot go by what one sees in the US... and that is only the big public groups. This is a link to a US extremist group: http:\\www.cair.org They claim they are not, but are trying to SLOWLY infiltrate American civilization.

CAIR for Muslim Americans I know is what Jesse Jackson's group is for black people, highly ignored by the majority.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Really?
How so?

What are you asking about?

 

[Imperiuz]

Islam swarmed over the christian heartland. They destroyed Byzantium, the most modern of all medeival empires. They turned Hagia sofia and various other churches to mosques. They oppressed the peoples living in the Balkans for many centuries. More recently they killed Greeks at Chios, drivesd them from the holiest city of the Eastern churches. They exterminated Armenians and invaded Cyprus. And now they terrorise christian citisens.

Why should we be tolerant then? To a religion made by a mad paedophile who had sex with anine year old girl. A religion who promises that those who kill and force convert 'infidels' will get 72 virgins to "entertain" them in heaven. WE SHOULDN'T!

 

[bunced]

Calm down - by badmouthing Islam as a blanket you are as bad as those you criticise. Muslims aren't some system of drones - within Islam there are a minority of bad Muslims, and a majority of good Muslims - and our relationships with these people should be based on an individual basis. And even if you disagree with the religion (which I do but on reasons of probably slightly firmer doctrine than you) you can still respect and love the followers of such a belief as a friend, because it is possible to separate a person from the views we hold.

We should speak out against ideas that are bad - that is our civil right. We should defend, love, protect and get on with people who hold these ideas - that is our civil responsibility.

 

[TheReasoner]

What are you asking about?

Your claim that there's more evidence of Islamic tolerence than there is for Christian tolerence.

 

[soblessed53]

Historically yes Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity. The Koran has many clauses dealing with tolerence that were not in the Christian bible that helped promote tolerence through the ages. For example many none Abrahamic religions were allowed to still practice their faith even though they were considered non-believers as long as they agreed to a treaty and stuck to it. When in Europe with Christianity, there were no options of treaties and communties were slaughtered for being Pagan if they did not convert. Muslims were allowed to marry Christians and Jews but many Christian churches banned marriages outside ones Church in Europe.

There is more evidence of Islamic tolerence than there is for Christian tolerence.

Of course when someone has a personal or political agenda to achieve, those clauses are ignored, which is the case with the majority of the violent events in the last 10 years dealing with Islam and its followers.

Anyone who knows one thing about Islam and the Qu'ran knows this is TOTAL,COMPLETE balderdash!

 

[TheReasoner]

Calm down - by badmouthing Islam as a blanket you are as bad as those you criticise. Muslims aren't some system of drones - within Islam there are a minority of bad Muslims, and a majority of good Muslims - and our relationships with these people should be based on an individual basis. And even if you disagree with the religion (which I do but on reasons of probably slightly firmer doctrine than you) you can still respect and love the followers of such a belief as a friend, because it is possible to separate a person from the views we hold.

We should speak out against ideas that are bad - that is our civil right. We should defend, love, protect and get on with people who hold these ideas - that is our civil responsibility.

however, their religion dictates that a good follower of Islam is a warrior. A man who is both willing and able to kill for his belief.

And therein lies the flaw.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Islam swarmed over the christian heartland. They destroyed Byzantium, the most modern of all medeival empires. They turned Hagia sofia and various other churches to mosques. They oppressed the peoples living in the Balkans for many centuries. More recently they killed Greeks at Chios, drivesd them from the holiest city of the Eastern churches. They exterminated Armenians and invaded Cyprus. And now they terrorise christian citisens.

Do you need to be reminded that the Christians destroyed almost every Pagan temple and monument in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America and many island areas and in some parts of the Middle East. What we have left of Paganism in the Middle East and north Africa was saved by Islam. The Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were still standing until the Taliban (non-traditionalist), that should tell you something about Islam. The pyramids in Egypt were opened and abused by Christians but had been protected by Muslims until European Christians took over.

Why should we be tolerant then? To a religion made by a mad paedophile who had sex with anine year old girl. A religion who promises that those who kill and force convert 'infidels' will get 72 virgins to "entertain" them in heaven. WE SHOULDN'T!

Well are you aware that in the Jewish Talmud there is references to it being ok to marry and have sex with a girl of 3 years and 1 day and 9 years for boys? Why should we tolerate them? We do because we know that not everyone is going to follow what's written because each human has their own personal set of morals, which many would know that sex with a child is wrong.

