How India remained Hindu majority country !!

[Manas7]

 

[Tshering22]

And thank heavens you people are majority that we are all safe and live together peacefully.

Organized religions majority would have reduced us to something like Iran, Saudi, Greece or Vatican. Make sure you remain majority so that other minorities can live in peace.

 

[kseeker]

Make sure you remain majority so that other minorities can live in peace.

We withstood for thousand years fighting against religion conversion and we will in future as well.

 

[civfanatic]

The video is full of BS and factual errors. I don't know why people still listen to idiots like Swami.

Iran was converted to 100% Islam within 15 years? Egypt was converted to 100% Islam within 20 years?

There were independent Zoroastrian kings in Iran even in the 10th century, and Iran didn't have a large Muslim majority until the late 11th century. The Ghorids, who would conquer Indo-Gangetic Plain and establish the first major Muslim sultanate in India, did not convert to Islam until the 12th century. In fact, part of the reason why people like Mohammed Ghori were so zealous, is precisely because they were newly-converted. They were also rather self-conscious of the fact, and wanted to appear as 'Islamic' as possible to the Khalifa in Baghdad, so that they could boost their legitimacy in front of other Islamic states. And the main way they did this, was by defeating kafirs and expanding the Dar-ul Islam.

As for Egypt, it is not 100% Muslim even today. Coptic Christians form about 10-15% of the population.

It is also a myth that Indians 'successfully resisted' Islam. The Indian Subcontinent has by far the largest Muslim population in the whole world. There is no use talking about percentages here, because conversions don't proceed by percentages; they proceed by raw numbers, and percentages are statistics derived after the fact. For example, if 100,000 Syrians convert to Islam and 1 million Indians convert to Islam, then a higher percentage of Syrians converted to Islam because there are far more Indians than Syrians. But that doesn't change the fact that Islam was 10 times more successful in India than in Syria, since 10 times as many Indians converted to Islam than Syrians (in my example).

Swami can only fool gullible people who don't know history. He can't fool those that have already done their homework.

 

[drkrn]

The video is full of BS and factual errors. I don't know why people still listen to idiots like Swami.

Iran was converted to 100% Islam within 15 years? Egypt was converted to 100% Islam within 20 years?

There were independent Zoroastrian kings in Iran even in the 10th century, and Iran didn't have a large Muslim majority until the late 11th century. The Ghorids, who would conquer Indo-Gangetic Plain and establish the first major Muslim sultanate in India, did not convert to Islam until the 12th century. In fact, part of the reason why people like Mohammed Ghori were so zealous, is precisely because they were newly-converted. They were also rather self-conscious of the fact, and wanted to appear as 'Islamic' as possible to the Khalifa in Baghdad, so that they could boost their legitimacy in front of other Islamic states. And the main way they did this, was by defeating kafirs and expanding the Dar-ul Islam.

As for Egypt, it is not 100% Muslim even today. Coptic Christians form about 10-15% of the population.

It is also a myth that Indians 'successfully resisted' Islam. The Indian Subcontinent has by far the largest Muslim population in the whole world. There is no use talking about percentages here, because conversions don't proceed by percentages; they proceed by raw numbers, and percentages are statistics derived after the fact. For example, if 100,000 Syrians convert to Islam and 1 million Indians convert to Islam, then a higher percentage of Syrians converted to Islam because there are far more Indians than Syrians. But that doesn't change the fact that Islam was 10 times more successful in India than in Syria, since 10 times as many Indians converted to Islam than Syrians (in my example).

Swami can only fool gullible people who don't know history. He can't fool those that have already done their homework.

to add,iranians in india are called parsi community.they worship fire.they are completely annihilated in their mother land by muslims calling them pagans.best known persons from this community ratan tata.

you contradict swamis view of complete conversion of egypt and iran in less than 20 years.technically it is possible isn't it.
you are comparing with current christian population of 10-15%,but we dont exactly know the population demographics at that period.
christianity spread in those regions due to crusades.

its true india is the only country which successfully resisted religious conversions on large scale to both islam and christianity.
look to our right and left on world map.you see islam

 

[civfanatic]

to add,iranians in india are called parsi community.they worship fire.they are completely annihilated in their mother land by muslims calling them pagans.best known persons from this community ratan tata.

