Was a large-scale conversion of Central Asians to Christianity after 1850 possible?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had the Russian Empire survived (for instance, if World War I was prevented and if Russia eventually transitioned to a constitutional monarchy afterwards), would it have been possible for Russia to convert large numbers of Central Asians to Russian Orthodox Christianity?

Basically, I'm curious about this considering that Europeans managed to convert large numbers of Sub-Saharan Africans to various types of Christianity during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, I am wondering if similar Russian efforts could have succeeded in Central Asia.
 
Basically, I'm curious about this considering that Europeans managed to convert large numbers of Sub-Saharan Africans to various types of Christianity during the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Yes, because they didn't follow Islam. Muslim areas remain almost entirely Muslim, and the Christian minorities are almost always descendants of animists. Same in Indonesia.

And Central Asia is a far, far, far, far, far more important center of Islam than Africa ever was. It's where the greatest hadith-collectors like Tirmidhi and Bukhari and Nasa'i come from, where scientists like Avicenna and Biruni were born, where theologians like Naqshband Bukhari lived and died. It is one of the cores of the Islamic world, unlike Southeast Asia or India or Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Yes, because they didn't follow Islam. Muslim areas remain almost entirely Muslim, and the Christian minorities are almost always descendants of animists. Same in Indonesia.

And Central Asia is a far, far, far, far, far more important center of Islam than Africa ever was. It's where the greatest hadith-collectors like Tirmidhi and Bukhari and Nasa'i come from, where scientists like Avicenna and Biruni were born, where theologians like Naqshband Bukhari lived and died. It is one of the cores of the Islamic world, unlike Southeast Asia or India or Sub-Saharan Africa.
This seems a bit of non sequitur, Augustine and all the early theologians being born in North Africa or the Middle East didn't prevent the conversion of the region to Islam, nor should the historical presence of Islamic centers or theologians/intellectuals in Central Asia prevent it from becoming Christian.

I'd rather argue that the time period given is quite too small and that you would need a century or more if you want change not fueled by migration from Russia proper.
 
This seems a bit of non sequitur, Augustine and all the early theologians being born in North Africa or the Middle East didn't prevent the conversion of the region to Islam, nor should the historical presence of Islamic centers or theologians/intellectuals in Central Asia prevent it from becoming Christian.
The conversion of the Middle East to Islam is a pretty unclear process. If you look at the relevant post-1500 era, there has been almost no (I wanna say none at all) mass conversion from one world religion to another, be it Christian, Islam, Hinduism, or Theravada Buddhism.
 
The conversion of the Middle East to Islam is a pretty unclear process. If you look at the relevant post-1500 era, there has been almost no (I wanna say none at all) mass conversion from one world religion to another, be it Christian, Islam, Hinduism, or Theravada Buddhism.
Indonesia, Russian Steppes, good portions of India, the Mongol area(if you count Tengriism as a world religion), Sudan/Nubia, Champa.

Also there is a stark difference between what happened and what could have happened, we didn't have mass conversion because we didn't any world religions take over territory of another without the demographic changes being reversed a way or another:

-Ottomans islamized a lot of the Balkans, part of it was reversed in the last 2 centuries.

-The Mughals did the same to India, but their rule fell and the process was either stopped, slowed down or reversed.
 
Indonesia
As with Champa, Hinduism was not properly entrenched among the Indonesian population--even in Java there was just a Hindu-influenced sort of animism among the non-elite, which could and did easily meet a common ground with Islam. This Reddit post is pretty good on this.

Russian Steppes,
A lot of that was population displacement more than actual conversion, and as in Indonesia, many of the steppe peoples outside the Hordes' urban centers were lightly Islamized. As James Forsyth correctly notes, "the khans and mirzas may have been educated at Bukhara or Samarkand, but the mass of ordinary people living at the northern extremities of Turkestan, separated by wide tracts of desert from these religious centres, adhered to their old shamanist religion with its nature spirits, ancestor cult and animal sacrifice. In fact this pre-Islamic religion persisted among all the Siberian 'Tatar' peoples from the Urals to the Altai right up to the twentieth century, even if, as in the case of the Kazaks and Tobolsk [Siberian] Tatars, it was interwoven with elements of Islam."

good portions of India,
India was exactly what I was thinking of. Islam remained a minority religion wherever religion and society were strongly Hindu, notably the Gangetic Plain, and prevailed wherever Hinduism was weak and the people were settled under Mughal auspices, like in eastern Bengal (a dense jungle until the Mughals settled it) and the western Punjab. In India, Islam is the religion of the plow--the faith of expanding intensified agriculture. Richard M. Eaton has done a lot of work on this, but for a summary read his "Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India."

the Mongol area(if you count Tengriism as a world religion)
I see no reason why I should see a form of shamanism without any written tradition or codified beliefs to be a world religion.

