The two faces of Islam.

[Oerdin]

The following is an excerpt from Sam Schlorff's article "the two faces of Islam". He has a book coming out with the same name and maybe reprinting a small section here will spur some debate.

I can understand that Muslims in America, to try to assuage the fears—and the animosity—of the public, have been speaking out in an effort to distance themselves from those who perpetrate such crimes. In recent days, there have been news items and interviews with Muslims on this topic in the local newspaper, or on TV, all affirming that "Islam does not teach or approve such actions." We are told that "Islam means ‘Peace,’ and is a religion of peace," or that "taking one’s own life is not Islamic and is disapproved."

I can also understand that our government feels a need to make a sharp distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorists, as the President has done in his speeches to the nation. Many of our citizens, as well as many not-yet-citizens in our workforce, are Muslims, and we cannot afford to build a wall of alienation between these and other citizens.

And we need to speak out and act decisively against all forms of vigilantism that lash out at any who look like they could be Arabs or Muslims. What’s more, the government needs desperately to maintain peaceful relations with the some 40 Muslim-majority nations of the world, and to obtain the support of as many as possible in the war against terrorism. We must work with them, not against them, if we are to make any headway.

Two Sides to Islam
But where does the truth lie? Does Islam sanction such terrorist acts? Or is it truly a religion of peace? That is the question. The answer, however, is not so simple. The truth is that both tendencies exist in Islam—in conflict with each other. There are two sides to Islam so to speak, two faces.

On the one hand there is normative Islam, with which you may be more or less familiar. To a majority of Muslims this is what Islam is all about. It involves them in believing in the six articles of Islamic faith and practicing the five required "Acts of Worship" – from the five ritual prayers that are performed daily, to the month-long fast of Ramadan, to the pilgrimage made to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and so on. Between seeking to fulfill these and other duties imposed on them by Islamic Law, participating in various Islamic festivals, and trying to put food on the table, the average Muslim would seem to have little time for much else.

This is the only Islam that most Muslims in this country know. I’m told that 42 percent of U.S. Muslims are native born (of which the vast majority is African American), and the remainder are immigrants who have come here to find work, get an education, or escape oppression. But there are those who do know the other side of Islam, but do not want to acknowledge it, or what is worse, do not want the truth to be known.

The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence "in the way of Allah." As has often been said, Islam divides the world into two zones, Dar as-Salaam ("House of Peace"), and Dar al-Harb ("House of War"). Islam is not just a religion, as I have written elsewhere; it is an ideology with a political agenda.* It holds that all men are created to live in submission to Allah, as prescribed by Islamic law.

Muslims believe that Islam’s destiny is to extend its control until the whole Dar al-Harb is subject to Islamic law in an Islamic state, and this includes the use of force. The word "Islam" does NOT mean "peace." It is related to the Arabic word for peace (salaam), but it means "to surrender, to submit, to make peace by laying down one’s arms in submission." It has a militaristic connotation. Herein lie the origins of radical Islam.

Violence a Historic Element in Islam
It is a fact that killing, violence and terrorism have always been part and parcel of Islam. This even includes giving one’s life to advance the cause of Islam. In saying this I do not mean to imply that such acts have always and uniformly been practiced throughout history, at least to the extent of the barbarity seen on Sept. 11.

In our modern world, at any rate, most Islamic nations try to live at peace with other nations and have taken a position against violence and terrorism, but these have been present to a greater or lesser degree from the very beginning of Islam. In a word, one cannot make as hard and fast a distinction between normative Islam and radical Islam as some would like.

One can readily find passages in the Qur’an that exhort the faithful to fight and kill the "unbelievers," that is, to wage Jihad (Holy War). Consider, for example, Sura 2:190-191a: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. …" (See also 2:216-218; 8:38-41; 9:5-6 & 29 etc.).

