What factors led to India having very little Islamization compared to Persia for example? Did Turkics just not care about religion as much as Arabs?
What factors led to India having very little Islamization compared to Persia etc?
What factors led to India having very little Islamization compared to Persia for example? Did Turkics just not care about religion as much as Arabs?
?t=1723
>German aka northern european
>Pissball art
yeah, no
>Revolts
>Revolts
>Revolts
Only reason.
they paid the jizya.
Well you say that but there are like 170 million muslims in India or so
Well yes but they make up only about 15% of the population
There are gorillions of Muslims in Hindia, and this despite the existence of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both bery crowded countries made for Hindustani muslims
It’s a mystery
Considering the fact that Indian empires tend to explode instantly after hitting their peak it's amazing the Islamic ones managed to do as much as they did.
> far larger population
> Being ruled for a shorter amount of time by Muslims
That’s basically it really.
A lot of Hindus would like to tell you that it is because of the strength of their religion. lol sorry but just no.
History has shown that even majority Christian countries (so other monotheists who are among one of the hardest to convert to another religion) can still be converted and become majority Muslims if you give it enough time. Both previously Christian Egypt and Syria had far smaller population than India and it still took centuries to make them majority Muslims, but it eventually happened. If the British and other Europeans hadn’t come and interfered with India then India would have more than likely been majority Muslim by now. Actually there’s no doubt about it.
>India would have more than likely been majority Muslim by now. Actually there’s no doubt about it.
Eh where
In Bengal yeah I guess, it’d be the wealthiest part of India if not for the brits and I could see it becoming vastly majority Muslim under continued nawab rule
In the penjab it depends a lot on whether the Sikh empire form, if not then you’re going to have a durable Afghan presence and indeed large islamisation but if it lasts I don’t see it
In the center you have the Marathas - or rather Maratha states since I doubt the empire could ever reform post-panipat, but these clearly had legitimacy in being Hindu and would slow conversion, they also probably would still be kicking around if not for the brits
Mysore, Hyderabad, then-kerala these would have Muslim minorities But I don’t see majorities
>If the British and other Europeans hadn’t come and interfered with India then India would have more than likely been majority Muslim by now. Actually there’s no doubt about it.
I'm not sure I see how that's certain at all. EIC sponsorship (or conservatorship) of pliant Sunni nawabs and emperors was one of the things that prevented Southern confederations and uprisings from chipping away at the ailing Mughal empire. Not to mention external (in fact Muslim) threats it was apparently not equipped to challenge
is it your opinion that British rule actually galvanized Hindu local influence? I don't know that much about the British Raj but if anything I'd think their presence actually protected Muslim minorities from inevitable sectarian strife
What are you talking about? The British destroyed Persian as a literary language and other institutions used by muslim powers in previous centuries. Any other institutions that remained had ulterior motives like the Oudh Bequest
>The British destroyed Persian as a literary language
that's something I didn't know, like I said, I don't know much about the period. really just a bit about the Company rule. Yeah, tossing Persian sounds like it might do it. At the same time, the British were hostile to some Hindu institutions and customs, so I guess I'd ask to what degree they "picked sides" as opposed to imposing their own shit
nice trips btw
This is patently false, the British printed coins in English AND Persian until a few decades after the Government of India Act when they standardized coinage in English.
After the British Raj took over, one of the things they did generally was look at the tribal, ethnic, class and sectarian lines that existed at the time they took over, and then fix them into place, and then modify them and use them for their own purposes. So they fixed the existing divisions in place. They protected both sides from strife and from conversion.
I can't speak to the internal politics of India before the Raj took over though.
The british only ran it for 190 years basically irrelevant
Less than that it took them a while to conquer the rest of the subcontinent
Yeah, the area known as Pakistan today was only conquered around the same time as the US Civil War. The British held Pakistan for less than 90 years.
LMFAO South Korea has been under US control longer than Pakistan was under the British.
British empire maps are a meme
Paki here. So basically I wasn't even colonized or anything?
Unironically Pakis have colonized more of the UK then the other way around.
Holy shit LMFAO Angloids BTFO
Turkic muslims were very tolerant and respected other religions.
