Mongol Empire (1206 - 1368) was largely tolerant of various religions

Last updated on 23rd Oct. 2019

The Mongol empire was founded by Genghiz Khan and lasted from 1206 to 1368 (13th and 14th century), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire. While the Mongols were brutal against anybody (any city/kingdom) that dared to resist their conquest and which has been highlighted in Western accounts of them, what is not so well known is the religious tolerance that the Mongol empire largely had. In an age where religion and ruler were closely aligned and so there were religious wars like the Crusades between European Christians and Middle East Muslims (in 11th, 12th and 13th centuries), it is extraordinary and very praiseworthy that the Mongol empire was tolerant of different religions.

I have given below the introduction section from the Religion in the Mongol Empire wiki page,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire :

The Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions during the early Mongol Empire, and typically sponsored several at the same time. At the time of Genghis Khan in the 13th century, virtually every religion had found converts, from Buddhism to Eastern Christianity and Manichaeanism to Islam. To avoid strife, Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a Shamanist. Under his administration, all religious leaders were exempt from taxation, and from public service.[1] Mongol emperors were known for organizing competitions of religious debates among clerics, and these would draw large audiences.

Initially, there were few normal places of worship, because of the nomadic lifestyle. However, under Genghis's successor Ögedei, several building projects were undertaken in the Mongol capital of Karakorum. Along with palaces, Ogedei built houses of worship for the Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, and Taoist followers. The dominant religions at that time were Shamanism, Tengriism and Buddhism, although Ogodei's wife was a Christian.[2] In later years of the empire, three of the four principal khanates embraced Islam, as Islam was favored over other religions.[3][4][5] The Yuan dynasty mainly adopted Tibetan Buddhism while there were other religions practiced in the east of the Mongol Empire.
...
[Wiki References]
1. Weatherford 2004, p. 69.
2. Weatherford 2004, p. 135.
3. Encyclopedia 1920, p. 680.
4. Ezzati 2002, p. 274.
5. Bukharaev 2000, p. 145.

--- end wiki extracts ---

According to http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm, Marco Polo wrote that Kublai Khan (grandson of Genghiz Khan and ruler of China part of Mongol empire) said, "There are prophets who are worshipped and to whom everybody does reverence. The Christians say their god was Jesus Christ; the Saracens, Mohammed; the Jews, Moses; and the idolaters Sakamuni Borhan [that is, Sakiamuni Buddha, who was the first god to the idolaters]; and I do honor and reverence to all four, that is to him who is the greatest in heaven and more true, and him I pray to help me."

It must also be said that there were cases of religious persecution in latter part of Mongol empire. But perhaps it can be said that, largely, Mongol Empire practised religious tolerance.
====================================

Given below are some of my comments (slightly edited) from my associated Facebook post:  https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/2625135774369650

In response to a comment, I wrote:
Hinduism does not seem to have been a noted religion in the Mongol empire.
----

In response to a comment, I wrote:
Well, in India, Hinduism is given great importance as it is a majority religion. What is quite clear from my readings is that the Mongol empire did not include significant part of India (except perhaps Pakistan). By Chengiz (Ghengiz) Khan time (late 12th and early 13th century), Islam would have become a dominant religion in Pakistan. When Chengiz Khan returned to his base in China then, from a campaign in Persia, he sent a contingent (group) from his army to go to what is Pakistan and Afghanistan today. Those areas would have been under Islamic rule then, under the Delhi Sultanate. Even if Hindus would have been there in significant numbers in places like Lahore then, the Mongol army may have just looted and gone through it.

Hinduism is ancient but the truth seems to be that in Mongol empire times (Genghiz Khan times) it was either not there at all or in very insignificant numbers in Central Asia, Persia & China where formed key parts of the Mongol empire.
----

In response to a comment, I wrote:
I think in our current information age, with humanity having access to information like never before, we are able to get a better picture of what ***may*** have been the truth, from work done by truth-seeking researchers with integrity. Even such truth-seekers may get only a partial view of what happened. But at least they convey that partial view in a truthful manner.

However one has to be careful not to get caught up in biased accounts meant to portray one particular viewpoint (positive or negative). That's more of propaganda than truth-seeking research.
----

In response to a comment, I wrote:

My view is that it is true that reputed media sources and reputed Internet sources (some media sources are on the Internet), can be inaccurate. However, there tends to be some amount of error correction over time with truth winning out, for important public matters in our times (2nd half of 20th century onwards).

In current times, I find live video streaming to be a very good source of usually accurate info. I mean, you can just see stuff as it is happening. For example, a little while back I was watching proceedings in the UK House of Commons being streamed live by various UK media outlets (I think I watched The Guardian's live stream). I think the probability of such things being faked is very, very low.

We need to get an idea about the world around us, including its past, to better deal with the world. If we limit ourselves to only what we individually see and hear directly (not on TV or print media or Internet etc.) then we will have a primitive jungle dweller like idea of the world around us. The jungle dweller may be able to manage in the jungle, but for people who live in human society outside the jungle, having a very limited idea about the world around us beyond what we see and hear directly, can make life extremely challenging to live.

Yes, the idea gained about the world around us, including its past, through reputed sources of information may have some inaccuracies, but even with those inaccuracies it provides one a great understanding of the world around us, and helps us better deal with it, IMHO.

----

In response to a comment, I wrote:

With NASA, I have some level of trust but not complete trust. So while I am aware of Moon Landing of Apollo 11 being challenged as a fake, my view is that if it was really fake then by now that would have been splashed across the international mainstream media (Russian President Putin would have said it and RT would have interviewed him on it). Note that half a century has passed since the Moon landing.

I respect your right to doubt it, and I don't want to engage in a discussion on it. I prefer to go by reports like this one in The Guardian: One giant ... lie? Why so many people still think the moon landings were faked, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked, 10th July 2019.

You may be dismissive of the above Guardian article. That's fine. We can simply agree to disagree on this.

----

[I thank wikipedia and columbia.edu and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract(s) (small extract from columbia.edu) from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]