Prophet Killed Others
Other verses promise the shahiid (martyr), who gives his life "in the way of Allah," the forgiveness of sins and direct entry into Paradise. Take Sura 3:195b: "So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—A reward from Allah. …" (See also 3:169; 4:74-77 &100; 22:58, etc.) And then there is the example of the Prophet himself who, as has been recorded in the Hadith (Islamic tradition), did not hesitate to have his opponents and critics killed.**

One will of course find many apologists who condemn acts of violence. Claiming that Islam has only been extended by peaceful means, they maintain that Muslims fight only in "self-defense," as the verse cited above seems to indicate. It is amazing, however, how far "self-defense" can be stretched.

Ossama bin Laden was recently reported as saying, "The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah." (Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 23, 2001, page D4). For such militants, it is sufficient for a Mulla or radical Muslim party to pronounce a person or a country an "enemy of Allah" to justify killing. Consider what happened to President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt! He was assassinated by a fundamentalist group in Egypt as an "enemy of Islam" because he made peace with Israel.

Islam at War With Itself
One could say that Islam is at war with itself.*** On the one side are the "moderate" Muslim governments that are trying to run a modern ship of state within the family of nations, more or less within the framework of normative Islam. Nearly all have Islam as the "religion of state" in their constitutions.

On the other side are a number of radical Muslim movements, usually on the outs with their own governments, which are usually headed by radical Mullas. These teach that the Muslims are in trouble because they have forsaken true Islam and that the solution is to return to pure Islam. To these movements, "the enemy" is mainly the West, especially the U.S. (the "Great Satan"), but also the "moderate" (to us) governments of the Muslim World.

One such movement is the Taliban who have succeeded in gaining control of most of Afghanistan. For the most part, however, these radical movements operate clandestinely (e.g. the GIA in Algeria, the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, and so on). Some have front organizations in the West, and at least one, outlawed in Syria, has established a base in England from which to propagandize for a return to the Caliphate, a single Islamic government that rules over the whole Muslim world—and eventually over the entire world!

Radical Islam Gaining Ground
Between the Muslim governments of the world and the radical Muslim movements are the rank and file of Muslims who try to live their lives in accordance with Islam as best they can, but often they are the ones to suffer the most. But make no mistake. Radical Islam has been gaining ground for a number of years for various reasons, and the more moderate governments, more or less friendly to the West, have their backs to the wall so to speak.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The following is an excerpt from Sam Schlorff's article "the two faces of Islam". He has a book coming out with the same name and maybe reprinting a small section here will spur some debate.

*Sigh* Or maybe

[Lemmy]

i'll agree with Tass on this.
It doesn't mention anything new now does it?

[Oerdin]

I was hoping to spur debate and not spam. I often find spam is in the eye of the beholder and one persons spam is anothers valid debate topic.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why not try telling us what you think, in that case? Regurgitating large chunks of something a bit controversial is lazy.

[DRoseDARs]

Lazy? Typing all that and you call it being lazy?

He took the time to find this book and read whatever is in print prior to its release. He went out of his way to learn a little more about the realities of Islam beyond the sensationalized dribble we're spoon-fed by the mass media ('cept CNN and BBC). I think in giving us this excerpt from the book he showed us his opinion: there are two faces of Islam. Reality is not black and white...but shades of gray. Too few people realize that simple fact...and that can only end in sorrow or bloodshed.

Thank you, Oerdin, for giving us this excerpt. For your next two installments may I suggest similar pieces on The Two Faces of Judaism and The Two Faces of Christianity just to show that they too have their own...erm...contradictions and on-going problems.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Lazy? Typing all that and you call it being lazy?

I can understand that Muslims in America, to try to assuage the fears-and the animosity-of the public, have been speaking out in an effort to distance themselves from those who perpetrate such crimes. In recent days, there have been news items and interviews with Muslims on this topic in the local newspaper, or on TV, all affirming that "Islam does not teach or approve such actions." We are told that "Islam means 'Peace,' and is a religion of peace," or that "taking one's own life is not Islamic and is disapproved."

