Comparative Study of Religious Tolerance in Mughal and Ottoman Empires

Abstract

This comparative study examines frameworks and practices of religious tolerance in the Mughal (c. 1526–1707) and Ottoman (c. 1453–1700) empires. While both states were Islamic polities ruling over highly plural populations, they differed in administrative structures, legal pluralism, fiscal regimes, and patterns of elite incorporation. We analyze five domains—(1) legal pluralism and the interplay of sharīʿa with imperial law (qānūn/qānūn-i shāhī), (2) religious taxation and exemptions (e.g., jizya, tax remissions, frontier privileges), (3) representation of non-Muslims in administration and guilds, (4) institutional autonomy (millet, waqf, panchayat, local adjudication), and (5) cultural patronage and interfaith diplomacy (translation bureaus, court debates, shrine networks). Drawing on secondary scholarship, we argue that the Ottoman millet architecture codified communal autonomy more explicitly, whereas Mughal accommodation peaked under Akbar’s sulh-i kul and a cosmopolitan court culture that valorized translation, debate, and shared aesthetics. Shifts under Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb demonstrate how fiscal and military pressures could recalibrate tolerance. A heuristic visualization translates qualitative narratives into a 0–10 index across the five domains to illuminate convergences and divergences without claiming quantitative precision. The findings underscore that “tolerance” operated as a negotiated, policy-contingent equilibrium rather than a fixed essence, varying by region, reign, and social stratum.