Most of these conversions were due to the preaching a of Sufis and the rigid caste system in Hinduism, I gave you a table in another thread showing how the numbers of Muslims went up from 47 % to 53 % (between 1881 and 1941), and Hinduism dropped from 44 % to 29 % in the Punjab of British India. Was persecution going on during those times too? The issue is not simplistic, and the mass conversions that took place in this region was not due to invasions but people took them to get rid of caste system.
I guess we disagree on how those conversions took place. Fortunately, historians worldwide agree with me that the global spread of Islam was through the sword and not on its merits, and India was no exception.
I guess we disagree on how those conversions took place. Fortunately, historians worldwide agree with me that the global spread of Islam was through the sword and not on its merits, and India was no exception.
Not true, there are historians who believe otherwise. have you ever read 'Karen Armstrong'?
I guess we disagree on how those conversions took place. Fortunately, historians worldwide agree with me that the global spread of Islam was through the sword and not on its merits, and India was no exception.
I agree with you that the conversions in India was mainly due to persecution of Hindus due to hindu caste system. When the people fed up with this caste system got options they converted to Islam, Christianity and Sikhism.
The conversions in the subcontinent were mainly due to the inherent persecution due to hindu caste system, when people got the alternatives they adopted them shunning Hinduism. This alternative was Islam, Sikhism or Christianity.
Keeping aside India for the time being, can anyone give here a reference that Islam was spread in Malaysia and Indonesia through sword?
If Islam didn't get substance to reach people's heart, how could we have found Muslims in Kerala (India) without any Muslim raids?
Islam reached to hearts of people of Medina in its very beginning not because prophet waged a war on them, but due the fact that people of Medina wanted to denounce exploitation by the Jewish tribes. It was Islam that united tribes of Aus and Khazraj in Medina, who were fighting with each other due to Jewish exploitation.
Even leave Malaysia aside, how did Islam reach Bengal? As far as Bangladesh is concerned, there are non Muslims on all sides, I have been thinking for the last few days. How did they become muslims?
The conversions in the subcontinent were mainly due to the inherent persecution due to hindu caste system, when people got the alternatives they adopted them shunning Hinduism. This alternative was Islam, Sikhism or Christianity.
Its fine if you want to believe that, but thats not true. I can understand Hindus converting to Sikhism, Budhism or Christianity due to caste system. The conversion to Islam were mostly forced and history books support that assertion.
Its fine if you want to believe that, but thats not true. I can understand Hindus converting to Sikhism, Budhism or Christianity due to caste system. The conversion to Islam were mostly forced and history books support that assertion.
As I earlier said there are many books, which denies this. Its upto a person, if he / she can read that contrary view.
Even leave Malaysia aside, how did Islam reach Bengal? As far as Bangladesh is concerned, there are non Muslims on all sides, I have been thinking for the last few days. How did they become muslims?
Interesting question Ali. May be Islam reached Bengal via India, but we have to look into history of Muslims in Bengal
Interesting question Ali. May be Islam reached Bengal via India, but we have to look into history of Muslims in Bengal
Bengal was a buddhist kingdom before the arrival of Islam. Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji controlled Bengal which was when the region had the most number of converts . Muslim missionaries played a part equally important. Most of the areas which are predominantly muslim were buddhist kingdoms- sindh, baluchisthan, Afghanisthan, Bengal were all Buddhist with a hindu minority. Exception being Kashmir which was hindu majority. Punjab before Islam was under control of the pala empire (750-1220) and hindu shahi which were both buddhist and hindu in nature. It is the buddhist majority of pre-islamic india with exceptions of parts of punjab and kashmir which are muslim majority today. Buddhism is a casteless religion unlike hinduism and they were the first to convert. They did not face any discrimination based on "castes". Hindus converted too but they held on longer despite the so called "evil caste system" as is proclaimed today. So how can we consider caste system as the main cause of voluntary conversion of Hindus ?
Note my post #119 where I have acknowledged the work of sufis in trying to gain converts.
Bengal was a buddhist kingdom before the arrival of Islam. Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji controlled Bengal which was when the region had the most number of converts . Muslim missionaries played a part equally important. Most of the areas which are predominantly muslim were buddhist kingdoms- sindh, baluchisthan, Afghanisthan, Bengal were all Buddhist with a hindu minority. Exception being Kashmir which was hindu majority. Punjab before Islam was under control of the pala empire (750-1220) and hindu shahi which were both buddhist and hindu in nature. It is the buddhist majority of pre-islamic india with exceptions of parts of punjab and kashmir which are muslim majority today. Buddhism is a casteless religion unlike hinduism and they were the first to convert. They did not face any discrimination based on "castes". Hindus converted too but they held on longer despite the so called "evil caste system" as is proclaimed today. So how can we consider caste system as the main cause of voluntary conversion of Hindus ?
