The Quing and Islamic Empires

The Quing dynasty had a unique way of dealing with diversity among their people. Unlike the Safavids who forced everyone to convert to Shia Islam, the Quing didn't try to change anyone's religion. They were very tolerant of diversity, although they made it clear that some races were not equal. For example, they banned interracial marriage between Han Chinese and Mongols.

The Quing actually adopted Confucianism, the popular philosophy of China at the time of their invasion. This is similar to the blending of religions that Akbar enforced in the Mughal Empire. But instead of blending their beliefs with the Hans', they simply adopted what was already there. This may have been a strange switch for the Mongols, but it worked out well when they tried to govern the Chinese. They fought and conquered them, only to rule them with mostly the same methods that had already been in place. This helped make the Chinese feel more at ease with the Mongols, and helped the different cultures blend together more peacefully.

Qing and Islamic empires

The Qing encountered diversity just as the Islamic empires had, however, I think the Qing empire dealt with the issue of diversity better.  I don’t think it ever works to try to force someone into a different religion, or have the religions segregated.  The Safavids tried forcing everyone who lived there to become Shia Islam.  I think this is a bad way of doing things because it can turn your people against you.  It’s only a little better to do what the Mughals did, which is create an entirely new religion that both Hindus and Muslims can follow.  However, the Akbar still had to try and force people to believe in this new religion, so really it isn’t much better than what the Safavids were doing.  Lastly, the Ottoman empire was fairly tolerant of diversity, but still made all non-Muslims pay a tax and segregated the states into different religions. 

The Qing empire did none of these things.  They were very tolerant of religious diversity.  In fact, they saw the advantages of it, and made for a cheaper system by allowing people of all religions to be leaders.  The only thing they did that was not tolerating diversity was banning intermarriages.  However, I don’t think this is a really bad thing, because it is not making a statement that one religion is superior to the others, which is what all the Islamic empires did.  Lastly, the Qing did not try to spread their culture to other countries surrounding China, such as Mongolia.  They saw that doing so would affect how the Mongolians fought in wars, and that this would be a high price to pay for just having your religion spread.  I think this was a smart choice.  For these reasons, it is clear that the Qing empire is much more tolerant to diversity than the three Islamic empires.

Qing Empire vs. Muslim Empire

Even though the Qing Empire ruled a large portion of China, they strived to keep their empire ethnically unique. One way they did this is by banning intermarriages between themselves and Chinese. Qing officials did not ry to assimilate local people, but they did try to keep their religion different that the rest of China. They learnt all the Chinese customs and the language but did not allow Chinese people in the army because they were too "soft" and would ruin the fighting spirit. Even though they made it seem they would be very diverse, they really were not all that diverse.

While they did allow people of all ethnicities and religions, unlike the Safavids, or tax people for being of a different religion, like the Ottomans. So even though it might seem they were not very accepting of diversity, I feel they are more diverse than the Muslim Empires.

Qing and Ming

READ Strayer, pg. 421-424.
WRITE a blog post comparing the Qing methods of dealing with diversity with those of the Islamic Empires.
LABEL the post: First Name, Qing.

Overall, the Qing dynasty encouraged diversity far more than the Islamic empires. The Safavid empire, while very ethnically and linguistically diverse, was a Shia Islamic state, and so did not allow any religious diversity. The Mughals were not very diverse ethnically and linguistically, but were far more accepting of other religions. The creation of a fusion of Hinduism and Islam shows an acceptance for both, but could also be seen as having a feeling of needing to make the empire have one main religion, rather than multiple, which could be seen as attempting to un-diversify (that isn't a word, is it?) themselves. The Ottomans were far more lenient of different peoples than the Mughals and Safavids, although not quite as welcoming to differences as the Qing. The Ottomans allowed different religions, ethnicities and languages, although strongly encouraged conversion to Islam and heavily taxed those who did not.
The Qing were in favor of diversity, and saw the benefits that could be gained from it. When the Chinese took over large areas around Mongolia, they did not do so for want of power or to try to attempt to force others to accept their culture, but because they felt threatened, showing that their aims were not to do things to lessen diversity, like so many others have done. The Qing, having takn over large areas with many different ethnicities, religions, and languages, did not seek to convert everyone, and instead used important figures of different cultures to rule their own people, which made such a large empire far easier to control. The Chinese also tried to keep different cultures separate, such as when they did not allow native Chinese to move to a predominantly Mongol area, because they thought that by doing so they could continue getting good fighters from the Mongols. Although the Qing used diversity for their own gain, they were still far more accepting of different peoples than most of the Muslim Empires.

READ Strayer, pg. 421-424.
WRITE a blog post comparing the Qing methods of dealing with diversity with those of the Islamic Empires.

Qing Dynasty: The Qing dynasty began in 1644 and lasted until 1912. The rulers of the Qing dynasty were Manchurians. After conquering China The Qing rulers wanted to maintain their ethnic distinctiveness by forbidding intermarriage between them and Chinese. So the Qing promoted diversity with religions and language but they were strict on mixing of ethnicities because they did not want their people marrying any Chinese people. Also in the Qing dynasty the Qing officials did not try to assimilate local people into Chinese culture and showed respect for Mongolian, Tibetan, Muslim cultures. The Qings was similar to the Mughals because Emperor Akbar allowed the Empire to a hybrid of Indian-Persian-Turkic while the Qing was Mongolian-Tibetan-Muslim although the cultures are different both the Mughals and the Qing had many different cultures mixed into their Empire along with their own culture. The Qing differed from the Ottoman Empire because the Ottoman allowed a lot of Immigrants to become a part of their Empire while Qing officials/authorities strictly restricted the entry of Chinese merchants and other immigrants in an effort to preserve he area as a source of recruitment for the Chinese military.

Qing Dynasty vs. Islamic Empires

READ Strayer, pg. 421-424.
WRITE a blog post comparing the Qing methods of dealing with diversity with those of the Islamic Empires.

The Qing took diversity beyond the level that Islamic Empires did. The Qing understood the benefits of diversity much more than Islamic empires. In terms of religious diversity, most Islamic empires were really lacking. The Ottomans were the most diverse of all all the Islamic empires. They permitted the practice of outside religions, however they still favored and encouraged Muslims. The Mughals had the "hybrid" religion which showed a strong encouragement for religious unity. This proves that the Mughals were not reaching for diversity. The Safavids were even less tolerant and they forced their followers into Shia Islam. The Qing's goal was not to have one religion or culture. The Qing realized the richness of diversity and how it is advantageous to have different religions, cultures, and languages. Because of this, the Qing represented people from many different regions.

READ Strayer, pg. 421-424.
WRITE a blog post comparing the Qing methods of dealing with diversity compared with the Islamic Empires.

Qing/Manchu dynasty: The Qing rulers sought to maintain their ethnic distinctiveness by forbidding intermarriage between themselves and Cinese. The Chinese have interacted with the nomadic peoples who inhabited the dry and lightly populated regions. The dry regions that the nomadic people lived are now Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet. To ensure that these culturally different worlds well known to each other, they had trade, tribute, and other interactions. During the late seventeenth century, the creation of the Zunghars, a state among the Mongols, revived Chinese memories of a Mongol conquest that occurred earlier. The eastward movement of the Russian Empire appeared threatening, but this danger was resolved diplomatically in the Treaty of Nerchinsk. The treaty occurred in 1689 and it marked the boundary between Russia and China. The Qing dynasty aslo campaigned against the Mongols that marked the evolution of China into a Central Asian empire. The Chinese or Qing officials did not seek to assimilate local people into Chinese culture and showed respect for Mongolia, Tibetan, and Muslim cultures. People of noble level were excused from taxes and manual labor was required for ordinary people. The Qing Dynasty was very respectful of the many diversities that lived in their region. They resolved problems diplomatically and were smart to treat every ethnicity fairly without excluding them.

Islamic Empires: The Islamic Empires respected other religions and ethnicities too because there were a majority of Christians in the Islamic Empires and they were not bothered very much. The they wanted people who were living in their regions to convert to Shi'ite Islam because they wanted to spread their religion around the world. All of the empires governed largely non-Muslim populations. They interacted with Hindu civiizations too. In India, the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagara flourished in teh fifteenth century and borrowed architectual styles from the Muslims and employed Muslim mercenaries in its military forces. The Islamic empires actually dealt with the diversity in their regions well because they traded off with each other. India used many Muslim people and ideas for their own and the Muslims tried to convince the people with other religions to convert to Islam.

