Muslims-Christians Tolerance

Muslims-Christians Tolerance

Muslims and Christians together constitute over fifty percent of the world and if they lived in peace, we will be half way to world peace. One small step that we can take towards fostering Muslim-Christian harmony is to tell and retell positive stories and abstain from mutual demonization.

I propose to remind both Muslims and Christians about a promise that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) made to Christians. The knowledge of this promise can have enormous impact on Muslim conduct towards Christians. Muslims generally respect the precedent of their Prophet and try to practice it in their lives.

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.
The Promise to St. Catherine:


“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.



No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God’s covenant.

A remarkable aspect of the charter is that it imposes no conditions on Christians for enjoying its privileges. It is enough that they are Christians. They are not required to alter their beliefs, they do not have to make any payments and they do not have any obligations. This is a charter of rights without any duties!

The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even thought it was penned in 628 A.D. it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person.

I know most readers, must be thinking so what? Well the answer is simple. Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasize areas of conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad’s promise to Christians is invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders good will in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims.

When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me want to become a better person. I think the capacity to seek good and do good inheres in all of us. When we subdue this predisposition towards the good, we deny our fundamental humanity. In this holiday season, I hope all of us can find time to look for something positive and worthy of appreciation in the values, cultures and histories of other peoples.

Exactly! Same go with Islam. All those Jihad and other acts of malice is based on interpretation of later clerics.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Exactly! Same go with Islam. All those Jihad and other acts of malice is based on interpretation of later clerics.

Yes, but only fools & the unclean of mind still fervently listen to them!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Exactly! Same go with Islam. All those Jihad and other acts of malice is based on interpretation of later clerics.

Yes, but only fools & the unclean of mind still fervently listen to them!

Please note, I'm NOT defending the actions of the radicals and am not a muslim myself. But I feel that no religion is inheritedly evil. It's how they're interpreted that cause them to be evil.

That said, it still amazes me how many people the radical muslim clerics managed to brainwash. Iran sees the west as evil. Same with the al-Qaeda and the bin Laden guys.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Of course I note the Old Testament but it is a prelude to the Messenaic period and it is the coming of Christ that is improtant.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Jesus Christs was based on peace and fairness. And again when you look at the Koran which is not equitable to the New Tesatment as a direction of some reasonableness, it is full of lack of rights, treatment of women, non-Muslims, vengeance, stoning to death (including women again), cutting parts of the body off, etc. Maybe Jesus lost his way on such?

Yes, Jesus Christ's story is one of peace and fairness. But comparing the Koran to that is like comparing the original fable of Chicken Little/Licken with the Disney feature film.
They're two different things. The Old Testament contains laws and teachings that are, in almost every way, comparable to the Koran. If the OT is still considered part of your particular Christian sect's teachings, you must accept that there are horrible things that go along with the teachings of peace.

Again, I ask you to present which passages in the Koran cause you concern. Did you read the OT ones I posted about treatment of non-Christians and the stoning to death of entire cities?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yes, but only fools & the unclean of mind still fervently listen to them!

Exactly. There's very little to choose between them. I couldn't care less which tome of blood and vengeance and fear someone chooses to hold dear - but it does bother me if they use it to hate their fellow man.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

That said, it still amazes me how many people the radical muslim clerics managed to brainwash.

It's not really amazing simply because it's part of their culture.

It became part of their culture because their minds were empty, & then they were filled....that was passed down generation to generation, & because their culture forbade them from questioning religious authority, false interpretation & manipulation became part & parcel of every day life, & it's what filled their minds----it consumed them.

Basically, they were brainwashed in the same way some people are easier to hypnotize while others are quite difficult. Preconditioned minds are prone to manipulation.

Exception is not tolerated.

Same goes with devout Christians. Heck, if you look at any religion there bound to be some radicals. Most radical Christians to me would be the Puritans. Even Christians have (or at least had) holy wars, the Crusades, and those were sponsored / supported by the pope, the highest figure in the Roman Catholic Church (which at that time was all powerful and most people were Roman Catholic. They ordered countless scientists to be killed), beneath God.