I can also understand that our government feels a need to make a sharp distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorists, as the President has done in his speeches to the nation. Many of our citizens, as well as many not-yet-citizens in our workforce, are Muslims, and we cannot afford to build a wall of alienation between these and other citizens. And we need to speak out and act decisively against all forms of vigilantism that lash out at any who look like they could be Arabs or Muslims. What's more, the government needs desperately to maintain peaceful relations with the some forty Muslim-majority nations of the world, and to obtain the support of as many as possible in the war against terrorism. We must work with them, not against them, if we are to make any headway.

But where does the truth lie? Does Islam sanction such terrorist acts? Or is it truly a religion of peace? That is the question. The answer, however, is not so simple. The truth is that both tendencies exist in Islam-in conflict with each other. There are two sides to Islam so to speak, two faces.

On the one hand there is normative Islam, with which you may be more or less familiar. To a majority of Muslims this is what Islam is all about. It involves them in believing in the six articles of Islamic faith and practicing the five required "Acts of Worship" - from the five ritual prayers that are performed daily, to the month-long fast of Ramadan, to the pilgrimage made to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and so on. Between seeking to fulfill these and other duties imposed on them by Islamic Law, participating in various Islamic festivals, and trying to put food on the table, the average Muslim would seem to have little time for much else. This is the only Islam that most Muslims in this country know. I'm told that 42% of US Muslims are native born (of which the vast majority is African-American), and the remainder are immigrants who have come here to find work, get an education, or escape oppression. But there are those who do know the other side of Islam, but do not want to acknowledge it, or what is worse, do not want the truth to be known.

The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence "in the way of Allah." As has often been said, Islam divides the world into two zones, Dar as-Salaam ("House of Peace"), and Dar al-Harb ("House of War"). Islam is not just a religion, as I have written elsewhere; it is an ideology with a political agenda.* It holds that all men are created to live in submission to Allah, as prescribed by Islamic law. Muslims believe that Islam's destiny is to extend its control until the whole Dar al-Harb is subject to Islamic law in an Islamic state, and this includes the use of force. The word "Islam" does NOT mean "peace." It is related to the Arabic word for peace (salaam), but it means "to surrender, to submit (as a slave to his master-Allah), to make peace by laying down one's arms in submission." It has a militaristic connotation. Herein lie the origins of radical Islam.


It is a fact that killing and violence have always been part and parcel of Qur'anic teaching. This even includes giving one's life to advance the cause of Islam. In saying this I do not mean to imply that such acts have always and uniformly been practiced throughout history, at least to the extent of the barbarity seen on September 11th. In our modern world, at any rate, most Islamic nations try to live at peace with other nations and have taken a position against violence and terrorism, but these have been present to a greater or lesser degree from the very beginning of Islam. In a word, one cannot make as hard and fast a distinction between normative Islam and radical Islam as some would like.


One can readily find passages in the Qur'an that exhort the faithful to fight and kill the "unbelievers," that is, to wage Jihad (Holy War). Consider, for example, Sura 2:190-191a: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. …" (See also 2:216-218; 8:38-41; 9:5-6 & 29 etc.). Other verses promise the shahiid (martyr), who gives his life "in the way of Allah," the forgiveness of sins and direct entry into Paradise. Take Sura 3:195b: "So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow-A reward from Allah. …" (See also 3:169; 4:74-77 &100; 22:58, etc.) And then there is the example of the Prophet himself who, as has been recorded in the Hadith (Islamic tradition), did not hesitate to have his opponents and critics killed.**

One will of course find many apologists who condemn acts of violence. Claiming that Islam has only been extended by peaceful means, they maintain that Muslims fight only in "self-defense," as the verse cited above seems to indicate. It is amazing, however, how far "self-defense" can be stretched. Ossama bin Laden was recently reported as saying, "The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah." (Phila. Inquirer, Sept. 23, 2001, page D4). For such militants, it is sufficient for a Mulla or radical Muslim party to pronounce a person or a country an "enemy of Allah" to justify killing. Consider what happened to President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt! He was assassinated by a fundamentalist group in Egypt as an "enemy of Islam" because he made peace with Israel.