Diversity in the Qing Dynasty

As we know, the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires called themselves Islamic empires even though they all ecouraged diversity to some extent. Unlike these empires, the Qing Dynasty went in the other direction. Somewhat like the Ottomans, the Qing liked to keep ethic and religious boundaries seperate. To keep the people in the lands they conquered comfortable, they stopped Chinese immigration. However, unlike the Ottomans, they did not make people who practice other religions pay a seperate tax. They even made laws so that people of religious importance, like the Buddhist monks, did not have to pay any taxes. The Qing were supportive of all religions and sought to make their takeover as smooth as it could be. The only thing they insisted on keeping seperate were the actual people of different religions. For example, inter-marriage between the Qing and the Chinese was forbidden. In the end, the ways that the Qing Dynasty went about keeping diversity were much more successful then the ways of the Islamic Empires.

Qing diversity compared to Islamic Empires diversity

Like the Islamic empires, the Qing encountered diversity throughout their empire. When the Qing took over China, they did not allow the Chinese to intermarry with people of their own ethnicity. They wanted to keep their ethnicity "pure". 

In order to rule as inexpensively as possible, the Chinese allowed people of different ethnic backgrounds with a high social ranking be leaders throughout the region. Like the Savafids, they allowed people of different ethnicities to govern small regions of the empire. However, the Qing allowed for religious diversity. People like Mongol aristocrats, Muslim officials, Buddist leaders, and other high status people were allowed to govern certain regions. However, certain people took advantage the power, and demanded extra taxes or extra labor from local people, turning them against him/her. 

The Qing were tolerant of religious diversity. They allowed people to practice whatever religion they believed in. Unlike the Mughals, they did not create a religion combining popular religions of the time. Like the Ottomans, the Qing were tolerant in ethnicity and religion. One difference was that there was no extra tax for being a certain religion. In general, the Qing did not try to force Chinese culture onto the people of Tibet, Xiniang, or Mongolia. In fact, they did not allow Cinese merchants or other immigrants into Mongolia, because they wanted to keep the spirited Mongols for military recruitment. They feared that the "soft" Chinese would contaminate the fighting spirited Mongols, making for a less brutal army.

In many cases, the Qing isolated the diverse populations. First themselves, then the Mongols, to keep them separate from the rest of the Chinese. 

Qing Dynasty and Diversity

The Qing Dynasty was tolerant of other cultures. The Qing conquered vast swaths of land in the western and northern parts of the empire and made the territories of Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang part of the chinese empire. The chinese did not force the newly conquered people to abandon their own culture and showed considerable respect towards their ways of living. Noblemen and religious people were exempted from taxes and manual labor expected from normal citizens. The Qing Dynasty shrewdly put a limit on the number of merchants and immigrants entering the Mongol land because the chinese wanted to recruit the inherently feisty Mongols for their army, and feared that the chinese would dilute this fighting spirit. 

The Qing and Ottoman empires were both tolerant, the Qing being tolerant towards ethnic groups while the Ottomans were tolerant of religion, Christianity. 

The Qing differed sharply from the Safavid Empire because the Safavids forced everyone to convert to Shia Islam. While the Mughals under Akbar were pretty tolerant, Akbar still sought a way to unite everyone under the Islamic/Hindu hybrid religion he created. The Qing were content to let the Tibetans, Mongolians and Xinjiangs be. 

Diversity in the Qing Dynasty

Something that I found really interesting was the the Qing were not of Chinese descent. Although they learned Chinese language and customs in order to build their empire, they forbade intermarrying between themselves and the Chinese. From this they seemed to take much pride in their ethnicity. However, as rulers, they welcomed diversity, and they didn't force citizens to adapt to a Chinese lifestyle. In addition, they seemed to be very tolerant of other cultures within the empire. All of this might bring up the question of how the Qing were able to manage the empire with conflicting interests. The Qing arose when the Mongols were becoming stronger. People of China still remember the Mongols previous hostile takeover, so they agreed that a united China would be better than one divided. Citizens didn't see themselves as following under some sort of tyrannical empire, but rather as part of China as a whole. As we have studied in the Islamic Empires, each empire found a way of facing diversity head on. The Safavid brought everyone under a common religion, the Mughals created a fusion of religions, and the Ottoman were, in general, tolerant of different religions. In a way, the Qing dealt with the diversity in the empire not by tackling the issue diversity on its own, but by finding a stronger way of uniting everyone under a common cause in order to strengthen China.

Qing Dynasty and the Islamic Empires

Although the Qing dynasty promoted diversity in their culture and their religion they thought that diversity in their ethnic background was far enough. Ethnic diversity in their society wasn't tolerated by the Qing dynasty. They believed that the native Chinese couldn't mix with their Manchurian descent. Although the Qing dynasty set boundaries on the different diversity that came into their empire, they were much like the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire had created a millet which was a religous based community that was set across the Ottoman empire. The Qing Dynasty, much like the Ottoman empire, set communities around their empire seperating the Manchurians from the Chinese natives.

Although I am against the idea of not allowing mix breeding, I do believe that the Qing Dynasty was right not to follow the idea of taxing those that were not of their culture. The Ottoman empire thought that it was fitting to create Jizya, a tax for non-muslims in their empire. Both these ideas differ from each other but one thing is for sure, they both ended up being succesful in their reign.

Comparing Diversity in the Qing Dynasty and Islamic Empires

The Qing Dynasty was a ruling period in China that began in 1644. The Qing rulers were of Manchurian descent, so before they controlled China, so they already had already been trading and spreading there culture into China. The Qing rulers encouraged diversity of religion, and language, but were determined to keep ethnic boundaries. The native Chinese were not even allowed to marry their Manchurian leaders for fear that the two ethnicities would combine. To ensure that ethnicities would remain separate, they did not assimilate the people that they had conquered, similar to the Ottoman Empire's use of millets. The Qing rulers were similar to the Mughal's under Akabar in that they encouraged the learning of Confucianism, and the blending of Manchurian and Chinese cultures. The Qing were not similar to the Safavids because they did allow there people to practice and learn about more then one religion, they did not standardize one faith as the official faith of the empire as the Safavids did.

Qing Dynasty vs the Islamic Empires

The Qing Empire and the Islamic empires had very different ways of dealing with diversity. While the Islamic empires all demanded some sort of tax or restrictions for not being Muslim, the Qing dynasty leaves their non-Chinese inhabitants mostly untouched. The Qing dynasty did not try to eradicate diversity, but in many ways they cultivated it. They created an entirely new court that dealt with the new people of their empire. The Qing dynasty is most closely aligned with the Ottoman empire in their efforts to promote diversity, but still very different. In the Ottoman empire Muslims were quite obviously superior in day to day life, whereas the Qing Dynasty seemed to keep day to day life on more equal footing. However, the Qing dynasty did exclude all others from their royal line by not allowing marriage or procreation between the rulers and the Chinese. This seems to be balanced out by the fact that they learned the Chinese language and customs along with adopting Confucianism. This is very different from both the Safavid empire and the Mughal empire. The Qing dynasty certainly did not exclude all but one religion like the Safavids, nor did they create a mixture of the cultures like the Mughals did. They kept the cultures quite separate in different states, much like the Ottoman empire, but they did not enforce any sort of tax. This is much more like the freedom and diversity that we have here today than any of the Islamic Empires.

Diversity: Qing vs. Islamic Empires

Like the many other expansive empires such as the Ottoman Empire, the Qing dynasty encountered inevitable diversity. Qing China's domain expanded throughout Asia and, in the process, conquered a wide range of states with a variety of ethnicities, religions, and language. Due the incredibly diverse territory that China conquered, the Qing dynasty attempted to manage these various states by applying local rulers to each of them, depending on the cultural differences for each one. This way, China could claim these states and maintain control over them, yet promote diversity at the same time. This tactic of applying rulers to each state ties with the Ottoman Empire, who also assigned rulers to separate states. China also promoted cultural diversity by expressing tolerance towards Islam and Buddhism, as well as Tibetans and Mongols, who were all plentiful ethnic groups in China's territory. For instance, not only could monks practice Buddhism, but they also held a high rank in society and were exempt from taxes. This form of religious tolerance differs greatly from the Safavid Empire, who only allowed Shi'ite Muslims to reside in their empire. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire were tolerant towards and allowed all religions, but taxed people who were not Muslim. According to comparison, China and the Ottoman Empire share many qualities. However, China seemingly promises more religious and cultural freedom than any of the Islamic Empires.