It's strange I'm agreeing with Smileyfaze for once since I mostly disagree with him in most debates. It's also strange that johnnysaucepn, Smiley, and me are all agreeing on something.

Please accept my corrections for your approval:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Same goes with devout Christians. Heck, if you look at any religion there bound to be some radicals. Most radical Christians to me are were the Puritans. Even Christians have had holy wars, the Crusades, and those are were sponsored / supported by the pope, the highest figure in Christianity the Roman Catholic Church, beneath God.

Puritans -- no longer exist....17th century, gone over 400 years ago.

Crusades (Holy Wars) & the Popes sponsorship -- 11^th thru the 13^th century. They've been over now for a few years------like 800.

Christianity -- means ALL followers of Christ, King Henry the Eighth would take exception to being represented by a Roman Catholic Pope, as would virtually ALL protestant Christian religions. Pssssst.....ask rj to kiss the Popes ring if you think I jest.

Edited. I think the Puritants is the most extreme Christians I've read about. Crime is a sin and sin is a crime.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Pssssst.....ask rj to kiss the Popes ring if you think I jest.

Nope I belive you. Knowing my history King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic since he wanted to divorce his wife for not giving him any sons and the pope said no.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The New testament does not rant about killing unbelievers

Really?

Romans 1:28-32 (KJV)
"28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge ----> (unbeliever), God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."


And just for good measure for my friend Belfrager:

Well glad it's not for me......

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well glad it's not for me......

Yep, just your holy book.

As such, surely you can understand now why some people view your book as having very little differences with your favorite book, the Qur'an?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

And just for good measure for my friend Belfrager:

That's Photoshop...

Instead posting photographs why don't you learn some Latin thedawgfan?
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam...

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The New testament does not rant about killing unbelievers

Really?

Romans 1:28-32 (KJV)
"28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge ----> (unbeliever), God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

A little background....Paul (originally Saul) was a "zealous" Pharisee who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus.

Some scholars argue that Paul was a member of the "Zealot" party prior to conversion.

He was not one of the original 12 Apostles, & he never knew/met Christ.

He converted to Christianity after the Crucifixion of the Christ.

In this letter, Epistle (which means letter) to the Romans, Paul was accounting what he intended to speak about when he visited Rome. Those specific depictions in your excerpt, I conclude, related to time prior to the coming of Christ.

Note as well the text only suggests that <they> are worthy of death, but nowhere does it even suggest that they should be killed or put to death, or even punished.

Worthy of death ........ by what means?

Basically, it might be interpreted that judgment for their ways, & further, will be reserved for God (and not man), which would probably be more consistent with the teachings of the Christ as I know them.

I'm not a Biblical Scholar by any measure, hell I never even read but a few passages in over 40 years, but my simple reading of your excerpt, & subsequent investigation, offered these modest conclusions.

You are probably more scholarly than I about the teachings of the Christ & the New Testament, so what do you think?

Are my conclusions way off the mark?

Many thanks for the input, SF, and that certainly could be the case. As is generally always the case, it's all about one's interpretation.

"Worthy of death" is certainly very suggestive. There are a plethora of different types of believers and I have met quite a few of them. It's always an interesting situation. For example, (and I was quite amused at this) in my Applied Writing course I'm taking this semester, during peer-review time for paper 4, the author of the paper I was assigned to read (a woman) was arguing that women should stay totally subservient to their husbands. <---This, in the two-thousand teens! I forget what the actual paper was about (several papers ago after all), but that bit stuck with me.

^I would humbly assert that the more impressionable of the faithful might take passage literally, just as the impressionable Muslims take literal the warring verses in the Qur'an. It's a two-edged sword.

You should comment more on religious topics.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

^I would humbly assert that the more impressionable of the faithful might take passage literally, just as the impressionable Muslims take literal the warring verses in the Qur'an. It's a two-edged sword. You should comment more on religious topics.

Thanks....but I'd rather focus my energies on more important secular texts, & comment about the 2^nd Amendment & the zealots that want to deprive me & you of our 'Natural Right', a right we both love, respect, & enjoy.

