How did the muslum policies of ruling people who they conquered compare with the policies of the roman empire and the people they conquered?

Answer 1

Muslim policy of ruling was not aiming at having more power or more resouces on gaining lands and controlling more people; as other empires of the Byzantines or Persians, or others in ancient and modern history. Muslim policy was only to bring justice, free people will to select by their own free will the faith they are convinced in, and to spread justice.

Answer 2

Both powers respected the religions and cultures of the conquered peoples. There was a large collection of local religions in the areas conquered by Rome. Most of the peoples the Arabs conquered in the Middle East and North Africa were Christians. Further south in Africa there was animism.

Answer 3

It is difficult to compare them, because different rulers were more brutal than others, in both the Roman and the Islamic conquests. It is a myth that the Romans were civilized and the Muslims were not; it is similarly a myth that the Muslims treated their conquered people kindly. The sad truth is that when a powerful empire expanded and conquered another land, mercy was rarely shown to those who were conquered. In some cases, the conquered peoples were allowed to become part of the empire, but they were generally treated as subordinates. Roman emperors (including Marcus Aurelius, often referred to as a "good" emperor), had generals who sacked entire cities, looted and burnt them, and enslaved the populations. The same can be said for certain Islamic rulers like Aurangzeb or Al-Manzor (in Zaragoza, Spain). But for the most part, neither the Romans nor the Muslims were known for compassion and generosity to those they defeated in war.

Answer 4

Answer to the Question

In the Middle Ages, Muslims treated non-Muslims in a way that was superior to contemporaneous civilizations and introduced the concept of religious tolerance (as opposed to Europe which was practicing the exact opposite at the time). Non-Muslims of various stripes were able to continue their lives as second-class citizens when the new Islamic Empire conquered their territories. By contrast, both the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire were oppressive theocracies which accepted minimal dissent from the established state religions.

In the Byzantine Empire, the repression of the theocracy was a particularly pervasive problem since large portions of the empire were not belong to Orthodox Christianity, the official religion. The Levant and North Africa were dominated by monophysite Christians, specifically the Syriacs and the Copts, and by isolationist groups like the Donatists and Nestorians. While these groups were still Christian, they were not the "right type" of Christian, resulting in numerous persecutions and forced conversions. Jews also were so infuriated by the religious intolerance of the Byzantines, which involved similar repressive techniques to those visited on the Non-Orthodox Christians, that they allied with the Sassanid Empire in the several Byzantine Sassanid Wars in the 6th and 7th centuries for the possibility of having independence from the Byzantines.

The Sassanid Empire was already mostly religiously homogenous, but it must be made clear that the empire was a repressive theocracy. Zoroastrianism was the only acceptable religion and conversion away from Zoroastrianism was punished by torture or torment.

More on the Islamic Policies

However, while the Islamic Policy was more liberal and tolerant than both the Byzantines and the Sassanid Persians, it was nothing close to equality or Rights. An important thing to note is that the concept of Rights comes out the Enlightenment. Prior to this point, there was a system of privilege wherein the Ruler would provide privileges (out of the kindness of his heart) to a certain group of people to do acts. A person did not have the "right" to anything and this was the mentality worldwide.

The Pact of Omar was a document of submission signed by the Caliph Omar and defeated Christians and Jews during one of Omar's Wars. While the factual accuracy of that story may be doubted, there is no doubt that the Pact of Omar formed the basis for the treatment of non-Muslims in the conquered territories. The Pact of Omar set out a number of regulations that will be described in this answer.

The Dhimmi, or non-Muslim under Muslim occupation was required by the Pact of Omar to pay a number of taxes that were connected with his Dhimmi status. The most famous was the jizya, which was a tax that Dhimmi had to pay for Muslims for the right to not be killed where they stood for not acknowledging Mohammed's Prophecy; it was a form of humiliation. Additional taxes included the kharaj, which was a tax on non-Muslim* land-holdings in the Muslim World. The kharaj was so untenable that most Dhimmi were forced to live in the cities where the tax would not be applicable. There was also inequality concerning the justice system. On paper, a Christian or Jew could testify against a Muslim, but in reality, such testimony was not acceptable and the attempt to defame a Muslim would receive retribution. Christians and Jews were not allowed to build new houses of worship, restore old houses of worship, proselytize in any way (this included religious debate or dialogue), or allow wine or pigs to be shown in public.

Polytheists were forced to convert to Islam with some rare exceptions (such as the Hindus in India). Zoroastrianism was the majority faith in Iran until Islam almost completely extinguished it, both by sword, economic inequality, and brutal repression of Zoroastrian customs (unless they could be Islamicized like Nourouz).

This system of inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims persisted up to the colonial period, when it reversed. As a result of colonization, the segregated Dhimmi System gave way to a new, modern bureaucratic system where Europeans were the dominant class and natives, regardless of their religion were second-class, unless they became part of the bureaucracy. To do this, a person would require an education in order to become literate and be able to successfully perform functions in the Arab World. As Jews and Christians sought education, they were able to ascend the hierarchy and become relatively powerful compared to the Muslim majority. When the Islamic World became independent, only the Lebanese Christians were able to maintain this dominant position (and only until the Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1991). In other countries, the end of colonization saw a brief rise in Anti-Semitism followed by a mass exodus of Jews from majority-Muslim countries for Israel, UK, France, the United States and Canada. Those Jews and Christians who remained garnered a more equal status than anything that they had previously had under Muslim leadership, but still are unequal in terms of their inability to proselytize, the unofficial "requirement" to avoid offending Islam in public, and the need to seek the authority of high government officials to build new houses of worship or to repair existing ones.

*Although Muslims also had to pay the kharaj in theory, in practice the tax rate for kharaj on Muslims was slight compared to the amount required by the Dhimmi peoples.

Answer 5

They were more civilized i guess you could say. Muslims weren't as power crazy as Romans. They were also tolerent ;)

Answer 6

Both the Romans and the Muslims tolerated the religions and customs of the conquered peoples. This policy avoided rebellions, fostered stability and helped to integrate the conquered peoples.

Answer 7

Both were tolerant of local religions and customs.