History of Muslim-Christian Relations

[Lulua]

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings and good day to all.

Following is an excellent link in describing and detailing some of the history of Muslim/Christian relations and interactions.

Lulua.

-----------------------------------------------------------------http://soundvision.com/info/jesus/MuslimChristianRelations.asp

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 27-12-01 AT 10:25 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings All!

The above site is pretty good except for a glaring ommission. It omits the period between the caliphate of Omar and the crusades.

During this period, there was much activity in Jerusalem and Constantinople. At times, Muslims were extraordinarily tolerant of Christians and Jews in Palestine to as far north as modern day Turkey. At other times, tensions mounted between Christians and Muslims. For example, an Egyptian caliph destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (the site of Christ's resurrection). Later, Muslims seized the Hagia Sophia in modern day Istanbul. To round out the article posted above, I copied the article below from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm (I added the bold texts for emphasis):

FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE FIRST CRUSADE (636-1099)

The Moslems in the first zeal of their new faith proceeded to invade Syria. Caliph Abu-bakr (632-634) gave the command of the army to Abu-'Ubaidah, one of the original Ashab (companions of Mohammed in his flight, 622). They first took Bosra. In July, 633, they defeated Heraclius's army at Ajnadain near Emesa; in 634 they stormed Damascus and again defeated the Romans at Yarmuk. Emesa fell in 636. The Moslems then consulted Caliph Omar (634-644) as to whether they should march on Jerusalem or Caesarea. By 'Ali's advice they received orders to take the Holy City. First they sent to Mo'awiya Ibn-Abu-Sufyan with 5000 Arabs to surprise the city; soon afterwards it was invested by the whole army of Abu-'Ubaidah. It was defended by a large force composed of refugees from all parts of Syria, soldiers who had escaped from Yarmuk and a strong garrison. For four months the siege continued, every day there was a fierce assault. At last, when all further resistance was hopeless, the Patriarch Sophronius (who acted throughout as the head of the Christian defenders) appeared on the walls and demanded a conference with Abu-'Ubaidah. He then proposed to capitulate on fair and honourable terms; the Christians were to keep their churches and sanctuaries, no one was to be forced to accept Islam. Sophronius further insisted that these terms should be ratified by the caliph in person. Omar, then at Medina, agreed to these terms and came with a single camel to the walls of Jerusalem. He signed the capitulation, then entered the city with Sophronius "and courteously discoursed with the patriarch concerning its religious antiquities" (Gibbon, ci, ed. Bury, London, 1898, V, 436). It is said that when the hour for his prayer came he was in the Anastasis, but refused to say it there, lest in future times the Moslems should make that an excuse for breaking the treaty and confiscating the church. The Mosque of Omar (Jami 'Saidna 'Omar), opposite the doors of the Anastasis, with the tall minaret, is shown as the place to which he retired for his prayer. Under the Moslems the Christian population of Jerusalem in the first period enjoyed the usual toleration given to non-Moslem theists. The pilgrimages went on as before. The new government did not make Jerusalem the political centre of Palestine. This was fixed at Lydda till the year 716, then at Ar-Ramla (Ramleh). But in the Moslem view, too, Jerusalem, the city of David and Christ, to which Mohammed was taken miraculously in one night (Koran, Sura. XVII), which had been the first Qibla of their religion, was a very holy place, third only after Mecca and Medina. They call it Beit al-mukaddas, Beit al-makdis (now generally Al-Kuds).

