In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad(saas) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented here:




This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because
Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.

Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

It's an interesting letter. Have you read the book "In the Presence of My Enemies" by Gracia Burnham?

Asalaamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi

this is interesting

Maa salaama

He seemed to really like us.

Originally Posted by searchingsoul

He seemed to really like us.

He loved all mankind. The actions of some met with his disapproval, but he was never against the person, just the actions.

Originally Posted by Woodrow

He loved all mankind. The actions of some met with his disapproval, but he was never against the person, just the actions.

I have a nice feeling about the prophet Mohammed. My husband was always able to explain him well, and in good terms. Although I don't accept him as my prophet I think he was a good man.

Greetings and peace be with you MuslimCONVERT;

Thank you for starting this thread, I believe we must all keep searching for ways to foster greater interfaith friendships.

In the spirit of striving for peace on Earth

Eric

Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad(saas) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented here:




This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because
Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.

Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

Thank you for this positive post, MuslimCONVERT

Do all these things apply in our present political climate?

peace.

Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT

No compulsion is to be on them.

Why the Muslim kidnappers asked those fox journalists to proclaim Islam at the gunpoint?

Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Does converting churches into mosques included too?

Originally Posted by north_malaysian

Why the Muslim kidnappers asked those fox journalists to proclaim Islam at the gunpoint?

I don't know which story you are referring to, but converting people at gunpoint clearly goes against the principle of 'no obligation to follow Islam'.

Does converting churches into mosques included too?

Again, I am guessing, but I assume it would be okay if the church was not is use anymore, thereby just an empty building. As opposed to destroying an 'operating' church and turning it into a mosque by force.

What are your views?

Originally Posted by north_malaysian

Why the Muslim kidnappers asked those fox journalists to proclaim Islam at the gunpoint?



Does converting churches into mosques included too?

not clear
what's ur point

Originally Posted by glo

I don't know which story you are referring to, but converting people at gunpoint clearly goes against the principle of 'no obligation to follow Islam'.




Again, I am guessing, but I assume it would be okay if the church was not is use anymore, thereby just an empty building. As opposed to destroying an 'operating' church and turning it into a mosque by force.

What are your views?

Agreed.

-Peace

Originally Posted by glo

Again, I am guessing, but I assume it would be okay if the church was not is use anymore, thereby just an empty building. As opposed to destroying an 'operating' church and turning it into a mosque by force.

What are your views?

I think thats correct. The church should be allowed to remain a church...unless its not in use.

Caliph Umar, accompanied with Sophronius the patriarch of Jerusalem, paid a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. As the time for afternoon prayer approached Sophronius invited Caliph Umar to pray inside the church but Caliph Umar declined his invitation and prayed outside citing his fear that Muslims who would come after him might establish a mosque in place of the church if he would pray over there

Originally Posted by seeker_of_ilm

I think thats correct. The church should be allowed to remain a church...unless its not in use.

Caliph Umar, accompanied with Sophronius the patriarch of Jerusalem, paid a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. As the time for afternoon prayer approached Sophronius invited Caliph Umar to pray inside the church but Caliph Umar declined his invitation and prayed outside citing his fear that Muslims who would come after him might establish a mosque in place of the church if he would pray over there

i knew that

how big thougher they were

Originally Posted by i_m_tipu

not clear
what's ur point

My first question is to show that some so called 'Muslims' dont follow the direction given by the Prophet... anybody would convert to islam at a gunpoint and when released they reverted back to be non-Muslims. It's shameful!!! They should follow this letter.

For the second question ... glo has given a good answer... thank you... but can anybody explain about "Hagia Sofia"?

Glo, can Christians convert a mosque into a cathedral/church?