Structurally, Part 4 resembles Part 2 in that it compares and contrasts major Islamic empires. In Part 4, however, the three empires addressed are roughly contemporaneous with each other. Whereas comparisons between the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates raised questions about the ideal balance between religious and political leadership in an Islamic context, , the comparison between the Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman empires raises questions about religious tolerance and intolerance. In particular, Armstrong’s narrative of the Mughal Empire serves to highlight the strengths of religious tolerance and the pitfalls of religious intolerance.

Firstly, Armstrong is careful to emphasize the resilience of Indian civilization, which she argues is tied directly to its cultural philosophy of religious coexistence. This philosophy offers another example of External Influences on Islamic Thought, Politics, and Culture, as the Islamic government of the Mughal Empire had to contend with the cosmopolitanism of its environment: “During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Hindus of all castes and even a few Muslims had joined forces in establishing a spiritualized, contemplative form of monotheism, which forswore sectarian intolerance,” she writes, “Universalism was firmly established in India, and an intolerant polity would run against the grain of Indic culture” (148). In India, the Mughals encountered a status quo of tolerance that had been hundreds of years in the making and would not be simple to undermine. Armstrong goes on to highlight the cultural feats that the Mughals were able to achieve in this tolerant ethos. Of Shah Jihan, she asserts, “His Taj Mahal continued his grandfather’s tradition of blending Muslim with Hindu styles of architecture. At his court, he patronized Hindu poets and Muslim scientific works were translated into Sanskrit” (150). For contemporary readers unfamiliar with the history of Mughal India, the Taj Mahal will be an immediately familiar reference point, and will illustrate the cultural prowess of the Mughals.

These cultural heights having been demonstrated, Armstrong is able to make clear the depth of cultural loss that occurred once the Mughals shifted towards a more intolerant mode of government. “The jizyah was reimposed, and the taxes of Hindu merchants were doubled. Worst of all, Hindu temples were destroyed all over the empire. The response showed how wise the previous tolerance had been,” Armstrong asserts in a clear statement of support for religious tolerance (151). This shift illustrates The Tension Between Religious and Secular Approaches to Government. The more rigid the Moghul’s religious rule became, the more it led to conflict with those of other faiths. This theme of cultural opportunity amidst tolerance and cultural loss amidst intolerance is carried through in Armstrong’s discussions of the Safavid and Ottoman Empires. In the case of the Ottomans, she frames Ottoman interest in European innovations as a missed opportunity to build cultural resilience in the lead up to the age of colonialism:

Where the court was still open to the new ideas coming from Europe, the madrasahs became centres of opposition to any experimentation that derived from the European infidels… The ulama’s influence with the people coloured major sectors of Ottoman society, making them resistant to the idea of change at a time when change was inevitable (157).

As such, Part 4 makes an argument for religious tolerance in all times. This endorsement of religious tolerance is carried through in the final section of the book, which will bring The Importance of Debunking Misconceptions About Islam to its culmination.