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.
Natalie, I really enjoyed reading this post. It was presented in a very organized fashion. I would like to add another benefit of the Mughal creating the "hybrid" religion. It was very effective because it gave people a chance to keep their beliefs but also explore the ideas of other cultures. It is very beneficial to see other beliefs because it gives people the opportunity to see the world from a different viewpoint, which in turn reflects on the thoughts people have throughout the day and the decisions people make.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the Mughals being smart to have qualified leaders, rather than ruling being past down through the family. Also, it depends on which Mughals you're talking about being more tolerant then the Ottomen. At one point, yes they were very tolerant. But when the regime changed, everybody had to convert to Islam. So they were less tolerant at one point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Frannie, that the Mughals were more tolerant then the Ottoman under Akbar's rule, but I think when Aurangzeb took control their intolerance rose where as the Ottoman's tolerance basically stayed the same throughout the time of their Empire. So you could say that the Ottoman's were more tolerant over the period of their Empire than the Mughals.
ReplyDeleteNatalie well written response. I too agree with Frannie yet I really like your organization and examples set forth in your argument. Just one thing I would like to add is that the Safavid forced their followers/people to convert to Shi'a Islam. It was a way of keeping control and a very bad way of accommodating to the requests of the people. Due to their intolerable actions, the empire collapsed in 1723 because of internal revolt and the unhappiness of the followers.
ReplyDelete