Prevent any and all religious animosity between the faiths of Abraham as possible

Alright, I'm not going to mince words here- with as many different pods, alternative interpretations, and removed/fortified figures as possible- how can we absolutely and utterly minimize animosity between the three abrahamic faiths as much as is humanly possible?

Early Islam you don't really need to do that much for Muslims, but I can already think of some figures who might need convincing, and some misconceptions that need to be quashed- also, promoting the fact that Islam does not believe Muhammad is the messiah, and that Jesus and Mary are still sacred.

Obviously I don't know as much about this to merit any lasting changes- this is why I am posing the question unto you all.
 
Alright, I'm not going to mince words here- with as many different pods, alternative interpretations, and removed/fortified figures as possible- how can we absolutely and utterly minimize animosity between the three abrahamic faiths as much as is humanly possible?

Early Islam you don't really need to do that much for Muslims, but I can already think of some figures who might need convincing, and some misconceptions that need to be quashed- also, promoting the fact that Islam does not believe Muhammad is the messiah, and that Jesus and Mary are still sacred.

Obviously I don't know as much about this to merit any lasting changes- this is why I am posing the question unto you all.

Between the Abrahamic faiths? What about inside an Abrahamic faith by itself (Christianity)?
 
If Christians actually obeyed Jesus's teachings.

I think the big fail for Christianity was becoming the official Roman religion. The result was that the faith became indistinguishable from secular politics for centuries afterwards. (In some cases even up to the present day) The secular politics always won.

Unfortunately I think American Christians have made the same error.
 
If Christians actually obeyed Jesus's teachings.

I think the big fail for Christianity was becoming the official Roman religion. The result was that the faith became indistinguishable from secular politics for centuries afterwards. (In some cases even up to the present day) The secular politics always won.

Unfortunately I think American Christians have made the same error.

I think you are right about Rome, but christianity wouldn't be as big today without becoming the state church of Rome.

In America, I think you have it backwards fundamentalist christians make religion politics, trying to force their religious views on the body politic and politician tend to pander to it.
 
The problem is many fold. One must first find a way to limit or remove Christian repression of heretical ideas, I have NO idea how this is done, almost no religion ever achieved this, not even Buddhism. Then one must find a way to make Islam spread peacefully or perhaps conquer Iran but leave Byzantium alone and then out of nowhere have some sort of collapse avoiding the expansionist Umayyad period and ushering in a period in which the Ummah was led by inward rulers and suffered internal strife. Perhaps in this scenario it would work, but doubtful lol. The Muslim would've invaded Byzantium at some point making the tension an issue.
 
Between the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox divides and the Shi'ites/Sunnites divide, that seems complicated to say the least.
It becomes even more hard when you add everybody's favourite religious punching ball: Judaism
 

Perkeo

Banned
Just don't let any of the Abramitic Religions ever become a state religion. When heresy and apostasy are crimes against the state, not a chance of peace. When sin is supposed to be punished by god himself, no reason for violence.
 
The problem is that the various Abrahamic faiths are very absolutist.

"The God of Israel"
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me"
"God is One, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

One of the REASONS for their success was this. Conversion INTO the faith was easy, conversion OUT involved exile - at best.

If you change the Abrahamic faiths to be more tolerant, they'll be less successful - so probably they don't really matter in the long run.
 
The problem is that the various Abrahamic faiths are very absolutist.

"The God of Israel"
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me"
"God is One, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

One of the REASONS for their success was this. Conversion INTO the faith was easy, conversion OUT involved exile - at best.

If you change the Abrahamic faiths to be more tolerant, they'll be less successful - so probably they don't really matter in the long run.
They all agree on there being one supreme God. Maybe that's intolerant of Paganism, but that's outside the scope of the question. Maybe no Crusades helps reduce the worst of the pogroms.
 

Perkeo

Banned
They all agree on there being one supreme God. Maybe that's intolerant of Paganism, but that's outside the scope of the question. Maybe no Crusades helps reduce the worst of the pogroms.

But there will be Crusades - perhaps with a more reasonable goal (originally the intention was to defend the Byzantine Empire against Muslim enemies), but the wars between Muslims and Christians didn't start with the crusades, and they don't stop at them not happening. Muslims will hit Christians where it hurts, and Christians will hit Muslims where it hurts. And sooner or later there will be war crimes that are not forgotten.
 
