When people compare Islam with Christianity...

[Politesse]

Christian and Muslim are terms used and exploited by politicians and would-be politicians (in ISIS's case) to accomplish any number of ends. Both faiths, at their core, stress universal love. Yes, Islam too.

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into many nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted. (Q 49:13)​

And both have avalanches of innocent blood on their hands, if you take "Christian" to mean "everything bad that Christians have done" and "Muslim" to mean "everything bad that Muslims have done." I do not, because I believe that judging an entire group by the worst conduct of some of their members is a terrible policy. Essentialist claims about what one's ideology makes one do are ridiculous on the face of it- anyone who has actually studied history knows that the ideology of a group is no predictor of their military escapades. There have been pacifist and warmongering peoples in every faith, and in every generation.

 

[Vouthon]

Historically, Christianity was wretched in its treatment of non-Christians.

While it is certainly true that there have been many historic instances of pervasive intolerance from representatives of the Christian Faith towards practitioners of other religions (from pogroms against Jews to suppression of paganism and destruction of native mesoamerican religious practices), I do feel that this is a bit of a sweeping simplification.

In some regards, it can actually be said that Christians were more intolerant of other Christians ("heretics" as they were branded) than they were of those outside the faith, since this intra-Christian squabbling concerned the very "ownership" of the Gospel and which denomination could claim to hold the authentic teachings of Jesus. I think one would be hard pressed to find anything so visceral and mutually intolerant as the European Wars of Religion between Catholic and Protestant powers during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

By contrast, Christian attitudes towards non-Christians have varied enormously from age to age and despite episodes of real horror one can, in some respects, consider them to have been less extreme than internal relations within Christianity itself.

Consider for example the attitude of the papacy towards non-Christian religions. The severity of some of its historical stances on heresy (Christians espousing heterodox beliefs, itself mutable throughout the ages) are well known from infamous institutions such as the Medieval Inquisitions. By contrast, the medieval and early modern papacy often acted as a moderating voice within Christendom vis-a-vis non-Christian minorities.

With reference to Jews, for instance, most Popes firmly absolved them of blame for such anti-semitic myths (often resulting in massacres) as the "blood libel" and confirmed their right to practise their religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel#Papal_pronouncements

• • Pope Innocent IV took action against the blood libel: "5 July 1247 "Mandate to the prelates of Germany and France to annul all measures adopted against the Jews on account of the ritual murder libel, and to prevent accusation of Arabs on similar charges" (The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 492-1404; Simonsohn, Shlomo, p. 188-189,193-195,208). In 1247 he wrote also that "Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves;...they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy...In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See...Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed,...we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations" (Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. 8, pp. 393–394). [1]
  • Pope Gregory X (1271–1276) issued a letter which criticized the practice of blood libels and forbade arrests and persecution of Jews based on a blood libel, ...unless which we do not believe they be caught in the commission of the crime. .[69]
  • Pope Paul III, in a bull of 12 May 1540, made clear his displeasure at having learned, through the complaints of the Jews of Hungary, Bohemia and Poland, that their enemies, looking for a pretext to lay their hands on the Jews' property, were falsely attributing terrible crimes to them, in particular that of killing children and drinking their blood.

Concerning papal policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis

Sicut Judaeis (the "Constitution for the Jews") was a papal bull setting out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews.

The first bull was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and was intended to protect Jews who suffered during the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The words "Sicut Judaeis" ("and thus to the Jews") were first used by Pope Pope Gregory I (590-604) in a letter addressed to the Bishop of Naples. Even then the Pope emphasized that Jews were entitled to "enjoy their lawful liberty."[1]

The bull was reaffirmed by many popes including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[2]

The bull forbade, besides other things, Christians from coercing Jews to convert, or to harm them, or to take their property, or to disturb the celebration of their festivals, or to interfere with their cemeteries, on pain of excommunication

​

Some examples from medieval papal documents:

"...[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection. For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly. Too, no Christian ought to presume...to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit. Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. ...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it...let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction..."

- Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), Decree on the Jews


"...We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead..."

- Pope Innocent III Letter on the Jews (1199 CE), From: Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 212-213.

​

Another example would be the strong line that the papacy undertook against the Spanish colonizers of the New World in their enslavement of native Americans (on the basis that they were devoid of souls and lacked faith in the Christian religion):

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

"...To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction...

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service...

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men...Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living..."

- Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537​

In 1695, the Vatican likewise censured missionaries that they were not to destroy or undermine the customs, cultural traits and heritage of the new peoples they encountered:

"...Do not act with zeal, do not put forward any arguments to convince these peoples to change their rites, their customs or their usages, except if they are evidently contrary to...morality. What would be more absurd than to bring France, Spain, Italy or any other European country to the Chinese? Do not bring to them our countries, but instead bring to them the Faith, a Faith that does not reject or hurt the rites, nor the usages of any people, provided that these are not distasteful, but that instead keeps and protects them..."

—Extract from the 1659 Instructions, given to Mgr François Pallu and Mgr Lambert de la Motte of the Paris Foreign Missions Society by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
​

For each of these policies, however, there are times when popes did enact legislation that undermined Judaism or other non-Christian religions. Yet the basic policy thus enunciated was one that accepted, as a basic doctrinal principle, that no one could be coerced into baptism against his or her will. This is something that the Church still fiercely believes, while admitting historic deviations from it:

"...10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act....12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm..."

- Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom), Second Vatican Council, 1965​

 

[gsa]

While it is certainly true that there have been many historic instances of pervasive intolerance from representatives of the Christian Faith towards practitioners of other religions (from pogroms against Jews to suppression of paganism and destruction of native mesoamerican religious practices), I do feel that this is a bit of a sweeping simplification.

In some regards, it can actually be said that Christians were more intolerant of other Christians ("heretics" as they were branded) than they were of those outside the faith, since this intra-Christian squabbling concerned the very "ownership" of the Gospel and which denomination could claim to hold the authentic teachings of Jesus. I think one would be hard pressed to find anything so visceral and mutually intolerant as the European Wars of Religion between Catholic and Protestant powers during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

By contrast, Christian attitudes towards non-Christians have varied enormously from age to age and despite episodes of real horror one can, in some respects, consider them to have been less extreme than internal relations within Christianity itself.

Consider for example the attitude of the papacy towards non-Christian religions. The severity of some of its historical stances on heresy (Christians espousing heterodox beliefs, itself mutable throughout the ages) are well known from infamous institutions such as the Medieval Inquisitions. By contrast, the medieval and early modern papacy often acted as a moderating voice within Christendom vis-a-vis non-Christian minorities.

With reference to Jews, for instance, most Popes firmly absolved them of blame for such anti-semitic myths (often resulting in massacres) as the "blood libel" and confirmed their right to practise their religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel#Papal_pronouncements

• • Pope Innocent IV took action against the blood libel: "5 July 1247 "Mandate to the prelates of Germany and France to annul all measures adopted against the Jews on account of the ritual murder libel, and to prevent accusation of Arabs on similar charges" (The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 492-1404; Simonsohn, Shlomo, p. 188-189,193-195,208). In 1247 he wrote also that "Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves;...they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy...In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See...Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed,...we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations" (Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. 8, pp. 393–394). [1]
  • Pope Gregory X (1271–1276) issued a letter which criticized the practice of blood libels and forbade arrests and persecution of Jews based on a blood libel, ...unless which we do not believe they be caught in the commission of the crime. .[69]
  • Pope Paul III, in a bull of 12 May 1540, made clear his displeasure at having learned, through the complaints of the Jews of Hungary, Bohemia and Poland, that their enemies, looking for a pretext to lay their hands on the Jews' property, were falsely attributing terrible crimes to them, in particular that of killing children and drinking their blood.