Diversity in the Qing Dynasty

The Qing dynasty took an entirely different approach to diversity than any of the Islamic Empires. The Ottoman, Mughal, and Safavid Empires, no matter how lenient their laws that separated people of different religion or ethnicity from the general public, did have some rule or another that made those who were different into second class citizens. Although the Qing dynasty did seek to keep the royal line pure and have only their own in the government, they did truly seem to respect the culture and practices of the peoples whose lands they took. When they took the government, they made an effort to learn the local language and religious beliefs, and even continued to use a similar system of government. In the case of the Mongols, they tried to keep immigration from China outward to a minimum, in order to preserve the spirit and customs of the Mongols, that they mught be used as warriors. They also respected individuals that had been exalted in the local community before their arrival, exempting them from taxes and public services that were required of others. As Strayer tells us, they sought to unify. It is obvious that they begrudged their new subjects nothing in being different ethnically, culturally, or religiously. They saw only the finest in all of these peoples and looked for a way to use them to best advantage. In this way, the Qing dynasty was both open and extremely practical.

The Red Fort in Agra (revised)

James Huber points out that the Red Fort symbolizes the Mughals' economic strength. His point is logical, considering that the Mughals managed to build an expensive and luxurious palace, such as the Red Fort, and continued to prosper afterwards. However, when the Taj Mahal was built, too much money was spent and the Mughal Empire started to decline. The Red Fort is aso important because it represents three generations of rule under three different emperors, as explained in more detail in the article.

The image is a view of the Taj Mahal from the Red Fort. The two "sister" monuments both represent the Mughals' wealth, yet they symbolize different levels of success. The Red Fort is a monument of success because the Mughals continued to flourish as en empire even after spending mass amounts of money on buidling it.

RED FORT AT AGRA

The Agra fort is located in Agra, India. The fort is also referred to as Lal Qila, Fort Rogue and Red Fort of Agra. All the great Mughal emperors lived in the fort after the Mughals capture it under the ruler Babur. It was originally a brick fort not well known by people, but in 1080 AD when a Ghaznavide force captured it. The high detail of the fort shows that the Mughals felt that it would be fitting to make a fort significant and high priced to show their power. According to this link the Agra fort was a main focus of Mughals so that they could show they're power.

The layout of the fort shows that the walls are seventy feet high. The fort has a semi-circular plan, and it's chord lys parallel to the river. Two of the fort's gates consist of the "Delhi Gate" and the "Lahore Gate." The Lahore gate is the most popular which is commonly referred to as the Amar Singh Gate for Amar Singh Rathore who is a historical legendary character whose saga is well known around the Agra region of India. These intricate designs show how the Mughals thought of themselves as a society. It shows that they believe they have great power and the money to create such a detailed and beautiful fort. According to James post, the height and detail of the post signifies that the Mughals must of had a lot of money to just throw around at that time. It also shows that the amount of money they used for the Fort of Agra, and the Taj Mahal shows that they feel they have enough power to do that.

The Agra fort is a site for all as it is now a largely visited monument in India.

The Suleymaniye Mosque

The Suleymaniye Mosque is an Ottoman mosque located in Istanbul, Turkey. It is the second largest mosque in the city and was built on the order of Sultan Suleyman. It was constructed by the Ottoman architect named Mimar Sinan. It took seven years to build and the construction was from 1550 to 1557. The mosque itself is preceded by a monumental courtyard on the west side. The courtyard has columns that are made of marble, granite, and porphyry. Porphyry is a variety of rock consisting of large-grained crystals dispersed in a fine-grained mass. It has a purple-red appearance, which is valued. Purple was the color of royalty and the rock was prized for various monuments, such as the Suleymaniye Mosque columns.

The beauty of this mosque shows the wealth of these people in Istanbul and the Ottoman Empire. They must have spent a lot of their gold and cared about this temple with a great passion. They mostly made it mainly for the Muslims to gather. They also put a lot of effort in their architecture. The architects designed this temple with much care and precision. It shows how art influences their creativity. The quality of the stones and walls of the imperial temple were of the highest value in that time. Suleyman most likely had a lot of support from the people in the empire because a lot of people in the Ottoman Empire were Muslims. He would have had some problems and disagreements from the non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire. The non-Muslims who lived among the Ottoman Empire would have not have liked this temple because Suleyman the Magnificent, who is a Muslim, funded the makings of this temple with a major amount of the empire's gold. The other people living in the Empire probably would have wanted the use of the gold for their needs and purposed. Instead of using their wealth to make a large Mosque, they could have used it for trade for weapons and scientific study. If used for trade and other various things, they could have had the advantage on their enemies of war.

Red Fort of Agra

The Fort of Agra is of great architectural importance. Built in the Mughal emperor, Akbar, it started construction in 1654. Made of red sandstone, the fort was used for both military strategic uses and a royal residence. Two gates demonstrate the separation of the two. The Delhi Gate is used for the Indian army which was blocked off for general use. The Amar Singh gate was accessible for commoners and the emperors. Palaces were later added into the fort by next generations of the Mughal Empire like Jahangir and Shahjahan. Spans 2.5 km like the Taj Mahal. It was practically known as the most essential part of the Mughal Kingdom.

Architectural(Art/Social):

The look inside of the fort is of all different styles. It was made to embrace different styles and looks of countries. For example the Jahangiri Palace built inside by Akbar, is a blend of Islamic, Persian, and different local Hindu styles. This shows the intentions taken to embody the difference in diversity of the people. These mixed styles conformed to not only the Islamic style but of other backgrounds. Will Miller demonstrates how the red fort stands for the sinking of Islamic and Hindu faiths. He is trying to establish that the Mughal's were making in effort to expand their usage of diversity and incorporate the lifestyle of different people into the Fort's architecture.

Location(Economic/Wealth):

The Red Fort of Agra is located on the banks of the Yamuha River. The fort is surrounded by a 70 ft high wall which was used as protection from attack. For the reason that they had a river and a high wall, it increased the though of wealth and military uses because the army would have a way to protect themselves as well a water too us for food or trade. The river could have taken them to the see and it was a way of using trade on their own land to expand into new territory.

The Taj Mahal

Shah Jahan, the emperor of Mughal, built the Taj Mahal: a project started in 1631 and finished in 1653. It was built in memory of Mumtaz Mahal, his wife with whom he had 14 children, who died in 1631. The project took 22,000 laborers, so obviously it was a giant project. Top sculptors and craftsmen were called from around the world to complete the construction of the Taj Mahal, and to contribute to its incredible design and structure.

Today, the Taj Mahal is very significant because it is a big source of income for India. It is one of the world's most famous and attractive buildings of all time and because of this it is a HUGE a tourist attraction. Many people come to India solely to go to the Taj Mahal based on its beauty and history.

Red Fort at Agra

9/21/09

The Red Fort at Agra was a huge fort in Agra, India that Emperor Akbar of the Mughal Empire built. Akbar started construction in 1565 and chose Akbar, which bordered the River Yamuna, as the Mughal Empire's capital. The Red Fort is basically its own city, it is made up of enormous red sandstones and monuments and has huge walls surrounding it. The fort is one of the largest Mughal fortified residences, and is 2.5 km northwest of the Taj Mahal. The Red Fort India's most important fort because the Mughal Emperors governed from the Red Fort, and emperors like Babur, Akbar and Aurengzeb inhabited the Red Fort. 

Economic:

Like Dr. Freddo Avis said in his blog post, Akbar's renovated Red Fort was a symbol of the  economic power and prosperity that the Mughal Empire enjoyed. Akbar presided over the Mughal Empire in its heyday. But the economic success the Mughals must have been enjoying was probably dampened a bit by the construction of this fort. A fort this big and of this importance, it being similar to the Taj Mahal, must have taken a lot out of the empire's pocket. Nevertheless, the construction of this building signified that the Mughals had a lot of cash to throw around at the time. 