Zoroastrians were never "completely annihilated" in Iran. There are still Zoroastrians in Iran today (25,000 as per the 2012 Iran Census).

you contradict swamis view of complete conversion of egypt and iran in less than 20 years.technically it is possible isn't it.
you are comparing with current christian population of 10-15%,but we dont exactly know the population demographics at that period.
christianity spread in those regions due to crusades.

The Crusaders never conquered Egypt, and even if they did, they wouldn't have spread Coptic Christianity, which is unique to Egypt. We know for sure that there were Coptic Christians during and after the Islamic conquest of Egypt, because Muslim records themselves mention them.

You are right that we don't know the exact demographics. So go ask Swami how he came up with his ridiculous figures.

its true india is the only country which successfully resisted religious conversions on large scale to both islam and christianity.
look to our right and left on world map.you see islam

Pakistan and Bangladesh were both part of India before. They were once Hindus who converted on a large scale to Islam.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

The video is full of BS and factual errors. I don't know why people still listen to idiots like Swami.

Iran was converted to 100% Islam within 15 years? Egypt was converted to 100% Islam within 20 years?

There were independent Zoroastrian kings in Iran even in the 10th century, and Iran didn't have a large Muslim majority until the late 11th century. The Ghorids, who would conquer Indo-Gangetic Plain and establish the first major Muslim sultanate in India, did not convert to Islam until the 12th century. In fact, part of the reason why people like Mohammed Ghori were so zealous, is precisely because they were newly-converted. They were also rather self-conscious of the fact, and wanted to appear as 'Islamic' as possible to the Khalifa in Baghdad, so that they could boost their legitimacy in front of other Islamic states. And the main way they did this, was by defeating kafirs and expanding the Dar-ul Islam.

As for Egypt, it is not 100% Muslim even today. Coptic Christians form about 10-15% of the population.

It is also a myth that Indians 'successfully resisted' Islam. The Indian Subcontinent has by far the largest Muslim population in the whole world. There is no use talking about percentages here, because conversions don't proceed by percentages; they proceed by raw numbers, and percentages are statistics derived after the fact. For example, if 100,000 Syrians convert to Islam and 1 million Indians convert to Islam, then a higher percentage of Syrians converted to Islam because there are far more Indians than Syrians. But that doesn't change the fact that Islam was 10 times more successful in India than in Syria, since 10 times as many Indians converted to Islam than Syrians (in my example).

Swami can only fool gullible people who don't know history. He can't fool those that have already done their homework.

Iran
Start :
The Muslim forces in the Sawād fell back and regrouped under Saʿd at the fortress of ʿOḏayb and the nearby village of Qādes to await reinforcements from Syria. After the two armies had faced each other for four months, the Persians were defeated in a fierce three-day battle, with heavy casualties on both sides, probably in Jomādā I, 16/June, 637.
End :
Having lost the support of the governor of Sīstān by demanding tax arrears, Yazdegerd headed for Marv. Nevertheless, in 30/650-51 or 31/651-52 ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmer sent force to Sīstān under Rabīʿ b. Zīād al-Ḥāreṯī, who took Zāleq, Karkūya, Haysūn, and Nāšrūḏ on terms and besieged Zarang, where the marzbān, notables, and Zoroastrian chief priest, surrendered after heavy fighting outside the town.

Know More ?

Egypt
Start : 615
End : 637
Note : Page 80+ most notable page 89

 

[civfanatic]

Iran
Start :
The Muslim forces in the Sawād fell back and regrouped under Saʿd at the fortress of ʿOḏayb and the nearby village of Qādes to await reinforcements from Syria. After the two armies had faced each other for four months, the Persians were defeated in a fierce three-day battle, with heavy casualties on both sides, probably in Jomādā I, 16/June, 637.
End :
Having lost the support of the governor of Sīstān by demanding tax arrears, Yazdegerd headed for Marv. Nevertheless, in 30/650-51 or 31/651-52 ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmer sent force to Sīstān under Rabīʿ b. Zīād al-Ḥāreṯī, who took Zāleq, Karkūya, Haysūn, and Nāšrūḏ on terms and besieged Zarang, where the marzbān, notables, and Zoroastrian chief priest, surrendered after heavy fighting outside the town.