One could say that Islam is at war with itself.*** On the one side are the "moderate" Muslim governments that are trying to run a modern ship of state within the family of nations, more or less within the framework of normative Islam. Nearly all have Islam as the "religion of state" in their constitutions. On the other side are a number of radical Muslim movements, usually on the outs with their own governments, which are usually headed by radical Mullas. These teach that the Muslims are in trouble because they have forsaken true Islam and that the solution is to return to pure Islam. To these movements, "the enemy" is mainly the West, especially the U.S (the "Great Satan"), but also the "moderate" (to us) governments of the Muslim World. One such radical movement is the Taliban who have succeeded in gaining control of most of Afghanistan. For the most part, however, these radical movements operate clandestinely (e.g. the GIA in Algeria, the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, and so on). Some have front organizations in the West, and at least one, outlawed in Syria, has established a base in England from which to propagandize for a return to the Caliphate, a single Islamic government that rules over the whole Muslim world-and eventually over the entire world! Between the Muslim governments of the world and the radical Muslim movements are the rank and file of Muslims who try to live their lives in accordance with Islam as best they can, but often they are the ones to suffer the most. But make no mistake--radical Islam has been gaining ground for a number of years for various reasons, and the more moderate governments, more or less friendly to the West, have their backs to the wall so to speak

BS. he copied-and-pasted from here or any of the other 12 websites with that article posted on them which show up with a Google search on the phrase "I can understand that Muslims in America".

I also find it interesting that the author of the article is apparently an active, evangelical christian and that Oerdin removed all references that would brand him as such from the original article.

[DRoseDARs]

Well...in light of that...the challenge to show both Judaism and Christianity in a similar light is still valid. Though I highly doubt now that the author of the book is capable of even conceiving doing such a thing...

BTW Frogger, love your sig. Had to do a double take on that line yesterday when I saw it. Thought it was (another) Bushism.

DRoseDARs' frontdoor: *Knock, knock* "Who's there?" "John Ashcroft" "...Crap."

[KrazyHorse]

Aren't seaarch engines wonderful things?

[DRoseDARs]

In case anyone is interested, Prof. Houston Smith is an excellent (unbiased) author to read. I was first introduced to his work in a Comparative World Religions class and was impressed by his impartiality...well, maybe he was a little partial...to accepting all religions as equal.

[Thucydides]

I think that the author has overstated the case of Islam having a violent face. Muslims very much have codes of conduct in warfare, and are only suppose to fight wars honorable, and for reasons of self-defense. Another point is that the word Jihad doesn't really mean Holy Warfare as it does "struggle". Warfare being only one form of Jihad. As for quoting Bin Laden on Islam, it's sort of like quoting David Koresh concerning Christianity. Muslim Terrorists only make up a small fraction of a percentage of Muslims, and it's only through modern means of communications that so many flakes could have gathered at one place from all over the Muslim World.

With that said though, there's increasing bitterness throughout the Arab world due to increasing population and increasing unemployment, as whatever wealth is gained from oil is swallowed up by corrupt royal families. Indeed, the real goal of Arab Terrorists is to draw the US into their own civil war. Just like we try to put a face on the terrorists, by going after Bin Laden and then Hussein, the terrorists are trying to put a face on their enemy by associating their enemy with the US or Israel, which thanks to more then biased schooling in their system (with the Saudi's, it was the deal they struck with the extremists to remain in power), have become the root cause of all their problems.

Anyway, I think it's sad that we're playing into extremist hands by attacking Iraq. Such an action with just prove what Bin Laden was trying to convince people all along, that the US really wants to conquer the middle east for their oil, and subjugate all the muslim people. It's not to unreasonable a country or two falling into Extremist hands because of this (especially Saudi Arabia).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Lazy? Typing all that and you call it being lazy?