In the reign of Caliph 'Abd-al-malik (684-705, the fifth Ommaid caliph, at Damascus) the people of Iraq revolted and got possession of the Hijaz. In order to give his followers a substitute for the haraman (Mecca and Medina), which they were prevented from visiting, he resolved to make Jerusalem a centre of pilgrimage. He, therefore, set about to adorn the place of the Temple with a splendid mosque. It appears that the Christians had left the place where the Temple had once stood untouched. Omar visited it and found it filled up with refuse. In his time a large square building with no architectural pretension was put up to shelter the True Believers who went there to pray. In 691 'Abd-al-malik replaced this by the exquisite "Dome of the Rock" (Qubbet-es-Sachra), built by Byzantine architects, that still stands in the middle of the Temple area. This is the building long known as the Mosque of Omar, falsely attributed to him. It is an eight-sided building crowned with a dome, covered outside with marble and most beautiful many-coloured tiles, certainly one of the most splendid monuments of architecture in the world. It stands over a great flat rock, probably the place of the old altar of holocausts. 'Abd-allah al-Iman al-Mamun (Caliph, 813-833) restored it. The dome fell in an earthquake and was rebuilt in 1022. The Crusaders (who turned it into a church) thought this was the original Jewish Temple; hence the many round temple-churches built in imitation of it. Raphael in his "Espousal of the Blessed Virgin" has painted it, as well as he could from descriptions, in the background as the Temple. The whole of the Temple area became to Moslems the "illustrious Sanctuary" (Haram-ash-sherif) and was gradually covered with colonnades, minbars (pulpits), and smaller domes. At the south end Justinian's basilica became the "most remote Mosque" (Al-Masjid-al-aqsa, Sura XVII, 1). The description of Arculf, a Frankish bishop who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the seventh century, written down from his account by Adamnan, monk of Iona (d. 704): "De locis terrae sanctae", lib. III (P. L., LXXXVIIl, 725 sq.), gives us a not unpleasant picture of the conditions of Christians in Palestine in the first period of Moslem rule. The caliphs of Damascus (661-75O) were enlightened and tolerant princes, on quite good terms with their Christian subjects. Many Christians (e.g. St. John Damascene, d. c. 754) held important offices at their court. The Abbaside caliphs at Bagdad (753-1242), as long as they ruled Syria, were also just and tolerant to the Christians. The famous Harun Abu-Ja-'afar (Haroun al-Raschid, 786-809) sent the keys of the Holy Sepulchre to Charlemagne who built a hospice for Latin pilgrims near the shrine. Revolutions and rival dynasties that tore the union of Islam to pieces then made Syria the battleground of the Moslem world; the Christians under new masters began to suffer the oppression that eventually led to the Crusades.

In 891 the sect of the Karamita (Carmathians) under Abu-Said al-jannabi arose in the neighbourhood of Kufa. They defeated the troops of the Caliph Al-Mutazid (Ahmed Abu'l Abbas), entered Syria (903-904) and devastated the province. They seized Mecca and prevented the pilgrims from going there from 929 to 950, when they were finally destroyed. During this time Moslems again began to go in pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of to the Hijaz. The religious importance that the city thus gained for them was the beginning of intolerance towards the Christians there. It is the invariable result in Islam; the more sacred a place is to Moslems the less they are disposed to tolerate unbelievers in it. The Fatimide dynasty now arose in Africa (908). About the year 967 they got possession of Egypt. Meanwhile a frontier war with the empire went on always. The Romans took advantage of the dismemberment of the Moslem world to invade their former provinces. Already in 901, in the reign of Leo VI (886-911), the Roman armies had advanced into Syria as far as Aleppo and had carried off a great number of prisoners. In 962 Nicephorus Phocas with 100,000 men again came as far as Aleppo and devastated the country. In 968 and 969 the Romans reconquered Antioch. It was inevitable that the Christians of Jerusalem should try to help their fellow-countrymen to reconquer the land that had been Roman and Christian; inevitable, too, that the Moslems should punish such attempts as high treason. In 969 the patriarch, John VII, was put to death for treasonable correspondence with the Romans; many other Christians suffered the same fate, and a number of churches were destroyed. Meanwhile the first wave of the great Turkish race (the Seljuks) was pouring over the caliph's empire. In 934 a Turk, Ikshid, revolted and his successors held Palestine for a few years. In 969 Mu-'ezz-li-Din-Allah, the fourth Fatimide Caliph in Egypt, conquered Jerusalem. A Moslem pilgrim, Al-Muqaddasi, wrote a description of the city, especially of the Haram ash-sharif, at this time (quoted by Le Strange, "Palestine under the Moslems," 1890). The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druses) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre. This was really only one incident in his persecution of Christians: his excuse was that the miracle of the holy fire (already practised in his time) was a scandalous imposture. In 1010 the buildings erected by Modestus were burned to the ground. The news of their destruction, brought back by pilgrims, caused a wave of indignation throughout Europe. It was one of the causes of the feeling that eventually brought about the first Crusade. Meanwhile funds were collected to rebuild the sanctuary. The Emperor Constantine IX (1042-1054) persuaded the Caliph Al-Mustansir-bi-llah (1036-1094) to allow the rebuilding on condition of releasing 5000 Moslem prisoners and of allowing prayer for Al-Mustansir in the mosques in the empire. Byzantine arhitects were sent to Jerusalem. The rebuilding was finished in 1048. The work of Modestus was restored with a few additions hurriedly and not well. The Holy Sepulchre remained in this state till the crusaders replaced it by the present group of buildings (1140-1149).