As far as the faithful (especially in early times) taking the passage literally, I would think that they would most probably focus more on the actual loving, non-violent teachings of the Christ, rather than the obscure letters of an ex-Pharisee (which I submit they probably wouldn't even have known about until after the texts were translated, & then printed, subsequent to the invention of the printing press in the mid 1400's).

The point is that there is utterly no global comparison with the international terrorist campaigns from Islam. There is no international Christian terror group doing the Trade Centre, London or all the other places. Instead here we get an attempt to swerve off that and use Islam to thump Christianity by the usual squad of greatly balanced atheists here.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The point is that there is utterly no global comparison with the international terrorist campaigns from Islam. There is no international Christian terror group doing the Trade Centre, London or all the other places. Instead here we get an attempt to swerve off that and use Islam to thump Christianity by the usual squad of greatly balanced atheists here.

Apparently there is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism and http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/terrorism-in-the-name-of-jesus-everybody-ignore/. One example is the Westboro Baptist Church Catholics. At least they act terroristy http://my.opera.com/wikipedian/blog/holy-rats-vs-virtual-rats-the-war-between-westboro-baptist-church-and-anonymous/.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Apparently there is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

From your link:

The Orange Volunteers are a group infamous for carrying out simultaneous terrorist attacks on Catholic churches.

Now, those bloody bastards are a terrorist, murderous bunch.
I personally did battle with their predecessors.
Had the honor to put a severe hurt on some of their kind back in the late 70's & early 80's when I was hangin' with my dear friends & brethren. My talents were much appreciated back then, & put to good use.

........

Nice try on limited intelligence. I have no time for terrorism from ANY quarter but the OV were a tiny group and as we are talking about global terorism here since when did they do bombings in NYC, Bali, London, Spain, Afghanistan and elsewhere?? Indeed how many RC churches were attacked by that mob? No doubt more stretched imagination from someone in a country that has fostered terrorism for decades. Now compare them to your pals in the SF/IRA who did most of the killings across the Irish Sea. You can count on the fingers of your hand the number of RC churches attacked in Ulster but some 300 plus Orange Halls have been attacked, destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed again. At one such attempt on the outskirts of Portadown a member of your pals the Sinn Fein Youth wing fell off the hall roof and brilliantly broke a leg. Ironically that same lot are still proclaiming a peace process. Years ago arms and explosives were stored in the outbuildsings of a northern monastry "unbeknown" to the monks. The RC church on Newtonards Rd in East Belfast during the troubles had it's steeple used by SF/IRA sharpshooters. Your pals over in the ex-Colonies funded these maddies. The same people who murdered their own people on their side of the divide and families still don't know where the bodies are. McGuiness your leader is a proclaimed RC like Adams but had no problem murdering or blowing people up.

So that murderous group of Loyalist terrorists are no better than your pals and no connection with me indeed they besmirch a good name. But as I state a tiny thing compared to the record of the people you lot over the pond funded for long enough. Maybe instead of repeated hype fed into your brain you might try and list 300 RC places of worship destroyed. If counting you can put one hand away for a start. Anyway this is a daft attempt to cirumvent the fact that Islamic terrorism is world wide and there is NO Christian compariosn except in your rather feeble nonsense that does resonate with the factual! Christianity, Judaism, Hidus, Buddists, etc have nothing compared to the Islamic lot.

Now you have adequately shown yourself up to be a criminally, terrosts inclined fanatic of a lot who committed the MAJORITY of the killings in one part of this United Kingdom. And you have the sheer nerve to get at people with principles. The IRA and then the PIRA and the remnants left in the RIRA and their similar idots are the scum of the Earth and have little principle. Even down south over the Irsih Border the vast majority of Irish folk have no time for you nor your murdering ways. Small wonder the US has so much to mess it up considering your contribution to it. So as you and your fellow crims did post pof the mayhem the terms you use such as "bloody bastards are a terrorist, murderous bunch" fit you well yourself. At last the whole Forum knows the truth about you and any previous consideration is badly effected by your stupid claims and what you have said. In saying I have no time for terrorists I take a positive stance whilst you proclaim you ARE terrorist inclined. Small wonder you love guns because you are infantile and you disgrace your fellow Americans here and i hope they too note that we have a terrorist here. Disgusting.

