Were the rules that Muslims made for conquered non Muslims fair and why?

Answer 1

Answer: Unfair

No the rules that the early Muslims made for non-Muslims were far from fair, but they were more generous and fair than those made by Christians for non-Christians. The same rules did not always apply, and there were long periods of outstanding tolerance as well as periods of savage intolerance and persecution. In general:

• Only 'people of the Book' - Christians and Jews - could worship as they pleased. Pagans were forcibly converted to Islam.
• Christians and Jews paid a very heavy tax which did not apply to Muslims.
• A Muslim man could marry a Christian or Jewish woman, but a Christian or Jewish man could not marry a Muslim woman.
• A non-Muslim could not inherit from a Muslim.
• According to law, a free-born Muslim could not be enslaved.
• Periodically, one fifth of Christian children from among the Greek aristocracy, Serbs, Bulgarians, Armenians and Albanians were to be handed over for conversion to Islam. In some cases, more than the prescribed number of children were taken and the surplus sold back or sold into slavery.

Answer: Fair

Yes, they were.

For example, many opponents of Islam believe that Muslim rulers asked non-Muslims living in their countries/kingdoms to pay special taxes that Muslims did not have to pay. The point that many seem to ignore, is that one of the five pillars of Islam is zakat, or charity. This requires that every Muslim should pay charity to the poor proportionate to the wealth they have. That is, a rich person would pay more to the poor than a less-wealthy person. In many of the countries/kingdoms that followed Sharia Law, which is based on the 5 pillars, the Quran, Hadith, among other things, required that their citizens fulfill this pillar of charity. Thus, they would cut a certain percentage of one's income and give that to the poor, thus fulfilling each person's requirement of charity. So, Muslims did pay those "taxes" or charity.

They simply had it taken out of their income. To make it fair for the Muslims and the non-Muslims living in that country, the rulers asked the non-Muslims to pay what the Muslims did (in charity) as a tax, so that that tax money could go to the same place the Muslims' money did- to the poor.

It was not about persecuting the non-Muslims nor creating a disparity between the Muslims and non. It was about making sure that the Muslims fulfilled their pillar of Islam, and that the non-Muslims had to pay for the betterment of the country and people of the country that they were living in, just as much as the Muslims did.
Yes, the rules were fair. Refer to question below.

Answer

As occupiers, early Muslim regimes were seldom as oppressive or destructive as many European Christian conquerors, but that does not mean they treated conquered peoples fairly. Pagans had the choice of conversion, often as slaves, or death. Christians were permitted to continue their faith, subject to restrictions and the loss of the most magnificent churches, but had to pay onerous taxes from which Muslims were exempt. The treatment of Hindus in India varied according to the rulers of the time, but Buddhism was wiped out from the subcontinent, apart from the remote north-east.