polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2014 at 12:30pm:
Soren wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2014 at 11:34am:
modernity has no impact on how Islam is interpreted in Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen or Turkey
The Ottoman Empire in the early-mid 19th century introduced a raft of reforms, including a declaration of freedom of religion, instituting equal rights for citizens of any religious backgrounds, and introducing a law specifically allowing freedom to apostasise. And these laws were brought in
specifically on religious grounds. And by that I mean the caliph employed Islamic scholars to draw up the laws.
So they could climb to the dizzying heights of freedom that dhimmitude confered?
The Edict of 1856 and religious freedom
The Reform Edict of 1856 was intended to carry out the promises of the Tanzimat. The Edict is very specific about the status of non-Muslims, making it possible "to see it as the outcome of a period of religious restlessness that followed the Edict of 1839." Officially, part of the Tanzimat's goal was to make the state intolerant to forced conversion to Islam, also making the execution of apostates from Islam illegal. Despite the official position of the state in the midst of the Tanzimat reforms, this tolerance of non-Muslims seems to have been seriously curtailed, at least until the Reform Edict of 1856. The Ottoman empire had tried many different ways to reach out to non-Muslims. First they tried to reach out to them by giving all non-Muslims an option to apply for Dhimmi status. Having Dhimmi status gave non-Muslims the ability to live in the Ottoman Empire and own property but this ability was not without special taxes (jizya).In fact, there was constant pressure on non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and the danger of execution for apostates remained real. Thus, the Tanzimat, at least at first, failed to actively promote freedom to practice one's religion without harassment. For the "Ottoman ruling elite, 'freedom of religion' meant 'freedom to defend their religion.