How don't we hear about forced conversions during Muslim rule in Sindh? No demolitions during Arab conquests, besides controversial accounts for treatment of Raja Dahir's daughters. Sindh is still known as Baab ul Islam (door to Islam) in sub-continent and is dominant by Sufism.
I've seen many Sindhis keeping Budha's statue in their homes. If it had been the forcible conversion, such things would have been rooted out from the society by the invaders. Sindh's culture is incomplete without three Sufi saints. Qalandar Shahbaz, Shah Abdul lateef and Sachal Sarmast all from Arab families. But even todate not only Muslims, but Hindus of Sindh revere them. Forced conversions never win such respect and devotions IMO.
Jeez, Here is a cut and paste from my earlier post…
I am talking about the invasions of Ghaznavi, Ghori, the atrocities of Khiljis at nalanda , Timur the lame’s invasion of India where he seperated the people on the basis of religion and killed the hindus but spared the muslims, Aurangazeb’s intolerance, Tipu Sultan’s intolerance in Kerala, Sikander Butshikan of Kashmir. All these were guilty of persecution of Hindus because of their religion and forced conversions. So persecution of Hindus is a historical fact.
Having said that, there were also kings who were tolerant and who realized early on that a stable empire was only possible by keeping all the subjects happy . Notable examples are Akbar and Zain-ul-Abidin. Bin Quasim was notably tolerant in his dealing of the local population of Sindh.
Sufis played a big role in spread of Islam but it is wrong to say that there was no forced conversion at all.
Do you have anything against what I said there ?
Maybe sufis played an important role in Sindh but was there no forced conversion? If it was a land of equality, why would Sindhi hindus have someone real or imagined like this who supposedly saved them from the “fanatical muslim clergy and ruler” ? Jhulelal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In how many hindu ruled dynasties which mughals were not able to conquer did Islam become a major religion due to conversion as an escape from the “evil hindu society” ? I mentioned Ranjit Singh who I read was unfair to muslims. How many hindu kings treated their muslim subjects lousily and encouraged their reconversion ? The one person who tried and was getting results was Swami Shraddhananda with his shuddhi movement. The muslim and christian clergies started to take note when they saw muslims and Christians reconverting and he was assasinated by a muslim fanatic in his home.
Give any reference to forced conversions in Sindh during the period of Muslim rulers. Even Sindh remained under Mughal rule (including Aurangzeb’s period). Did Aurangzeb tried to convert Hindus in Sindh?
It would be interesting for you to know that Sindhi Hindu and Muslims call God as ‘Dhani’ meaning master, which is contrary to the statement given in Wikipedia’s article for Jhulelal. The character of Jhulelaal is covered under myths. there is one belief that Qalandar Shahbaz of Sehwan (a Muslim saint) is Jhule laal. Above all, the article doesn’t contain any historical references and don’t give any proper account of forced conversion in Sindh.
I would also want to know Muslim subjects under Non-Muslim ruler in India? Which states had sizeable Muslim population under non-Muslim ruler?
Just like how in modern day Al-qaeda and their religion is the real or imaginary reason behind every conceivable threat. If today’s popular/mainstream opinion is to be relied on as the only factual account, then couple of centuries down history books will portray Muslims as the sole reason of disharmony and chaos at the turn of 21st century. It’s up to the reader to uncover the bias unless of course if the reader if looking to confirm their own prejudice.
were these kingdoms truely independent from Muslim rulers in Centre (Delhi)?
Yes as far as my knowledge goes. They had problems with the british. Umm... Delhi was not considered a centre here. Mughals ruled part of N. India and Pak not the south.
Wodeyers of Mysore were hindu kings and the kingdom was in their hands except when who was their commander-in-chief Haider Ali usurped power and made himself defacto ruler. His son Tipu sultan forced persian upon the kannada speaking population and displayed his pious and rich character in a letter to the governer of Bekal which went like this...
Don't you know I have achieved a great victory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam? I am determined to march against that cursed Raman Nair (Raja of Travencore) very soon. Since I am overjoyed at the prospect of converting him and his subjects to Islam, I have happily abandoned the idea of going back to Srirangapatanam now.
18th Century, after death of Aurangzeb? Wasn't Bengal remained under influence of Mughals? i remember reading that even Humayon spent many months there before losing his crown to Sher Shah.
Irrespective of these things, may be Hindu kings didn't want to invite invaders like Abdali and nadir Shah by exploiting their minority Muslim subjects.