He took the time to find this book and read whatever is in print prior to its release. He went out of his way to learn a little more about the realities of Islam beyond the sensationalized dribble we're spoon-fed by the mass media ('cept CNN and BBC). I think in giving us this excerpt from the book he showed us his opinion: there are two faces of Islam. Reality is not black and white...but shades of gray. Too few people realize that simple fact...and that can only end in sorrow or bloodshed.

Thank you, Oerdin, for giving us this excerpt. For your next two installments may I suggest similar pieces on The Two Faces of Judaism and The Two Faces of Christianity just to show that they too have their own...erm...contradictions and on-going problems.

The only adequate response to that is "No ****, Sherlock". I don't know how long it's taken, but congratulations on concluding that there are (at least) two sides to every story.

[JCG]

Well, seeing as how Evangelicals embrace pestering others in the name of God even when they haven't done anything to them....you could even say that it all originates from the wording used to explain conversions in each religion.

Simply, from what I can tell, Islamists condone violence to defend their faith, while at the same time calling for an eventual conversion of the entire world peacefully, unless they are brought into hostilities by the other parties.

Nothing right/wrong about that by itself, except that madmen like Bin Laden and others can twist it around easily to promote acts of terror that are neither conversions nor responses to previous aggression.

[MrFun]

Islam is a religion of violence just as much as Judahism and Christianity are religions of violence -- extreme fanatics within each religion, take and pick passages from their sacred documents of ones that only serve their purpose, then twist their religious values around, so they can kill people with whom they disagree with.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Islam is a religion of violence just as much as Judahism and Christianity are religions of violence -- extreme fanatics within each religion, take and pick passages from their sacred documents of ones that only serve their purpose, then twist their religious values around, so they can kill people with whom they disagree with.

The problem is that the rest of the world's religions have moved beyond the "kill everyone who isn't one of us stage."

Islam has REGRESSED from being the civilization which gave us modern science to what it is today.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy


The only adequate response to that is "No ****, Sherlock". I don't know how long it's taken, but congratulations on concluding that there are (at least) two sides to every story.

Yeah, figured this fact out when I was in the fifth grade (1991) all by myself (my parents didn't force any belief-systems on me). Sadly, most people NEVER figure it out.

Jerk.

Anyway, for everyone else, here's a quote for you, "The truth is a three-edged sword: Your side, his side and the Truth."

(Borrowed from a line in a TV series, but still very valid. They probably got the line from elsewhere too.)

[Zulu Elephant]

Two, very obvious, points and then I'll leave this article by hatemonger-whatever-he's-called with the contempt it deserves.

Christianity has its two faces in "An eye for an eye" vs. "Turn the other cheek"

Christianity has the same violent history as Islam and to try to use either of these two religions' historical misreadings or misuses against them is, at best, ignorant or, at worst, an attempt to paint a deliberatey false historcal picture of them

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Two, very obvious, points and then I'll leave this article by hatemonger-whatever-he's-called with the contempt it deserves.

Christianity has its two faces in "An eye for an eye" vs. "Turn the other cheek"

Christianity has the same violent history as Islam and to try to use either of these two religions' historical misreadings or misuses against them is, at best, ignorant or, at worst, an attempt to paint a deliberatey false historcal picture of them

Yes. The problem is that christianity has outgrown it. When will islam do the same?

[Ned]

Considering how Islam was born and spread, it has to be a religion of world conquest. If it is not, what changed it and when?

Christainty teaches that the road to paradise lies through non violence. One is taught to turn the other cheek, for example, and to die rather than harm an unbeliever. Islams seems to teach that dying while killing the Infidel leads to paradise.

The two religions are polar opposites. They are not equivalent at all.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ned
Considering how Islam was born and spread, it has to be a religion of world conquest. If it is not, what changed it and when?

Christainty teaches that the road to paradise lies through non violence. One is taught to turn the other cheek, for example, and to die rather than harm an unbeliever. Islams seems to teach that dying while killing the Infidel leads to paradise.