Know More ?

Egypt
Start : 615
End : 637
Note : Page 80+ most notable page 89

Did you even understand what I wrote? What exactly is the relevance of your post?

 

[dealwithit]

Zoroastrians were never "completely annihilated" in Iran. There are still Zoroastrians in Iran today (25,000 as per the 2012 Iran Census).






The Crusaders never conquered Egypt, and even if they did, they wouldn't have spread Coptic Christianity, which is unique to Egypt. We know for sure that there were Coptic Christians during and after the Islamic conquest of Egypt, because Muslim records themselves mention them.

You are right that we don't know the exact demographics. So go ask Swami how he came up with his ridiculous figures.




Pakistan and Bangladesh were both part of India before. They were once Hindus who converted on a large scale to Islam.

There is lot of Massacre of hindu's in Sindh region by Muslim rulers..
They slaughtered hindu sages for not converting to Islam....
If you take Hyderabad Muslim population You will find lot people from Iran,Iraq,Turkey and Middle east..

Iran converted to Islam mainly bcoz of Tax free regime if you are "Muslim." or else you to pay high taxes.
And harsh punishment for others even for small punishment...

Christianity got many followers bcoz of Rome rule which suppressed women making they have no equality among men.
so lot of women attracted to Christianity .. So killing of women is more in that era,,,,

Reason why India still Hindu majority state is bcoz of Moughal rulers... They are not suppressive as other Muslim rulers.

 

[civfanatic]

There is lot of Massacre of hindu's in Sindh region by Muslim rulers..
They slaughtered hindu sages for not converting to Islam....
If you take Hyderabad Muslim population You will find lot people from Iran,Iraq,Turkey and Middle east..

Iran converted to Islam mainly bcoz of Tax free regime if you are "Muslim." or else you to pay high taxes.
And harsh punishment for others even for small punishment...

Christianity got many followers bcoz of Rome rule which suppressed women making they have no equality among men.
so lot of women attracted to Christianity .. So killing of women is more in that era,,,,

Reason why India still Hindu majority state is bcoz of Moughal rulers... They are not suppressive as other Muslim rulers.

In Iran, there were several Zoroastrian kings who converted to Islam simply due to political opportunism. Just like Constantine saw great potential in Christianity as a political tool, many Iranian leaders were also eager to increase their own political power and use Islam as a tool for that. The Bavand and Ziyarid dynasties of northern Iran are both examples of Zoroastrian dynasties that converted to Islam simply to expand their own power. By the 10th century, the Islamic Khalifat itself came under the control of a Shi'a Iranian dynasty (Buyids), and Persians replaced Arabs as the most powerful and influential group in the Ummah.

 

[dealwithit]

In Iran, there were several Zoroastrian kings who converted to Islam simply due to political opportunism. Just like Constantine saw great potential in Christianity as a political tool, many Iranian leaders were also eager to increase their own political power and use Islam as a tool for that. The Bavand and Ziyarid dynasties of northern Iran are both examples of Zoroastrian dynasties that converted to Islam simply to expand their own power. By the 10th century, the Islamic Khalifat itself came under the control of a Shi'a Iranian dynasty (Buyids), and Persians replaced Arabs as the most powerful and influential group in the Ummah.

We are not simply talking about the only kings here. we are discussing about nations..(people) and reason for their conversion...

The fact is people of persia are being suppressed to convert to Islam.. Some killed who opposed .. Some obeyed who don't know what to do..
Some stayed as self
and Some traveled (mainly merchants) to India.

 

[Free Karma]

I've seen that video before, and it's a little misleading to be honest.