Sudan/Nubia
Conversion to Islam was spearheaded by nomadic communities which we can broadly describe as animist, most notably the Funj of Sinnar. Note also that Nubian Christians didn't even have their own liturgical language and literally used Greek, unlike Ge'ez or Armenian in other Eastern Christian communities. Overall it seems like Christianity was weak in Nubia, especially following the Egyptian invasion of Makuria in the 13th century, and this was exacerbated by invasions by animist nomads (pastoralists being generally more prestigious than farmers). Not a good analogue for Central Asia, a critical center of Islam ever since the Abbasids.

-Ottomans islamized a lot of the Balkans, part of it was reversed in the last 2 centuries.
I'll admit that parts of the Ottoman Balkans did see widespread conversion from Christianity to Islam, much of which was reversed in the Ottoman collapse. But first, it was never a majority faith in the Balkans even after four centuries of Ottoman rule, and second, in places like Greece converts never made up more than 10% of the population. Areas with strong Bogomil traditions converted more easily to Islam.

-The Mughals did the same to India, but their rule fell and the process was either stopped, slowed down or reversed.
See above. The Indian core was never properly converted, only the peripheries were.
 
As with Champa, Hinduism was not properly entrenched among the Indonesian population--even in Java there was just a Hindu-influenced sort of animism among the non-elite, which could and did easily meet a common ground with Islam. This Reddit post is pretty good on this.


A lot of that was population displacement more than actual conversion, and as in Indonesia, many of the steppe peoples outside the Hordes' urban centers were lightly Islamized. As James Forsyth correctly notes, "the khans and mirzas may have been educated at Bukhara or Samarkand, but the mass of ordinary people living at the northern extremities of Turkestan, separated by wide tracts of desert from these religious centres, adhered to their old shamanist religion with its nature spirits, ancestor cult and animal sacrifice. In fact this pre-Islamic religion persisted among all the Siberian 'Tatar' peoples from the Urals to the Altai right up to the twentieth century, even if, as in the case of the Kazaks and Tobolsk [Siberian] Tatars, it was interwoven with elements of Islam."


India was exactly what I was thinking of. Islam remained a minority religion wherever religion and society were strongly Hindu, notably the Gangetic Plain, and prevailed wherever Hinduism was weak and the people were settled under Mughal auspices, like in eastern Bengal (a dense jungle until the Mughals settled it) and the western Punjab. In India, Islam is the religion of the plow--the faith of expanding intensified agriculture. Richard M. Eaton has done a lot of work on this, but for a summary read his "Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India."


I see no reason why I should see a form of shamanism without any written tradition or codified beliefs to be a world religion.


Conversion to Islam was spearheaded by nomadic communities which we can broadly describe as animist, most notably the Funj of Sinnar. Note also that Nubian Christians didn't even have their own liturgical language and literally used Greek, unlike Ge'ez or Armenian in other Eastern Christian communities. Overall it seems like Christianity was weak in Nubia, especially following the Egyptian invasion of Makuria in the 13th century, and this was exacerbated by invasions by animist nomads (pastoralists being generally more prestigious than farmers). Not a good analogue for Central Asia, a critical center of Islam ever since the Abbasids.


I'll admit that parts of the Ottoman Balkans did see widespread conversion from Christianity to Islam, much of which was reversed in the Ottoman collapse. But first, it was never a majority faith in the Balkans even after four centuries of Ottoman rule, and second, in places like Greece converts never made up more than 10% of the population. Areas with strong Bogomil traditions converted more easily to Islam.


See above. The Indian core was never properly converted, only the peripheries were.
So "mass conversion never happened, except when it did". I'm sorry but that's how your claim comes out.

Saying "X religion had a weak presence" doesn't change that religious conversion did in fact happen, Central Asia after all had also quite a lot of syncretism all around outside the urban centers(as did the Caucasus).

If you need so many exceptions to a rule, maybe this rule is not actually that valid after all.
 
So "mass conversion never happened, except when it did". I'm sorry but that's how your claim comes out.
To go back to your examples:

Indonesia
Animist people --> Muslim people (again, even in Java, religion and society on the ground had nothing to do with Hindu ideals)

Russian Steppes
Shamanist people --> Muslim/Orthodox people

good portions of India
Animist people --> Muslim people (the "good portions" you mention are eastern Bengal, inhabited by non-Hindu forest peoples who were settled by the Mughals, and western Punjab, where nomadic Jat clans settled under Mughal auspices)

the Mongol area
Shamanist people --> Buddhist people

Sudan/Nubia
Mixed population dominated by animists --> Muslim people

-Ottomans islamized a lot of the Balkans
I conceded this already.

