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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it is interesting how forced religion can actually benefit a population rather then frustrate it. However, I like how you say that "forced religious intolerance" can destroy one's understanding of life. These two principles help draw the fine line between religious cooperation and religious retaliation. Since religion is a very important personal feature, government must be careful with its fragility, or chaos can take place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Freddy that your line on religious intolerance destroying a person's understanding of life. This is a really interesting idea. It is true what you say, that poor treatment for ethnicity is not acceptable, but not intolerable. I said something similar in my own post to the affect that one can be discriminated against for ethnicity and handle it because it is wholly superficial. Religion is a completely different story. To take away the ideas ingrained from birth is impossible. You cannot MAKE someone change their beliefs, only follow practices outwardly. The inward side is constant, unless they find something of meaning in the proffered religion.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you last paragraph,and with what both Nicole and Freddy have commented about it. There is just one thing that has been bugging me about the Ottoman empire: if they were truly tolerant of other religions, why did they tax people's children? This probably contradicts what I said in my post, but as it is occurring to me now, this is where the comment goes. To me it seems that if the Ottomans were truly tolerant of other religions, they would not physically force a member of every family to convert. While I admit that asking for one child to convert is far less extreme than totally annihilating a "competing" religion, it is still pretty cruel if you relate it to your own life. I mean, imagine having your younger sibling taken away by the government to become part of the army. Or, imagine that it happened to you! I'm not trying to be contradictory, just share a viewpoint that we did not get the chance to discuss in class.
ReplyDelete