Political:

The Red Fort played a huge role in politics in the Mughal Empire because it was where the emperor lived and the political decisions went down. This was the center of manufactured Mughal money and the overseeing of money because the biggest treasury and mint were in the Red Fort. The Red Fort also housed the most important foreign dignitaries and the people who helped mold the history of India. 

Debate:

I definitely agree that the Red Fort was an important figure in the Mughal Empire, but over the years the Taj Mahal has emerged as more of an Indian symbol. The Taj Mahal has become more of a national symbol, however it is more of a tourist symbol and a monument that marked the start of the downfall of the Mughal Empire. The Red Fort has receded as the Mughal Empire fell and is not nearly as well known as its more recent sister monument, the Taj Mahal. 

Citations:

http://www.agraindia.org.uk/agra-fort/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agra_Fort

Topkapi Palace

The Topkapi Palace was built in 1459, ordered by Sultan Mehmed II. The palace is a complex made up of four main courtyards and many smaller buildings. At one of the high points during its existence the palace was home to as many as 4,000 people. The complex has survived some natural disasters 1509 earthquake and 1665 fire. Inside of it, it held mosques, a hospital, bakeries, and a mint. Topkapi Palace lost its importance at the end of the 17teenth century,because the Sultans preferred to spend more time in their new palaces along the Bosporus. Then In 1853 Sultan Abdül Mecid I was the one who decided to move the court to The Dolmabahçe Palace a European style Palace in that particular city, the imperial treasury, the library, mosque and mint were preserved though. When the Ottoman Empire ended the Tokapi Palace was made by the government to become a museum. It is run by The Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Inside it, it has hundreds of rooms that are accessible to the Tourist who come there. It has lots of Ottoman architecture and big collections of porcelain, robes, weapons, shields, armor, Islamic Calligraphic manuscripts and murals.

The Topkapi Palace

The Topkapi Palace was the home of all of the sultans of the Ottoman empire for over 400 years. Initially named the New Palace, it was build in place of the Old Palace because it was located in a more strategic area. When constructed, it had Koranic inscriptions and Koranic tiling, reflecting the Ottoman empire's culture at the time. Over the years as it grew older and was affected by natural disasters, the sultans made improvements. Each improvement signified the changing times, and more often, elements from other cultures began to find their way into the architecture of the royal palace. In addition to the fusion of cultures represented by the architecture, the Topkapi Palace reveals a lot about the way the Ottoman governed. In the palace, government officials would lay out the law for everyday life. But the city of the palace way completely sealed off to outsiders of lower class. Essentially, the Ottoman made their decisions completely secluded without commoner's influence on the law. This suggests that the high class of the Ottoman, the ones with power, was very specifically defined and operated differently than the normals lives of citizens. Also, during Suleyman's rule, the structure was improved much more than any other time in its history. I think this massive renovation reflects the Ottoman's growing power under a strong ruler like Suleyman. If they have power over other nations, why not show it in the empire's central building? When the main palace and the court was moved in 1853, Topkapi Palace was still kept so as to showcase one of the still important structures in the history of the empire. In this way, the Ottoman sought to preserve their own culture by keeping this building alive.

I agree with Nicole that the beautifully adorned palace was a symbol of power to other nations. She said that visiting ambassadors would be able to tell how wealthy the Ottoman were and what kind of place they had in relationship to other empires. Eugene also agrees that the diversity within the structure itself says a lot about the cultural diversity in the empire.

Sources: Topkapi Palace Museum, Wikipedia

The Topkapi Palace

The Topkapi Palace was built in the 1470’s by the young Sultan Mehmed II. As the largest and oldest palace to be still standing, it had survived several earthquakes and fires throughout its long history in the Ottoman Empire, undergoing changes and additions made by every sultan who had lived through. The palace was mainly used for residence for royals, state occasions and entertainments, but gradually was forgotten after the 17^th century, as the Sultans preferred the new palaces. In 1924, after the end of the Ottoman Empire, the palace became a museum of the imperial era. 

The Topkapi Palace displays many diverse tiles, woodworks and architectural styles, 

which clearly depicts how Turkish art had harmoniously developed the different styles through the centuries it lived. From its hundreds of rooms and chambers and the numerous treasures it displays, the palace holds the ghost of the pride that the Ottoman had used to wear.

The Suleymaniye Mosque

The Suleymaniye Mosque is located near the center of Istanbul, so it was a central location for most people. On the day of worship, many Muslims would congregate here to practice their religion, and mingle with other Muslims. Catherine mentioned that the Muslims "would probably give Suleyman more political support because his support of Islam showed them he agreed with their personal views, but the non-Muslim community would probably feel less welcome because of the expense being made for Muslim monuments."  I disagree with this statement. The non-Muslims would be happy to be allowed to keep their beliefs. They would know that he could build a mosque, because that was his religion. They would let him practice his religion, since he lets them practice theirs. I do agree that the Muslims would be thrilled to have a huge mosque being built to practice their religion. The building itself was rich with culture. The architect in charge was Mimar Sinan. He imported many different materials from other places, like Egypt and Greece. One reason they used imported materials was to show off Suleyman's power and wealth. It cost a large some of money to import heavy materials like granite all the way from Greece. The mosque is very large, also demonstrating power and wealth. In construction, Mimar Sinan made sure that everything was the exact size he had designed it, so that the final product would be how he designed it. He was very clear on the units of measurement, so that the construction could be as exact as possible.

I did most of my research here.

The Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal was built over a span of more than 20 years and costs huge amounts of money and laborers. It is most widely believed to have been built for his dead wife as her tomb, but some historians argue that it was also built as a sort of monument to the emperor’s own wealth. The Taj Mahal shows us just how much death mattered in the Mughal Culture. At that point, Aurangzeb had not yet changed Akbar’s mix of religion into Islam, so the both Islamic and Hindu beliefs were influential at this time. You can tell that the Muslim beliefs about death were dominant because in Islam the bodies are buried whereas in Hinduism, the bodies are cremated. They buried his wife and built an enormous tomb for her, so obviously they believed in burial, not cremation. This may have been foreshadowing to the Islamic conversion of the empire before Aurangzeb.

As many others have said, the Taj Mahal used an enormous amount of money. This obviously takes a toll on the economic aspect of the SPECS. However, I think that there are also several other aspects as well. As Roshan said, there is the social aspect of the Taj Mahal, as well as a cultural and scientific one. The Taj Mahal was designed by people who were somewhat culturally diverse, so the Taj Mahal ended up being influenced by other cultures. Scientifically, any architecture of that size is in some ways a scientific achievement. 

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal

The Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal is an amazing achievement accomplished by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in honor of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. Along with attracting tourists from all over the world, the Taj Mahal also demonstrates all the SPECS categories. Social and political fall into the same category in that it was Shah Jahan's political power that gave him the authority to start this huge project. He of course could not do it by himself, and so he hired 20,000 artisans from all over the world to help him build it, giving jobs to that many people. The number of people with new jobs, plus the amount of money it cost to pay for the materials, (32,000,000 Rupees, which is about $1,000,000) certainly affected the economic status of the Mughal Empire. Culture is also evident in the Taj Mahal, because it incorporates both Muslim and Hindu culture. For example, the finial (the point located at the top of the dome) is topped with a crescent moon on it's side, with the points facing towards heaven. The idea of facing heaven is a Muslim idea, however, the finial also displays a Hindu idea: the sideways moon crossed with another point in the center, creating a three-point trident type figure. This represents the Hindu symbol of Shiva. Lastly, the science and technology used in building the Taj Mahal was incredibly advanced. The workers invented an elaborate pulley system to lift the marble blocks, and used animals to their advantage as well (over 1000 elephants were used to transport materials) The Taj Mahal is completely symmetrical, and it is almost hard to imagine the precision required to achieve such an accomplishment.

