“In the context of the Ottoman Empire, toleration [ensured] that, as a rule, non-Muslims would not be persecuted. No doubt, as dhimmis,* according to Islam, they were second-class citizens . . . who endured a healthy dose of daily prejudice. [Nevertheless, the Ottomans tolerated religious and ethnic difference] because it had something to contribute. That is, difference added to the empire; it did not detract from it and, therefore, it was commended. Toleration had a [beneficial] quality; maintaining peace and order was good for imperial life, diversity contributed to imperial welfare. . . . The Ottoman Empire fared better than did its predecessors or contemporaries [in tolerating religious and ethnic difference] until the beginning of the eighteenth century, largely as a result of its understanding of difference and its resourcefulness in [administrative organization]. It maintained relative peace with its various communities and also ensured that interethnic strife would not occur.”

*Islamic law defines dhimmis as non-Muslim communities living under Muslim political rule

Karen Barkey, Turkish-American historian and sociologist, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, published in 2008

All of the following statements about the Ottoman Empire in the period 1450–1750 are factually accurate. Which would most strongly support Barkey’s claim regarding the Ottoman state and toleration in the passage?