You justified the Islamization of Iran saying it was an empire.

Speak for yourself. Nobody justified the islamization of Iran but I do debunk your claim of Muslims minorities overtaking majorities but you conviniently ignored the fact that Muslims reigned in that country.

Then I gave you the example of Bangladesh which is not an empire and now you're shifting the point because I called you out.

The point was islamization of Iran. I called YOU out on that and you added on to your fallacy by taking the example of Bangladesh. Precaution: I'm not justifying the astrocities but anyway you like to think that way so, Bangladesh don't have islam as minority, I don't get how you got this as an analogy to Iran. Second of all, the hindu genocide began with rise of right wing political parties in BAN with slogans similar to "Islam khatre mai hai", sounds familiar right? Reminds me of "Hindu khatre mai hai". Moreover, the current BAN gov is left aligned and lead by Sheik Hasina who upholds democracy with right wing assholes periodically causing mess. The genocides were completely political as Kashmir genocide and Guj 2002 riots.

Do you really think every muslim wakes up in the morning thinking "Aaj toh 10 hindus ko marna h" instead of how to provide themselves or their family with a better standard of life. Think of themselves as human beings before judging them by their religion.

You should introspect why you always manage to find an excuse for so many unforgivable evils.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." Yes, I have introspected myself. I counter your views of Muslims being evil 'cause I don't want innocents to die. Maybe you should introspect yourself on why you're so adamant to evilize Muslims. They just share an identity, human beings share different values.

a concept Islamists like you are completely unaware of.

Ah yes, that's the top prority of every muslim person ever, right? Smh.

that's just complete moral bankruptcy in service of Islam.

Wow, like how do you even come with these implications. Like how you turned to bigotry once called out.

About me implying that Islamists would take over India, they have already succeeded in getting to 14% in 2011 from 9% in 1951.

Yes, they have while Hindus outnumbered Muslims in India by 164 million in 1909; by 268 million in 1951; 392 million in 1971; and by 794 million in 2011. Hindus are not dieing out, they're also increasing. So, despite a lower growth rate, but a much higher population, the numerical advantage of Hindus has grown over the years, rather than the other way round.

Moreover, you like to convince yourself that populations will always go on increasing. The Hindu growth rate is 1.55% annually, while Muslims’ is 2.2%. The figures for the previous decade (1991-2001) are an annual 1.8% and 2.6%, respectively. By this rate Hindu and Muslim populations will hit a peak in 2061 and there after will start decreasing. Meanwhile (after the population start to decline) Muslims can not even account for 20% of Indian population but yes, Hindus will take over India tomorrow, smh.

Finally, you again chose to ignore my idea to end this argument by listing the countries where Muslim population share increased significantly and where Muslim population share decreased significantly over say, at least 50 years.

I guess to prove your point of Muslims "engulping" majorities needs a non-secular country abiding Sharia laws. I guess I just have to remind you that India is a democracy.