Central Asia after all had also quite a lot of syncretism all around outside the urban centers(as did the Caucasus).
Every part of Islam is syncretist, especially before the 18th century. Consider that even in Java, where Vishnu and Krishna are still positively remembered, despite the efforts of Christians missionaries, Islam prevails. Identity is what matters here--the Javanese proudly identified as Muslim, and Central Asians did so to an even greater degree. Islam was the main axis of identification, like in the Middle East generally.

If you need so many exceptions to a rule
The only exceptions appear to be the Ottomans in the Balkans.
 
Shamanist people --> Muslim/Orthodox people
So the Golden Horde was not Islamic? Not even the Crimean Khanate?

Animist people --> Muslim people (the "good portions" you mention are eastern Bengal, inhabited by non-Hindu forest peoples who were settled by the Mughals, and western Punjab, where nomadic Jat clans settled under Mughal auspices)
Sindhi, Punjab(all of it), Kashmir, Gange. All totally animist areas? Also I don't understand why we are limiting ourselves to areas were conversion leads to a majority, because if you are able to convert 2 digits percent of the population, then most of India would be included:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Muslim_percent_1909.jpg

Also it wasn't portion of the Bengal that was converted, it was pretty much most of it, even if it was not majority everywhere.

Mixed population dominated by animists --> Muslim people
Dominated by animist? Those were Christian, syncretic or not.

Every part of Islam is syncretist, especially before the 18th century. Consider that even in Java, where Vishnu and Krishna are still positively remembered, despite the efforts of Christians missionaries, Islam prevails. Identity is what matters here--the Javanese proudly identified as Muslim, and Central Asians did so to an even greater degree. Islam was the main axis of identification, like in the Middle East generally.
If it's identity, what does this rule that "Religions conversion of world religion post 1500 = impossible" come from?

Also that doesn't really bar conversion, given identity is far from a solid concept and could be removed given enough time to produce such societal change.

The only exceptions appear to be the Ottomans in the Balkans.
Like I said, if you need an ad hoc exception for every case that goes against your made up rule, maybe you should reconsider its validity.

Islamic control of India did lead to conversion to Islam, Islamic control of the Balkans also did.

Let me reverse the question, in which centuries long control of one world religion over another didn't lead to conversion to the former of sizeable amounts of the population?
 
Last edited:
There's actually a decent theological reason why its really, really hard to convert a population from Islam to another religion. It's spelled out pretty clearly that the penalty for apostasy is death or, at the very least, eternal damination (Being "Born Again" really isen't an option), and since conversion is a gradual, individual by individual process for the most part its going to move at a snails pace due to the high risks and massive community pressures involved.

Considering how peripheral Centeral Asia is from the Russian core, and any Orthodox converts from among the locals will have to consider just how far away the Czar's soldiers are, and if God is going to hear their screams or feed their family.
 
So the Golden Horde was not Islamic? Not even the Crimean Khanate?
.....Are you aware of the demographic history of Crimea after the Russian conquest, and the reason why most people there speak Russian today while there are a million Crimean Tatars in Turkey? Ditto, are you aware that Tatarstan is currently majority Muslim, and that the large Orthodox minority is largely composed of Slavic settlers? The Volga Tatars are almost entirely (as in 99%) Muslim, with the sole exception of the Kryashen Tatars. And a huge number of the Kryashens were crypto-Muslims all the way until 1905. That year the tsar made concessions to Islam as part of the aftermath of the 1905 Revolution, and an enormous number of the Kryashens immediately went back to publicly practicing Islam.

Sindhi, Punjab(all of it), Kashmir, Gange. All totally animist areas?
Sindh is an atypical case where the Arabs conquered it early on. You are definitely wrong about all of Punjab being Muslim (like why do you think there's an Indian Punjab in the first place?) and those parts that converted were discussed above. The history of Islam in Kashmir is debated, but it seems that it was an indigenous development like in Southeast Asia, so of little relevance to OP's scenario. It also happened rather before my time frame. I have no idea what "Gange" is supposed to mean, but the Gangetic Plain was almost entirely Hindu.

because if you are able to convert 2 digits percent of the population, then most of India would be included
You have a generous definition of "most," especially in the aftermath of six centuries of Islamic rule. Also, the Muslim proportion of the population actually rose a lot under British rule. In 1826 the British estimated that only 1 out of 6 Indians were Muslim, while in the 1940s it was 1 out of 4. The vast majority of the Mughal empire (whose Muslim population is usually estimated at around 10%, accounting for the smaller populations of Bangladesh and Punjab) would have a vast Hindu majority.

