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.