RJHowie that doesn't prove anything that islam is a warring religion. There are always violent radicals in any religion. But that doesn't prove the religion is inheritedly evil. The only evil person are the clergymen who twist religions to justify their cause. But as Anne Frank said, "Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart. ... Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is! ... I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."

It is not possible to profess one religion and be tolerant of another. That is not how religion works. If my religion is right, yours is not. If your religion is right, mine is not. If my religion is the path to eternal life, yours is not. If your religion is the path to eternal life, mine is not. For much of history, and even today in much of the world, believing in the wrong religion could mean your execution. Religion is serious stuff. A warm and fuzzy religion that claims to be tolerant of other religions is little more than a fluffy collection of loosely-held opinions.

There are about a billion Muslims, every one of whom believes something he was told by someone who believed it because someone told him.
There are about a billion Christians, every one of whom believes something he was told by someone who believed it because someone told him.

Every one of those Muslims would be a believing Christian if he had been born somewhere else.
Every one of those Christians would be a believing Muslim if he had been born somewhere else.
Many Christians believe they are doing God's work if they convert non-believers.
Many Muslims believe they are doing God's work if they convert non-believers.
You must "believe".
It all depends on who gets to you first when you are young and malleable.

Very true tt

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Disgusting.

Yes - that about sums it up. I had at the back of my mind that extreme ideas about guns went sort of hand-in-hand with valiant efforts fighting for America, so some degree of respect there. But allying with sf/ira, and even implying, and actually boasting, active involvement in terrorism, is more the stuff of indiscriminate killing and maiming of men, women and children, young and old alike, a bombing campaign devoid of honour and not the stuff of heroes.

Yes - disgusting and, actually, disappointing.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The point is that there is utterly no global comparison with the international terrorist campaigns from Islam. There is no international Christian terror group doing the Trade Centre, London or all the other places. Instead here we get an attempt to swerve off that and use Islam to thump Christianity by the usual squad of greatly balanced atheists here.

Do you equate terrorism with Islam?

Historically, Christianity thumps itself, has its own threads of disrepute.

Religion is a cozy blanket for shivering brains.
.........
"It all depends on who gets to you first when you are young and malleable."
Words for the ages, TT, though some of us were able to overcome years of brain-laundering.

Originally posted by string:

.....a bombing campaign devoid of honour and not the stuff of heroes.

Bombing campaigns are usually devoid of honour.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

There is no international Christian terror group doing the Trade Centre, London or all the other places.

For sure not. But there still are 'Christian' armies invading/bombing 'sovereign' countries killing tens/hundreds of thousands and changing regimes at will, leaving a big mess behind, calling it freedom and democracy.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

There is no international Christian terror group doing the Trade Centre, London or all the other places.

For sure not. But there still are 'Christian' armies invading/bombing 'sovereign' countries killing tens/hundreds of thousands and changing regimes at will, leaving a big mess behind, calling it freedom and democracy.

There are actually no "Christian" Armies or, come to that "Muslim" Armies or even "Flying Spaghetti Monster" Armies.

Originally posted by string:

There are actually no "Christian" Armies or, come to that "Muslim" Armies or even "Flying Spaghetti Monster" Armies.

There are very well countries where the overhelming majority of its residents claim to be Christians.
The governments of those countries also claim to represent their people. I was referring to the armies sent to war by those governments in the name and for the good of the people they represent.
I hope it's not to complicated for you to comprehend.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by string:

There are actually no "Christian" Armies or, come to that "Muslim" Armies or even "Flying Spaghetti Monster" Armies.

There are very well countries where the overhelming majority of its residents claim to be Christians.
The governments of those countries also claim to represent their people. I was referring to the armies sent to war by those governments in the name and for the good of the people they represent.
I hope it's not to complicated for you to comprehend.

I understand better than you seem to, judging by your original irrelevant remarks.

