I am happy to share my new publication “Religious Pluralism and Civic Rights in a ‘Muslim Nation’: An Analysis of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with Christians” in Religions.
Abstract: This article examines the roles that religious pluralism and civic rights played in Prophet Muhammad’s vision of a “Muslim nation”. I demonstrate how Muhammad desired a pluralistic society in which citizenship and equal rights were granted to all people regardless of religious beliefs and practices. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of his time are used as a framework for analysis. These documents have received little attention in our time, but their messages are crucial in light of current debates about Muslim-Christian relations. The article campaigns for reviving the egalitarian spirit of the Covenants by refocusing our understanding of the ummah as a site for religious freedom and civil rights. Ultimately, I argue that the Covenants of Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of his time can be used to develop a stronger narrative of democratic partnership between Muslims and Christians in the “Islamic world” and beyond.
The article can be downloaded on the Religions website.
craigconsidinetcd.com 
Nearly 12,000 words with over 100 references. That is an awful lot of theorising resting on the foundation of the Covenants of Mohammed to various Christian groups. But are they genuine? Dr Considine, as far as I can see, relies entirely on the very tendentious scholarship of Dr John Andrew Morrow the Muslim convert who starts from the position that “If a man’s word is gold, the Prophet’s word was made of platinum and the most precious and priceless jewels.”
I am sorry to say that both of them “accentuate the positives and eliminate the negatives” to transform travellers’ tales and copies of copies into a rock solid base for proving to all those Muslims and non-Muslims who find ample justification in the Islamic scriptures for religious apartheid and supremacism that they’ve got it all wrong.
I can’t help noticing that neither of them attempt to explain what is perhaps the most glaring anomaly in their joint view. Why would Mohammed grant a covenant of protection in 623 AD to a group who would not come under Muslim control until at least 640 AD, several years after his death? Why would he release them from the obligation to pay the jizya tax which they were therefore not subject to?
How about Dr Considine’s many followers… can any one explain it?
LikeLike
1200 words of pure unadulterated bullshit from an Islamist apologist trying paint Islam as this great religion of peace and Mohammed someone more than what he was which was a murdering pedophile fake Muslim.
Notice that according to Allah Mohammed is not a prophet as he is not from the line of Issac or Jacob.
29:27 Sahih International
And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture.
LikeLike
You are cherry picking that verse and twisting its meaning. It does not negate Muhammads Prophethood. According to Islam, there are two lines of Prophethood that God promised to Abraham. The two lines of Prophets are through Abraham’s first born son Ishmael and second born son Isaac.
Coincidentally your interpretation contradicts many more verses of the Qur’an that read like this:
“Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing.” Quran 33:40
LikeLike
This is dangerous nonsense. The protection that the Koran prescribes is the same protection that Al Capone gave in Chicago. Protection is only given, if the unbeliever remains subdued, and willingly pays the Jizya protection money. That is what the book says – read verse 9:29. And I bet you will not print this. Cannot have the truth leaking out, can we?
LikeLike