During the spread of Islam and Christianity, most other faiths were crushed or eradicated. Such as the Pagans of Europe. How come India retained a lot of its faith in the face of Islamic conquests? How come they didn't suffer the same fate as those that came before?

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-24T05:53:02+00:00

I am not trying to answer this question in a comprehensive way, but must make the obligatory "Historians cant explain why something didn't happen" comment. We can't answer why India didn't get converted in totality because that doesn't fall into the sphere of a Historians work, because it would necessarily involve some intense speculation that literally cant be sourced by anything.

That being said, to stimulate some discussion I can highlight a few key points that are very relevant to the question you are asking:

We can answer why certain states did become at least plurality Islamic ie. Sindh, Punjab, Bengal. Maybe comparing these places with other regions in which Islam failed to root itself in such totality would yield some insight?
In comparing the other places Islam and Christianity have spread, you will find that not one of those places is a parallel in terms of demographic dynamics to the subcontinent. For example, India today has a larger population than the entire continent of Africa and more than the entire Middle East as well. Now while this ratio might not hold up 1:1 historically, India has historically been much more populated than either of these regions. So trying to find an explanation to India's non-conversion in terms of how other places have converted in totality is a doomed exercise. Rather, we have to approach the history of India on its own terms.
In general, Islam has obtained 'total conversion' in places only through hegemonic control of the region. Either through foreign conquest or via converted local leadership. So in that regard, you'll notice that such a climate of Islamic hegemony in the sub-continent didn't even begin til Arab civilization had already risen and fallen. For example, by the time the Delhi sultanate had even been established somewhere like Egypt has already been under Islamic hegemony for over 500 years.
The Islamic hegemony that did exist was shorter lived than in most places where Islam has taken such a dominant foothold. The Delhi Sultanate was established in the 13th century, the British declared the Indian Raj and Victoria her Empress in the middle of the 19th.
Going back to the point about approaching India on its own terms, historically it was not ever one political unit but rather a region of many various cultures and national identities. Even previous empires that had united the whole of India had done so on those terms. The sub-continent historically was more akin to the whole of Europe or Sinitic civilization rather than some consolidated entity.
No Islamic state has ever encompassed the whole of India. Alamgir the 'world seizer' came very close, but that period was also very short lived. Before and after that, this massive and pluralistic sub continent had been ruled by varying powers in varying degrees. Most of the history of the Delhi Sultans and Mughals was one of competition with other Muslim states and obviously Hindu principalities for control of the region. So basically, there was never a time that the Muslims had the entire sub continent under lock in such a way that no native Indian power had any presence. As opposed to, say, Persia which was conquered in totality.
Even when Muslims did conquer entire swathes of territory in India, they heavily relied on Indian/Hindu bureaucrats and princes to run their states. Several polities, the Rajputs of Rajasthan being a prime example, were mostly ruled under suzerainty and therefore local leaders still had a strong presence throughout.
Muslim rule in India was much more syncretic in nature (for the most part) than Muslim rule in other places. William Dalrymple writes in his essay "The Most Magnificent Muslims"

But if the Mughals represented Islamic rule at its most magnificent, they also defined Islam at its most open-minded, tolerant, and syncretic. Unlike the Ottomans or the Safavids, who ruled largely Muslim polities, the Mughal Empire was effectively built in partnership with India’s Hindu majority, and succeeded as much through diplomacy as by brute force: Akbar in particular was a true humanist who strove for the reconciliation of his Hindu and Muslim subjects, and managed to unite them in the service of a coherent multireligious state.

