# Tolerance or Injustice? Religious Minorities Under Muslim Rule

Source: [Tolerance or Injustice? Religious Minorities Under Muslim Rule](https://yaqeeninstitute.org/infographics/tolerance-or-injustice-religious-minorities-infographic)
Authors: Tesneem Alkiek
Adapted from: [Tolerance, Minorities, and Ideological Perspectives](https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/tolerance-minorities-and-ideological-perspectives.md)
See also: [Religious Minorities Under Muslim Rule](https://yaqeeninstitute.org/infographics/religious-minorities-under-muslim-rule-infographic.md)

---

**Muslims and Muslim rulers are often accused of being intolerant of, and oppressive to, religious minorities.**

However, religious tolerance has been a hallmark of Muslim societies throughout history. This tolerance was embodied in a group-rights model that preferred the rights of the community as a whole over the individual, a stark contrast from the individual liberty that is common today in contemporary, Western societies.

This infographic breaks down the group-rights model and how negative perceptions of Muslim treatment of religious minorities are shaped by Western biases.

- **Past Muslim Societies: Group-rights model:** Groups, rather than individuals, serve as self-governing units that are granted collective rights.
- **Modern Western Societies: Individual-rights model:** All individuals, rather than groups of people, are granted equal rights and can practice as they see fit.

The group-rights model, albeit unfamiliar to most of us today, was arguably a more effective system of pluralism.

## How was the group-rights model implemented?

### Case study: The Ottoman Millet System

The Ottoman Empire divided its territory into spheres of governance called “millets.”

Each millet was given religious autonomy and had an official head appointed by the community.

The millet head reported to both his congregation and an Ottoman judge who served as his supervisor.

- Congregation
- Millet head
- Ottoman Judge

### Millet head’s responsibilities:

- Filing and resolving the claims of community members
- Granting financial aid to those unable to pay the jizya tax

### Success of the Millet System

- Allowed each community to practice their religion without interference.
- Avoided religious wars and large-scale persecution for centuries.
- Millet model allowed for religious coexistence by being model for tolerance.

## From Millets to Liberalism: Tanzimat

As early as the 17th century, the Ottoman empire began to face direct threats to their power due to multiple military losses to European forces and internal political conflicts. **In response, Ottoman leaders initiated a series of reforms known as the Tanzimat.**

### Focus of the Tanzimat

- Centralization of the military and administration
- Westernization of existing institutions

### 3 major Tanzimat reforms that impacted minorities

- **Abolishment of millets:** Millets were replaced with modern conceptions of citizenship, which gave equal rights to Muslims and non-Muslims.
- **Education reforms:** The various school systems, previously separated by religion were consolidated.
- **Equality under law:** Political rights were granted to all citizens, transforming the empire into a “constitutional monarchy.”

## Europeanization or Unification?

Many saw the Tanzimat as recognition of the superiority of the European nation-state structure and social ideals.

They believed the Ottomans could only fit modern conceptions of tolerance by importing European systems.

In reality, states didn’t implement these systems in pursuit of tolerance. The Ottomans, like Europe, wanted to solidify their sovereignty and strengthen the loyalty of their subjects.

## Liberalism’s Vanity

Proponents of the nation-state model see the group-rights model as unjust and antithetical to liberal ideas.

Although **in theory** liberalism is a culture-less doctrine that ensures individual freedom, **in practice** it is instrumentalized like all other ideologies.

| Theory | Practice |
| --- | --- |
| The modern Western nation-state is irreligious. | Western states follow a doctrine of Protestant norms that decide which aspects of religion can and cannot be tolerated in the public sphere. |
| Liberalism accepts and values differences. | By treating everyone as equal under the law, liberalism promotes sameness and labels differences as immoral or uncivilized. |

## Sameness vs. Tolerance

Liberalism’s **individual-rights** model insists that all religions are the **same,** and each person should be treated under the same metric that may not apply to everyone.

The **group-rights** model promotes **tolerance**. Tolerance accepts and values difference, affirms differences in theology and culture, and promotes and acknowledges a diverse system.

## Conclusion

The history of Islamic polities and their treatment of minorities certainly isn’t free of fault. It remains nonetheless important to remember that liberty, justice, and tolerance have been defined in various ways throughout history, and that our perspective on this issue is inevitably shaped by the prevailing worldview of liberalism.

Adapted from the article: [*Tolerance, Minorities, and Ideological Perspectives*](https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/tolerance-minorities-and-ideological-perspectives.md) at yaqeeninstitute.org