Do you think Christians or Muslims have historically had a warmer attitude toward one another?

[MerakSahibi]

Set aside the classical European example. Who can honestly say that Europe is Christian today? They belong to the religion of liberalism today.

When Islam emerged, Christianity already existed. According to the Qur'an, Jesus and Moses are also accepted as prophets, although the Qur'an states that the scriptures were altered. Nevertheless, Christians and Jews are referred to as the People of the Book. After Muslims became dominant, they placed Christians in a legally better position than polytheists; in a sense, Christians were the “lesser evil.” They translated Syriac texts and the Jewish Talmud and made use of these sources.

Any Muslim who reads the Qur'an encounters Christians and learns how they are understood within Islam.

But Islam did not exist during the formative period of Christianity. Therefore, Christians initially regarded Muslims as an extremely foreign group. So much so that they sometimes preferred the Mongol invaders to Muslims. They regarded Muslims as infidels and launched the Crusades against them. They may even have been unaware that Islam drew from the same Abrahamic tradition.

Be honest: for many Christians, “Muslim” simply means a group of people who behead people, set off bombs, and are associated with pedophilia.

!!! We should acknowledge the deep and extraordinary research the British conducted on the Eastern world through Orientalism, but this was not primarily theological; it was essentially for the purposes of their colonial empire!!!

Muslims have a warmer attitude toward Christians

Christians have a warmer attitude toward Muslims

A total of 32 votes were cast: 28 girls and 4 guys. See detailed results

[Laws-Of-Existence]

The only votes that should count are votes by irreligious people.

I'd rather live in Romania (~98% christian) than Pakistan (~98% muslim). ㅤ

[Taranis_Thunor]

Islam used to have a warmer attitude towards Christianity because it was effectively seen as a Christian movement itself in the early days. The Eastern Roman Emperor (fake and gay Rome) declared "Mohammedanism" to be a heresy.

Often times Christians treated heretics even worse then they treated pagans because it was worse then apostatery to simply subvert scripture.

Even though Abrahamic religions are never consistent with their philosophy due to fact the Old Testament is actually just pagan Semitic mythology itself. Semitic pagans worshipped sand demons that offered babies to Ba'al and likely El Shaddai too (the Israelite god was a combination of El Shaddai (the lord) & Ba'al (the chief). It's worth noting that the Babylonians, who influenced the Israelites towards a Ba'al-like (wizard god) interpretation of Yahweh (who was initially depicted as a young Thunderer driven by a chariot of goats, like Thunor/Thor was) did not themselves sacrifice humans to Ba'al as they thought it was barbaric but like the Carthaginians they likely did so anyway when desperate.

Islam would pressure Christians by turning them effectively into serfs/bitches by making them pay Jizya and effectively pushing them down to a lower class.

To be tempted by wealth and convert to Islam meant you couldn't ever reconvert back as Muslims will hunt down and kill apostates. This meant that whilst Christianity spread through force, church attendance & performance Islam spread through subjugation & intimidation (like they're doing to the UK right now).

However when it came to Pagans Muslims did not force them like Christians did. Infact it was worse as they consider Pagans to be soulless & beastial, probably a belief taken from Judaism or Ancient Yahwehism rather then Christianity, which believes humans are fundamentally good but go to hell anyway thanks to original sin.

Also didn't Mohammed turn on Jews later on in the Qur'an and started hunting them down. The Qur'an says that they could hide behind a stone or bush & they'd see through them and spot then anyway. Many Arabs had converted to Judaism because Arabs are Semitic & therefore were valid candidates for Judaism.

[MerakSahibi]

I don't know much about the formation of Judaism, but long before Christianity, the Jewish tradition had already developed into two distinct traditions centered around the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Even the practice of wearing the kippah is said to have come to them from Babylon. On the other hand, an atheist scholar once argued that the concept of “Satan” entered Judaism from Zoroastrian Iran after the Persians conquered Jerusalem and remained there for about a century.

The spread of Islam was not simply a matter of conquest and jizya. First of all, because Islam, like Christianity, claimed to be a universal religion, both traditions developed missionary and proselytizing activities. Islam spread to Indonesia largely through merchants and religious teachers, and likewise reached parts of southern India through trade and religious networks. In fact, the Turks, who became famous for their military traditions, were introduced to Islam largely through Persian and Central Asian Muslim networks. Many of our religious terms are Persian rather than Arabic, unlike the terminology found directly in the Qur'an. Sufis and religious figures from Khorasan migrated into Anatolia and helped spread Sufi Islam through lodges and Sufi orders.

There were also both Tatar and Seljuk rulers who instructed their Muslim children to convert to Christianity or marry Russian or Georgian rulers. In practice, therefore, the question of whether apostates should be executed was much more complicated.

As for the Ottomans, non-Muslims were also an important source of tax revenue, so the state was not necessarily focused on converting them. France had granted commercial privileges to Catholics, and as a result many Armenians converted to Catholicism. The Ottoman state eventually prohibited conversion to Catholicism. This was essentially a financial concern rather than a theological one.