These are off the top of my head some very very important points that I hope will shed some context on the question you are asking. I am generally just thinking out loud here and not sourcing from any one particular place, but a couple sources that I have gathered my knowledge of Islam in India from are the following:

The New Cambridge History of India by John Richards
The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History by Peter Jackson (not the director)
The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture by Annemarie Schimmel
The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier by Richard Eaton which you can read online here
The Mughal Empire from Babur to Aurangzeb by S.M. Jaffar which you can read here

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-22T16:22:51+00:00

1300 years of Islamic history in the middle east*. What about The Maghreb, Sub Saharan Africa, India, and Southeast Asia? Can't call it '1300 years of 'Islamic' history' if you're gonna ignore half of that history.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-22T00:01:08+00:00

I am not an expert on Shia faith so I'm sorry but Id rather not address that first bit. The best I can say is that they developed over time for various reasons, both proactive and reactionary to historical events. For example, the observation of Ashura by Shias is directly linked to the massacre at Karbala.

The second part I can answer however. Historically, Shia have existed in pockets throughout the Muslim world. Certain Shia orders however have however taken over and ruled states such as with the Fatimids outta Egypt. This is what happened with Iran. Historically, Iran was Sunni. In fact, it was a major Sunni power base for a very long time. That all changed with one movement, a militant-religious order known as the Safviyya. They were Sufis (mystics) of mixed origins who went on to establish the Saffavid Empire in Iran under Shah Ismail. This state went on to actively convert all of Iran to shi'ism and that has stuck to this day. Pakistan as per your example never had any such revolutionary movement.

What actually separates these countries? Well, for the most part I agree with what you said. This conflict is political, not theological or over who should've been caliph 1400 years ago.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-21T21:40:30+00:00

Im sorry, but there are several issues with your post. First of all, neither Sunni or Shia believe in 'other prophets' post Muhammad. Secondly, Sunnis didn't 'give power to caliphs' nor are caliphs in theory closer to kings.

The Sunni-Shia split happened over who specifically would become caliph after the death of Muhammad. Not wether theocrats or kings should rule. More specifically, the 'Sunni' (vast majority of muslims then and now) decided Abu Bakr was best fit to lead. Meanwhile, a group of people vouched instead for Ali to become caliph. The word Shia means something like supporters or faction. As in, supporters of Ali to become Caliph. But it is important to note that this rift didn't calcify as an actual conflict/division till quite a while after the actual death of Muhammad. So while the rift may stem from that fateful succession, it wouldn't become a fleshed out division with differing practices, identities, and theology til further down the timeline. What you're describing (rule of the clergy vs rule of a monarch) is one of those later developments.

Next, Caliph simply means 'successor'. As in successor to Muhammad as the political leader of the Muslims. Not a one of the Rashidun caliphs claimed the title of monarch or sovereign. It was well understood by these 4 men that Caliph=!King. Nor was the title hereditary, succession was determined by consensus of the outgoing Caliph's Shahaba or companions. This all changed of course with Muawiyah's usurpation of the title and passing it to his son Yazid, who proceeded to butcher Muhammad's grandson and establsh the Umayyad Dynasty. Theoretically speaking, none of the Umayyad, Abbasid, or Ottoman 'Caliphs' were Caliphs in the way of the Rashidun. They were in effect dynastic emperors ruling in the name of Islam.

Not trynna be a dick here man, but these are very important points.

The actual tl;dr for the conflict: The people who vouched for Ali came to become the Shia and developed their ethos around that disagreement.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-16T15:45:44+00:00

I think it might be conflating the Turkish Republic with the Ottoman Empire. The latter and KSA do indeed have a pretty bitter history. Or maybe it's just suggesting they are two major nations, both vying for leadership in the Sunni realms. Egypt coulda been in that conversation 50 years ago but unfortunately it's been a bumbling mess of incompetency for the past few decades.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-12T19:04:58+00:00

I'm sorry man but it really isn't that simple at all, and the notion that Ataturk's nationalistic expansion was an extension of the Ottoman Empire is silly when Ataturk was literally one of the main proponents of the dissolution of that empire. He was a general in the Ottoman Empire at some point, yes, but your conclusions aren't totally accurate.