Concerning papal policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis

Sicut Judaeis (the "Constitution for the Jews") was a papal bull setting out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews.

The first bull was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and was intended to protect Jews who suffered during the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The words "Sicut Judaeis" ("and thus to the Jews") were first used by Pope Pope Gregory I (590-604) in a letter addressed to the Bishop of Naples. Even then the Pope emphasized that Jews were entitled to "enjoy their lawful liberty."[1]

The bull was reaffirmed by many popes including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[2]

The bull forbade, besides other things, Christians from coercing Jews to convert, or to harm them, or to take their property, or to disturb the celebration of their festivals, or to interfere with their cemeteries, on pain of excommunication

​

Some examples from medieval papal documents:

"...[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection. For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly. Too, no Christian ought to presume...to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit. Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. ...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it...let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction..."

- Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), Decree on the Jews


"...We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead..."

- Pope Innocent III Letter on the Jews (1199 CE), From: Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 212-213.

​

Another example would be the strong line that the papacy undertook against the Spanish colonizers of the New World in their enslavement of native Americans (on the basis that they were devoid of souls and lacked faith in the Christian religion):

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

"...To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction...

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service...

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men...Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living..."

- Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537​

In 1695, the Vatican likewise censured missionaries that they were not to destroy or undermine the customs, cultural traits and heritage of the new peoples they encountered:

"...Do not act with zeal, do not put forward any arguments to convince these peoples to change their rites, their customs or their usages, except if they are evidently contrary to...morality. What would be more absurd than to bring France, Spain, Italy or any other European country to the Chinese? Do not bring to them our countries, but instead bring to them the Faith, a Faith that does not reject or hurt the rites, nor the usages of any people, provided that these are not distasteful, but that instead keeps and protects them..."

—Extract from the 1659 Instructions, given to Mgr François Pallu and Mgr Lambert de la Motte of the Paris Foreign Missions Society by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
​

For each of these policies, however, there are times when popes did enact legislation that undermined Judaism or other non-Christian religions. Yet the basic policy thus enunciated was one that accepted, as a basic doctrinal principle, that no one could be coerced into baptism against his or her will. This is something that the Church still fiercely believes, while admitting historic deviations from it:

"...10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act....12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm..."

- Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom), Second Vatican Council, 1965​

Yes, I suppose if you ignore the Christian persecution of heretics and the Reformation wars, the faith looks less appalling and barbaric than if they are included. Of course, you still have to deal with the persecution of pagans, Christian anti-Semitism as a matter of doctrine, the Crusades, the witch trials, etc. As for anti-Semitism, hmmm...

Pope Leo VII, in 937, approved the expulsion from Mainz of the Jews who refused to be baptized. But well before him, we have a number of synods, clearly endorsing persecution and intolerance of Jews:

The Jews are mentioned for the first time in the resolutions of the synod at Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, immediately after the persecutions under Diocletian. The synod opposed the custom existing among Christians of having the fruits of their fields blessed by Jews, and forbade all familiar intercourse, especially eating, with Jews (canons 49, 50). The spirit of intolerance, arising almost before the persecution of the Christians themselves had ended, remained characteristic of the Spanish Church. When the Arian creed was exchanged for the Catholic by the third Toledo Synod held under Reccared in 582, resolutions hostile to the Jews were passed. The synod forbade intermarriage with Jews, and claimed the children of mixed marriages for Christianity. It disqualified Jews from holding any public office in which they would have power to punish Christians, and forbade them to keep slaves for their own use (canon 14). Still more severe are the decrees of the fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633 (canons 57-66), directed more especially against the pretended Christianity of those converted by force under Sisebut. Though it was decreed that in the future no Jew should be baptized by force, those who were once baptized were obliged to remain Christians. Whoever protected the Jews was threatened with excommunication. The sixth Synod of Toledo, in 638, confirmed King Chintila's decree providing for the expulsion of the Jews, and demanded that every future king on his accession should take an oath to observe faithfully the laws concerning the Jews. The twelfth Synod of Toledo, in 681, went furthest, and adopted in its resolutions (canon 90) King Erwig's laws in reference to Jews ("Leges Visigothorum," xii. 3): celebration of the Sabbath and of feast-days, observance of dietary laws, work on Sunday, defense of their religion, and even emigration were forbidden. One generation later Spain was under Moorish dominion.

