What factors led to India having very little Islamization compared to Persia etc?

Home Forums History What factors led to India having very little Islamization compared to Persia etc?

  • This topic has 102 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 24 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #215831
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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?

    • #215832
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #215842
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >German aka northern european
        >Pissball art

        yeah, no

      • #215916
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >me kraut
        >me freaking scrotebrain and not understand the caste system came about in the 500s

        • #215917
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Caste system became more enforced again during the Gupta period. It was always around and is even mentioned in Vedas.

          • #215918
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Yes and both rajput and marathas existed in 1066

            • #215919
              Anonymous
              Guest

              What are you implying?

              • #215923
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Just cuz a term exists then doesn’t mean its the same thing as later and so descriptions of farmers and priests in BC mean that these were fixed stations like in 1500 AD

    • #215833
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Revolts
      Only reason.

    • #215834
      Anonymous
      Guest

      they paid the jizya.

    • #215835
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Well you say that but there are like 170 million muslims in India or so

      • #215852
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Well yes but they make up only about 15% of the population

    • #215836
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There are gorillions of Muslims in Hindia, and this despite the existence of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both bery crowded countries made for Hindustani muslims

      • #215927
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This. I would estimate half of all South Asians are Muslim.

        • #215933
          Anonymous
          Guest

          A third at best

    • #215837
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s a mystery

    • #215838
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

    • #215839
      Anonymous
      Guest

      > far larger population
      > Being ruled for a shorter amount of time by Muslims

      That’s basically it really.

    • #215840
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

      • #215841
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >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

        • #215913
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >if not for the brits
          Cope, if bengal was still united itd still be wealthy but because of Partition wealth isn’t as easily pooled

      • #215847
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >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

        • #215849
          Anonymous
          Guest

          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

          • #215850
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >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

          • #215864
            Anonymous
            Guest

            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.

        • #215853
          Anonymous
          Guest

          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.

          • #215854
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The british only ran it for 190 years basically irrelevant

            • #215855
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Less than that it took them a while to conquer the rest of the subcontinent

              • #215856
                Anonymous
                Guest

                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.

                • #215857
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  LMFAO South Korea has been under US control longer than Pakistan was under the British.

                  • #215858
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    British empire maps are a meme

                  • #215860
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Paki here. So basically I wasn’t even colonized or anything?

                    • #215861
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Unironically Pakis have colonized more of the UK then the other way around.

                • #215859
                  Anonymous
                  Guest
          • #215922
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >fix existing lines in place
            Missionary work was largely ineffective but did help spawn the sepoy mutiny after the conversion of a few key figures. Hard lines only came about in the prelude to partition to decide what i am and what you aren’t. Although the British would finally codify hinduism after 2 millenia of syncretic cults checking each others notes, you still had muslims go to holi until Jinnah forbade it

            • #215924
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >British would finally codify hinduism
              What anglo myth is this?

              • #215925
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >its a myth if i say it is
                Daoism and buddhism was thought to be the same faith for ages until victorians stopped trusting the kind priests and actually looked at the remaining artifacts

                • #215926
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  What has that got to do with India?
                  >Daoism and buddhism was thought to be the same faith for ages
                  VGH the daoist sects of India, SEA and Sri Lanka.

                  • #215928
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    That just because its their religion doesn’t mean they fully understand it

        • #215921
          Anonymous
          Guest
      • #215931
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >A lot of Hindus would like to tell you that it is because of the strength of their religion. lol sorry but just no.
        You’re right but only halfway. It’s not the strength of their religion, it’s the stubbornness of their culture and their desire to be Indian first and foremost.

    • #215843
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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

      • #215844
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Oh lovely a schizo

    • #215845
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If you count the whole subcontinent almost half are muslims

      • #215846
        Anonymous
        Guest

        More like 33%

        • #215848
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s actually about 40%

    • #215851
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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 woke af on a lie.

    • #215862
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

    • #215863
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Distance /thread

    • #215865
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

      • #215929
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’d definitely put my dick between those tits

    • #215866
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because hinduism is protected by God

    • #215868
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

    • #215872
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Counterquestion: what happened on 15 August 1947?

      • #215875
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Even if you were to combine India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Muslims would still make up less than a third of the population.

        • #215876
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Pakistan: 250 mil Muslims
          Bangladesh: 280 mil Muslims
          India: 300 mil Muslims

          That’s like a billion Muslims in South Asia alone

          • #215879
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Bangladesh: 280 mil Muslims
            Bangladesh has a population of around 160 million.