First off India for 800 years of islamic rule is not really true, because if you look at it, most of the time, direct control was the area of afghanistan pakistan, kashmir, and some other parts of the gangetic plane. While later rulers expanded this into more mainland India, some of it was through proxy, or other alliances, where the original rulers were allowed to keep their kingdoms as long as they accepted the mughals as the central authority. And all along there were rebellions and fights where hindus tried to resist, which did not make it easy, By the time of aurangazeb when most of India cam under mughal control the empire had reached it's peak, and there were other strong counter forces, like the marathas rising.

Even so at the time of partition if you look at it at the time of partition, if you included all of India at the time (no Pakistan) Hindus wouldve been below the 75% mark, or maybe lower, not sure.

In terms of christianity, The british did not really try to christianize India aggressively. There were no heavy handed techniques employed like the portugese in their Indian colonies. I remember reading in some book that they were wary of bringing religion into their conquest as they saw that as one of the reasons for the failure of France and Portugal. Plus again the areas under direct control were Bengal, TN awadh. The rest of it was always through proxies. And only in 1857 did it officially come under the crown, and they were kicked out 90 years later. So again it was not literally 200 years of christian rule.


So if you think about it we've been saved by the sheer breadth and width of the country from islam, while,were never under direct assault from christianity in a major way (until now). If you think about it, we've actually been shrinking, the "hindusphere" stretched from afghanistan and parts of iran, to the far corners of south east asia. Now it's mainly modern day India., we've actually lost a lot of ground.

 

[bennedose]

And thank heavens you people are majority that we are all safe and live together peacefully.

Organized religions majority would have reduced us to something like Iran, Saudi, Greece or Vatican. Make sure you remain majority so that other minorities can live in peace.

I read about a very interesting study regarding group behaviour in factories or manufacturing lines. The study was of the working behaviour of men who worked in groups of three. In such a group each of the three would take on one particular part of the job and they would stick to it, becoming an efficient threesome. If one of the three was removed and replaced by a new worker, it was found that the two older workers would continue to play exactly their old roles, while the newcomer would take up the role of the man who had left.

However, if two people were removed from the group and two newcomers joined the roles of the group were upset and the remaining old worker could not simply continue his old role and had to adjust to a new role.

This is a very rough pointer to how a majority can mould minority behaviour. Naturally if a local "majority" is achieved by killing and subjugation, anything can dominate - a point that was recognized centuries ago without any research papers

 

[Sunder singh]

guys its better we live in Hindu majority India or even in christian or Buddhist majority or any other religion accept islam because it will be very tough to survive once Islam become majority religion as secularism is very against soul of islam.

 

[Free Karma]

guys its better we live in Hindu majority India or even in christian or Buddhist majority or any other religion accept islam because it will be very tough to survive once Islam become majority religion as secularism is very against soul of islam.

Christianity is as bad, and in some cases worse than Islam in terms of propogation, they get most of the bad due to the media coverage being one sided and they arent as in your face as islam. Dont be fooled by the current u.s media portrayal of christianity as incredibly peaceful. You just need to look through history to see how they work. Abrahamic religions, have the fundamental need to propogate.

 

[civfanatic]

We are not simply talking about the only kings here. we are discussing about nations..(people) and reason for their conversion...

The fact is people of persia are being suppressed to convert to Islam.. Some killed who opposed .. Some obeyed who don't know what to do..
Some stayed as self
and Some traveled (mainly merchants) to India.

The reason I mentioned the Zoroastrian kings is to show that large portions of Persia were not even under Islamic rule until the 10th century. Obviously, there can be no oppression or forced conversions to Islam if Muslims are not politically dominant.

My main argument is against Swami's claim that Iran was converted to "100% Islam" within just 15 years. That is totally and utterly wrong. It took about four centuries for a majority of Iranians to convert to Islam, and most of these conversions happened under native Persian dynasties who voluntarily adopted Islam for their own purposes (as I explained earlier). The actual foreign occupation of Iran by Arabs lasted for less than two centuries, and very few Iranians converted to Islam during that time. It was only after the Persianization of Islam by native Persian Muslim dynasties, that Islam was accepted en masse by Iranians.