As Emily and Kevin said, the Taj Mahal attracts tourists from all over the world, who come to India just to see the Taj Mahal. It is one of the most famous pieces of architecture, and is a wonder of the world. I agree that the number of tourists coming to see it each year would probably make up for all the funds spent on building it. It has become a huge symbol and icon for India.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal

http://www.islamicity.com/culture/Taj/default.htm

Suleymaniye Mosque

The Suleymaniye Mosque was built under Suleiman the Magnificent, ruler of the Ottoman Empire. The mosque, a gigantic building, was built as a display of Suleyman's power. It was built from 1550-1557, which is actually a relatively short building time for that time period. When it was built, its dome was higher than that of any other mosque in the Ottoman Empire.
The Suleymaniye Mosque affected Ottoman civilization in many ways, having influence on every aspect of SPECS from social to scientific. It is social because in a way mosques are a place for social gatherings, and the religious interactions between people can be considered social. Also, the building of a mosque could have affected the relationships between Suleiman and his subjects, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
This is also political, because the Muslim community would probably give Suleiman more political support because his support of Islam showed them he agreed with their personal views, but the non-Muslim community would probably feel less welcome because of the expense being made for Muslim monuments.
The amount of money that must have been spent would factor into this as the economic aspect. Going deeper, this could affect economics more because of all the other things the money could have been spent on, especially since it must have been a fairly large sum for such an extravagant building. You can see from the pictures below how complex the building itself and the decorations inside are, and from that have a grasp of how much it must have cost.
It is fairly obvious how this relates to culture. The building itself, being a religious building, is cultural architecture, and because of its nature could be considered cultural art.
And last but not least, the scientific aspect. Although at first it may seem that no science would go into the simple construction of a building, the ability to make sturdy buildings that last hundreds of years really is a science. As you can see in the pictures below, especially the topmost one, the mosque had a very large dome, which takes a lot of technology and engineering to build properly and safely. And while the technique of building domes may have already been around for a very long time, the actual construction still required much careful planning. The Suleymaniye Mosque is a great example of a place where all of the aspects of SPECS come together.



I used Wikipedia as a source for background information.

Taj Mahal's Effects

The Taj Mahal was completed around 1658 and was built, as others have said, by the Mughal Emperor Shah Janan in memory of his wife. The beautiful and ornate monument was only recently opened to the public, but has since then become a huge source of tourism and revenue for India. It has become a national symbol and icon for the country and attracts between 2 and 4 million visitors every year. The Taj Mahal has even been listed as one of the seven wonders of the world, hugely increasing the appeal of India to tourists in general. The building also functions as a mosque, adding to the cultural and social aspects of the building. 

As Rina says in her post, the Taj Mahal demonstrates the dominance of Islam in the Mughal Empire. Not only did the emperor bury his wife there as was the Islam way, (Hindus believed in cremation) but the building was used part-time as a mosque, as stated above. This may have foreshadowed the Islamic rule that would soon sweep the empire. 

The Red Fort at Agra

The Red Fort at Agra was a two kilometer long, walled fort that was repaired and reconstructed under two generations of Mughal rulers. Akbar commissioned the reconstruction of the Red Fort and designed it's overall theme to be a blend between Hindu and Islamic faiths to express the Mughal's welcoming of religious diffusion between the two religions. I agree with Erika's theory that the Red Fort's archeticture is a blend of Hindu, and Islamic cultures, and that the Red Fort as a whole is a trbute to the Mughal's effort to bring diversity of culture into the public. To see Erika's writing, click here. Akbar moved to the Red Fort at Agra and made the vast walled city the capital of the Mughal Empire under his reign. When Akbar's reign ended another Mughal Emperor named Shah Jahan finished the building of the fort. The next emperor to make a major change to the fort was Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb used the fort to imprison his predecessor, Shah Jahan. Overall, the Red Fort at Agra's architecture, art, and overall theme clearly symbolized the syncing of Hindu and Islamic faiths under Akbar.

Sources:
http://www.tajmahalagra.com/agra-fort-agra.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agra_Fort

http://www.archive.org/stream/shorthistoryofmu035015mbp/shorthistoryofmu035015mbp_djvu.txt

Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world, is great example of Mughal art and architecture. It was built by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan for his wife Mumtaz Mahal. The building honors his favorite wife, who was dead. Rina wrote about how that some people believe that he built it just to showcase his wealth. I think this is a very valid argument because Shah Jahan made it so lavish and spent a significant amount of the empire's money. Built entirely out of white marble in 1648, it cost about 32 million rupees to build over a period of twenty two years. Its name, Taj Mahal, fittingly means Crown Palace. Under Shah Jahan, Mughal art and architecture were at their peak. This was not the first mausoleum that Shah Jahan built. He also built a tomb for his father Jahangir (the emperor who opened relations with the British leading to the downfall of the empire). Actually, Shah Jahan's own tomb was placed right next to his wife's in the Taj Mahal after his death. Rina also talked about how it shows the mixture of the beliefs of death in Hinduism and Islam. Both religions view death as very important, and clearly, Shah Jahan did too, as you can see in his interest in building tombs of people in his family. 

The lavishness of it showed the value of art in the Mughal Empire. Also its design is very similar to that of other Muslim buildings, such as mosques. It has a domed top which is a key feature of mosques. It involves the social, economical, and cultural aspects of SPECS. The social part is that many people came to see it from all over the empire because it was so beautiful. The economic part is that it cost 32 million rupees, which is obviously a lot of money, and significantly affected the economic condition of the Mughal Empire. But, the biggest aspect of it is the cultural one. It is a great example of Mughal art, as there are numerous examples of paintings and other art.

The Taj Mahal is still visited my thousands of people every single day.

The Red Fort in Agra

The Red Fort, located in the Mughal Empire (present-day India), is a walled palace made of red sandstone in which Akbar and other Mughal emperors resided. Akbar had it rebuilt and remodeled during his reign to symbolize his power and provide a secure residence for himself. however, the Red Fort's construction took place over the duration of three generations of Mughal power: Akbar, Jehangir, and Shah Jehan. It contained a variety of influences at architectural inspirations due its occupation by several powers. It is only miles away from its "sister" monument: the Taj Mahal. The Taj mahal was built after the Red Fort, making the Red Fort an older and arguably more important feature in Mughal history. Since the Mughals conquered this fort early on in their reign, this fort was the first major monument of Mughal power and presence. The Red Fort was the first of its kind in the Mughal Empire in a sense, and it gave the Mughal population something to look up to as a symbol of power and order.

Topkapi Palace

The Ottoman Sultan Mehmet, also known as the conqueror, built the Topkapi Palace, situated in Istanbul. This construction took place in 1478, and since then several small repairs have been undertaken to preserve its formidable appearance. For the most part it was the home to the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, though foreigners and other such people were sometimes allowed to enter for representative purpose (namely to show off their wealth to visiting ambassadors). It was only opened to the public in 1924, although some thought had been put to it some time earlier.
Main sections to the Palace include the sultanate gate, four courtyards, and the harem (the private apartments to the royal family). The elaborate detail that is the greatest beauty of this Palace displays the appreciable arts culture and wealth that had been accumulated by the Ottomans. An example is to the left. The artistic ability and sheer number of artisans necessary to do such work is staggering. That is all without mentioning that each of these artists needed pay and materials as well. If an ambassador from another empire needed any proof of affluence they would have beheld it in this palace. This would immediately win political respect and interest. Perhaps the visitor might see this as incentive for an attack, but most likely it would be evidence of dominance in wealth, culture, and numbers. In terms of social presence, any Palace has its own hierarchy and interaction between inmates more than provides for this element of SPECS. Visitors could also exchange ideas or knowledge here if it became a center to the community. In any case, such a palace would always be of great importance as the focus of power in the Ottoman Empire, if only because it was home to the sultan.

Here is a map of the palace, which indicates important landmarks surrounding it.

The Red Fort at Agra

The Agra Red Fort was built in 1565 AD by the Mughal leader Akbar. When it was first built, it was meant to be a military structure, but many of his successors added onto it. An article that I read about monuments in India said that the the buildings and structures that were added have been noted as some of the most beautiful architecture in the Mughal time. The fact that this architecture has been said to be so amazing and beautiful tells us a lot about the Muhgal empire. First, it shows that the Mughals had plenty of money to spare within the government if they were willing to build not only this fort but also its sister monument, the Taj Mahal. I think that this shows that the emperors were more interested in developing their culture and the look if their empire rather then protecting or expanding their empire. Second, the brilliant architecture shows the creativity and great culture within the empire. The buildings themselves are amazingly detailed and clearly show that countless amounts of hours were spent them.

