The ‘Marrakesh Declaration’ on religious tolerance

In the wake of anti-Muslim hysteria sweeping through the Western nations, King Muhammad VI of Morocco sponsored an international conference in January 2016 to establish guidelines for the 57 Muslim-majority nation-states how to deal with the non-Muslim minorities living among them.

The conference was attended by Islamic scholars, muftis, academics and government ministers from Muslim countries around the world. After a three-day of intense work and exchange of ideas, histories, theological, legal and textual information, agreed upon a significant statement known as the Marrakesh Declaration.

The contents of the Marrakesh Declaration are no different than the Medina Charter, the peace treaty signed between the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the leaders of Yahud (followers of Moses Law), and Nasara (followers of Jesus, son of Mary) in 623 CE.

Canadian Islamic scholar John Andrew Morrow, PhD, who attended the conference has published his thoughts on his personal blog here. Also listen to Dr. Morrow below.

Rabbi Allen S. Maller says that Islam commands more religious tolerance than all other religion. Rabbi Maller led Temple Akiba in Culver City, CA for 39 years before retiring in 2006.

The Western Judo-Christian historians and the ‘Orientalists’ lead by the Zionist Jew Dr. Bernard Lewis have never stopped accusing Muslims for spreading their faith by sword. Had they did that Muslims in Spain, Greece, India, Sicily, Malta, Gibraltar, etc. would not living as oppressed minority after their ancestors ruled those countries from 150 to 1,000 years.


6 responses to “The ‘Marrakesh Declaration’ on religious tolerance

  1. “Had they did that Muslims in Spain, Greece, India, Sicily, Malta, Gibraltar, etc. would not living as oppressed minority after their ancestors ruled those countries from 150 to 1,000 years.”
    1. Had they DONE that, Muslims in Spain, … etc”
    2. That is not the best argument.
    They may have spread Islam by sword (as in fact the Ottomans did with some success in the Balkans) but that does not mean they were fulfilling Islam’s teachings by doing so.
    They were minorities in Europe to start with: the Moors in Spain, the Turks in the Balkans.They became oppressed minorities once they were defeated–it always happens.

    • How thee talk to 10-ft thick Wailing Wall?

      Indonesia, the world’s most populated Muslim nation (209 million) never faced a Muslim sword. Same happened in Sri Lanka, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, South Philippines, Bosnia, etc.

      Ottoman never used ‘sword’ to convert western Christians or Jews. They never even put direct Muslim rulers over their European colonies. It were western elites who took the opportunity to convert to Islam to benefit from Ottoman rule. In order to understand Ottoman religious tolerance – keep in mind that five of 13 grand-Wazir (prime ministers) were none Turks. In case one seek to learn the truth, I would recommend Russian-Israeli writer Israel Shamir’s article, entitled, ‘Ottoman empire, please come back!’

      For general information on the peaceful spread of Islam – there is a good book (1896), “The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching”, by Sir Thomas W. Arnold, a British Christian theologian and historian who spent many years in British occupied India.

  2. 1.Correct the error in #1.
    2. We have to agree to disagree on the Ottoman Empire. I couldn’t care less about the balderdash penned by Shamir, like:
    —” the unity of the Empire, where dozens of tribes and ethnic groups felt at home, in peace with each other” — Laughable and flies in the face of history. None of the Balkan nations “felt at home” squashed under the heavy Turkish boot that taxes even the smoke out of chimneys. The Turks brought corruption, only enriching the local idioms with words they had not needed before (Bakshish, peshkesh, etc); they brought backwardness (Turkish “toilettes”), sloth and vices. They kidnapped thousands of boys from the Balkans to groom them for the pleasure of pederasts, to castrate them for use as eunuchs in their harems or enlist them as Janisseries. The Turks did not colonize their conquests: they appointed satraps from the Phanar to squeeze them dry for them. One of these boys escaped to become the national Albanian hero fighting against the Ottoman yoke: Skanderbeg.
    Nobody missed the Ottoman Empire when it finally collapsed. Not in the Balkans. Palestine was lost not because of the fall of the Ottoman Empire but because of the rise of a more sophisticated and lethal plague: anglo-zionism.
    There can hardly be worse ambassadors for Islam than the Ottoman Turks unless maybe the present day Takfiris.

    —-“These two heirs to the glory of Byzantium, the Russian and the Ottoman Empires,” Shamir shows his crass ignorance of history with this statement. The Ottoman Empire, far from being the “hero” of the Byzantine Empire was its destroyer.

    —- “Islam is just a form of Christianity” — another idiocy of Shamir, one of those statements that by forcing a false comparison manages to insult both religions.

    — Finally, yes, Rehmat, the Turks separated quite a few Christians from their heads for refusing to convert, like famously the Brancoveanus, which pretty much puts paid to the notion that the Ottoman Empire is a true exemplar of Islam, which the logo of your site expresses concisely: “No compulsion in religion.”
    This is a serviceable motto as well: Not every mouth from which issues the name of the Prophet is the mouth of a true Muslim.

    • Personally I don’t give damn what the Jew-turned Christian Israel Shamir or a bigot Christian like you says about Islamic tolerance towards the non-Muslims. For me, it’s enough to know that Christian historian Michael Hart in his masterpiece THE 100, ranked the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as world’s greatest leader and most influential personality – over his own Lord Christ.

  3. Rehmat, non-Muslims under the Ottoman empire suffered under punitive taxation (Jizya), lesser legal protection, weren’t allowed to build or rebuild churches, and so on.

    If you weren’t Muslim in the Ottoman empire life was very bad. Ultimately most became Muslims. You can say that isn’t by the sword if you like.

    • mattykyle, do you know what Jizya means?

      It’s a protection tax required to be paid by Dhimmies (non-Muslims), out of their annual savings, if they optioned not to serve in wars to protect Muslim lands where they lived. However, it was always less than the 2.5% ‘poor tax’ of the net savings, every Muslim is mandatory for every Muslim, both men and women to pay annually while also serving in wars to defend their lands.

      The Jizya entitled the non-Muslims to benefit from government funded social benefits or Muslim charities.

      Of course, no society is perfect. Political, financial, color, and tribal racism exists in most of the world. That’s why many Jewish and Christian communities preferred to migrate and live within countries ruled by Muslims. It’s also historical fact that Muslims wouldn’t had expanded their authority so fast around the world without the help from the local oppressed non-Muslim communities, such as in Spain, Greece, Sicily, India, Syria, Egypt, Persia, Malta, etc.

      Why you think, an anti-Arab Jewish Orientalist like Dr. Bernard Lewis would call Muslim Spain as ‘Golden Age of Jewish people’, or UK’s Prince Charles admits that Europe owes its scientific advancement and civil liberties to Arabs in Spain and Sicily?

      It’s so sad to watch how the great majority of Westerners are so brainwashed by the Zionist/Jewish-controlled media and the Jewish oligarchs.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s