...

The later councils went a step further in restricting and humiliating the Jews by limiting their freedom in the choice of dwelling-places. The Synod of Bourges, 1276, ordained that Jews should live only in cities or large towns, in order that the simple country folk might not be led astray. Similarly the Synod of Ravenna, 1311, ordained that Jews should be allowed to live only in cities that had synagogues. The Synod of Bologna, 1317, forbade renting or selling houses to Jews, and the Synod of Salamanca, 1335, forbade Jews to live near a churchyard or in houses belonging to the Church. Finally, the Spanish Council of Palencia, 1388, under the presidency of Pedro de Luna, demanded separate quarters for Jews and Saracens, a demand afterward renewed by many Church councils.

I would say that the picture is far less generous than Catholic revisionism would suggest.

 

[Smart_Guy]

"Why is Islam an inferior religion? WELL, because Christianity teaches that we should all love our neighbors but ISLAM doesn't."

(Off-topic but important)
Just in case some readers don't know, Islam does teach to love neighbors.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I've been noticing that the same point is being raised by christian or christian-leaning westerners again and again.

"Why is Islam an inferior religion? WELL, because Christianity teaches that we should all love our neighbors but ISLAM doesn't."

Maybe in some parallel universe this argument would hold water. However I know very very few Christians who actually love their enemies, or even make any attempt to follow this teaching whatsoever. Ironically, (at least in the USA) it's the Christian conservative population that tends to hate their enemies ("the terrorists") more than anyone else does.
On a personal level, I spend a lot of time with a Protestant woman/girl (honestly we're at that borderline age) who considers herself to be a pretty serious practicing Christian. She, however, has no shortage of other women she despises. I'm always surprised how bad her reasons for hating certain people are, and I once told her that she isn't being very Christ-like. In response she said "well good thing I don't have to be perfect." (Between you and me guys, she's not even trying at all)

It's not even as if Christians tend to love their enemies more than anyone else does.

I've heard it a lot here and I here it from people I know every now and again: Christianity is morally superior to Islam because Christianity teaches you to love your neighbor. But tell me, what is the significance of this if almost no Christians actually follow this teaching?
If you're a Christian and you make this argument then you are most likely comparing Islam to a type of Christianity that you do not follow, so why are you making that comparison at all?

I guess that's my rant... Comment if you have any thoughts on the matter!

