03-14-2007, 02:07 AM
X-Posted from
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Posts: 122
New postPosted: 13 Mar 2007Â Â Post subject:Â Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was trying to find the history of Islam in India and the closest thing I could find is the following wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
At first glance the one thing that jumps at me is the fact that Northern Indian contact with Islam was "perhaps" more via the swords of Ghauri and bin Qasim types whereas it was the Coastal (including gujarat/bengal) and Southern Indian contact was with the Arab traders and these were the ones that went on to Islamize Indonesia/Malaysia etc etc. This explains why there is such a dichotomy of popular perception of the effects of Islam on India. Most northern kingdoms were subjected to raids from Afghanistan and Persia whereas the Coasts actually gained substantially from their interactions with Arabic traders.
My reading of history of Islam in the world tells me that rights of minorities under Islamic rule (though probably limited to Abhramic faiths Jews/christians etc) was far better than other contemporaries such as Romans/Greeks/Kings of Western Europe. However there is little data: or perhaps I have not looked hard enough to support the main bone of contention that Islam was uniformly bad for India . If data were to be objectively analyzed then Indian interaction with Islam was on the whole a positive experience since reformation of the hindu system of caste was long overdue and Islam provided the impetus for this change.
I was for a long time harboring a delusion that the Arabic world was populated by nomadic tribes that could not have developed any kind of high technology in the absence of a city based lifestyle and quite willingly assumed that any technology they had was inspired or taken from Persia, India or China. However this is obviously a mistake since the fertile crescent in the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris Euphates, much of Syria and Lebanon is actually quite fertile and has known human civilization since perhaps as long as the Indus valley.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with above post is that reform of Hinduism started much earlier and atrophied due to the shock of the Islamic invasions and European colonialism. yes there were two streams of Islamic encounter - the coastal and the North West Frontier passes. Even in the latter it was the Turco-Afghan- Persian strain that was violent. The Mughals became Indianised after Akbar. The TAP even later under Nadir Shah and Abdali showed their violent nature even till late 18th century.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Posts: 122
New postPosted: 13 Mar 2007Â Â Post subject:Â Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was trying to find the history of Islam in India and the closest thing I could find is the following wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
At first glance the one thing that jumps at me is the fact that Northern Indian contact with Islam was "perhaps" more via the swords of Ghauri and bin Qasim types whereas it was the Coastal (including gujarat/bengal) and Southern Indian contact was with the Arab traders and these were the ones that went on to Islamize Indonesia/Malaysia etc etc. This explains why there is such a dichotomy of popular perception of the effects of Islam on India. Most northern kingdoms were subjected to raids from Afghanistan and Persia whereas the Coasts actually gained substantially from their interactions with Arabic traders.
My reading of history of Islam in the world tells me that rights of minorities under Islamic rule (though probably limited to Abhramic faiths Jews/christians etc) was far better than other contemporaries such as Romans/Greeks/Kings of Western Europe. However there is little data: or perhaps I have not looked hard enough to support the main bone of contention that Islam was uniformly bad for India . If data were to be objectively analyzed then Indian interaction with Islam was on the whole a positive experience since reformation of the hindu system of caste was long overdue and Islam provided the impetus for this change.
I was for a long time harboring a delusion that the Arabic world was populated by nomadic tribes that could not have developed any kind of high technology in the absence of a city based lifestyle and quite willingly assumed that any technology they had was inspired or taken from Persia, India or China. However this is obviously a mistake since the fertile crescent in the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris Euphates, much of Syria and Lebanon is actually quite fertile and has known human civilization since perhaps as long as the Indus valley.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with above post is that reform of Hinduism started much earlier and atrophied due to the shock of the Islamic invasions and European colonialism. yes there were two streams of Islamic encounter - the coastal and the North West Frontier passes. Even in the latter it was the Turco-Afghan- Persian strain that was violent. The Mughals became Indianised after Akbar. The TAP even later under Nadir Shah and Abdali showed their violent nature even till late 18th century.