How did the ‘Abbasid’s treatment of non-Muslims compare with previous dynasties?

The ‘Abbasids were generally more tolerant towards non-Muslims compared to previous Islamic dynasties.

The ‘Abbasids, who ruled from 750 to 1258 AD, were known for their relative tolerance towards non-Muslims, particularly when compared to their predecessors, the Umayyads. This shift in attitude was largely due to the ‘Abbasids' reliance on the support of non-Arab Muslims, such as Persians, in their rise to power. As a result, they adopted a more inclusive approach towards non-Arab and non-Muslim subjects.

Under the ‘Abbasids, non-Muslims, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religion freely, provided they paid a special tax known as jizya. This was a continuation of a policy established by earlier Islamic rulers, but the ‘Abbasids were generally more lenient in its enforcement. They also allowed non-Muslims to hold positions of authority within the government, a practice that was rare under the Umayyads. This was particularly true in the case of the Persians, who played a significant role in the ‘Abbasid administration.

The ‘Abbasids also encouraged cultural and intellectual exchange, leading to a period known as the Islamic Golden Age. Scholars, regardless of their religious background, were welcomed at the ‘Abbasid court, where they translated and preserved Greek and Roman texts. This openness to different cultures and ideas was a marked departure from the more Arab-centric policies of the Umayyads.

However, it's important to note that the ‘Abbasids' tolerance had its limits. Non-Muslims were still considered second-class citizens and were subject to certain restrictions. For example, they were not allowed to build new places of worship or openly proselytise. There were also periods of persecution, particularly during times of political instability.

In comparison to the Umayyads, the ‘Abbasids' treatment of non-Muslims was generally more tolerant and inclusive. However, this should not be taken to mean that they were entirely accepting of religious diversity. Their policies were often pragmatic, driven by political necessity rather than a genuine commitment to pluralism.