I'm not an expert, but in Antonia Fraser's biography, Cromwell comes across as a remarkably tolerant person for his time. He was anti-Catholic, but this is in the context of 150 years of religious conflict including, within living memory, an attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. And yet he negotiated with the Pope to secure freedom of private worship for Catholics in exchange for the Pope not preaching rebellion to English subjects. Of the many bigots on his side, he once said "Nothing will satisfy them unless they can put their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there." He spoke for toleration: "I had rather that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God's children should be persecuted." He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.) I've already mentioned his protection of the Jews.

It's important not to confuse Cromwell with "the Puritans" in general, still less some of the extremists in the army. He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.

> He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.)

It's clear that it was different, not that it was wider. Cromwell was generally interested in toleration of various 'non-conformist' groups, but mostly Calvinist ones (presumably these were the ones he counted as "God's children"; 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away since there weren't any significant number of Muslims in Britain at the time). Even Quakers didn't end up particularly well-protected by the Protectorate. (James II, Charles I's younger son, did much more for the Quakers.)

The toleration of Jews was plausibly driven in part by Puritan millennarist beliefs about the role of the Jews in the end-times, but there was a more general trend towards more positive views of Jews throughout the 17th and into the 18th-centuries which doesn't seem specific to Cromwell or the Puritans.

> He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.

He ended up with far more power (both direct and indirect) than the kings preceding or following him.

> 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away

hm think again, the English people traded, travelled and warred across the known World. The ideas and social constructs of far-away others would certainly be a topic amongst the educated. A public position of tolerance may have been something substantial. Next, weigh that against a forceful, vocal and unapologetic Christian branch that stood for conversion of un-saved souls through the bounty of our Lord JC amen. So, no, not so easy to throw out IHMO.

I don't dispute any of what you say; in fact, I think perhaps even not just a topic for the 'educated' but also in more popular venues.

But the context here was Cromwell talking about (hypothetically) preferring to allow 'Mahometanism' to be practised in England, not just as an idea or social construct of far-away others.

Since there wasn't any great likelihood that any legal or social changes were going to actually cause 'Mahometanism' to suddenly flourish in England, it is indeed a pretty easy throw-away remark.