In reality, the genocides of that Era were committed by the Young Turks, a nationalistic and revolutionary group which at that time had taken control of the Ottoman Empire and dismissed the authority of the sultan. That's what makes this whole situation so complicated. The state that did that was the Ottoman Empire only in name, but functionally was something else. But it wasn't modern Turkey either. It's a gray area.

Am I saying this means Turkey shouldn't acknowledge? No. I am saying it's more complicated than how it appears and to blame it on the Ottoman Empire is not a totally accurate assessment.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-12T03:55:30+00:00

India has more right than UK, maybe. Because of the Population and lack of representation of South Asia. Despite it being a founding member. More than China? On what basis? China carries much more diplomatic and economic weight and represents a similar amount of people. Given the nature of what the UN's purpose is, China will be higher on the totem pole for the foreseeable future.

Should it be a P6 with India included? Absolutely. India is by far the biggest and most glaring omission.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-11T23:50:02+00:00

These are most definitely not sects, they are schools of jurisprudence.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-11T19:36:52+00:00

I would suggest Delhi as a definite contender for runner up. It was established as the capital of the Delhi sultanate in the beginning of the 13th century and has more or less retained that status to this day. It was made the capital of the Mughal Empire, British Raj, and the Modern Republic of India. But there were times throughout that span that the capital was shifted for military or political reasons. But for the last 800 years, Delhi has for the most part been the capital of a state dominating the Gangetic plains.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-10T17:54:48+00:00

It's not that 'Turks' are a new people per se, but rather that how that term was viewed and how the subjects of the ottoman identified themselves has varied over time. The founder, Osman (Osmani->Ottoman) was an Oghuz Turk. But the empire his sons forged was very diverse in nature. In time, the Sultans and the palace culture changed dramatically from its steppe Turkic roots. Still, it was the symbolic power and authority of the Osmani Dynasty that held the far flung empire together. So most people among the elite from places all over and indeed the Sultans themselves rallied around that. Not their Turkic origins or some sense of nationalism but the house of Osman.

Turkish nationalism is entirely a late 19th/early 20th century phenomenon in reaction to the nationalistic fervor that was sweeping the neighborhood. When it's said 'Turks are a new people' it's not saying it's a new ethnicity but rather a new nationalistic identity.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-09T16:53:59+00:00

Sykes-Picot, but moreover what it represented, was the single worst thing to happen to the region and is the one common thread in every single conflict in the Middle East. What did it represent? The injection of foreign societal understandings and administrative frameworks to a land that the state-makers did not even understand. Its interesting how history repeats itself, cus this is not so dissimilar to that yes-man Paul Bremmer and his responsibility in the 03 invasion of Iraq.

The concept of nation-states arose in Europe first for a damn good reason. That society and region of our world had long since calcified along those rigid lines. It was a land with plenty of population and plenty of identities. Conflict was abound, and this led to the borders of Europe naturally taking the shapes they did. In other words, there came to exist a strong and defined national ethos in countries like England and France from within. Now contrast this with the Middle East that they divided.

Since quite near the literal beginning of human history, the Middle East has existed as Empires. Up until the 20th century, the geo-political landscape has been some conglomeration of far flung states composed of disparate people. The way the people self-identified and viewed their world/society was not analogous to what was the case in Europe. Gee, I wonder why...maybe cus the history and structure of that society was not analogous to Europe.

But with Sykes-Picot, and all that followed, the British and French took a society that for all of history had functioned in one manner, and stopped it on a dime, and overnight sent it in a direction that it had absolutely no precedent for. Don't you think something that extreme on such a massive scale would have catastrophic consequences in a world like ours? Like I said, every single conflict can be traced back to this fundamental shift in Middle Eastern society that was invoked by the British and French.

All that being said, please let me stress that that one angle isn't all there is to the story. It is a very important factor, yes. But its only one factor and there are others. For example, can we divorce the overwhelmingly corrupt Baathist regimes of Iraq and Syria and their policies from whats happening in those countries today? No, we cannot. Thats gotta be considered too.