That's why india and the balkans are still pagan and christian today.
Arabs converted Spains inhabitants. Modern Spanish aren't native, they're from France
Oh lovely a schizo
If you count the whole subcontinent almost half are muslims
More like 33%
It's actually about 40%
Muslims practice tolerance as a rule, not as an exception. I don’t know why westoids have difficulty with this. I’m sorry to tell them that US propaganda from the war on terror was based on a lie.
Delhi sultanate was unstable and filled with revolts. OP pic is it's greatest extent and it exploded soon after. Mughals weren't really religious. Akbar created his own religion, and when Aurngazeb tried Islam route Marathas came into being, and Hindu Rajput kings took control over Mughal courts. British saved muslims in subcontinent.
Distance /thread
Indonesia and Malaysia are farther away yet they’re mostly Muslim
Because m*zzies follow Hindus like a bad smell. Hindus are knowledge and wealth creators. M*zzies are thieves and leeches.
*proves my point*
>Streetshitter calling anyone else smelly
lmfao
Because Muslims were smart enough to realize that it was smarter to have Pajeets around as slaves and cheap labor, rather than welcoming them into the Islamic fold. Also, making poo-in-loos Muslims would lower Islam's "brand" and make it look worse. It's the same reason McDonald's don't give out their leftover food to the homeless, it would "cheapen the brand" if people see homeless junkies eating McDonald's. Same deal here.
>Pajeet cope
Why are you so hungry for (you)s? Btw,half the names I mentioned have Non-Indian etymologies.
It's because our Hindu faith, culture and philosiphy (though not imprenetrable) is so strong. M*zzies and bible bashers, in Game Theory terms, are an extremely aggressive and ruthless player. Both came to the paradise that was Bharat. And no rewriting of history, the m*zzies were ruthless and cruel.
M*zzie arabs pushed xtianity out of their homeland and into Europe. Explain why that doesn't get mentioned.
Because hinduism is protected by God
Hinduism is just so superior to Abrahamic religions that very few would switch to something so comparatively stupid. That and when India was ruled by Hindus again they went and force converted (or just pointed out the lack of need to pretend to believe that crap) all the Abrahamics they could back to Hinduism. I find it sort of amusing that for once the Muslims are the ones getting the shit kicked out of them alongside the Christians who don't accept their inferior position to the Hindus in India. Polytheism solidly won in India and it's even started spreading to other nations.
Counterquestion: what happened on 15 August 1947?
Even if you were to combine India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Muslims would still make up less than a third of the population.
Pakistan: 250 mil Muslims
Bangladesh: 280 mil Muslims
India: 300 mil Muslims
That's like a billion Muslims in South Asia alone
>Bangladesh: 280 mil Muslims
Bangladesh has a population of around 160 million.
>implying 3rd world shitholes have the capacity to do accurate censuses
>arguing that a country's bureaucracy is so bad that it would miss a portion of their population the size of Russia to avoid admitting you're wrong
Jesus Christ
Well, I wouldn't call
>a third of the population
>very little Islamization
especially since Hinduism still is a pretty nationalist religion (well, it actually isn't a single religion) and being Hindu literally means you're Indian. (On the other hand not being Hindu meant, you weren't an Indian.) That's why you can only be born as a Hindu, you can't become one by conversion.
>being Hindu meant, you weren't an Indian.) That's why you can only be born as a Hindu, you can't become one by conversion.
Lol. I think you mean "Arya" here. Jats,Tais,Champa,Ahoms,Kirats(Tibetans),Kushans,Hunas,Mundas,Bhils.etc. have been historically recognised as Hindus after conversion with their "Arya" or Non-mlechha status being inconsistent but solidified later.
>those weird names
Holy shit why is Pajeet language so disgustingly ugly?
>Kushans
the kushans were afghan/iranic not indians
Kushans were proto-Uyghurs.
Tibetans, Thais, Kushans, and Huns want nothing to do with smelly brown streetshitters.
Muslims consider following Islam as mandatory on all humans. However, they didn't see Pajeets as humans but rather as subhuman brown monkeys. Hence, the requirement to follow Islam doesn't apply to Pajeets. Just like it doesn't apply to other simple animals.