Are Christians more tolerant than Muslims

Well I do believe this is a question that should be taken "individually" and it solely depends on the specific person in question, but if we generalize it I believe christians and muslims differ on the subject of tolerance through each ones own core beliefs. While it is true that they are both abrahamic religions they distinctly differ in certain beliefs. Generally, of course

Nobody is tolerant.they are all the same sh*t!

Omar i am awar of our history, and WIKI is not a very trustable source as you know. Avesta the Zoroastrian book was burned up by Arabs and only a little part of it could be saved. The intolerance of Arab worriors has converted us by sword. And zoroastrian never consider for Arabs for people of the book. Arabs call them Majoosi, which means fire idolizer.

Originally posted by Maziar Omar i am awar of our history, and WIKI is not a very trustable source as you know. Avesta the Zoroastrian book was burned up by Arabs and only a little part of it could be saved. The intolerance of Arab worriors has converted us by sword. And zoroastrian never consider for Arabs for people of the book. Arabs call them Majoosi, which means fire idolizer.

Originally posted by azimuth Originally posted by Maziar Omar i am awar of our history, and WIKI is not a very trustable source as you know. Avesta the Zoroastrian book was burned up by Arabs and only a little part of it could be saved. The intolerance of Arab worriors has converted us by sword. And zoroastrian never consider for Arabs for people of the book. Arabs call them Majoosi, which means fire idolizer.   there were millions of Zoroasterians in Iran centuries After the Arab conquest.   Iranian themselvs Destroyed the zoroasterians significant population in Iran.   sorry but you are not awar of why Iranian still muslims till today, and you are Ignorant about Zoroasterians History in Iran after the Arab left.   i already gave sources and links about Zoroasterians position in Iran, in that famouse thread which caused two of your friends get themselvs banned.

At our times, Christians are more tolerant. Of course there will be some christian fanatics too, but I am sure we cannot compare their number with muslim ones.

Originally posted by Edgewaters Hmmm. Tolerance in the West is historically a product of secularism born of a Classical/Latin heritage, not differences between the Abrahamic religions (which are all intolerant by nature). Russia is historically Orthodox Christian and has always been very intolerant, even when nominally atheist; it lacks a Classical and Latin heritage. I think its mostly a feature of history, not choice of religion or even degree of religousness. I would imagine other parts of the world which at one time featured a pluralistic empire like Rome (perhaps in Asia?) probably have similar strains of tolerant ideals.

You forgot one critical thing: The middle east also has Classical and Latin heritage. I also doubt that tolerance is due to Roman heritage. Romans are famously intolerant. Romanizing peoples, plowing salt into fields, genocide was accepted policy by the Romans.

I think tolerance in the west is largely a realisation that they couldn't keep killing each other anymore.
-The only way of settling disputes between Catholics and protestants was to make the government secular.
-The best way to protect your citizens from others is to protect others aswell.
-The best way of preventing rivallry between Lords and peasant rerbellions was to establish a 'House of Lords' and a 'House of Commons' (ie democracy)
If the west hadn't been so intolerant in the past, it wouldn't be so tolerant now.

Although how tolerant is the west actually now? I don't actually think it is more tolerant than most other countries, only richer and thus better able to show it.

Since we are talking about Christian and muslim tolerance, this may be applicable:

Originally posted by Matthew 11:34-39 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 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�     36 your enemies will be the members of your own household.' [a]     37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

I don't think I have taken that out of context. If a christian could provide some commentry on this part of the bible I'd much appreciate it.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 15-Jun-2006 at 19:29

Originally posted by Maziar Originally posted by azimuth Originally posted by Maziar Omar i am awar of our history, and WIKI is not a very trustable source as you know. Avesta the Zoroastrian book was burned up by Arabs and only a little part of it could be saved. The intolerance of Arab worriors has converted us by sword. And zoroastrian never consider for Arabs for people of the book. Arabs call them Majoosi, which means fire idolizer.   there were millions of Zoroasterians in Iran centuries After the Arab conquest.   Iranian themselvs Destroyed the zoroasterians significant population in Iran.   sorry but you are not awar of why Iranian still muslims till today, and you are Ignorant about Zoroasterians History in Iran after the Arab left.   i already gave sources and links about Zoroasterians position in Iran, in that famouse thread which caused two of your friends get themselvs banned.   Those are your opinion my friend, only your opinion. And don't worry, i won't do anything which causes me to be banned.

what other sources? 

Democracy does not make people tolerant. Quite the opposite in my opinion. Democracy creates the fear that another group could outnumber you and enforce their opinion on you. And gives them the power to do so.

Examples:
Partition, why do you think Pakistan was created?
Election of Nazi party (not to beat around the bush)
Israel
Australia pre Whitlam
America pre civil rights (an argument for post too)
etc etc

An Imperialistic form of government is much more likely to be tolerant. A single dictator that all ethinic groups can hate equally, while the dictator not wishing to cause rebellion treats all ethnic groups equally. (Alternatively the emperor could be a bigot)
Unfortunately, this was not true for the "tolerant" European Powers