The point is (and you try to understand this) the wars to you are presumably referring were not religiously motivated, save for the prime cause of the Afghanistan war which resulted from an attack on the WTC by fanatics posing as followers of Islam.

Originally posted by string:

The point is (and you try to understand this) the wars to you are presumably referring were not religiously motivated,

I never alleged that those wars have been religiously motivated. Greed and geostrategic interests don't make them more reasonable. However once your city or village gets bombed and your relatives killed it doesn't make any difference at all.

Originally posted by string:

save for the prime cause of the Afghanistan war which resulted from an attack on the WTC by fanatics posing as followers of Islam.

I can't recall the Taliban being involved in the attack on the WTC nor Usama ever charged for it.
However the list doesn't resume to Afghanistan. How about Iraq and Libya? Who gets freedom, democracy and wealth next? Syria? Iran? ???

your eye is creepier. it looks like ur r looking at us.

Wonder if you have registered only because of my eye.
Since it is your first post, welcome to the forums

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by string:

The point is (and you try to understand this) the wars to you are presumably referring were not religiously motivated,

I never alleged that those wars have been religiously motivated. Greed and geostrategic interests don't make them more reasonable. However once your city or village gets bombed and your relatives killed it doesn't make any difference at all.

Originally posted by string:

save for the prime cause of the Afghanistan war which resulted from an attack on the WTC by fanatics posing as followers of Islam.

I can't recall the Taliban being involved in the attack on the WTC nor Usama ever charged for it.
However the list doesn't resume to Afghanistan. How about Iraq and Libya? Who gets freedom, democracy and wealth next? Syria? Iran? ???

This is a pointless discussion.

What a kind of desperate attempt at balance there from Krake to expand the Western interventions (which in the main I don't agree with anyway) as "Christian Armies"! attcking the unfortunate Muslims. How's that for stretching things? And in any case the Islamists have been murdering each other in places like Afghanistan for centuries all in the name of a pedophile who started their nonsense. And another thing in using relatively modern warfare situations ignores the fact that the message of Islam has always had a directly militant side even before the stupidity of the West getting involved.

Here we cannot even send back Islamist terror fanatics and leaders to their own wonderfil Islam countries due to it being a problem for their human rights. Personally, I don't care a dashed fig what goes on in their homelands but I sure as heck don't see why when they misuse our democracy for their own ends and take our public money we should be stuck with those terrorist animals.

Originally posted by string:

This is a pointless discussion.

Indeed

Of course there are times in history wher people have oddly deviated from the path whilst using Faith as a handy excuse. Cromwell was a great man in many ways but too far the other way in some regards. But then we should also try to expain the great Atheists such as Stalin who killed more people in history than anyone else. Now there's an even bigger contradiction from that stance too.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And in any case the Islamists have been murdering each other in places like Afghanistan for centuries all in the name of a pedophile who started their nonsense.

It's enough to give pedophilia a bad name, eh, Rj?

Yes it certainly did when a variation of it happened on the Hill some years back with the young attendents in the Congress?? On a wider note (!) the screaming Islamics cannot see why a God would have one to champion in his name......?

Originally posted by Krake:

Wonder if you have registered only because of my eye.
Since it is your first post, welcome to the forums

if you're really part of D&D and you don't know who Danbuzu (adulterated as 'Danbuzo' by the British people), you're local!

Originally posted by Krake:

Wonder if you have registered only because of my eye.
Since it is your first post, welcome to the forums

if you're really part of D&D and you don't know who Danbuzu (adulterated as 'Danbuzo' by the British people), you're local!

Originally posted by Krake:

Wonder if you have registered only because of my eye.
Since it is your first post, welcome to the forums

if you're really part of D&D and you don't know who Danbuzu (adulterated as 'Danbuzo' by the British people), you're local!

It's danbozo... For a reason. She wasn't talking to you, clown. (and she was seemingly right in that remark.)

Originally posted by ensbb3:

It's danbozo... For a reason. She wasn't talking to you, clown. (and she was seemingly right in that remark.)

.

Three identical posts? You have a stuttering problem?

He's maybe tring to belabour a point - whatever it is??!