Pay the poor-due. 2:43, 110, 277
Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due. 2:83
If you believe it, prove it. (A good rule, but does it apply to Muslims, too?) 2:111
The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and vice versa. Yet they both believe in the Scriptures. 2:113
Give of your wealth to family, relatives, and the needy. Set slaves free. 2:177
Do not fight wars of aggression. (Does this apply only during Ramadan?) 2:190
"Do good." 2:195
Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy. 2:215
Help orphans. 2:220
"Make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to ... making peace among mankind." 2:224
"If the debtor is in straitened circumstances, then (let there be) postponement to (the time of) ease." 2:280
Don't argue about things that you know nothing about. 3:66
Do not be guilty of usury, doubling and quadrpling the sum lent. 3:130
I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost. Ye proceed one from another. 3:195
Help orphans and don't steal from them. 4:2, 4:10
Men and women proceed from one another. 4:25
"Kill not one another." 4:29
Be kind to parents, relatives, orphans, the needy, neighbors, and travelers. 4:36
Whoever participates in a good cause, will be rewarded. Whoever participates in an evil cause, will bear the consequences thereof. (It's not true, but it's a nice thought.) 4:85
If someone says Hi to you say Hi (or Howdy) back to them. 4:86
It is good to help the poor and make peace. 4:114
Value justice, for both poor and rich, even when it adversely affects you or your family's interests. 4:135
Don't lend money at unfairly high rates of interest. 4:161
"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion."
Other translations render this "O people of the Book, do not be fanatical in your faith." (Amen to that!) 4:171
Don't hate other people. Treat everyone fairly. 5:8
Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves the life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all.5:32
Pay the poor-due. 5:55
Feed and clothe the needy. Set a slave free. 5:89
Do good to parents, don't kill your children or other living things unnecessarily. 6:151
Don't steal from orphans. Don't cheat or lie. 6:152
Pay the poor-due. 7:156
Be kind and forgiving toward others. 7:199
And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61
Men and women are protecting friends of one another. They enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and pay the poor-due. 9:71
"We see thee [Noah] but a mortal like us, and we see not that any follow thee save the most abject among us, without reflection. We behold in you no merit above us - nay, we deem you liars." 11:27
"Do not evil in the earth."
Treat people fairly, respect their possessions, and avoid evil. 11:85
Be kind to your relatives. 16:90
Be kind to your parents. Treat them with respect in their old age. 17:23
Help your family, the needy, and wayfarer. Don't selfishly squander your wealth. 17:26
Don't kill your children to avoid falling into poverty. 17:31
Don't steal from orphans. 17:34
Don't follow what you don't know. 17:36
"Speak that which is kindlier." 17:53
"Increase me in knowledge." 20:114
Feed the poor and unfortunate. 22:28
Don't lie. 22:30
Be kind to others, forbid injustice, and pay the poor-due. 22:41
Pay the poor-due. 22:78
Pay the poor-due. 23:4
Repel evil with that which is better. 23:96
Pay the poor-due. 24:37, 24:56
"And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom."
Allah encourages you to set your slaves free if they are good enough. And don't pimp out your slave-girls (concubines). 24:33
Repel evil with good. 28:54
Be kind to your parents. 29:8
Men and women should help each other with love an mercy. 30:21
Help your family, the needy, and wayfarers. 30:38
Pay the poor-due. 31:4
"Be modest in thy bearing and subdue thy voice." 31:19
"Speak words straight to the point."
Say what you mean; mean what you say. 33:70
Good and evil are not the same. Repel evil with goodness. That way your enemies will become your friends. 41:34
Be loving and kind to your relatives. 42:23
It is wrong to oppress people. 42:42
Live peacefully with disbelievers. 43:88-89
Be kind to your parents. 46:15
Don't defame, insult, spy on, or backbite one another.. 49:11-12
Give of your wealth to help the poor. 51:19
"A guess can never take the place of the truth." 53:28
Pay the poor-due. 58:13
Pay the poor-due. 73:20
Don't defraud. 83:1-3
Free a slave, feed the hungry, and exhort one another to pity. 90:13-17
Don't oppress orphans or drive away beggars. 93:9-10
Pay the poor-due. That is true religion. 98:5
Let each person believe (or disbelieve) whatever he or she wishes. 109:1, 6

Just thought I'd bring up those verses. Lots of people tend to overlook them.

 

[Underhill]

There is a long history all over the planet of people fitting religious dogma to their agenda. There are exceptions to every rule but the vast majority of cases I've read about were exactly that.

Hitler, Stalin, various popes, kings and presidents... they've all been guilty. The problem isn't really the religious teachings themselves, good or bad, but the doctrine that says belief in the face of evidence is beneficial. The one thing that is paramount to the success of ******** looking to kill people is control. And belief in a higher something, be it god or mother russia, all work to give control.

All a leader has to do is say it's for "place higher calling here" and they have a license to do whatever they want. The reason it works is also simple. Using the American christian church as an example: Most people believe, but don't really care about the details. They listen to their minister talk for 45 minutes, say a few amens, and go home about their business. I am sure it's been true all over the world since the beginning of time.

This is why separation of church and state is so critical in this country.