The two religions are polar opposites. They are not equivalent at all.

I don't know. Crusades, which promised that anyone who died was instantly going to heaven? Reconquista?

[Sikander]

" We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an assasin. What do you call it when the assasins accuse the assasin ? They lie.. they lie and we have to be merciful for those who lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them...Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all."

Colonel Kurtz

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Faeelin


I don't know. Crusades, which promised that anyone who died was instantly going to heaven? Reconquista?

Those two events, while done in Christianity's name, were not in accordance in Christian teachings at all and such militancy is not wide-spread at all today.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Those two events, while done in Christianity's name, were not in accordance in Christian teachings at all and such militancy is not wide-spread at all today.

Damn. I'm agreeing with you that there's no christian militancy today, but you're honestly going to say that islam is a religion based on war?

Compare what saladin did when he captured jerusalem to what the crusaders did.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Faeelin


Yes. The problem is that christianity has outgrown it. When will islam do the same?

Unfortunately Faeelin, you're only half-right. While Christianity has outgrown, for the most part, rampent violence as a means of conversion and affecting advantageous changes, they've yet to outgrow the hate-mongering.

Being homosexual, by law in the United States, I hold legal status as a Second-Class Citizen in a pressumed "class-less" society. Even this November that status may well be reaffirmed, yet again, when we Nevadans vote on our version of a Defence of Marriage act (DoM: pronounced "Dum"). Already passed in 2000, it has to pass a second time before becoming law in this state, but that initiative has been losing steam since then...VOTE NO ON QUESTION #2 IN NEVADA NOVEMBER 2002!!!

Such initiatives are almost always, dare I say solely, spearheaded by Conservative Christian groups in the United States. Hell, even Nevada's 'Dum' Act is being led by, I believe a Man-of-the-Cloth, Richard Ziser and his Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada.

[ThePantaloonDog]

Those two events, while done in Christianity's name, were not in accordance in Christian teachings at all and such militancy is not wide-spread at all today.

According to whose teaching of Christianity?
Jerry Falwell?
David Karesh?

There's a million different ways to interpret Greek writings from 3000 years ago.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Faeelin


Damn. I'm agreeing with you that there's no christian militancy today, but you're honestly going to say that islam is a religion based on war?

Compare what saladin did when he captured jerusalem to what the crusaders did.

Yes, for practical puprposes the moslems acted much better then the Christians did. And I am not saying Islam is a religion based on war, but the command to go spread Sharia by the sword is found in the Koran

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Yes, for practical puprposes the moslems acted much better then the Christians did. And I am not saying Islam is a religion based on war, but the command to go spread Sharia by the sword is found in the Koran

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

[KrazyHorse]

Never mind how many atrocities I can find condoned in the Old Testament...

[MrFun]

How much more were Islamic states more tolerant towards other religions in the Middle Ages compared to Christianity?

Didn't Jews flee from Catholic Spain to the southern part of Spain that was ruled by Muslims in the Middle Ages, while others went farther, and went into North Africa to flee persecution from Catholics??

[Shi Huangdi]

You fail to understand the difference in the way the two religions view the scripture, however. A key tenant of the Islamic faith is that the Koran is God's final revelation of his will to this world, and is absolutely perfect and to be considered literally true. Although many Christians do believe that an exact and literal interpertation of the bible is appropriate, this is generally not the case. Most believe that it cannot be trusted so much as to be taken literally true, and some groups such as the Catholics and the Anglicans have organized hierarchy which determine the tenants of the religion instead of the Bible. Even those who do believe in taking the bible literally tend not to follow it's command exactly- it is rare for instance to see a family stone it's kid for being disobedient. Moslems place their scripture on a far higher pedastel then does Christianity.

"How much more were Islamic states more tolerant towards other religions in the Middle Ages compared to Christianity? "

Much more, and I said(talking about the middle ages) that the moslems acted better than the Christians.