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_55.html#PARTb

This one is a discussion how how they concluded its ok for minors to be married and whose parents in the bible were only 8 and 9 when they gave birth, very interesting.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_69.html

Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia17 the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent18 in their marital intercourse:19 A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,20 because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,20 because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.21 A nursing mother,20 because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely,22 and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'?23 From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under24 or over this age25 must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy26 will be vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple?

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_45.html

 

[bunced]

however, their religion dictates that a good follower of Islam is a warrior. A man who is both willing and able to kill for his belief.

And therein lies the flaw.

An extreme interpretation does, yes. But by no means the majority, much in the same way that only very Conservative Christians would take literally Paul's instructions for women to remain silent in church

 

[TheReasoner]

An extreme interpretation does, yes. But by no means the majority, much in the same way that only very Conservative Christians would take literally Paul's instructions for women to remain silent in church

It must, of course be seen in the light of history, culture and in the light of the bible as a whole.
The women issue is pretty off-balance. But this debate is not about that.

Islam - if you see it in the light of history it is violent. From the days of Mohammed Islam - with Mohammed spearheading it all - has persecuted and murdered Jews, Christians and members of other religions just because of their beliefs.
Now this is openly embraced by Mohammed in the last Sura he got - which is not the last in the Quaran.
But the ninth.
And as the only way the Quaran can even be perceived as a divinely given or inspired text is for it to have a rule of abrogation - the last Surah are the most potent and valid of them all.

So, I cannot see the light in which Islam is revealed as a peaceful religion.
Oh, of course there are peaceful Muslims. Of course there are great people who happen to be Muslim. But if they truly want to follow their religion to the utmost consequence - that will entail atrocities.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Anyone who knows one thing about Islam and the Qu'ran knows this is TOTAL,COMPLETE balderdash!

Just because you have no knowledge of whats in the Koran does not mean its not there.

Koran on Peace during battle

Surah 8:61 "But if the enemy incline toward peace, you (also) incline toward peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).

Bible on Peace during battle, hmm can't find anything.


Koran on treaties with Pagans

9:4 (But the treaties are) not resolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequenctly failed you in anything, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagement with them to the end of their term: for Allah loves the righteous. 5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every starategem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 6. If one amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it ot him, so taht he may hear the Word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure.

Bible on treaties or covenants with Pagans,
Exodus 23:32 "You shall make no covenant with them" (people of Caanan)

Exodus 34:12 "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going

Bible makes it clear that there is no option for conversion of Pagan women and men in war. Girls can be captured if they have not been with a man and converted later but no Pagan males were allowed to live.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

Islam - if you see it in the light of history it is violent. From the days of Mohammed Islam - with Mohammed spearheading it all - has persecuted and murdered Jews, Christians and members of other religions just because of their beliefs.

Christianity did the exact same thing starting hundreds of years before Islam even existed and they continued for hundreds of more years until the 1800's. Christianity is only peaceful today because of the societies were Christians live as a majority have been cleansed of all other religions that they feel are not "truth". And now with immigration and conversions to other religions, the nastier side of Christians have been coming out and the more threatened they feel by the presents of none Christians, the more intolerant they get.

The topic was about tolerance, the definition of tolerance is: 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own</I> </I>b : the act of allowing something

The simple allowence of Christians and Jews to marry Muslims, that means a Muslim living with a none Muslim, shows a lot more tolerance than Christianity which prohibited the practice mixed marriages and in some cases today some churches refuse to perform a wedding for parties of different denominations.

So I cannot see the light in which Islam is revealed as a peaceful religion.

This was not about Islam being a peaceful religion, but about tolerance. In my opinion there is no such thing as a peaceful religion when they have Moses or Abraham involved.

 

[soblessed53]

Just because you have no knowledge of whats in the Koran does not mean its not there.

Koran on Peace during battle

Surah 8:61 "But if the enemy incline toward peace, you (also) incline toward peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).

Bible on Peace during battle, hmm can't find anything.


Koran on treaties with Pagans

9:4 (But the treaties are) not resolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequenctly failed you in anything, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagement with them to the end of their term: for Allah loves the righteous. 5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every starategem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 6. If one amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it ot him, so taht he may hear the Word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure.

Bible on treaties or covenants with Pagans,
Exodus 23:32 "You shall make no covenant with them" (people of Caanan)

Exodus 34:12 "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going

Bible makes it clear that there is no option for conversion of Pagan women and men in war. Girls can be captured if they have not been with a man and converted later but no Pagan males were allowed to live.