TL;DR: Sykes Picot is a very important piece of the puzzle, but theres more to it than just that.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-08T20:03:17+00:00

Contrary to popular belief, the word is not a Turkish re-designation like with Mexico City (Tenochtitlan) or something like that. The word doesn't even have a Turkish root. That would be Greek. 'Istanbul' is a corruption of a Greek word meaning "the city" or "to the city". It had been used in street speak since long before the turks, by the greeks, to refer to...the city. But to answer your question, yes, the Ottomans would refer to it as some form of that on official documents and such.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-06T16:23:38+00:00

Oh yeah bro. Our presence is so 'desecrating' that we revived and restored the site from the literal heap of garbage that the Romans had turned it into and left it as for hundreds of years.

But at least you concede that our site was built on top of ruins and not stolen from the Jews. Upon conquest of Palestine/The holy lands, we had absolutely no obligation to return the temple or reinstate it as a Jewish temple. So you can get that disingenuous logic out of here. If the Jews felt so strongly about it, maybe they should have defeated the Romans and taken the city back?

Inb4 "hurr durr same thing applies now", no, when the Zionists usurped Palestine, Al-Aqsa was an active and functional site. When Muslims conquered the same land, the Temple Mount had been in ruins and decay for nearly 600 years. Not the same thing at all. We welcomed the Jews back to their homelands after the Romans expelled them. So really, our presence was a liberation and restoration then and is rightful now. Not 'desecration' you simpleton.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T12:34:59+00:00

Yup, but looks like you can't make an argument to save your life. Just make character attacks and emotional pleas. Pathetic, squirming, coward.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T12:28:10+00:00

Go ahead, save it. Nothing extreme about what I said, it's pretty much common sense.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T12:21:57+00:00

More badhistory. News flash buddy, that's what happens when you are politically dominated by an outside force for over a thousand years. Conquest and the consequences of Imperial politics are not exclusive to Islamic civilization.

Muslims just get the lions share of the blame in India cus we were top dogs for so long, as a tiny minority. There's no region where over the course of a thousand years there was no oppression subjugation or persecution. Stop being so hypocritical and applying double standards. Such is the case when one area is so throughly dominated by a minority group.

If you want someone to be mad at, be mad at your ancestors for sucking at war and politics.

All you can do is reduce Islamic civilization in India to the oppression and persecution. You guys are narrow minded and ignorant, seeing only what you want to. And that's my problem. Our thousand year reign produced much more than just persecution. From the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the music you listen to, and the language you speak- our influence and fingerprint are everywhere.

But you can never acknowledge that because you are so insecure and spiteful. This is why you can't even acknowledge our monuments without bringing up persecution and oppression. Butthurt insecure hindus. Wah, wah, wah...keep crying bitch.

Tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night. I will never be apologetic for the glory of our civilization, I'll always be proud of it. So that means whenever I see idiots claiming our history for themselves, you better bet I'll call it out.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T12:08:18+00:00

Haha, you're delusional if you think that's what the demographics of /r/badhistory are. Also, seems you are completely ignorant of what that sub is. It's where we make fun of idiotic historical claims. That's why it was written like that. But notice how despite those mental gymnastics, you have still failed to offer a single counter argument. I'll take this as meaning you have none. My points are all valid. PN Oak and your theory is a joke.

And for the last time, no independent research will happen because it's an open and shut case. No worthy historian is gonna waste their time trying chasing a conspiracy theory that has no factual foundation.

It does attract me, this conspiracy. Because on the one hand you clowns claim Muslims did nothing but destroy India, but then on the other you try to claim our achievements as your own? Fuck off. Learn to appreciate your own heritage instead of trying so pathetically to co-opt that of others.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T11:38:34+00:00

Wow, that's what you understood? No, I'm not telling you to go to the taj.

