NO i don't want you to pull up property records of 300 years ago i just want you to back up your own claims of hindu kicked out and land given by tipu sultan to muslims of the area you can't just calim something and not back it up with a fact! that is just childish!
ok so according to you some were forced to convert and some converted for money BUT ABSOLUTELY NONE CONVERTED BECAUSE THEY SAW ISLAM AS CORRECT?????
moghul art is musem piece yes but the architecture and art and food is associated with india. ofcourse that is why india promotes it as a tourism thing isn't it? so you personally can hate the art and culture and buildings but that is what people associate with indian culture ask any non desi.
lastly you just claimed tipu sultan forced people to convert but then you followed it up in your next post saying i don't know about tipu sultan.
Must we have to choose between two extreme views, both equally unbalanced?
The people of Kerala and the people of east Bengal were among the first to convert to Islam; among the first, because such conversions were a continuous process, one which continues even today.
There were Muslims in Kerala and the Konkan Coast long before Mohammad bin Qasim came to Sindh; the first mosques belong to the Konkan, not to Sindh. These were not conversions by force, but most probably descendants of Muslim traders who settled in the area. Bengal converted largely in the 13th and 14th centuries. There had been a period of Hindu oppression immediately before, and the preaching of Arab missionaries found fertile ground. The numbers as a proportion seem to have grown right through the period from then till now, largely because demographic growth was different between the poor and the relatively less poor.
North India was a different case. It saw some of the most barbaric, savage instances of conversion. By all accounts, the Ghaznavid and Ghurid may have displayed wonderful manners, as one of the posters has hinted, but they slaughtered and killed on a large scale, a legacy maintained by their successors.
The question arises why such large Numbers of Hindus are still to be found. The answer lies in the numbers. Today, after migration during partition, there are approximately 15% Muslims in the population. Before partition, it appears that the numbers were closer to 25%.
If 25% is the number of (migrants and their descendants) + (converts and their descendants), then obviously the number of migrants must have been less than 25%. we can assume that they converted a smaller than they were themselves, an equal number or a larger number. If they converted an equal number, they must have been around 10 to 12% of the original population.
However, it is unlikely that they were ever as high as 10% of the population, for reasons that will be apparent below.
Now look at the distribution of the population. India was never an urban Civilisation after the IVC, and it is likely that this was more or less a village-based Civilisation. Around 90% would have lived in the villages, if today's highly urbanized cross-section is an index. So we have most of the migrant Muslims in the cities and towns, and most of the indigenous population in the villages, to start with, at any rate.
If the number of migrating Muslims was as high as 10%, and they were all in the towns and cities, they would have been the only occupants of these towns and cities! Clearly an absurd opposition. It seems logical to conclude that the numbers of migrants were as low as perhaps 5% of the original population, and that even that is excessive.
How much of the original population could a ruling elite of less than 5% convert, with all the bloodshed and coercion taken into account? Or with all the earnest and sincere efforts of the preachers taken into account?
It was this, and not an absence of coercive measures, that preserved the proportions as they are. This, and the two facts that no mass migrations took place, as in Turkey, or in parts of north Africa; and the amount of time at their disposal was around 800 years, nearly 50% less than that in other parts of the world.
Finally, Muslim rule extended to only north India until fairly late in the day; the Bahmani Kingdom was founded in 1347, and lasted about 150 years, giving birth even in its death to the successor kingdoms, one being the precursor of Hyderabad. The south was relatively less affected by conversion than the north.
, you are possibly making a mistake and think that Hindu and Hindi are one and the same.
none. we use persianized script while hindus use dravidian script... so obviosuly I will say Hindu script
