12-08-2006, 07:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicizatio...t-conquest_Iran
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wikipedia is useless. Modern Persians have one agenda to show that Islam "intellectually" improved because of Persian influence. Since all of them are muslims they "cannot" see any fault with there ancestors being converted to Islam.
To understand what really happened you have to talk to / understand from modern Parsis i.e descendants of Persian Zoroastrians who came to India. Dosabhoy Framjee is an eminent Paris Historian who wrote a book on Muslim occupation of Persia:
Please read it here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding Zoroastrianism succumbing to Islam, there are two stages to the question
1. Conquest of Iran from the Sassanids:
Now after reading the two articles and from my knowledge of history, the reason why Iran lost so to the Arabs quickly was because it was unified. Iranians were fighting a superior enemy in terms of zeal, ideology and military strength. Iranian polity was going through a phase of decline because of weakening Sassanid power. Now in such situation, since Iran was unified it presented one army to the Arabs, whose loss means loss of Iran. We bemoan that India at the advent of Islam in India was a divided house, but that division was a boon in disguise. What this means is that any invader cannot win a war or a country by winning one battle.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget the defeat. Concentrate on what haappened to Zoroastrians. (Though we have had arguments here that having a central organization is better).
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even after defeating Lodhi, Babur had won a small part of India. Then he had to contend with Rana Sanga, even after that it meant only consolidation over northern India.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Not true that Babur consolidated over North India. Yes he won a few wars. Against Sanga he managed to bribe a general on the rajput side and he won.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa and the South were not even in the picture. You look at any invader from north from Mahmud Ghazni, Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak down to Babur, all the Muslim houses which came to rule Delhi had to fight and subdue a dozen principalities and a dozen powers. India also was a far bigger and diverse land than Iran. For over 100 years while the northern plains of India was subjugated by the Sultanate, there was no presence of them in South India. Of course thanks to Rajputs and others who kept them occupied. Governing India has always been very difficult. Culturally we may be one, but uniting us politically is difficult. It takes decades to build a politically unified or partially politically unified state in India, it does not even take a few years for it to disintegrate, whether it be the Mauryas or Guptas or Harsha or Mughals.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Governing is not difficult. What makes it challenging is having rulers who are good.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
What we have to understand is that political unity works both ways. Take China, China has been politically unified for long periods of its history as much as were politically disunited. By 15th century AD China was one of the foremost maritime powers in the world. They are said to have built bigger ships and even to haev discovered America. But in the 15th century a new conservative dynasty came into power in China which was opposed to the navy. To curb them they passed a rule whereby crossing the seas was not allowed, also big ships cannot be built. If it had been India it would have been even impractical to concieve such an idea leave alone implement it, but China being politically unified this decree was swiftly, universally and ruthlessly implemented which was a retrograde step for China. Similar is the case of Japan with gunpowder, which also came about due to political consolidation by samurais.
2. Conversion of Zoroastrians to Islam:
It is mentioned that the upper classes of the zoroastrian society converted to Islam to maintain their privileges as there was a ruthless crackdown on zoroastrianism. Of course there were massacres and conversions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one sided. Please read Dosabhoy Framjee's work which is mentioned above in this post.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Can you imagine in India the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the upper castes getting converted to Islam. Though there were a few cases of conversions by upper classes, but by and large the upper castes of India were more commited to our social systems and caste systems.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No No. You are talking like a marxist about the "power of Hinduism" and its assimilitative properties. None of these things work when a fanatic Jihadi held a sword on the neck of the brahmin to eat beef. Please research about conversions in India a bit more.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the face of a missionary religion propogated with violent zeal, could we have withstood just on the basis of sword.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse yes.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> No, tif w did not have a stronger value system and faith to adhere to we would not have made it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a myth. You have to realise that Zoroastrians had similar faith in there religion and when they had no defenders left to defend the common man they were asked to convert on the edge of the sword and to save there life they did. This is how Islam spread throught the world. In India they tried similar tactic but ofcourse Hindus showed them what real war is.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Also I think the population and geographical spread and diversity of geography helped. Even at the time of Independence, Muslims were 25-30% of population of subcontinent. This after centuries of discrimination and conversions. So during Sultanate period there would have far fewer.
[right][snapback]61835[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and it so happened beacuse the strength of the Hindus not by the grace of God, or the strength of Hindu faith or the benevolence of Muslims. Interestingly if Hinduism had a way of reconverting Muslims there would have been far fewer muslims left in India just like Spain during the time of Inquisition.
