The strongest reply is not that every Muslim ruler was tolerant, or that every juristic rule was gentle. It is that the Quran and the Prophetic model establish protection, justice, and covenant rights for non-Muslims, while some later restrictions were historical applications, disputed policies, or abuses - not a timeless command to humiliate people.

Why the objection sounds strong

The criticism has real material to point to. Quran 9:29 mentions fighting certain People of the Book until they pay jizya "while humbled." Classical law did develop a dhimma system in which Jews, Christians, and others could live under Muslim rule with legal protection, but not as full political equals. Some jurists restricted public religious display, new church construction, bells, processions, and open polemics against Islam. Some manuals and local regulations, such as those associated with Ibn Abdun, contain language that is harsh and socially degrading.

So the objection should not be dismissed as pure invention. The real question is whether these harsher features are the essence of Islam, required by revelation everywhere, or whether they are a mixture of scripture, premodern statecraft, juristic disagreement, and local politics.

What Quran 9:29 actually establishes

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day... from those who were given the Scripture until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled."

Quran 9:29

This verse was not revealed as a license for mobs to bully religious minorities. It concerns political authority after conflict with hostile powers. Classical jurists did generalize it into a public-law rule: non-Muslim communities under Muslim sovereignty paid jizya in return for protection and exemption from military service and zakat. That is a premodern arrangement, not modern equal citizenship.

The key phrase "wa hum saghirun" means that they accept the authority of the state and do not wage war against it. Some jurists added humiliating collection rituals, but others rejected abuse. Abu Yusuf, the famous judge, warned against beating, overburdening, or mistreating taxpayers. The Prophet (PBUH) gave stern protection to people under covenant:

"Whoever kills a person under covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."

Sahih al-Bukhari

That hadith is hard to reconcile with the idea that their degradation is the goal of the law.

Churches, public religion, and insult laws

Classical rules about churches varied. Existing churches were often protected by treaty. Repair was sometimes allowed, sometimes restricted. New construction was treated differently depending on whether the land was conquered by force, treaty, or newly settled by Muslims. This is not the same as saying Islam commands the destruction or permanent strangling of all non-Muslim worship.

The Quran even names the protection of non-Muslim houses of worship as part of the moral order preserved by lawful defense:

"Had Allah not repelled some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which Allah's name is much mentioned, would have been demolished."

Quran 22:40

As for blasphemy and public insults against the Prophet (PBUH) or the Quran, classical law often treated them as political-religious offenses, especially where they threatened public order or covenant loyalty. That does not mean every private criticism, academic disagreement, or internal doubt is punishable by death. Quran 5:33, for example, concerns violent warfare and spreading terror in the land, not ordinary argument.

What this proves - and what it does not

It proves that classical Islamic governance was hierarchical. It did not teach modern liberal equality between all religions in public law. It also proves that some Muslim societies imposed humiliating restrictions, and some jurists defended them.

But it does not prove that Islam mandates cruelty, mob persecution, forced conversion, or the systematic personal humiliation of Jews and Christians. The Quran commands justice and kindness toward peaceful non-Muslims:

"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion and did not expel you from your homes."

Quran 60:8

So the fair verdict is mixed but clear: the dhimma system belongs to a premodern imperial world and included real legal inequality. Yet the core Islamic duty is covenant, protection, justice, and restraint - not humiliation for its own sake, and not oppression as a religious ideal.