Diversity

In which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

All three empires encountered diversity in very different ways. Their viewpoints of religion and society as a whole varied depending on the leader at the time. The Mughals were the best of the three empires in changing up the ways of society. They found it in their best interest to create a new religion all made up of Muslims and Hindus. It was quite considerate of them to make this happen because their empire was in India, but the Mughals were Muslim. By working together they made it so that both sides were satisfied because there wasn't one superior religion, but a equally put together community. This is so significant because it was a way of letting the people keep their traditions and beliefs with out depriving them of their rights and keeping the empire united as a whole.

The Ottoman Empire was sort of following the Mughals, yet they did not create a religion to satisfy their followers. They were quite tolerant of the diversity with in the empire, but what was quite shocking about this was that they used Jizya, a tax for non-muslims, to set their mark. Kidnapping children and stuff along the lines of that to show their dominance expressed a lack of protection for their people. Being a very large empire I understand how they needed to set down laws and with their interest in expansion, they needed to keep all under control, but yet I see that this so call "tolerance" was quite intolerable. Although the ottomans did have a vast land to rule and protect i do not see that they were fully tolerant of diversity for the manner they handled their actions of expansion and superiority.

The Safavid Empire was the most different of all. I do not find that they were very into diversity because they tried converting all their people to Shi'a Islam. It is like they did not care for the religion everyone else followed and for all they cared, the people could just throw their beliefs out the door. They did wrong in using force to rule their empire because most of the people were muslim so it was like ripping out ones whole religious beliefs and trying to program them into another religion. The only good that came in their converting everyone to Shi'a Islam was that they tried to have people of all backgrounds and religions. This could be good but in a way it was non profitable or rewarding because when one wanted to practice rituals and recite things, they could face serious consequences if caught. This showed great intolerance for people who were non-muslim and really demonstrated the lack of equality, tolerance, or respect they had for the people.

Diversity

All three Islamic empires had a different viewpoint on diversity. None of the empires completely converted themselves to a different religion, however the Mughal empire came close in that they created a new religion, which was a mix of Islam and Hinduism. I think this is very effective because it allows people to keep their own beliefs and traditions while still keeping the empire united.

The Ottoman empire was also tolerant of religious diversity, but they still taxed the non-Muslim community and forced people to live in separate states. This was obviously effective, because the Ottomans were one of the larger and more powerful empires, however, in my opinion they weren't as tolerant as the Mughals.

The Savafid were the complete opposite, because they didn't tolerate any other religions and forced everyone to convert to Islam. However, the Savafid practiced a different type of diversity: linguistic and ethnic. They developed a meritocracy where the rulers and people in high positions hadn't just inherited it, were based on whether or not the person was smart enough to lead. The Savafid obviously believed that there was a huge difference between ethnic diversity and religious diversity. It seems to make sense that an empire is more tolerant of ethnic diversity than religious diversity, because a religion is something you believe in and live by, like your morals.

Diversity in the Empires

Think about the empires we've encountered so far and the different ways that they deal with diversity. WRITE a blog post in which you consider the following: in which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

Diversity is way to unify an Empire because it will lead to future success.

Ottoman Empire: In the Ottoman empire by the sixteenth century in Balka, 19% were Muslim and 81% were Christians. In the Ottoman Empire the primary religion was Islam but they tolerated Christians and the Christian population soon grew so that in Balka they made up more then 80% of the population. One of the rules the Islamic made "Devshirme" which was that the Balkan Christian communities were required to to hand over a quota of young boys, who were removed form their families, required to learn Turkish, and converted to Islam, and trained for military services. So that shows that the Ottoman had a very diverse community which consisted of Islamic perople and Chirstian people,they did not really try to eradicate diversity because they only took a handfull of teens/children to convert.

Mughal Empire : In the Mughal about 20% were Muslims and the rest was made up of people practicing Hinduism. So their was a good portion of diversity in the Mughal Empire because they had mostly Hinduists in all of the Mughal Empire and the rest was Islam even though Islam was the main religion. Emperor Akbar imposed a policy of toleration, deliberatly restraining the more militantly Islamic ulama, and he got rid of the special tax on non-muslims. Also the Mughal allowed Persians int their empire. Then Aurangzeb went and reversed Akbar's policy accomadation towards non-muslims, Also he went and forbade most of Hindu practices so the Hinu's eventually revolted which led to much uneeded violence. So Aurangzeb tried to eradicate diversity in the Mughal Empire by trying to elinate the Hindu people living there, so it would only be an Islamic Empire

Sufavid Empire: In the Sufavid they tried to eradicate all diversity by trying to force everyone to convet to Shi'a Islam. The founder was Shah Ismail who they thought was a direst succesor to Muhammad. In return, the shahs declared Shia Islam to be the State's religion. They were very intolerate towards non-muslims because people were some times killed because they practiced religions besides Islam.

DIVERSITY

In our previous encounters with diversity in different empires, it has had different influences on their success as an empire. The Ottoman empire wasn't as diverse as the other empire. Them not being diverse resulted in them being a wildly expanded group spreading through the Black sea and the Caspian sea. Their influence on expanding their religion and not being as diverse as other groups helped them expand. The Mughal empire resulted in being more diverse because Akbar was a more tolerant ruler. This way of ruling resulted in a least expansion of their land although under Akbar's reign they didn't have problems. In conclusion, the Ottoman empire weren't as divorced as other groups which resultied in a wider expansion. The Mughal empire were a tolerant group which lead to a empire that didn't have as many problems.

Diversity in Muslim Empires

Diversity is an important part of all empires because I believe diversity is one thing that helps an empire become successfull. Modern Day empires like McDonalds are all throughout the world.

Similarly, each of the Muslim empires allowed Diversity, but in their own way.

Ottoman: The Ottoman empire allowed people to not be Muslim, but taxing those who were not Muslim and refused to convert. I believe this is a firm but fair policy because it was a Muslim Empire, basically saying, "We'll allow you to be whatever you want but we'd prefer that you are Muslim because we are after all a Muslim empire."

Safavid: I think that the Safavids did the worst job of all the Muslim empires because they forced everyone to convert to Shi'a Islam. A lot of people weren't even Muslim and even if they were, they'd probably be Sunni because it is the dominant group. I think forcing everyone to be the same religion leads to the most rebellion therefore leading to a faster downfall of the empire. Even though they allowed all ethnicities, religion and ethnicity are very connected because most people with the same ethnicity tend to be the same religion, which many people do not want to give up. However, if they banned a certain ethnicity rather than religion, it would have been a lot worse because religion is something that can be changed but your ethnicity is always the same. More people would rebel and the Safavid Empire would be a lot more short lived than it already was.

Mughal: The Mughal empire, in my opinion, did the best job in unifying a diverse group of people. As you know today, Hindus and Muslims in SE Asia, tend to not get along. The Mughals created a blend of Hinduism and Islam bringing out the best in both worlds. Most people in India were Hindu, but the Mughals were Muslim, so they found a way to unify everyone well. This leads to the best chance of avoiding a rebellion.

Diversity in Islam

in which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

Ottoman Empire: In a part of the Ottoman Empire, also known as Balka, there were 19 percent were following the Islamic religion and 81 percent were Christians. The diversity of religion was a way to unify Empires in the 16th century. They tolerated Christianity even though they were an Islamic empire, so that is why there were so many Christians living in an Islamic community. I think that there was a large amount of diversity in the Islamic empire of Ottoman because since there were a majority of Christians in the Balka, there must have been many whites. Since the Christians came from the Roman Catholic Churches, they were mostly European and not Muslim.

Mughal Empire: In the Mughal Empire there was a large amount of religious diversity. 20 percent of the population were Muslims and the rest mostly practiced some other form of Hinduism. Emperor Akbar, who ruled from 1556-1605, imposed a policy of toleration, deliberately restaining the more Islamic and religious scholars. Also, he removed the special tax on non-Muslims also known as jizya. Akbar and his successors downplayed an Islamic identity for the Mughal Empire in favor of the Indian-Persian-Turkic culture. The Mughal, like the Ottoman had a very diverse empire with various cultures and religions.

