Where to even begin?

fairly biased

To only describe this as "fairly biased" is insufficient. It is unhinged polemic.

I'll take a stab at your specific question at the end but I want to also address her other points in the video:

All of her garbage about Osama bin Laden choosing the date for 9/11 based on the battle of Vienna also having been on 9/11.

First off, as far as I'm aware the Battle of Vienna took place on 9/12.

I don't want to break the 20 year rule but insofar as she is making a historiographical claim about the centrality of the battle of Vienna in the Islamic world and among Salafi Jihadist Islamists I feel it's worth addressing. The date for the 9/11 attacks was selected by Mohammed Atta, who was not in direct contact with Bin Laden at the time. There is no suggestion in any credible sources that I've read that Atta selected the date for any particular reason; the ticket bookings were made last-minute between August 25 and September 5.

Moreover, Bin Laden wanted the "airplanes plot" to be carried out as soon as possible (i.e. earlier than they eventually were) recommending an attack be carried out immediately with no preparation as early as 2000. The only anniversary he suggested was 12 May 2001, seven months after the USS Cole bombing. He also suggested June or July 2001 when Ariel Sharon was expected to visit the White House.

You can read all of this in the 9/11 commission report here, on pages 249-250.

She also describes it as being in "the Islamic calendar." The Islamic calendar is a distinct dating system. 9/11/1683 in the Islamic calendar would have been the 20th day of the 9th month (Ramadan) of 1094. 9/11/2001 was the 23rd day of the 6th month (Jumad ath-Thani) of 1422.

"The industrial revolution...in order to stop the Muslims...was how they were able to stop them at the gates of Vienna on 9/11."

I have never come across any suggestion that the countries that defeated the Ottomans in 1683 were experiencing an industrial revolution, or that any such a thing contributed to their victory.

Also is she suggesting that the purpose of the industrial revolution was to fight Muslims? The industrial revolution involved increases in production in mining and textiles and to a certain extent other manufactures and emerged in the part of Europe that spent the least amount of time "fighting the Muslims."

Islam had covered more of the earth's surface than the Roman Empire did at it's peak.

What does this even mean? Assuming that it's something like, the territorial extent of the empires whose rulers follow Islam, then the proper comparison is to Christianity, which was far larger at this point having begun its conquest of the New World in 1492.

Also, how is that relevant? Is that supposed to make Islam scary because it was bigger than the Romans? [Smashes head against wall repeatedly].

Everything about Ataturk.

Look. Anti-semitism in the contemporary Middle East is a problem. You can find someone, somewhere who thinks that someone was a crypto-Jew. I have heard figures as diverse as Muammar Gaddafi, Osama bin Laden, Nasser, Erdogan, etc. all described as crypto-Jews. "Muslims" writ large do not think Ataturk was a crypto-Jew.

All of her muddling of Islamic Empire, Islamic Caliphate, Islamic State.

No. She needs to be precise with her terms. The Caliphate by this point was a title held by the Sultans of the Ottoman empire. Its end in 1924 was a contingent event. Sharif Hussein of the Kingdom of Hejaz, once the Caliphate had been abolished, attempted to claim the title for himself. It was the Saudis (ironically, given her subsequent description of her role in the resurrection of the "Caliphate" as ISIS) and their conquest of the Hejaz that ultimately prevented another Caliphate from emerging.

270 million people killed

[Citation needed.]

Islamists resurrect the Caliphate

As I said there was a credible claim to a successor Caliphate almost immediately. So none of her reasons for how it re-emerged are necessary.

Discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia

I mean, is she suggesting that Middle Eastern oil was only discovered by Americans in Saudi Arabia? Because there was plenty of oil discovered by the others elsewhere.

Khomeini

I mean, this is non-ridiculous in that the Iranian revolution did inspire Sunni and Shia Islamists alike despite the regions current with sectarian conflagration, but there's a bit of a cause and effect problem. Khomeini did not spring from the earth ex-nihilo. There had to have been (and there were) existing Islamist movements in the rest of the Muslim world who could be inspired.

Wahhabists

I mean, the irony here is that she's repeating Wahhabi propaganda. They certainly claim to practice "true" Islam, but that's to deny the truth of every other form of Islam that is practiced.

Mecca

This proscription against non-Muslims entering Mecca was not put in place by the Saudis/Wahhabists. The Ottomans had the same proscription. I'm not sure how old it is, but Richard Burton in the 19th century certainly had to enter the city incognito.

al-Qaeda praising Saudi Arabia

[Citation needed].

