Hearted Youtube comments on Flash Point History (@FlashPointHx) channel.
-
198
-
193
-
184
-
181
-
180
-
172
-
171
-
170
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
159
-
157
-
155
-
154
-
154
-
148
-
148
-
145
-
142
-
141
-
137
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
131
-
127
-
126
-
125
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
I think the whole concept of "tolerance" is a bit too subjective here, and this is what Morera fails to take into account. If you compare Islamic states of that time with nearly any other in the world, then they were undeniably more tolerant but by modern, post-WW2 standards I would agree that there definitely was not 100% equality.
You certainly can't say that, on average, Jews were treated as well in Christian lands as they were in Islamic lands... keeping in mind that The Jewish Golden Age in Spain was only possible under Islamic rule. That's not to say it was perfect though, but it does mean that it was much better.
Also, the Jizya tax was mentioned as a method for conversions, but I would like to mention a few things on this point. While Jizya can indeed be explicitly used as a system of oppression by a given ruler, it's foundation certainly don't function as such. If a non-Muslim were to convert to Islam, then they would have to pay Zakat instead of Jizya, as all Muslims do, so there wouldn't be as much of a difference as many non-Islamic commentators like to argue there is. Furthermore, non-Muslims are exempt from many requirements placed upon Muslims, such as conscription into a religious war, in exchange for their payments.
You must look at the context in which this system developed to understand why it makes sense. The early Caliphates had predominantly non-Muslim populations as they didn't forcefully convert conquered peoples. However, as their borders grew larger and larger, eventually the Caliphate being even larger than the Roman Empire at its height, the demand for more money and soldiers grew significantly. Because there was a general prohibition against forcing non-Muslims into military service (both because of practical and religious reasons), the rulers would just tax them a bit higher to help fund the armies instead. Obviously, this system ended up being quite efficient and a good way to ensure the advancement of the state.
To be clear here, I'm generalizing. The fact is that as you go from one ruler to another, the level of tolerance can change quite a bit and it's really impossible to capture the entire scope of the discussion within a single Youtube comment. There were Islamic rulers who would use Jizya as a method to pull higher conversion rates, while there were others who would abolish Jizya altogether.
Surely though, Moorish Spain was, on average, much more tolerant than it's counterparts to the north for this time period. If it wasn't, then there's really no possible explanation how the population could've remained so heavily Christian after Islamic conquest, with no guarantee of safety from outside Christian states. While after being conquered by Muslims, at most they'd often just have to pay a bit more in taxes (and even then, receive certain exemptions as mentioned above), other cultures would almost immediately forcefully convert/slaughter entire populations after conquering them.
Also keep in mind the intellectual and academic achievements of the Moors. Such things are only possible in cultures of open-mindedness. If the Moors really were close-minded, then they wouldn't have been so open to new philosophical, scientific, etc. ideas. Again, that's not to say they were as open-minded as modern liberal democracies, but they certainly were much more open-minded than most, if not all, non-Islamic cultures at the time.
123
-
122
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
111
-
110
-
109