Safavid Empire: For the Safavid Empire, like the previous Empires, they were Muslim and had a political and religious ruler. They also mixed ethnicities in their society. Even though they mixed religions, they still tried to convert everyone to the Shiite faith to unify people in their empire. They were intolerate towards non-muslims. For exammple, many were killed for practicing separate religions beside Islam.

Diversity

Despite it’s tolerance for diversity, the Ottoman Empire still taxes people for not being Muslim. This is some form of religious freedom, but obviously not complete religious freedom. It allows for all types of people, but it sets a clear bias for the Muslim community. It seems like a good political move because they want to accept people into their society so they can easily expand and gain loyalties, but at the same time they set up a clear power structure so Muslims are inherently more powerful than any other religion. The Mughal Empire was religiously diverse in a different way. They made their own religion so that everyone who was either Muslim or Hindu could easily follow it and made their political leader also the religious leader. This secured the loyalties of it’s people in both religions, without asking them to make a huge change in their religion. On the other hand, the Safavid Empire forced its inhabitants to convert to Islam. This tactic has it’s pros and cons. It allows all its people to feel more united because they have something in common and gives them the same moral codes, but it also can create the feeling of unrest if people don’t want to convert to Islam but are forced to. Diversity in general has many drawbacks along with benefits. With diversity inevitably comes some sort of conflict because of a difference in morals or traditions. However, diversity creates a more cultured environment and generally a more welcoming society. With that feeling of welcoming comes more people and that society can become more prosperous more easily.

WRITE a blog post in which you consider the following: in which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

With the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Empires, we see all sides of the spectrum with tolerance of diversity. All three used their tactics of various levels of tolerance of diversity to try to positively effect their empire. The Ottoman empire was very tolerant with other cultures. Though the empire was mostly Muslim, they allowed, and even encouraged, other religions such as Jews and Christians. The reason this was effective is because it brought in new ideas and cultures into the empire, along with increasing the numbers of the population in general. The Mughal Empire tried to go right in the middle by creating a religion that used beliefs from many religions. This was effective because it gave people enough of their own beliefs, but at the same time brought a commonness to bring multiple people together. When people work together, it makes a much more well working empire. The Safavid Empire was much less tolerant with religion. People who joined the Safavid Empire were forced into becoming Muslims. Though at times diversity can lead to disagreement and conflict, I do not think the Safavid Empire made the right decision, because in this case they are keeping themselves from the richness of other cultures that would positively influence the empire.

In general, it is easier to be tolerant of Ethnicity than Religion from the surface. I think that cultural and religious diversity is more beneficial to an area because it brings new, foreign ideas, beliefs, and practices that end up bringing people together to find the best of all topics. However, it is also more difficult to be religiously tolerant because it seems that difference in religion would lead to argument, as it definitely could possibly. Ethnic diversity is different and easier to tolerate because difference in ethnicity usually does not alter world view as much as difference in religion.

Diversity in the Islamic Empires

In the empires that we have studied, the main diversity that rulers have had to consider was religious diversity. The Ottoman empire didn't mind that its mainly Christian population didn't convert to Islam, as long as they paid a tax. Many Christians even went on to take high positions in government. However, the Ottoman heavily taxed Balkan Christians in another way, in that many Christian boys were taken away from their communities to be trained for civil administration or military duties. The Ottoman were tolerant of living alongside other religions, and they didn't try to eliminate any religious practices that weren't their own. The Safavid forced the entire empire to conform to Shi'i Islam, making it the official religion of the state. Rather than create disputes among the people, the religion gained popularity so that it became part of their identity. Since everyone practiced the same religion, there was a communal sense of togetherness. Here, it shows that forcibly imposing a religion upon the may have a positive influence on the people of the nation. The Mughal empire, under the leadership of Akbar, took an entirely different approach. Because there were many different religions, Akbar united them all by creating a brand new one. It combined elements of Islam, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, so each individual religion felt comfortable in following the religion of the empire. Also, the religion emphasized loyalty to the emperor, incorporating a sense of patriotism into the religion. The Mughals made compromises in order to make the people of the empire feel like they could still retain their own practices and culture.

I believe that there is a slight difference between ethnic and religious tolerance. Religion is something that was ingrained in most people from birth, and they live their lives according to the way their religion outlines. By forcing people to compromise their religion, you force them to abandon their moral code and their belief system. I'm not saying that people care less about their ethnicity or that they wouldn't be angry about being poorly treated because of their ethnic background, but this is something that can be accepted. Forceful religious intolerance can destroy a person's way of understanding life. Because of this, I think that empires have taken more consideration into religion and how they can govern and still let people feel accepted.

Diversity

Think about the empires we've encountered so far and the different ways that they deal with diversity. WRITE a blog post in which you consider the following: in which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

Ottoman: The Ottoman Empire, because of its vast area, had lots of ethnic and religious diversity. They were mostly tolerant, allowing people to continue practicing their own religion, and not persecuting any ethnic groups. When Spain was against Judaism, the Ottoman empire opened its arms to the Jews, offering them refuge. However, the Ottomans did require a sort of "human tax," meaning that every non-Muslim had to give up one son, who would be converted to Islam, and possibly put in the army. But overall, the Ottomans were fairly tolerant of other religions. Possibly because they were not forced to do so, many took a liking to Islam and converted of their own free will.

Safavid: The Safavids were Shi'a Muslims, unlike their neighbors on either side, so they themselves possibly endured a lot of religious intolerance because they were not taking the "right" path of Islam. However, within their own boundaries they were not particularly religiously tolerant, because, being a religious state, they enforced Sharia law. But although the Safavids may have not been religiously tolerant, and by extension, divers, they were very diverse linguistically and ethnically. This diversity was accepted, and resulted in the Qu'ran being translated into multiple languages.

Mughal: Arguably the Mughals were fairly religiously tolerant for a time, because one of their leaders, Akbar, created a fusion of multiple religions to that anyone could tailor it to their own needs, and therefore practice their own religion with relative freedom. While this was not true religious freedom, like we mostly have in the U.S. today (some rituals involving killing or harming of the self and others are outlawed), the religions of the area were covered in the hybrid, so there was a relative freedom.

Religious tolerance is in many ways more difficult and rare than ethnic tolerance, because it involves the acceptance of the opinions of others, which humans are very hesitant to do. While ethnic tolerance merely requires the acceptance that another has ancestry from a different region, religious tolerance is far more personal. While ethnic tolerance is based more on the situation you come from, which is something you cannot control, religious tolerance is based off of beliefs. To be truly tolerant of another's religion means to be accepting of another's beliefs about the world, possibly including opinions about the presence of (an) omnipresent being(s), personal duties, what is wrong and the consequences, and even the true nature of the world, no matter how radical these ideas may seem to you compared to your own. It is because of this difficulty that so few are completely tolerant of each other's religions, and that conflict over them has been breaking out for centuries.

Different Types of Diversity in the Songhay, Safavid, and Mughal Empires

Each of the three Muslim empires had a different brand of diversity. The Songhay empire tolerated the presence of foreign merchants attempting to trade by crossing through the sahara. The Songhay did not have much tolerance for diversity of faith or of socio-economic status; for example, when Islam was being introduced to the Songhay, it was only faith of the socially elite and wealthy. The Safavid empire allowed diversity of cultures among it public but did not allow diversity of religion. The Safavid's did were so intolerant of other forms of Islam that it led to fights between the neighboring sunnis if the Ottoman empire and their shia selves. The Mughal empire tolerated other religions for a long period of time under their leader Akbar, but under there leader Arangzeb they did not tolerate other religions other than Islam. The difference between religious and ethnic tolerance is simple: ethnic tolerance is being welcoming of all backgrounds, races and cultures. Religious tolerance is being welcoming to everyone who beleives the same things that your faith beleives. Ethnic and Religious tolerance are connected because the ethnicity of a person and their faith are often related to each other.

Religious Diversity

In which ways do the three primary Islamic empires tolerate diversity and in which ways do they seek to eradicate or stifle diversity? And is there a qualitative difference between religious and ethnic tolerance?