[gasman70]

no, Muslims tried to take over Christian held land in the Middle East and Europe when Islam was first founded. 80 percent of previously held Christian lands we lost in just under 500 years. Christian land was all but swallowed up by Islam, but then there were a group of Christians that decided to fight back and pulled many factions of countries that had heavy Christian roots to join the cause to fight back and regain much of the previously held land, those were called the Crusades. The Crusades were a defensive pushback against the Muslim hostile takeover. That's a historical fact that can be proven. so, I dont think that there's been a warm relationship between Muslims and Christians, and in the Hadiths of Islam it says that Muslims cannot be friends with Christians because they are friends with Jews, and to Muslims Jews are the worst. One of the Hadiths says that God told a Muslim that a Jew was hiding behind a rock, to go kill him. If that doesn't say something about the feelings about Jews, Im not sure what does, therefore the hatred religious indoctrination of the hatred towards Christians as well.

[MerakSahibi]

Really? Despite the Pope’s orders, the Venetians were among those who traded the most with Muslims. In fact, Italy was a major logistical, cultural, and commercial hub through which the Muslim world was connected to and influenced Europe.
Muslims preserved most of the churches they inherited, and it was also the Muslims of Al-Andalus who helped reconnect Europe with Aristotle. Jews also held very high positions in Al-Andalus.

[gasman70]

oh, so you don't read the religious doctrine of Islam and ignore how Islam treated the people they took over in those lands, just try and smooth that over with some jibberish? I ain't buying the bs. sorry, My dad has to masters degrees in history and I've studied this subject for 20 years and debated on it for 10. sorry, you can go for your white washed lies, but even Islam's own doctrine calls for hatred towards jews and christians and that Muslims cannot be friends with either. wow, I love how you try to play the shell game, and I just go right for the facts.

[Anonymous]

Historically, Muslims.
​Generally speaking, the traditional Muslim perspective toward Christians is rooted in the principle that there is no compulsion in religion. Everyone has the freedom to choose their faith, a Muslim shares what they believe to be the truth, but does not force anyone to convert. True Muslims do not harbor hatred, nor should they (excluding radicals, of course).

​On the other hand, many Christians operate on an entirely different level. From childhood, their environments often lead them to view Muslims as pedophiles, satanists, or head-choppers. I compare it to the Cordyceps infection in The Last of Us, where a fungus turns people into mindless zombies, because that is essentially how many Christians view Muslims. They take the actions of a small terrorist group and project them onto the entirety of Islam. Naturally, the fact that most Muslim-majority countries are impoverished only reinforces this negative perception.

​To be fair and objective, however, countries ruled by strict Sharia law (places that lack critical thinking, suppress basic human rights and women's freedom, and essentially govern as if they were in the Middle Ages) rightfully earn this negative reputation.

[RavVid]

I don't think it is possible to say either way. The broad range of views towards each other will vary so widely that even if you could form an average attitude among Muslims and Christians towards the other, it would be meaningless

If 0 was deepest hate and 10 was greatest affection, the average of 5 (as they are OK) may reflect no one in the group. I have known and worked with many and had the greatest respect for them but others are unacceptable.

Even in my single mind an average doesn't work.

I'm not sure why you have brought the crusades and slanted it the way you have. The historical the middle east was Christian since it predated the existence of Islam. Islamic forces were invading Christian provinces.

So fairly naturally Christian forces were disposed against Islamic forces. So you are saying that it is OK for Islam to invade but not for Western democracies to oppose. That will immediately put you at a 1 or a 2 rating.

[Snakeyes7]

>Be honest: for many Christians, “Muslim” simply means a group of people who behead people, set off bombs, and are associated with pedophilia.

Well, yeah because they either do that stuff, support those who do that stuff or are scared to leave because guess what happens to those who leave a death cult?

You don't need all the propaganda against them to know that, just look at Muhammad. He married a 6 year old name Aisha and consummated it at 9, executed all who dared mock him, owned slaves, and was a genocidal maniac against a Jewish tribe called the Banu Qurayza. This dude is essentially the combination of Jeffery Epstein and Adolf Hitler and Muslims consider him a man so holy that producing any visuals of him is a crime worthy of execution and if the justice system won't do it, they will do it themselves.

Do these sound like people you want in your country?

[OneViewpoint]

I think of it as 2 groups of fucking idiots each determined to silence the other by any means necessary to appease an imaginary "God" they created in their own image. It's just "my dick is bigger than your dick" with imaginary sky fairies. Utterly pointless hypocrisy with no realistic endgame.

[captain_voidwalker]

Its about that time again

[MerakSahibi]

When Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets, Muslims were freedom fighters in your eyes, fighting the communists for their freedom. You even welcomed the Afghan mujahideen at the White House. But when you invaded Afghanistan, suddenly they became the bad guys and took on the identity they have today :)

[captain_voidwalker]

Not my eyes, Islam has always been the army of Satan to me

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You conveniently skip over that part of Islam conquering the majority of Christian territory, and during many centuries holding large swaths of Europe.

[msc545]

I don't think it's an either-or situation. I think both seem to be extremely kind to each other. I have found this to be true of my Muslim friends and my Christian friends.

[Anonymous]

Islam invaded 60% of Christian countries and forcibly converted them.

[MerakSahibi]

Yes, it was conquered by force. That is how conquests and occupations work. However, the local population was not forced to convert to Islam; they were instead subjected to taxes such as jizya and kharaj. These taxes were lighter than the taxes imposed by Christian states. By the 11th century, only about half of the populations of regions such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine were Muslim. If conversion had been forced, wouldn't all of these regions have become Muslim by that point?

[Opinion Owner]

Forced to convert, marginalised yo the point that those religious groups are shadows of theif former selves. Even today they areng allowed self governance.

[Anonymous]

Bunch of idiots