For your information I have read the Qu'ran! I also know about Abrogation!

BTW Christians are under grace,not the law of the OT,as most everyone who knows scripture this century is aware of!

 

[Imperiuz]

Do you need to be reminded that the Christians destroyed almost every Pagan temple and monument in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America and many island areas and in some parts of the Middle East.

No, the Great Uppsalakulle temple was destroyed here in Sweden to by Christian fantaics. Onn the other side, Scandinavian pagansim was realy barbaric with human sacrifices and hanging animals in trees and such.

Well are you aware that in the Jewish Talmud there is references to it being ok to marry and have sex with a girl of 3 years and 1 day and 9 years for boys? Why should we tolerate them?

The Jews do not follow these rules. Moslems do, in Saudiarabia and Iran they marry their girls when they are 9 years old.

The whole religion was founded by a paedophile, what does that tell you about the religion itself?

 

[aniRB]

So, I cannot see the light in which Islam is revealed as a peaceful religion.
Oh, of course there are peaceful Muslims. Of course there are great people who happen to be Muslim. But if they truly want to follow their religion to the utmost consequence - that will entail atrocities.

Any religion, Islam and Christianity included, can be whatever the individual makes it.

 

[PretzelMonger]

About the 9 and 3 year olds, does it say anything about having to take care of them? Isn't this just illogical in the sense that a three or nine year old will not be able to help you care for the household?

 

[TheReasoner]

Any religion, Islam and Christianity included, can be whatever the individual makes it.

If the bible says:
Love your neighbor
Love your enemy
Do not kill
Turn the other cheek

It should be very hard to abuse it.
Of course, history has shown it is not

Islam on the other hand does not have these commands. But rather, hunt down the infidel and slay him - unless he repents and converts to Islam.

That's tolerance for you.

 

[Cooch]

There is an old joke about a man who went to his doctor, insisting that he was dead.
The doctor asked him, "Do dead men feel pain?", to which the patient replied, "Of course not!"
So the doctor promptly stuck the patient with a large pin, and naturally, the patient let out a loud yell.
"What does that tell you?", asked the doctor.
"Marvellous", replied the patient. "Dead men DO feel pain."

Like the patient in the story, many come to an incorrect conclusion, because they start with a faulty assumption. Regardless of what our friend thought, the evidence was that he was very much alive, and it didn't matter that he said otherwise. Similarly, I could call my dog "Puss" until I'm blue in the face. Reality remains that my dog is not even remotely feline.

Yet people insist on the notion that anyone who calls themselves a Christian, is, and that anyone who calls themselves a Muslim is likewise a member of Islam. This requires them to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

So what does constitute valid evidence as to membership of a faith? I'd suggest that it is compliance with the most basic teachings of that faith. Usually the teachings of its founder. Isn't this fair? It is more reasonable to conclude that someone who claims membership of a faith, but does not follow its teachings, is not a disciple, but a liar.

So how does this apply to our debate?

The primary authority in Christianity are the words of Jesus Christ. As has been pointed out, His second-most important command to his followers was "Love thy neighbour as thyself". When challenged to clarify that command, he did so via a parable relating appropriate action by a member of another faith. (The parable of the Good Samaritan) Objectivity and logic therefore require us to conclude that persons who do not follow the direct commandment of Christ, are not His followers. Therefore calling them "Christians" is dishonest and their misdeeds cannot be applied to the discredit of Christianity. The only valid response to the argument that they call themselves Christians, is that they are deluding themselves, and the argument still stands.

Applying the same evidence-based standard to Muslims, and what have we? Their primary authority is the Prophet Mohammed, who laid down commandments that are both peaceful and violent, tolerant and intolerant. What is more, Mohammed's writings lack significant context with which we can determine what is appropriate, and what is not. Therefore, not only do we lack any objective standard by which we can say that a violent and intolerant person claiming to follow Muhammad is not a Muslim... but we also lack even the ability to judge which type of behaviour represents an "extreme" branch of the Muslim faith, and which is moderate or mainline.

Faced with the evidence of his behaviour, I can make a convincing case that Tomás de Torquemada was no Christian. Can anybody mount a similar case that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, is not a Muslim?

As to which faith is the more tolerant, I'll let you do the sums. I ask only that you do so objectively.

Curiously.......... Peter