Mughal Empire: The Mughal Empire focused mostly on accomidating the religious diversity amoung it's people. Though only the leaders and a small amount of people were Muslim, they did not force the rest of the people in the empire to convert, instead letting them stay Hindu as the were to begin with. To accomidate more, the Emporer Akbar created a new religion that seemed to be a hybrid of Islam and Hinduism to try to make everyone comfortable, though this new religion was really more focused on worship of himself and creating loyalty. By doing this, Akbar tried to eliminate as much diversity as possible while still tolerating it. Though he probably would have liked it more if everyone had converte to his new religion in which he was worshiped, the fact that there were people of different religions in the empire did not become a problem until the reign of the leader Auranzeb. Auranzeb was incredibly Muslim, and fought to create Islamic superiority in the empire. This is part of what caused the eventual fall of the empire.

Ottoman Empire: Though this empire was spread out through both Muslim and Christian communities, it was mostly Muslim because many people were converted to Islam after the initial take over. The Ottoman Empire, in its time, was known for being religiously tolerant. Wherever there was religious persecution, those who were being persecuted were welcome in the empire. However, people who were not Muslim did have to pay a tax to the government because of their different. This was worth it thought because they were able to live in freedom. Different ethnic groups were also supported by the elite. People of any background were welcome to different jobs in the Empire.

Safavid Empire: The Safavid Empire went the opposite way on the tolerance scale then the other Muslim empires. Instead of enforcing religious tolerance, everyone in the empire was forced to convert to Shi'a Islam as it was the state religion. Since people were not free to have their own religion, they were free to speak their own language. Ethnic and linguistic diversity was favored in the Safavid Empire.

It seems that in the time of the Muslim Empires, religious tolerance was more enforced then ethnic tolerance. However, I think that the two come hand and hand because when you have people of different religions there are generally going to be different languages and ethnicities. Leaders of these old empires seemed to think that you could get rid of only religion or ethnicity, when really they both come hand and hand.

Handling Diversity

The different empires we have studied so far have handled ethnic and religious diversity in a variety of different ways. Some, like the Safavids, have tried to destroy any differences in people that may weaken the empire. They did this by forcing everyone to conform to a single religion, Shia Islam. In contrast, the Ottoman empire was incredibly tolerant towards other cultures and religions. They were known for allowing Christians, Jews, and Muslims to practice their religions free from severe persecution. The Mughal empire took a sort of middle path. They were tolerant of different religions, but instead of allowing the people to be divided by their beliefs, created a new religion that drew from multiple sources. This religion pleased the masses while promoting devout loyalty to the emperor himself, a genious endeavor by the Mughal leaders.

Most of these empires seemed more willing to accept racial diversity than religious diversity. This is probably because while expanding their empires they couldn't help but absorb different cultures and ethnicities, and had to accept it. However, people of a certain empire can be divided or conflicted because of a variety of religions being present. All the people might not be united with the same morals and values, there may be more uprisings or disagreements with the government. Because of this, many empires do not support religious diversity.

Diversity in Islamic Empires

9/15/09

The Mughal Empire under Emperor Akbar dealt with religious diversity by being very tolerant of practicers of Hinduism. He realized that it would be prudent to blend Islamic and Hindu cultures to make everyone feel comfortable. It also made sense because 80% of the Mughal population was Hindu. 

Akbar, along with tolerating the diversity of religion in India, also made a culture accepting Persians and Turks. Persians and Turks made up a large number of the Safavid and Ottoman Empire's population, which were rival empires so this was significant. 

Under Aurengzeb the Hindus were forced to adopt Islam and give up Hinduism. Aurengzeb was not tolerant of religious diversity. He stopped this religious diversity by banning the Hindu practice of Sati, banning drinking, gambling and other accepted practices like drug use and prostitution. In effect, he made the Mughal Empire less loose and fun. 

The Ottoman Empire had a growing Arab population and tolerated Christianity. The Ottoman Empire was centered around Turkey so naturally most of the people were Turks. But as the empire expanded it accommodated a growing Arabic population and was tolerant of them. 

This Empire was also tolerant of another diverse ethnic group in their empire, the Persians. The Ottomans grew to appreciate the vibrant culture and artwork the Persians created. 

As the Ottoman Empire grew larger and larger and expanded west, it continued to pose an ever increasing threat to Christianity. The taking of Constantinople marked a turning point in the power shifting to the Islamic Turks from the Christian Europeans. One could argue the Ottomans weren't tolerant of religious diversity in their empire because they made two major attacks on Vienna, a major Christian, European city. Also, the Ottomans would take boys from their family and forcibly convert them to Islam. 

For the most part though the Ottomans did not seek to eradicate religious diversity in their empire. Large numbers converted to Islam from Christianity in Anatolia, but in many areas the citizens were largely undisturbed and left to govern themselves in areas like states. Also, for many people the Ottomans treated the Christians more fairly and taxed them less than their previous rulers. Many upper class citizens also rose in the ranks of the Ottoman Empire, like landlords, merchants, government officials and clergymen without converting to Islam. 

The Safavid Empire sought to destroy religious diversity within its empire. The fight over religious diversity was not between Christianity and Islam; it was between Sunni and Shia Islam. The Safavids strictly enforced Shia Islam, which contributed to the characteristics of Persian culture, and this divide of Shia and Sunni Islam exists to this day in the area. 

The Safavids fought with their westerly neighbors, the Ottomans over this issue of religious diversity for around a century. 

Tolerance and Diversity

The main Islamic empires that we have studied are the Savafid empire, the Ottoman empire, and the Mughal empire. The Savafids welcomed ethnic diversity, but did not allow any religious diversity. Every person in the Savafid empire had to be Shia Islam. They did welcome ethnic diversity. They opened up their society to other ethnicities, like Persians, but the newcomers had to be Shia. In the Ottoman empire, was very tolerant in both ethnicity and religion. They had a very diverse population with many religions and ethnicities. The Mughal empire was tolerant with both Hinduism and Islam. Instead of choosing one religion to confine it's people, Akbar created a cult combining the popular religions, and making himself the one being worshipped.

To me, there is not a large difference between restricting an ethnicity and restricting a religion. Ethnicity and religion are both groups to which people associate themselves. By restricting one or the other, a leader is reducing the diversity of the state. The only difference I can see it that you can change a religion, but you cannot change an ethnicity. People can convert themselves to new religions, however, they cannot change their background. 

Diversity

The Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman empires all had different ways of dealing with all kinds of diversity, some to promote tolerance and others to increase the power of leaders over their subjects. The Mughal Empire sought at first to promote diversity both of religion and ethnicity, yet later to lessen the differences of religion. The first leader to take a stance on this count was Akbar who encouraged a universalistic state religion that was extremely tolerant of the varying practices, especially of Hindus and Muslims. Aurangzeb on the other hand reversed this doctrine and imposed Islam on all citizens of the empire. In pressing this upon the people he sought to destroy cultural differences between them and create his ideal society. The Safavid Empire had a totalitarian view on diversity of religion. That is to say, none was permitted. They chose instead to require that all people be of Shi’a Islam, similarly to Aurangzeb with the Mughal. The Ottoman Empire in comparison was extremely tolerant of different religions including Judaism, Christianity, and all other between. These minorities were still watched to a degree – the Ottomans set up religious groups in communities, which were presided over by a hand-selected authority. This person would report on the religious group to the leaders of the Empire. In the sense of religious heterogeneity at least, they were liberal.

In terms of usefulness of restricting diversity, I can see that enforcing a unified set of beliefs would be important to controlling a people. When all think similarly, they will be less likely to question the rule of the leader. It also lends them a strong center and sense of belonging to a nation both in terms of citizenship and religion. However true this is, inspiring loyalty and happiness in people is even more so and this is unlikely to happen if any feel repressed. If Hindus, for example, were forced to convert, they might not looks so kindly onto whoever commanded that it be so. Depending on the demographics the benefits might outwiegh the risks, or the risks the benefits. Controlling ethnicity of a society, on the other hand, does nothing – ethnicity is something that is superficial and does not hold an immense sway over the ideas of person. The mind is what matters in terms of control. Undoubtedly, religious tolerance is something much more difficult to uphold, since everyone is opinionated when it comes to beliefs.