First. His Comment that Christians did not tolerate Islam is not true. Within a Generation of the Arab Conquest of Syria and Egypt, a Mosque was built in Constantinople, the capital of the "Nation" that had ruled Syria and Egypt for that previous 600 years. Such Mosques appear in other trading centers. Moslems were not only tolerated in Europe, but could travel without being harmed (except by thieves, but such thieves robbed anyone, not just Moslems).
As to the Jews, most Jews in Europe during the Dark Ages of Europe lived in the Rhine Valley under the protection of the Pope. The Pope REFUSED to permit any attack on the Jews. During the Black Death of the 1300s, when it was claimed that the Jews were spreading the disease for none of them were dying of it, the Pope pointed out, the Jews WERE dying at the same rate as Christians and thus could NOT be the cause of the Black Death. The Pope was ignored for people wanted a scrape goat and the Jews became it. This claim that the Jews were to blame would be used to attack Jews not only in the Rhine Valley but France and England. The Jews would end up moving to Moslem Spain and Central Poland after the Plague do to increase hostilities from the locals.
As to Moslem toleration of Jews in Spain, when it became clear that Spain would drive out the Moslem, Moslems would turn against the Jews. Moslems would tolerate Jews living among them, but not on any position of power. This Myth of Moslem tolerance of Jews and Christians appears to be just that, a Myth except in situations when the Christians were the majority, then the Christians were tolerated (Egypt is the classic case, while it was conquered by the Arabs in 634, it was still majority Christian as late as the Crusades, c 1200. Many Coptic church historians believe Egypt was Majority Christian as late as the 1600s, and some believe that to the case as late as 1800. The Crusades and then Napoleon's invasion caused the Egyptian Government to increase discrimination against Christians so that more and more people would convert to Islam. The Copts think they numbers are under reported by Egypt but they are at least 15% of Egypt's population to this day).
The biggest cause of hated of Islam by Europeans were the Slave raids starting around 650 AD. Those Raids tend to be ignored by historians for they explain a lot of the hatred of Islam, but that someone by sides Europeans were involved in the Slave Trade makes a lot of historians uncomfortable. Now the Arab Conquest, 634-750 had been a military conquest NOT a religious conquest. What I mean by that is increasing the wealth of the ruling elites of the Arab Empire was more important then converting people to Islam. This is reported by Islamic Scholars of the time period. The Arabs would take a City, if it was Christian convert its main Church to a Mosque, if it was a Iranian City Convert its Temples to a Mosque but the business community would be untouched for the early Arab rulers wanted the money such trade brought in not converts.
Side note: Yes, when the Arabs took Jerusalem the Arabs did NOT convert any church to a Mosque, but they took the Temple Mount, which they considered the most important place in Jerusalem. It is one of the few exceptions to the general rule of converting the main church to a Mosque (and Christians did the same, for the Church, Temple, or Mosque, was the FOCUS of the town and for that reason whoever took the town made that place his).
As the Arab Empire tore itself apart after 700 (The Arabs continued conquests till 750, but after the defeat of the Arab Siege of Constantinople in 700, the Empire started to fall apart), you see a shift from conquest to raiding. Southern Europe would suffer raids from North African. Some cities in the Dark ages were actually held by such Raiders for many years, before being driven out. Like the Vikings, who would start their raids about 800 AD, the main thing the raiders wanted were slaves. Rich people, if captured, could have their relatives buy their freedom, the poor had to suffer on in slavery. The Slaves would be sold in Constantinople or Baghdad (and this occurred even when Constantinople was a Greek Christian City and slaves were sold to people living in Western Europe).
These raids brought fear and hatred on the Raiders, both the Vikings AND the Arabs. Only after 900 and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire and its adoption of Feudalism were such raids stopped (by the expedient, that if the land owner did not protect his peasants, he lost his lands to someone who would defend his peasants, that was the heart of true Feudalism and why a lot of peasants did NOT want it to go away for they were entitled to protection from their Feudal lord and if he failed to provide such protection, that was treason and grounds for the Feudal Lord to lose his lands).
Anyway, Islams toleration of Slavery continued for another 1000 years. Peter and Great and Catherine the Great attacked the Islamic States in what is now Southern Russia and the Central Asiatic Republics to end the slave raids such Islamic lands not only tolerated but profited by. Russia had serfs not slaves during the rule of Peter and Catherine and it was their duty to protect them, thus the wars against the slave raiders. The African Slave Trade were dominated by "Arabs" who sold Slaves to white slavers to resell in the New World after 1500 (The rationale was that since these people were NOT Christian when they were enslaved, they slavery was "Legal" in their home country, thus even conversion to Christianity could NOT freed a slave from being a slave).
Dark Age Christian Europe had a tremendous problem with Slavery, while Slavery was legal, it was rare in Europe. The Roman Tradition that one could sell oneself into Slavery did not survive the end of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, even in the Dark Ages, once a slave, you remained a slave, until freed, but a freeman could NOT become a slave in the dark ages except if captured by a non Christian ruler when he was NOT a Christian (Christian Rulers could demand ransoms but could NOT sell people into slavery, please note that was the rule, some Christian Rulers ignored it).
Thus in Christian Europe it was NOT legal for a serf to become a slave, for he had duties to his "Master" but the "Master" also had duties to the Serf, including making sure the Serf had housing, clothing and food (and once those were provided, they were no need to sell oneself into slavery as had been the practice in the Roman Empire). Thus it was hard for anyone, Christian, Jew or Moslem to become a slave in Christian Europe, hard but NOT impossible.
Yes, a lot of European hatred of Islam has to do with Slavery, just like a lot of African fear white men for the same reason. That Islam tolerated Slavery to a much higher degree then Christianity is ignored for it undoes the statement of the Tolerance of Islam as to Christians and Jews.
Please note modern Islamic Scholars have adopted the same rules as Christian scholars, Slavery was an evil institution but one that existed and could not be abolished till recent times. Thus Slavery is mentioned in the Koran and the Bible, but so is Murder. My point is both books had to accept the world as it was not some ideal world thus slavery had to be addressed. My point is it is a huge over simplification to say Islam was more tolerate of Christianity, then Christianity of Islam, for to do so is to ignore the fact Slavery was widely practiced in the Mediterranean World till recently and that practice was tied more to Islam then Christianity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