This part actually doesn't violate the 20 year rule, happily. Osama bin Laden was stripped of Saudi citizenship after having already been exiled from the country in 1994 for his criticism of the ruling family.

Taqqiya

This is most commonly a Shia doctrine of dissimulation that only applies under specific circumstances, notably threat to ones own life. I'd be happy to cite Salafi Jihadi texts that specifically deny that a Jihadist can lie, and that instead they should practice deliberate ambiguity.

Prophet Muhammad...made money without working

Is she really suggesting that Muhammad invented tribal raiding?

Broke peace treaty

No Christian has ever broken a peace treaty.

Arafat didn't even wait 10 years for the Oslo Accords

Article 1 of the Oslo accords stated that there would be a transitional period of 5 years during which a final status agreement would be negotiated, commencing no later than 3 years after the signing.

Then it gets into 20 year stuff that I can't discuss, but the point is that Oslo was not a final status treaty and mentions nothing about a 10-year truce.

Sharia law and polls

I can't really address this except that I'll note that she is butchering the social science of this.

---

Now as to your original question:

"How 'progressive' (or not) was the religion tax imposed by Islamic countries (I have heard of more than one doing this) in comparison to other countries in regards to tolerating other religions?"

This is a really expansive question. Happily I think I've addressed it in large part before HERE among other places, which also touches on your other question about the treatment of minorities under Islam generally.

You might also be interested in /u/frogbrooks answer here on Christian/Muslim relations: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5r1b84/seriouswhy_is_there_such_animosity_between_the/

---

Sourcewise, I mean, her comments are so scattershot going as they do from the 7th century to the 21st, that it's hard to recommend a specific source. I guess I would recommend Islam: A Very Short Introduction because the speaker doesn't know what she's talking about at a very basic level.

That being said, I'd be happy to recommend more on a specific topic if it's of interest.

Hey! I'm going to copy below an answer that I wrote for the question [Serious]Why is there such animosity between the religions of Islam and Christianity?. Hopefully this helps answer your question:

---

Hey! Although many may assume from watching the news that Islam and Christianity have been antagonistic against each other, for most of history this was not true (I am not going to pass much judgment on modern relations, as it is within the 20-years rule, but I do personally believe politics/economics often plays a larger role than religion in disputes.)

Within Islam, Christians (along with Jews and sometimes other religions) are known as ahl al-kitāb, or the People of the Book. This means that Christians are entitled to certain protections in an Islamic state as defined by the ʿaqd al-dhimma, or contract of protection. Someone living in this state is known as a dhimmī, a word you may have heard thrown around before. I'm going to quote below some things that I have written before on the status of the dhimmi is Early Islam:

One key aspect about the early expansion of Islam is that it did not attempt to force its way of life upon other people. Under the Caliph 'Umar, it was envisioned that Islam would be for the Arabs, who would exist as a sort of military caste above the conquered people. This meant that the conquered populations were disturbed as little as possible, and conversions were only on a voluntary basis. This precedent was set with Muhammed allowing the Jews and Christians of Arabia to keep their religion if they paid the Jizya (poll tax). This payment would make a member of the religions of the book - Jews, Christians, and later Zoroastrians - members of the protected class, or dhimmi. These people would be reserved from having to pay the aforementioned Zakat tax (a mandatory charitable donation of 1/40th of a persons income, after certain deductions, that is one of the 5 pillars of Islam) and from military service within the empire. This isn't to say that taxes wouldn't get absurdly high though, as Ira Lapidus notes that taxes on peasants could reach upwards of 50% of the value of the goods. It does, however, mean that the Muslim invaders were not hated. In fact, some Christian tribes had allied themselves with the Muslims against the Sassanians or Byzantines.

Oddly enough, the Religions of the Book flourished in the early days of conquest with Islams coming. Many previously repressed sects were able to abound, and apocalyptic messages were numerous. This changed though as time went on. 'Umar II (r.717-720) forbade Christians to hold powerful government positions. Other successive rulers forbade minority religions to ride horses, bear weapons, or show outward religious symbols in public. Repression came in waves, as one Caliph would crack down (Such as Yazid II destroying churches and animal sculptures) and then others relent. Keep in mind through all of this that from the 7th to the 11th century, upwards of half the world's Christians lived under Islamic rule, yet they were not forced to exile or forced to convert by force (at least in large-scale).

So while it is true that Christians had fewer rights than Muslims (with varying degrees of intensity throughout the last 1400 years) it was not as if all Christians were hated. Indeed, Christians were also often able to take advantage of Islamic institutions and customs. They would be allowed to make and sell wine, something forbidden to Muslims, and could even enforce that right within the court system. Wael Hallaq writes within Sharīʿa: Theory, Practices, Transformations (page 167) that:

... Jews and Christians often prevailed in court not only over Muslim business partners and neighbors but also against no less powerful figures than the provincial governor himself.

