So, in general, it's correct to say that in Islamic civilization, both in theory and in practice, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were called dhimmis and were lower in status than Muslims. But all they had to do to become part of this elite was say "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God," which seems laughable considering what one has to do to move from a subordinated/non-citizen status to a fully enfranchised position in modern nation states (we have to remember, btw, that, even in what we think of the Muslim heartland of the ME, conversion to Islam was extremely slow, ex. in 800 CE only 18% of Iraq was Muslim, in 865 CE only 40% of Iran was Muslim, Egypt was not majority Muslim until the 1000s, etc.). Moving on the the OP's claims: 1) Non-Muslims "Could not own horses or weapons" - this is so absurd it's hard to know how to reply. Of course they could own both. There were often rules that said they could not *ride* if Muslims were on foot, though this was usually not actually observed. And they sometimes were not allowed to carry arms. But from the 1100s to the 1700s, off and on in Egypt and Iran, Armenian Christians were crucial units in the armies (even under the Umayyads there had been Christian troops in the army), and the Mughal Empire in South Asia relied on Rajput Hindu forces as a main pillar of its army; 2) "Could only wear black" - grotesquely false; in various eras and places Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and Buddhists had to wear certain colors or items of clothing to identity themselves, but this was completely normal in a pre-ID world and was often embraced by those minorities as means of preserving/policing their own communal boundaries (their fear was very often of assimilation into the Muslim majority)(btw Black was the color of the Abbasid caliphs from 750-1258 CE, so wearing black would be the prerogative of the caliphal court); 3) "Could not testify against Muslims in court" - they could absolutely bring cases against Muslims, state their cases and provide evidence (this goes back to the time of the Prophet). What they could not do, in theory, according to the Shariah was serve as notaries in cases involving Muslims or as character witnesses testifying against the integrity of Muslims; 4) "Had to give almost all of their income to the Muslim rulers (jizya)" - totally inaccurate. Jizya was determined by various Muslim regimes and varied greatly ex. One dinar (gold) per family in Yemen in 700s, in 713 CE in Iberia Christians paid 1 dirham (silver) per year; 2-3 dinars in 800’s in Iraq (fyi an average family could live on 2 dinars a month). Sometimes the jizya was suspended altogether, ex. by the Ilkhan ruler Ghazan Khan (d. 1304), the Mughal Emperor Akbar (d. 1605) and in the Ottoman Empire after 1856; 5) "Christian and Jewish women were often kidnapped and forced into Muslim marriages" - I don't know where this comes from. BTW Dhimmis could not be enslaved. 6) "Christian and Jewish children were often kidnapped, raised as Muslim and then sent to serve in the army" - you mean Christians (usually Greeks, Serbians or Albanians from the Balkans or Anatolia during the Ottoman Empire from roughly 1390 to mid 1700s. They would make up the most feared unit in the Ottoman army, the Janissaries, as well as the senior administration of the Ottoman Empire; 7) "A Christian or a Jew could not look a Muslim in the eye or raise their voices" - I have never heard of this.

Oh sure. Sorry, previous tweet was unclear, but was responding to the French losing their minds over a relatively small increase in the retirement age.