Full disclosure, I am Muslim and am fascinated with Islamic history, so I am biased here.
While I am not saying that the Islamic Caliphate was a bastion of Islamic pluralism, I do find the current attitudes that the mainline Sunni faiths have towards Christians and Jews is somewhat ahistorical. Currently, Muslims, like all other Abrahamics, view other Abrahamics as evil, and their co-religionists of different sects as hostile. Muslim rulers were typically permissive of Christian and Jewish populations in their realm, but much more hostile to different sects - *especially* the Zandaqa and the Muhakkima sects. Zindiq is a term that means heretic, and was applied to Muhakkima sects (also called khawarij) - while Muslims generally had a wider definition of acceptable opinion than Christians of the time (i.e. the amount of difference allowed to exist), once it reached past that acceptable point, they were considered much more dangerous to the faith than pockets of Jews or Christians (so long as they didn't try to rebel). The jizya tax is evidence of this - while oppressive by modern standards, the jizya tax was more of a trade-off at the time; Muslims performed the bulk of military service, and other Abrahamics were exempt but protected. This tolerance was asymetric - to Christians, Muslims were considered a false religion that popped up in Arabia, whereas to Muslims, Christians were essentially followers of a warped version of a previous form is Islam. By contrast, Shias and Sunnis viewed eachother negatively because of their opposing views on who should be Caliph, but until a point in the late middle ages, they were theologically similar. Zandaqa and Muhakkima were considered to essentially be heretics and apostates, and a threat to Islam as a religion - Muslims in name only and heavily persecuted.
Proposing the following changes, which I think are *somewhat* ballanced:
Christians, for the most part, should view Islam as evil, but should have some sort of tolerance bonus when having lived for a significant period under a Muslim Sunni or Shia ruler that is *not* Fundementalist. So the Almohads would still be puritanical. Maybe it could be tied to Rightful Liege.
Sunnis and Shias should view the other as Hostile, Christian and Jewish vassals of same sect Muslim rulers as Astray, and independent Christian and Jewish rulers as Hostile. Sunnis and Shias should view Muhakkima and Zandaqa as evil.
Zandaqa and Muhhakima should view Sunnis and Shias as evil as well, and should not have the tolerance bonus unless they have some sort of syncretism.
While I am not saying that the Islamic Caliphate was a bastion of Islamic pluralism, I do find the current attitudes that the mainline Sunni faiths have towards Christians and Jews is somewhat ahistorical. Currently, Muslims, like all other Abrahamics, view other Abrahamics as evil, and their co-religionists of different sects as hostile. Muslim rulers were typically permissive of Christian and Jewish populations in their realm, but much more hostile to different sects - *especially* the Zandaqa and the Muhakkima sects. Zindiq is a term that means heretic, and was applied to Muhakkima sects (also called khawarij) - while Muslims generally had a wider definition of acceptable opinion than Christians of the time (i.e. the amount of difference allowed to exist), once it reached past that acceptable point, they were considered much more dangerous to the faith than pockets of Jews or Christians (so long as they didn't try to rebel). The jizya tax is evidence of this - while oppressive by modern standards, the jizya tax was more of a trade-off at the time; Muslims performed the bulk of military service, and other Abrahamics were exempt but protected. This tolerance was asymetric - to Christians, Muslims were considered a false religion that popped up in Arabia, whereas to Muslims, Christians were essentially followers of a warped version of a previous form is Islam. By contrast, Shias and Sunnis viewed eachother negatively because of their opposing views on who should be Caliph, but until a point in the late middle ages, they were theologically similar. Zandaqa and Muhakkima were considered to essentially be heretics and apostates, and a threat to Islam as a religion - Muslims in name only and heavily persecuted.
Proposing the following changes, which I think are *somewhat* ballanced:
Christians, for the most part, should view Islam as evil, but should have some sort of tolerance bonus when having lived for a significant period under a Muslim Sunni or Shia ruler that is *not* Fundementalist. So the Almohads would still be puritanical. Maybe it could be tied to Rightful Liege.
Sunnis and Shias should view the other as Hostile, Christian and Jewish vassals of same sect Muslim rulers as Astray, and independent Christian and Jewish rulers as Hostile. Sunnis and Shias should view Muhakkima and Zandaqa as evil.
Zandaqa and Muhhakima should view Sunnis and Shias as evil as well, and should not have the tolerance bonus unless they have some sort of syncretism.
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