The Muslim court thus afforded a sort of public arena for anyone who chose to utilize than space for his or her defense

To sum up, I'd like to pull a few quotes from the paper Dhimmi or not Dhimmi?: Religious Freedom and Early Islam by Mark Graham, which I would recommend you to read to get a more complete view of Christians in Early Islam:

Many of these dhimmis within the early Islamic realm were Nestorian or Monophysite Christians. While none of these writers deny that the Islamic conquest was generally violent, several such writers demonstrate clearly that the early Muslims were decidedly more tolerant than their former Christian Byzantine masters.

//

A fellow Nestorian and seventh-century patriarch, Isho’yahb actually presents his Muslim overlords as outright favorable toward Christians, and not merely tolerant. His writings provide one of the most complete accounts of relations between the Muslim rulers and the Christians in his region. In a letter to one of his bishops he records that the Muslims “not only do not fight Christianity, they even commend our religion, show honor to the priests and monasteries and saints of our Lord, and make gifts to the monasteries and churches.”

//

One of many relevant facts he [Sebeos] records is that the first governor of Muslim-ruled Jerusalem was himself actually a Jew.

I hope that this shows that, at least within early Islam, relations between Christians, Jews, and Muslims were, while not always perfectly harmonious, not characterized by animosity. Islamic powers managed some remarkably religiously-diverse empires, encompassing millions of people from Spain to India, and managed to keep overarching peace and tolerance for much of its rule. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Sources

Ira Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies

Wael Hallaq, Sharīʿa: Theory, Practice, Transformations

Mark Graham, Dhimmi or not Dhimmi?: Religious Freedom and Early Islam

---

I would then like to add on to this some information specifically relating to the jizya.

We learn from the article "The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam" that, under the Prophet, the jizya was a rather fixed rate tax. So it was not "progressive" in terms that you may think of today. For example, it was recorded that Muhammad at one point decreed

"I impose upon each man who has no land four dirhams and a piece of cloak".

Other communities may have agreed to pay a set price per man or give tribute in the form of goods.

A second article, "Islamic Law, Practice, and Legal Doctrine: Exempting the Poor from the Jizya under the Ayyubids (1171-1250)" gives some more stipulations for exemption from the jizya. The author Alshech first gives several examples of when people were exempted throughout Islamic history. In some cases, they were exempted if that had no job. In others, if they had to rely on charity. Still in others, rulers apparently didn't care about how poor the dhimmī was and continued to press him to pay his taxes. Alshech makes the argument in his paper that, although religious opinion was split on how to deal with the poor, in practice under the Ayyubids they were rarely, if ever, given exemptions.

The social-denegration factor that the speaker mentions apparently was at times an issue and treated as more of a political problem than a religious quarrel. Ahmed refers to the example of the Banu Taghlib, a Christian Arab Tribe who had recently come under the influence of the growing Islamic Empire.

[The] Banu Taghlib, an influential tribe of Arab stock, on feeling humiliated at the Caliph's order for Jizya, refused to pay it and instead volunteered to pay Sadaqa at the double rate. 'Umar first refused to accede to this proposal, and consequently many members of Banu Taghlib crossed over to the Romans and swelled the ranks of the enemy. Ultimately, the second Caliph, at the counsel of Nu'man b. Jur'a, a Companion of the Prophet, had to rescind his orders. He agreed to accept Sadaqa twice the usual rate.

This shows that, in at least some instances, political considerations thus outweighed the religious motivations for the jizya. Although the amount varied over time, there could be an aspect of humiliation. This didn't stop however Christians from living, often successfully, in Islamic societies or being given many of the same protections of law (such as the Courts that I mentioned in the first part of my response).

I hope that this can start to answer some of your questions! I have some things to do so I can't look up too much more on the social-denegration aspect of the jizya, but if that is what interests you can I try to get back to you when I have some more time to do reserach. In any case, I'd be happy to try and answer whatever questions you have!

Sources for this part

AHMED, ZIAUDDIN. “THE CONCEPT OF JIZYA IN EARLY ISLAM.” Islamic Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, 1975, pp. 293–305. www.jstor.org/stable/20846971.

Alshech, Eli. “Islamic Law, Practice, and Legal Doctrine: Exempting the Poor from the Jizya under the Ayyubids (1171-1250).” Islamic Law and Society, vol. 10, no. 3, 2003, pp. 348–375. www.jstor.org/stable/3399423.