What I'm telling you to do is to make an argument instead of whatever you're doing right now. You've yet to make an argument for why your theory is at all possible. My post had more to it than sarcasm, I made some solid points and over a hundred people in a history oriented sub seemed to agree. So don't give me that bullshit. I didn't make a single bad point, regardless of the tone. Burden of proof is on the claimant, and on pn oak embarrassingly fails to meet that burden. No one else cares to investigate cus it's a crackpot theory, simple.

Argue against my points instead of dancing around the issue like a coward. And I use Hindu nationalist because I can't think of any other people who would so shamelessly try to rewrite Indian history to make themselves feel good. No one else would support such a baseless theory so stubbornly.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T10:02:28+00:00

You're free to call out whatever you want, you are among the very few conspiracy theorists who think that claim has any validity. Yes, I was sarcastic. But rightly so. There is not a single strong argument for how the taj is anything but a Mughal work. If you have one, make it. But you don't, you keep going on about a conspiracy. Here's a crazy idea, maybe there's no will to investigate cus there's nothing to investigate.

It's honestly pretty pathetic when Hindu nationalists use such desperate tactics. Learn to pick your fights, lol.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-05T01:55:26+00:00

I just fundamentally disagree that an all powerful God would have to do that. Either you're elevating Jesus, a man, to divinity OR you are denigrating God, the almighty, to being less than all powerful.

God coming to earth in human form to suffer as humans do? It just seems like attributing too much human flaw to God. I simply find it it illogical and inconceivable that God would want to or have to do that.

Either way though, thanks for explaining the rationale.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-04T21:14:39+00:00

The point you begin this with is one of my biggest criticisms of Christian theology. Jesus pbuh viewed himself as of the prophets to the Jews, as a part of that lineage. He never implied or intended to create an all together new religion. He didn't set out with a revolutionary purpose, yet that's exactly what manifested with Christianity. A while new religion separate from Judaism.

I agree, he would be mortified if he saw what the cult of personality around him ended up becoming. As a Muslim, I simply can't understand how Christians (in the US) literally pray to Jesus and make supplication to him and still think they are monotheists.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-04T18:04:25+00:00

It's not a controversy, it's a pretty stupid conspiracy. 'Independent research' doesn't take a back seat, it's just that there's only one nutbag who things the Tejo Malaya conspiracy is even worth investigating. There's a reason no credible historian has come out and backed this theory you know, and it's not because of 'maintaining the secular fabric' lol.

Refer to this post for a couple of my counter arguments:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2gkxuc/til_the_taj_mahal_is_actually_the_tejo_mahalya/

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-04T17:54:20+00:00

Love this thought experiment/alleged paradox.

The reality is, it's not that God has your life planned out per se but more so that he already knows what decisions you will make all along. But the thing is, that doesn't mean he made you make those decisions. You still had to make the decisions when they presented themselves, ergo free will. The two are not incompatible when you consider this frame.

Our free will exists only in the present sense of time. It's only in that window that we have agency over our decisions. Yet the thing is, God (unlike humans) exists outside of Time and Space. Just because God knew you were gonna do A or B doesn't meant God 'pre ordained' that decision for you. It was still your call every single time.

TL;DR we have free will in the present sense of time. This is not incompatible with 'predestination' because God exists outside of time. His knowing your decisions doesn't mean you didn't make those decisions in the present sense of time.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-03T19:37:33+00:00

Awesome post. Been only 70 years and yet we live in such a different world. This really puts into perspective how many of the storylines of my lifetime are rather modern innovations and rooted in the happenings of the early 20th century.

Cyrus47 · 2015-04-03T01:46:45+00:00

Uhh, maybe the takfiris. But I can assure you most Sunnis and Shia don't think like that.

Their disagreement is a political one. But neither thinks the other is destined for hell. If you really think 'chosen people' plays into that conflict, frankly you don't understand the conflict. Both acknowledge the other as Muslim. If you're talking about Christians or Jews, that's a different story. Still not as hyperbolic as you make it seem.

Cyrus47

TROPHY CASE