Were non-Muslims allowed to practice their beliefs in the Islamic empire?

Answer 1

Generally speaking, Yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Muslims treated non-Muslims in a way that was superior to contemporaneous civilizations and introduced the concept of religious tolerance (as opposed to Europe which was practicing the exact opposite at the time). However, it is nothing close to equality or Rights. An important thing to note is that the concept of Rights comes out the Enlightenment. Prior to this point, there was a system of privilege wherein the Ruler would provide privileges (out of the kindness of his heart) to a certain group of people to do acts. A person did not have the "right" to anything and this was the mentality worldwide.

The protected religions of Judaism and Christianity (the Dhimmi) had a certain number of legal requirements specific to them for not being Muslims. The most famous of these was the jizya, which was a tax that Dhimmi had to pay to Muslims for the right to not be killed where they stood for not acknowledging Mohammed's Prophecy; it was a form of humiliation. Additional taxes included the kharaj, which was a tax on non-Muslim land-holdings in the Muslim World. The kharaj was so untenable that most Dhimmi were forced to live in the cities where the tax would not be applicable. On paper, a Christian or Jew could testify against a Muslim, but in reality, such testimony was not acceptable and the attempt to defame a Muslim would receive retribution. Christians and Jews were not allowed to build new houses of worship, restore old houses of worship, proselytize in any way (this included religious debate or dialogue), or allow wine or pigs to be shown in public.

Polytheists were forced to convert to Islam with some rare exceptions (such as the Hindus in India). Zoroastrianism was the majority faith in Iran until Islam almost completely extinguished it, both by sword, economic inequality, and brutal repression of Zoroastrian customs (unless they could be Islamicized like Nourouz).

Answer 2

Answer 1

Yes, all non Muslims were allowed to practice their own beliefs in the Islam empire. This is according the basic Qur'an rule that no compulsion in religion.

Answer 2

Generally speaking, Yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Muslims treated non-Muslims in a way that was superior to contemporaneous civilizations and introduced the concept of religious tolerance (as opposed to Europe which was practicing the exact opposite at the time). However, it is nothing close to equality or Rights. An important thing to note is that the concept of Rights comes out the Enlightenment. Prior to this point, there was a system of privilege wherein the Ruler would provide privileges (out of the kindness of his heart) to a certain group of people to do acts. A person did not have the "right" to anything and this was the mentality worldwide.

The protected religions of Judaism and Christianity (the Dhimmi) had a certain number of legal requirements specific to them for not being Muslims. The most famous of these was the jizya, which was a tax that Dhimmi had to pay to Muslims for the right to not be killed where they stood for not acknowledging Mohammed's Prophecy; it was a form of humiliation. Additional taxes included the kharaj, which was a tax on non-Muslim land-holdings in the Muslim World. The kharaj was so untenable that most Dhimmi were forced to live in the cities where the tax would not be applicable. On paper, a Christian or Jew could testify against a Muslim, but in reality, such testimony was not acceptable and the attempt to defame a Muslim would receive retribution. Christians and Jews were not allowed to build new houses of worship, restore old houses of worship, proselytize in any way (this included religious debate or dialogue), or allow wine or pigs to be shown in public.

Polytheists were forced to convert to Islam with some rare exceptions (such as the Hindus in India). Zoroastrianism was the majority faith in Iran until Islam almost completely extinguished it, both by sword, economic inequality, and brutal repression of Zoroastrian customs (unless they could be Islamicized like Nourouz).

Answer 3

Yes, but not as equals.

Non-Muslims who lived in the Ottoman Empire were called Dhimmi, or second-class citizens. They lacked a number of fundamental rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of settlement, access to all occupations, and additional taxation because they were Non-Muslim. Each Dhimmi group, like the Armenians, Greeks, Jews, and so forth were organized into Millets which were community representative groups. Each Millet would report to a centralized Millet representative in Istanbul who would have direct dealing with the Imperial Palace. This would allow the Millets to air their grievances, but was more often used as a method to control the Millets and make them less resistive to Ottoman Occupation.

Admittedly, life under the Ottomans was far superior to most contemporaneous Empires. Spain was by far a more religiously and culturally intolerant place during this period as were France and England.

Finally, the Ottomans' most egregious crime was the policy of devşirme, where Christian families in the Balkans region had to submit to Ottoman soldiers stealing their children to bring to them to Istanbul where they would have no contact with their parents for years and be trained to be the elite Janissary Core and be converted to Islam. No Muslim was even allowed to join the Janissaries, because the devşirme system was so effective in producing recruits loyal only to the Emperor because they feared him.