            • #215880
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >implying 3rd world shitholes have the capacity to do accurate censuses

              • #215884
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >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

        • #215877
          Anonymous
          Guest

          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.

          • #215881
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >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.

            • #215882
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >those weird names
              Holy shit why is Pajeet language so disgustingly ugly?

            • #215885
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Kushans
              the kushans were afghan/iranic not indians

              • #215886
                Anonymous
                Guest
              • #215890
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Not Indian
                That was the point of the post.
                >Afghan/Iranian
                More in line Tarin basin populations.

                • #215891
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >That was the point of the post.
                  sis native Indians were second class citizens

                  • #215892
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    https://i.imgur.com/27Q8OHP.gif

                    >cycle puncture repair guy talking about class.

                  • #215893
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Read the convo again. The point was that anyone could become Hindu despite having non-Indian background which some people think is a privilege only reserved for Native Indians.
                    >sis native Indians were second class citizens
                    I dont how much truth is there to this statement. The Kushans were few number and assimilated very quickly. They appeased the native preistly class and even genocided Buddhists of NW India/Gandhara after becoming zealot Hindus.

                    • #215894
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Ooops that were the Hunas that massacred Buddhists not Kushans. Anyways, Kushans did become Indianized and converted to native religions.

                      • #215895
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Kushans did become Indianized
                        yeah when the Sassanids conquered their homeland and they were left as a rump state in the Punjab

                      • #215897
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Kushan were buddhist at their greatest extent under their most famous king mudslime.

                      • #215898
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >adopting religion
                        >becoming Indianized
                        lmao I guess China became Indian

                      • #215899
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >A king ruling large swathes of India, following Indian religion, organising 4th buddhist council, and spreading indian religion all along the the silk road is not indianized

                      • #215901
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Their power base remained in Bactria you moron. That’s why it declined once Bactria was taken by the Sassanids. It was a central asian empire. Only a pajeet would be deluded enough to claim a group that conquered his actual ancestors. Nice to see the Pajeet inferiority complex remains as strong as ever

                      • #215902
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Kanishka ruled extended from Central Asia to India scrotebrain. How long are you gonna keep embarrassing yourself?
                        >Only a pajeet would be deluded enough to claim a group that conquered his actual ancestors. Nice to see the Pajeet inferiority complex remains as strong as ever
                        Lol the seethe in him

                      • #215904
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Their power base was in Bactria. That’s where the Kushan tribes settled and where their military power was located. You are an idiot. The Romans expanded beyond Italy but that didn’t make them non Italians.

                      • #215906
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        They started from mongolia, they came to central asia, and ended up India. King following local customs and religions to gain legitimacy from local population is normal order of things. Kanishka capital was even in Peshawar Pakistan where he was born. The fuck are you seething about here scrotebrain? Measure your dick somewhere else, not online when talking about thousand year old history.

                      • #215907
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Pakistan
                        didnt exist in those times, it never existed before 1947 so stop, you are clearly some paki muslim we wuzzing trying to be a Ashraf sayyid.

                      • #215909
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Most probably a Afghan plane hopper. See

                        >Kushans
                        the kushans were afghan/iranic not indians

                      • #215911
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        paki afghan is the same thing they are interchangeable since pashtun are just another mutt race claiming purity, its just linguistic difference, otherwise they are just equally backward morons.

                      • #215932
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        whiter than you, vindaloo.

                      • #215905
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Their power base remained in Bactria you moron. That’s why it declined once Bactria was taken by the Sassanids.
                        And a most of their population was in NW India scrotebraino. Even central India had significant involvement from Kushans. The Buddhism at that point was also very Indo-centric and so was Indo-aryan culture that was adopted by Kushans.
                        > Only a pajeet would be deluded enough to claim a group that conquered his actual ancestors.
                        You are the only one scrotebrained here to believe anyone is doing that here. Most probably a inbred Afghan raghead. The Ancestors of Kushans were from Western China.
                        >Nice to see the Pajeet inferiority complex remains as strong as ever
                        Lmao the irony

                      • #215900
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Indo-aryan names
                        >Indo-aryan religion
                        >Coinage with Indo-aryan god’s
                        >Depicted in Indo-aryan religious attire
                        >accepted as Non-outsiders as other Indian kings
                        Hmmmm
                        >lmao I guess China became Indian
                        The difference being the Buddhism in China drifted away from Indian centrism to get Sinic one. It introduced to china by proxies of proxies whipe the Religious foundation of Kushans lied in India.