In 1030 merchants of Amalfi were able to establish themselves permanently in Jerusalem. They had leave to trade fully with the people of Palestine, built a church (S. Maria Latina), a Benedictine monastery, and a hospice for pilgrims. In 1077 the Seljuk Turks became masters of Palestine. From this time the condition of the Christians became unbearable. The Turks forbade Christian services, devastated churches, murdered pilgrims. It was the news of these outrages that provoked the Council of Clermont (1095) and brought the crusaders in 1099. The patriarchal succession after Sophronius was: (The see vacant from Sophronius's death to 7O5. Meanwhile Stephen of Dora acted as papal vicar for Palestine); John V (7O5-735); John VI (735-760), possibly the same person as John V); Theodore (760-c. 770); Eusebius (772); Elias II (driven out in 784, died c. 800); (meanwhile for a time Theodore occupied the see); George of Sergius (800-807); Thomas (807-821); Basil (821-842); Sergius (842- c. 859); Solomon (c. 859-c. 864); Theodosius (c. 864- c. 879); Elias III (c. 879-907); Sergius II (907-911 ); Leo or Leontius (911-928; Anastasius or Athanasius; Nicholas; Christopher of Christodorus (died 937); Agatho; John VII (murdered 969); Christopher II; Thomas II; Joseph II; Alexander; Agapius (986-?): Jeremias or Orestes (banished and murdered c. 1012; Theophilus; Arsenius (c. 1024); Jordanus; Nicephorus; Sophronius II; Mark II; Euthymius II (died 1099).

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the article posted by Lulua ignores Muslim military conquests in North Africa and Spain. Indeed, the Muslims were stopped at Tours, France in 732 by Charles Martel. While it is true that there were long periods of Islamic dominance in certain locations that were peaceful and tolerant, the image of Islamic "conversion by the sword" did not arise in the European mind from nowhere! Pope Urbans Bull in 1095 called Christians to a war of defense against Muslim aggression, and listed several atrocities against human rights enacted by Muslims.

Also, after the crusades, Muslims reinvaded eastern Europe, getting as far as Germany in 1453. Christians fought back into the Balkans. This seems to be some of the historical roots behind events in the former Yugoslov republic today.

On the other hand, the Christian crusaders hardly acted Christian. The crusades lasted from 1095 to 1291, and the Christians from Western Europe often looted Eastern churches, and fought Catholics against Orthodox. They bullied civilians. The crusaders were taken from the lower classes of Europe, and were often uneducated and known for drunkeness and womanizing.

Thus, as a Christian in the twenty-first century, I really do not want to paint the picture that I am defending the crusades. Even if Muslims were persecuting Christians at times, the valid Christian response should have been diplomacy, evangelism, prayer, active non-violent resistence, and a just war fought with just means only as an absolute last resort. I think it is fair of Muslims to say that the crusades were not fought according to all the principles of Christian just war theory.