-Digvijay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicizatio...t-conquest_Iran
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wikipedia is useless. Modern Persians have one agenda to show that Islam "intellectually" improved because of Persian influence. Since all of them are muslims they "cannot" see any fault with there ancestors being converted to Islam.
To understand what really happened you have to talk to / understand from modern Parsis i.e descendants of Persian Zoroastrians who came to India. Dosabhoy Framjee is an eminent Paris Historian who wrote a book on Muslim occupation of Persia:
Please read it here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding Zoroastrianism succumbing to Islam, there are two stages to the question
1. Conquest of Iran from the Sassanids:
Now after reading the two articles and from my knowledge of history, the reason why Iran lost so to the Arabs quickly was because it was unified. Iranians were fighting a superior enemy in terms of zeal, ideology and military strength. Iranian polity was going through a phase of decline because of weakening Sassanid power. Now in such situation, since Iran was unified it presented one army to the Arabs, whose loss means loss of Iran. We bemoan that India at the advent of Islam in India was a divided house, but that division was a boon in disguise. What this means is that any invader cannot win a war or a country by winning one battle.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget the defeat. Concentrate on what haappened to Zoroastrians. (Though we have had arguments here that having a central organization is better).
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even after defeating Lodhi, Babur had won a small part of India. Then he had to contend with Rana Sanga, even after that it meant only consolidation over northern India.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Not true that Babur consolidated over North India. Yes he won a few wars. Against Sanga he managed to bribe a general on the rajput side and he won.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa and the South were not even in the picture. You look at any invader from north from Mahmud Ghazni, Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak down to Babur, all the Muslim houses which came to rule Delhi had to fight and subdue a dozen principalities and a dozen powers. India also was a far bigger and diverse land than Iran. For over 100 years while the northern plains of India was subjugated by the Sultanate, there was no presence of them in South India. Of course thanks to Rajputs and others who kept them occupied. Governing India has always been very difficult. Culturally we may be one, but uniting us politically is difficult. It takes decades to build a politically unified or partially politically unified state in India, it does not even take a few years for it to disintegrate, whether it be the Mauryas or Guptas or Harsha or Mughals.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Governing is not difficult. What makes it challenging is having rulers who are good.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
What we have to understand is that political unity works both ways. Take China, China has been politically unified for long periods of its history as much as were politically disunited. By 15th century AD China was one of the foremost maritime powers in the world. They are said to have built bigger ships and even to haev discovered America. But in the 15th century a new conservative dynasty came into power in China which was opposed to the navy. To curb them they passed a rule whereby crossing the seas was not allowed, also big ships cannot be built. If it had been India it would have been even impractical to concieve such an idea leave alone implement it, but China being politically unified this decree was swiftly, universally and ruthlessly implemented which was a retrograde step for China. Similar is the case of Japan with gunpowder, which also came about due to political consolidation by samurais.
2. Conversion of Zoroastrians to Islam:
It is mentioned that the upper classes of the zoroastrian society converted to Islam to maintain their privileges as there was a ruthless crackdown on zoroastrianism. Of course there were massacres and conversions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one sided. Please read Dosabhoy Framjee's work which is mentioned above in this post.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Can you imagine in India the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the upper castes getting converted to Islam. Though there were a few cases of conversions by upper classes, but by and large the upper castes of India were more commited to our social systems and caste systems.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No No. You are talking like a marxist about the "power of Hinduism" and its assimilitative properties. None of these things work when a fanatic Jihadi held a sword on the neck of the brahmin to eat beef. Please research about conversions in India a bit more.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the face of a missionary religion propogated with violent zeal, could we have withstood just on the basis of sword.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse yes.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> No, tif w did not have a stronger value system and faith to adhere to we would not have made it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a myth. You have to realise that Zoroastrians had similar faith in there religion and when they had no defenders left to defend the common man they were asked to convert on the edge of the sword and to save there life they did. This is how Islam spread throught the world. In India they tried similar tactic but ofcourse Hindus showed them what real war is.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 06:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Also I think the population and geographical spread and diversity of geography helped. Even at the time of Independence, Muslims were 25-30% of population of subcontinent. This after centuries of discrimination and conversions. So during Sultanate period there would have far fewer.
[right][snapback]61835[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and it so happened beacuse the strength of the Hindus not by the grace of God, or the strength of Hindu faith or the benevolence of Muslims. Interestingly if Hinduism had a way of reconverting Muslims there would have been far fewer muslims left in India just like Spain during the time of Inquisition.
-Digvijay