                      • #215903
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >>Indo-aryan names
                        >>Indo-aryan religion
                        They supported Zoroastrianism as well. Should I call them Iranian? No fuck off paying lip service to the conquered is what all empire’s do.
                        >Coinage with Indo-aryan god’s
                        >Depicted in Indo-aryan religious attire
                        Their coinage and attire is a mix of all sorts of cultures. This is pathetic. They used Greek as a language for a long time and kept the Greek script. They had Greek gods on their coinage. Should I call them Greek. Of course not because I’m not a scrotebrained pajeet who needs to claim empires to soothe his inferiority complex
                        >accepted as Non-outsiders as other Indian kings
                        Yes they conquered large portions of the subcontinent. What exactly is your point?
                        >The difference being the Buddhism in China drifted away from Indian centrism to get Sinic one. It introduced to china by proxies of proxies whipe the Religious foundation of Kushans lied in India.
                        Gandharan Buddhism is a different strain of Buddhism compared to the one deeper into the subcontinent.

                      • #215908
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >They supported Zoroastrianism as well. Should I call them Iranian? No fuck off paying lip service to the conquered is what all empire’s do.
                        Difference between "lip-service" and actually adopting the langauge and culture. Them having Iranic and Greek influence doesn’t negate the Indian influence scrotebrain.
                        >Of course not because I’m not a scrotebrained pajeet who needs to claim empires to soothe his inferiority complex
                        Why do you Ragheads project so much? Everyone here recognises that Kushans were ethnically not Indian. You even derailed the topic by your scrotebrained fantasies about "Indianz were second class citizens" and I just pointed that there is no proof of this l.
                        >Yes they conquered large portions of the subcontinent. What exactly is your point?
                        Only Indianized kings weren’t considered Mlecchas scrotebrain. Do you know anything about Indian history?
                        >Gandharan Buddhism is a different strain of Buddhism compared to the one deeper into the subcontinent.
                        You think that proves anything. This "Pajeetz religionz wasn’t same hurr durr" is a Paki cope. India was the centre of Buddhism throughout the Sub-continent and Kushans being Bactrian Buddhists didnt negate Indian influence which is itself wasnt far drifted from the Buddhism in India proper.

                      • #215910
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        This raghead here perfectly showed why muslims are incapable of intellectual pursuits. Hating someone so much that it affects their critical thinking skills.

    • #215878
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

    • #215887
      Anonymous
      Guest

      When Persia was conquered by the caliphate Islam was still young and not only was conversion still higher on the agenda and converting was the only way for Persians to keep/gain social status. Islam was still in it’s infacy and was being influenced by the Persians as well. India was largely conquered by Turkic warlords to whom conversion was of lesser importance and they preferred collecting the jizya tax.

      • #215889
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >converting was the only way for Persians to keep/gain social status
        not entirely true, ummayads were obsessed with arab tribal lineages and treated all non arabs as second class citizens and the Jizya was imposed on them including the ‘al-fars’, these laws and other injustices were what directly influenced Abu Muslim to begin the Abbassid Revolution from Iranic Khorasan that overthrew the Ummayyads and the Hadith was fabricated and the new more accepting islam invented.

    • #215896
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Everyone talking about tolerance here is forgetting that the only reason the Turks named Hindus as Dhimmi was to completely BTFO the Buddhist monasteries in Northern India and steal their land. They pitted Hindus against the Buddhists just like the British pitted the Hindus against the Muslims.

    • #215912
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It was plenty islamicised, just partition meant they all moved to pakistan with very few staying behind. Persia got absolutely annihilated by the mongols and timur, whereas india had few massive population replacements

      • #215915
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Very few staying behind
        The population of Indian Muslims isn’t far of current Pakistan’s. It would be atleast around half if we count Bangladesh too.

    • #215914
      Anonymous
      Guest

      they have an infidel tax, why raid the tax farm?
      pay their tolls and they’ll be at bay, it’s a lot like institutional libtardism

      • #215920
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Mughals didn’t have Jizya tax. Akbar removed it, Aurngazeb brought it back, but after him it was removed once again.

    • #215930
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The country is too big and too dead-set on its traditions that it can’t simply be replaced by a conqueror. Oh they certainly tried but in the end all they managed was an Indian version of Islam.

Viewing 24 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.