How India remained Hindu majority country !!

[Singh]

Thread Closed.

 

[Singh]

Thread Re-opened temporarily, to allow @Sakal Gharelu Ustad a chance at rebuttal.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I am not saying that "BB land" is an "Islamic country". I am saying that the native religion in "BB land" failed to resist conversion to Islam, as Swami was claiming.

The reason why the present-day India is not an Islamic country (in terms of having a majority Muslim population) has very little to do with a "great resistance" by Hinduism against Islam, as people like Swami claim. It is mainly due to India being such a large and heavily-populated country, so that even great numbers of converts to Islam only show up as comparatively small percentages. More people were converted to Islam in the Indian Subcontinent than anywhere else in the world, by far, but the sheer size of India meant that the actual progression of Islamization (in terms of percentages) remained slower than in countries in West Asia, North Africa, or Central Asia, which had populations just a small fraction of India's.

Having a small population means that less people need to be converted before a majority Muslim population is reached. Having a large population means that more people need be to be converted before a majority Muslim population is reached. This simple fact is the main reason why Islamization proceeded slower in the Indian subcontinent than in other places. Even in West Asian countries like Iran and Anatolia, which had populations just a fraction of India's, Islamization took about four centuries. So naturally, it takes much longer than that in a place like India.




How does that make any sense? Countries with small populations that are exposed to Islam will naturally have a higher percentage of Muslims, because if even just a few people convert, this will raise the percentage of Muslims dramatically. In contrast, in a country with a large population, even large numbers of converts will appear as smaller percentages. For example, if 100,000 people convert to Islam in Country A (let's say total population = 1 million), then that means 10% of the total population converted to Islam. But if 5 million people convert to Islam in Country B (let's say total population = 100 million), then that means just 5% of the total population converted to Islam.

Moreover, this whole exercise is somewhat useless in pre-modern times, when nation-states and fixed borders did not exist. This makes the practice of counting "total population" (which you must do, in order to derive a percentage) anachronistic. This is especially true for India, where different regions were not politically united and were subject to widely varying lengths of Islamic rule. In general, the areas subject to Islamic rule for the longest period of time contain the highest percent of Muslims (Sindh, Panjab, and NWFP). Likewise, areas which were ruled by Muslims for a much less period of time, like much of South India, Orissa, and Chhatisgarh, contain far less Muslims. Notable exceptions are Kashmir and East Bengal, which converted to Islam en masse despite coming under Muslim rule at a relatively late date.




Whether or not a country is part of the Dar-ul-Islam is not determined by its percentage of Muslims. Any country that is ruled by Muslims, where Muslims are protected, and where Islamic law is in effect, is automatically a part of the Dar-ul-Islam. It doesn't matter if the percentage of Muslims in the country is 10% or 100%. For example, Hindustan (North India) under Mughal rule was a part of the Dar-ul-Islam, even though the majority of the population was Non-Muslim.




There was religious freedom in the medieval Islamic world. Not only was their religious freedom, there were also scholars and poets who openly criticized and lampooned Islam (and also religion in general) without reprisal. Read some of the poems of Abu Ala al-Ma'arri and Omar Khayyam. For more scholarly satires and critiques, see some excerpts from al-Razi, al-Warraq, and al-Rawandi, among others.

Rationalism and skepticism was a characteristic of many schools of thought in the Medieval Islamic World, and the Islamic world declined when that spirit of questioning, debate, and scientific appraisal gave way to blind dogma and religious idiocy. The opposite happened in the West, which is why the Western civilization has been globally dominant for the past 2-3 centuries.

Stop writing long winding posts where you contradict yourself. I disagree with your whole post except the last bold part(although I was referring to current state of Islam).

Your complete argument is based on the premise that more people need more time to convert.

- but you contradict yourself by giving example of Bengal and Kashmir(very quick Islamization) vs other regions(slow Islamization)

So, clearly there are other factors that govern conversion rate other than time(Hinduism being one!!). India has also had high population density, so I can argue forced conversions would have been much easier in India because of the mere fact that it is easier to terrorize people in a small concentrated area. This would in turn imply that it would have been much easier to spread Islam in India. So, it is difficult to justify your premise.

Since, it is difficult to pin down the role(+ve or -ve) played by size or density of people..headcount(i.e. raw count) is a flawed statistic in this case as compared to %.


I am actually surprised when a person like you with knowledge of history makes such blunders. There was something inherent in Indian religions that made people revolt against the Islam onslaught rather than use it for their political gains. When you deny any role played by religion: you deny the role played by Khalsa and other Hindu revolts against the Islamic rulers.

Now put yourself into the shoes of person who has the option to convert. I would classify people into two possible type of converts:
1) Unforced converts: those who convert due to change of heart for personal or political benefits
2) Forced converts: those who convert under threat of sword

My decision to convert would depend on the following:
1) association with past belief i.e. Hinduism (more association==> less conversion)
2) benefits associated with new belief (more benefits==> more conversion..like political or spiritual)
3) threat to existence (more terror==> more conversion)

Now, if you say 1) does not play any role, then you are basically denying the decision making capability of human beings.

 

[Singh]

Ok Thread Closed Now.

 

[Ray]

Rig Veda religion is the base of Middle eastern Religions . Indians and Arabs are close to each other .

Thanks.

I am not too aware regarding the the details of Hinduism.

 

[civfanatic]

I am certain there are other threads discussing this topic. I'll close this one.

PM me if you guys have any issues.

Where can I continue this debate (in which thread)?