Ottomans v. Safavids v. Mughals Comparative Essay

The Safavid, Mughal, and Ottoman empires all depended in some way on the allegiance of non-Muslims to the empire. The Ottoman emperors were kinder on their conquered people, and the main separation between Muslims and non-Muslims in the empire was the tax on the dhimmis (non-Muslims). The Safavid leaders were more forceful in this regard. They imposed on subjects to convert to Islam unless they were an asset in trading with Europe. However, the leaders of the Mughal Empire, starting with Akbar, were far more just and understanding toward conquered people (mainly the Hindu population) in northern India.
The Ottoman and Safavid empires had differing ideas as to how the population of non-Muslims should be treated within their empires. The Ottoman empire had a considerably fair treatment of all Christians and Jewish people, as these religions are the roots of Islam, but not much respect for Polytheistic religions. The dhimmis, or non-Muslims, had to pay a tax to be allowed to stay non-Muslim, but were otherwise left alone. The “people of the book” who resided in the Ottoman empire were given substantial rights, and allowed to live in relative peace compared to how non-Christians were treated in Europe, and how non-Muslims were treated in the Safavid empire. The Safavid empire was very forceful in it’s conversions, and only really allowing non-Muslims to live peacefully if they were traders. Of course, the reason Safavids conquered the region was to spread Shi’a Islam. Since the Safavids weren’t very connected with Europe or the Americas in terms of trade, as their navy was very weak, they needed all the help they could get from Christian and Jewish traders within the empire. These were the only non-Muslims with real rights within the empire.
The ottomans also allowed education to be left to each millet (religious community) in the empire. This allowed for a more content population, especially in an empire with such connections to the entire Mediterranean Sea and to