1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
bixtya [17]
3 years ago
13

(Answer quick!)How did the Ottomans and Mughals each treated non-Muslims?

History
1 answer:
Ira Lisetskai [31]3 years ago
4 0

Answer: The Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires all reached their peaks between the 16th and 17th centuries. Combined, the empires spanned from Egypt, across the Middle East and Persia, all the way to India. Each empire controlled areas with distinct physical, ethnic, and religious environments, yet were similar in many ways. The leaders of each of the empires had Turkic ethnic backgrounds and Islamic roots, and all of the empires developed strong military forces (because of this, they are collectively referred to as the Gunpowder Empires). Each of the empires had to contend with religious divisions within their empires, and were able to overcome these differences and please the various groups within their empires. I will focus on the similar way that each of the empires dealt with religious divisions, as well as the status of women in each of the Gunpowder Empires.

The three Muslim Empires are similar in that they each ruled over subjects with diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. Although each situation was different, the Empires separately came around to using very similar methods of dealing with religious differences.

In the Ottoman Empire, non-Muslims were incorporated as “millets” (communities), with their own leadership, legal systems, and education systems [1]. Both the subjects and the ruling class grew more and more diverse, and it was important that the Ottomans could maintain their legitimacy in the eyes of each of the various groups. Later Ottoman rulers followed Sunni Islam, and encouraged, but did not force, Jews and Christians to convert to Islam [2].

The Safavid Empire mainly united Persian speaking areas, but still faced religious clashes in multiple facets: Muslim vs. non-Muslim, Sunni vs. Shii, as well as various other mystical Muslim beliefs [3]. The Empire patronized Shii Islam, and, like the Ottomans, encouraged Jews, Christians, and Zorastrians to convert. Unlike the Ottomans, the Safavids went farther, persecuting non-Muslims. However, these persecutions, which were supported by the Safavid ulama, never lasted long [4].

The Mughals faced the largest religious divide, between the Muslims and the large number of Hindus within the Empire. Early Mughal rulers, such as Akbar, focused on promoting universal religious tolerance. Akbar did not wish to pick sides and incur the distrust of the large Hindu population, and thus chose to follow a new religion of his own creation. There was no religion-based hierarchy in the ruling class; people proved their loyalty to the ruler by serving him, not by following a certain religion [5]. Later Mughal rulers, most notably Aurangzeb, emphasized “the need to preserve and purify Islam and to establish a society in which Islam will flourish” [251]. Aurangzeb was a believer in Shari Sunni Islam, and recast the Mughal Empire in accordance with Shari restrictions. Aurangzeb did not force conversion to Islam, but nonetheless followed the pattern of confessionalization enacted by the Ottoman and Safavid Empires [7].

Although all three empires faced different religious divides, they ended up dealing with them in much the same way. All three empires ended up at least encouraging, if not enforcing, conversion to Islam (it took an extra century or so for the Mughals, but the outcome was the same). However, none of the empires went so far as to severely harm other religious groups.

Palace women were placed in essentially the same positions in all three of the Islamic Empires. From the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, sultans had children with concubines rather than with their wives. The reason for this was political: the wives of sultans were usually nobly born of other dynasties, and “to deny these women access to motherhood . . . was to diminish the status of the royal houses from which they came” [8]. The loss of power from the sultan’s wife made room for concubines who gave the sultan a son to gain power. After having a son, concubines would usually no longer be in contact with the sultan. A concubine would leave to raise her son, and when he was given land to govern as a prince, she would go with him and act as his main protector, advisor, and manager of his household [9]. And if her son became the ruler, she would have a large amount of influence over his decisions. Extensive study has not been done on the role of Safavid royal women, but it is evident that royal mothers had significant influence in the Safavid Empire as well. Streusand gives two examples of influential Safavid women: Pari Khan Khanum and Mahd-i Ulya. Mughal women played similar roles [10].

Explanation:

You might be interested in
The whiskey tax was imposed to pay down debt from the war of 1812.<br><br> a. true<br> b. false
Anestetic [448]
I think the answer is false!
4 0
3 years ago
A consequence of trade along the eastern Mediterranean was not simply economic growth and political clout, but also the exchange
olchik [2.2K]
Exchange of Cultural Ideas
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was harriet tubman's promised land?
sveta [45]
Well it’s a book. do you need a summary?
3 0
3 years ago
What does riis state will happen if the slums are not wiped out
Lina20 [59]
Riis states that if the nation does not wipe out slums, the slums will wipe out. 

He see the battle against slums as a battle with poverty. He states that the battle must be won as fasts as possible, stating that the slums are the enemy  of civilization.


6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Discussion Questions:
gregori [183]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Chief Seattle considered strange that the American government would want to buy the land on which the tribe is living because he questioned the President of the United States how he wanted to put a price on elements that had no material or monetary value such as the freshness of the air, or the beauty of the sky. How he questioned US President Franklin Pierce, there was a price for the sparkle of the water.

Chief Seattle's view of this land was that mother Earth was something sacred for the Native American Indians. Nature was holy for his tribe. All the elements of nature were sacred and celebrated by the Native Indians. That is why they performed dances to the elements and chants, to thank mother nature for everything it provided.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How do prices act as signals to allocated goods, services, and productive resources in a market economy?
    10·1 answer
  • A key feature of European Renaissance culture
    14·1 answer
  • What are some current demographic trends in the United States? Check all that apply.
    5·2 answers
  • The main goal of the Allied leaders at the Potsdam Conference was to...
    7·2 answers
  • Ehich statement accurately describes lines of latitude, also called parallels on a map
    15·1 answer
  • Which part of the government is MOST important in keeping the nation safe against other countries?
    15·1 answer
  • What is the the point of view of the "United We Win" poster from 1943?
    9·2 answers
  • Write a petition of at least two paragraphs explaining your proposal for a new law or government measure. Be sure to aim it at t
    9·1 answer
  • List the following events in correct chronological order​
    13·1 answer
  • How were workers affected by the rise of industry?<br>​
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!