Mistakes were made on both sides. So my point in posting this response is not to defend the crusades, but to round out the picture and present a more balanced picture of how atrocities were committed on both sides.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[Lulua]

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings and good day to all.

Thankyou for your input, jcecil.

Of course, all know and realize that history was not so lopsided as to try to present that the muslims were totally tolerant to the point that there were not atrocities from both sides. There were...I know it, as well as you have clearly pointed out with such a post.

However, for the great part, there seemed to be much more tolerance from the Muslims towards other faiths than which was the opposite(tolerance from others towards muslims).

Perhaps that is something debatable, but historical accounts reveal this.

Anyways, perhaps my point in even bringing this here and reminding all of the relationships between Muslims and Christians (and Jews for that matter), is one...to remind and point out that it is possible that we all live together in this world, tolerant one of the other. And secondly...the reputation the mere mention of the word or term 'crusade' has...and the reason of so much anger and objection raised by the muslims of the world when Pres. Bush firstly and wrongly termed his mission of this 'war on terrorism' as a 'crusade'.

A slip of the tongue is a terrible mistake to attempt to cover up and mend...whether it is in a personal conversation or something more public such as a public speaker or public servant. Almost impossible, really. For no matter how much apologizing or renaming of an incident one does, the fact still remains of the original mention which has already caused the harm of implicating an image.

I have mentioned at various times in various topics at these forums, that human nature is kind of like a mirror, and in so many cases, one receives what one dishes out to the other. If you begin with an outlook and behaviour of tolerance and respect, then most generally, that is what you will receive. And if you begin with an attitude and behaviour of non-tolerance and disrespect, then that also...is what you will most generally receive.

What would be expected at the mention by such a very high-profile public figure of 'crusade'?

Thanx for attempting to understand.

Lulua.

[jcecil3]

Greetings Lulua,

I completely agree with your last post, and from all you have written before, I believe I would enjoy having you as my neigbor.

Though I'm sure that if we hung out together, we might have some debates that go long into the night, there's no reason to be intolerant of one another.

I agree that we all need to learn to agree to disagree at times, and learn to live together and learn from one another in peace.

It's a shame more Christians and Muslims (and Jews and Hindus, etc...) can't seem to get to this point.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[vancouver]

The Part Religion Has Played

1 Today, about one and a half billion people claim to belong to one of three religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Judaism is the religion of the Jews, who claim to be followers of the Law of Moses. Christians claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth, whom they view as the Messiah, or Christ. One who adheres to Islam is called a Muslim, or Mussulman. These two words have an interesting meaning. In one authoritative work they are defined like this: "Muslim (Mussulman): person surrendered to God."-Lexicon of a Translation of the Qur´an, Volume 2, page 439, by Muhammad Bin Hamza, published by the Turkish Ministry of Culture.

2 Of course, believers in all these religions claim that their religion is the true one. Yet we have to ask ourselves: Why have none of these religions prevented mankind from coming into the critical situation that we see around us today? A close look at the followers of these religions will help us to understand.

3 Let us examine, first, the adherents of Judaism: Have these really followed the Law of Moses and served God the way Moses did? Have they acted in harmony with his words? For example, Moses said to the forefathers of the modern-day Jews who lived in his day: "A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you-to him you people should listen." (Deuteronomy 18:15) When did that prophet appear? Well, he did not appear during the time that the holy books of the Jews were being written. In fact, some Jews are still waiting for him.

4 But consider. About fifteen hundred years after Moses pronounced that prophecy, a man did appear who, in his ministry, bore a striking resemblance to Moses. Moreover, there were more than three hundred prophecies in the books accepted as holy by the Jews that were fulfilled in this remarkable man.