 

[civfanatic]

Excellent post sir, I am glad there are other people here who understand history.

I've seen that video before, and it's a little misleading to be honest.

First off India for 800 years of islamic rule is not really true, because if you look at it, most of the time, direct control was the area of afghanistan pakistan, kashmir, and some other parts of the gangetic plane. While later rulers expanded this into more mainland India, some of it was through proxy, or other alliances, where the original rulers were allowed to keep their kingdoms as long as they accepted the mughals as the central authority. And all along there were rebellions and fights where hindus tried to resist, which did not make it easy, By the time of aurangazeb when most of India cam under mughal control the empire had reached it's peak, and there were other strong counter forces, like the marathas rising.

Even so at the time of partition if you look at it at the time of partition, if you included all of India at the time (no Pakistan) Hindus wouldve been below the 75% mark, or maybe lower, not sure.

In terms of christianity, The british did not really try to christianize India aggressively. There were no heavy handed techniques employed like the portugese in their Indian colonies. I remember reading in some book that they were wary of bringing religion into their conquest as they saw that as one of the reasons for the failure of France and Portugal. Plus again the areas under direct control were Bengal, TN awadh. The rest of it was always through proxies. And only in 1857 did it officially come under the crown, and they were kicked out 90 years later. So again it was not literally 200 years of christian rule.


So if you think about it we've been saved by the sheer breadth and width of the country from islam, while,were never under direct assault from christianity in a major way (until now). If you think about it, we've actually been shrinking, the "hindusphere" stretched from afghanistan and parts of iran, to the far corners of south east asia. Now it's mainly modern day India., we've actually lost a lot of ground.

 

[Waffen SS]

To remain a hindu country we have to take care of poor men, Christian Missionaries are converting giving false promise that becoming Christian would solve their all problem.

To Hindus secularism means all are equal, to Christian missionaries secularism mean our weakness and their opportunity, same to M s.

Hindu organizations are trying to revert those poor people back to Hinduism, but no government help, so its limited.

Hare Krishna, ISCON is a good way to bring those ex-Hindus back to Hinduism. We need more education and religious teaching. When an educated persons studies Hinduism's great teachings compared to Arabic Abrahamic religion's false teaching of 72 virgins, kill kaffer, their introducers dark history they will want to leave that. Most people in India following that dont know that.

To stop Christianity stop Missionary schools which are doing business in name of education and brainwashing our youth that "Jesus saves the world"(Jesus is 1900 years late in his 2nd coming).

Their main teachings are either believe in this way or you will burn to hell.

But first of all that secularism and ultra liberalism which is a self-destruct button for India and Hinduism needs to be closed.

But not in democrazy, it is possible.

 

[dealwithit]

It is not just religion..

India has the Great Culture in every way..... Culture makes much difference in conversion of religion....


Organizational Christian saw this point and done research and introduced Swami in place of Saint.. etc,, even songs of Jesus are in Hindu's god music..
Even chruch names are changed to Jyothi (light) etc.... They are adding Nativity to religion..

 

[happy]

To stop Christianity stop Missionary schools which are doing business in name of education and brainwashing our youth that "Jesus saves the world"(Jesus is 1900 years late in his 2nd coming).

Their main teachings are either believe in this way or you will burn to hell.

But first of all that secularism and ultra liberalism which is a self-destruct button for India and Hinduism needs to be closed.

But not in democrazy, it is possible.

Yeah now, when you are getting good education in other schools, missionary schools have become business. What BS. Where do you think the world got its education from ??? If there were no missionary schools, you would have still wrote in the sand and sat under a tree. Your so called system of education is itself derived from Christian "Business" Schools, you moron.

If Jesus had set about to save the world "1900 years ago" as you said, you fool would not have been spewing this BS here.

Nobody forced you to believe in anything. It is a matter of choice, free will. But how can morons like you understand that ???

Close what you like but dont talk rubbish. You want to do something do it.