As it developed historically, Judaism claimed a special but not exclusive relationship with God, and was never much of a missionary religion. Christianity and Islam were both missionary and claimed an exclusive relationship with God. It's one thing to have arguments within a religion on theological differences, which can get nasty but also can result in acceptance or toleration. When you claim an exclusive relationship with God based on your religion, and even more so your interpretation of holy word....
 

jahenders

Banned
Quite true about the impact of Rome adopting Christianity.

On your latter point, you say it as if that's somehow unique to our time or to Christianity. Ever since mankind had organized societies and, with them, organized religious beliefs, there has been a confluence of political and moral/religious views. That's been true whether it was an Aztec, Pagan, or whatever priest arguing that, "Hey, we need to conquer these guys next door because they've offended our gods and they demand sacrifice" or a modern Ayatollah saying, "We must defeat the Great Satan." In the political sense, religious/moral views are simply one manifestation of strong human drives. They're little different from ethical, political, or financial goals -- they're an impetus that can drive people strongly. In our (representative democracy-based) society, those drives come in large part from people injecting their driving views into politics. Again, this is true whether that driver is Christianity, a desire to save whales, to spread Sharia law, to expand markets, to raise wages, etc. Christians, of whatever stripe, are simply one of MANY groups injecting their views into politics and trying to shape law/decisions based on those views. At some points in the past, they may have been able to "force those views," but now it's often more likely to be shouting radicals on a campus, pundits on the news, rich moguls of whatever political stripe, or proponents of certain agendas in Hollywood that exert substantial force from their views.

So, don't begrudge Christians their freedom to attempt to influence politics unless you begrudge all others who seek to do so.

I think you are right about Rome, but christianity wouldn't be as big today without becoming the state church of Rome.

In America, I think you have it backwards fundamentalist christians make religion politics, trying to force their religious views on the body politic and politician tend to pander to it.
 

jahenders

Banned
They are all somewhat absolutist.

I think the other point you've hit on is the conversion into, exile out of. In times past (and still true in most of Islam and some places in Christianity, Judaism) many people lived in fairly closed societies. Everyone had the same beliefs to varying degrees and within a fairly narrow range. There was a general view that, if you don't believe like everyone else, you can't be trusted or are actually evil and should be shunned, driven out, or even attacked. This mindset certainly isn't/wasn't unique to Abrahamic faiths -- the same was true to varying degrees in Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Nordic lands, etc. What was somewhat unique was the conversion concept -- actually going into a land with other gods and convincing those people they should convert.

What's made it possible for most faiths in Western Democracies to generally coexist peacefully (whereas centuries ago they fought to the death) is that most toned down their rhetoric and, in many cases, their views and missionary zeal.

So, to avoid conflict between the Abrahamic religions, you almost need
1) People in key areas (especially the Middle East) to develop a more tolerant mindset such that you could have Jews, Christians, and Muslims living side by side without strong conflict. They might argue religion and even try to convert one another, but they don't exclude or kill one another. That's a basic change to society/humanity -- doesn't seem likely

2) The religions to focus in different areas. For example, Judaism could remain a solely regional/national religion, just in Judea. Christianity could accept that Judea has a settled faith and focus efforts to the West and North (which they largely did initially). Islam could focus NE. That could have theoretically worked while they remained semi-small, but that, too would assume changing human/political behavior. Islam focused W and NW because those were trouble areas (at the time) with great power and wealth. As Islam grew, it felt it had to challenge those areas in order to progress towards its goal of converting everyone/everything.

The problem is that the various Abrahamic faiths are very absolutist.

"The God of Israel"
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me"
"God is One, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

One of the REASONS for their success was this. Conversion INTO the faith was easy, conversion OUT involved exile - at best.

If you change the Abrahamic faiths to be more tolerant, they'll be less successful - so probably they don't really matter in the long run.
 
2) The religions to focus in different areas. For example, Judaism could remain a solely regional/national religion, just in Judea. Christianity could accept that Judea has a settled faith and focus efforts to the West and North (which they largely did initially).

That doesn't quite work, because Christianity claims to be the true heir to Israel, and is a universal religion (as is Islam) - it cannot tolerate the presence of other claimants, just as an absolute monarch cannot tolerate the presence of pretenders.
 
The "easiest" way to achieve it by a Caliphate all over Christian and Jewish land, given that Islam is the only Abrahamic religion that institutionally recognizes the other two.
 
Top