5 This man himself said to the Jews: "If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me." (John 5:46) In spite of this, the Jews of those days rejected him. Who was this man? Jesus, who was called the Christ, or anointed one. Surely, those who rejected the one promised by Moses cannot really be viewed as worshiping God the way Moses worshiped him, can they?

6 What about those who claim to be Christians, who say that they do accept Jesus? Look at the hundreds of millions of persons around the world who belong to the countless confusing sects that claim to be Christian. Can you actually believe that they are all worshiping God the way Jesus did?

7 Many religions claiming to be Christian use icons or images in their worship. Would Jesus have done this? Moses, who prophesied the coming of Jesus, warned: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them." (Exodus 20:4, 5) A close friend and follower of Jesus, the apostle John, said to worshipers of God in his day: "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21) Can you see the difference between what Moses and Jesus' friend, John, said, and what those who claim to be Christians are doing?

8 Additionally, have you noticed that most of the great wars of this century have started either between "Christian" nations, or between a "Christian" and a non-Christian nation? Think, too, of the Crusades, and the Thirty Years' War. One was "Christian" aggression against Muslims, and the other was vicious aggression between peoples claiming to be Christian. Jesus would never have acted in such a way.

9 Jesus straightforwardly warned: "Those who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52) For more than a thousand years, Christendom (those nations claiming to be Christian) has relied on the "sword," or on warfare. Even today, the nations of Christendom are prominent in stockpiling the many kinds of weapons of modern warfare.

10 Jesus also told his followers: "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." (John 13:34, 35) When you look at the "Christian" nations, do you feel that they love one another? Surely not, when throughout history they have fought so many wars among themselves. And within these nations crime, oppression, lying, cheating, stealing and other unloving acts are just as rampant as in the non-Christian nations. We can only conclude that these nations are not made up of true disciples of Christ.

11 But what about those who adhere to Islam? As pointed out above, a Muslim is one who feels he has "surrendered to God." "To surrender" means to yield oneself to someone, to submit to him. It says in the Great Islamic Catechism (by Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen): "As for the word Islam, its lexical meaning is obedience, submission, surrender to something. In particular: 'obedience to God the Most High.'" This meaning is significant. If all Muslims had truly submitted themselves to God, would not an atmosphere of peace and brotherhood prevail among them? Yet we find bitter hatreds between different sects, and even wars between Muslim nations. Doubtless many upright Muslims, on seeing such things, have asked themselves: 'How many Muslims among us have truly surrendered to God?'

12 Perhaps part of the reason for the above situation in these three religions is the attitude of the clergy-whatever their religion-toward material things. Do they supply their religious services free, or do their followers have to pay? Is it not true that the longer prayers are more expensive? Do clergymen willingly go to the funerals of poor men without taking money? Weddings and other religious ceremonies also have to be paid for, do they not? Often, you can only do the things prescribed by your religion in proportion to the amount of money you can afford. It has been made to appear that God's kindness can be bought for money, and the clergy are the ones who benefit from that money. The truth is, many have been led to hate religion for this reason.

13 There is a saying, "Do what the priest says. Don't do what he does." This betrays the fact that many clergymen act contrary to the way they teach. But think: If someone who was without a single hair on his head claimed that he had a drug to make hair grow again, would you buy the drug from him? If the drug is really effective, then why is the man who is selling it still bald? As long as he stays bald, no one is going to buy his supposedly hair-restoring drug.

14 The case is similar to that of many of the clergy-and remember, we are speaking about the clergy of all religions. While what they say often sounds impressive, nevertheless, in their lives they do not live up to their own teachings. It is as if they were selling a hair-restoring drug but were bald themselves.

15 Jesus once spoke about the religious leaders of his day. Read what he said, and see if you agree that, in principle, it applies to many of the clergy in most of the religions with which you have come in contact.

"They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. All the works they do they do to be viewed by men . . . They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi [Teacher] by men. But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers."-Matthew 23:4-8.

Can you see now at least one reason why the influence of religion throughout history has done little to bring mankind closer to God?