Also it wasn't portion of the Bengal that was converted, it was pretty much most of it, even if it was not majority everywhere.
No, only Bangladesh, most of which was jungle until the Ganges changed course just as the Mughals were strolling in. The old pre-Mughal capitals are either in now majority-Hindu areas (Murshidabad, Bankura, Gauda, Nabadwip, Pandua) or in places that were only 50~60% Muslim before partition (Sonargaon, Naogaon, Munshiganj). The most Muslim areas are in the northern and eastern parts, which are not major centers of Bengali civilization and some of which weren't even part of India until the Mughals conquered it (Chittagong).

I'd like your opinion on why this is, if Hindus and animists were equally likely to convert.

U1NtptD.png



Dominated by animist? Those were Christian, syncretic or not.
Islam spread under the auspices of the rulers of Sinnar, who were basically animists until the 18th century and never followed Christianity. Christianity was in a general state of collapse in Nubia before the advent of Islam, and animist pastoralists -- who, remember, had greater prestige than agriculturalists, as is generally the case in Africa -- had made huge inroads already.

Islamic control of India did lead to conversion to Islam, Islamic control of the Balkans also did.

If it's identity, what does this rule that "Religions conversion of world religion post 1500 = impossible" come from?
Because Abrahamic religions and (at least) Theravada Buddhism are transcendentalist religions who tend to become a central marker of identity among a population, to a far larger degree than other religions. This process was exacerbated in the Early Modern era, by which all major world religions had more or less assumed their current orthodox form (hence why your example of the Arab conquests doesn't really work -- early Islam appears to have been a very amorphous thing) and, especially in the case of Christianity and Islam, had an explicitly oppositional attitude towards Islam and Christanity. If you have JSTOR access, read Alan Strathern's Transcendentalist Intransigence: Why Rulers Rejected Monotheism in Early Modern Southeast Asia and Beyond.

Islamic control of India did lead to conversion to Islam, Islamic control of the Balkans also did.
Why was there not a majority in either areas after six centuries of Islamic rule for the former, and four to five centuries in the latter?

Let me reverse the question, in which centuries long control of one world religion over another didn't lead to conversion to the former of sizeable amounts of the population?
Well, virtually every sizable Muslim, Hindu, and Theravada area ever conquered by Europeans (except where the old inhabitants were actively chased out or swamped by immigrants, like the Russian steppe or Andalusia)? Not to mention most of India, despite undergoing Muslim rule for more than six hundred years. The Ottoman Balkans.

Actually, look at a map of world religions in 1500 and the same map in 2000. You will see that Muslim-majority territories in 1500 are almost all Muslim-majority in 2000, with the only big exceptions being Spain (where the Mudejars were forcibly converted), Palestine (where the Arabs were kicked out), and parts of the steppe (where the actual Tatars are still almost all Muslim). Similarly, you will see that all Christian-majority territories are Christian-majority in 2000 with exceptions in parts of Turkey and the Balkans, and maybe parts of northeastern Africa (also ethnic change, with Nubians a small minority and the Oromos expanding). If you look at a map comparing the extent of Theravada Buddhism in 1500 and 2000, they will nearly match, the main exception being in southern Vietnam where the Vietnamese aggressively conquered and assimilated the indigenous Cambodians.
 
So the Golden Horde was not Islamic? Not even the Crimean Khanate?

Both Golden Horde and Crimean Khanate sure were Islamic but it doesn't mean that these two states had a lot of places densely populated by Islamic people. While looking impressive on a map these states were nomadic* and thus didn’t have as impressive population. Most of the territory theoretically held by these states was devoid of even nomadic population and was not converted but colonized by Russian Orthodox people. The only regions that had substantial population were Crimea itself and Middle Volga which both still have a substantial Islamic minority ( it is smaller in Crimea but Crimea had several forced deportations of parts of local Tatars).


* Well, Golden Horde and Kazan Khanate had large enough settled population and arguably were a lot closer to a proper state than any other khanate in the Great Steppes. In some other historic circumstances it definitely could have evolved to a settled centralized state akin Ottoman Empire for example. However the region on the Middle Volga that actually was rather densely settled never really was converted and while actively colonized and integrated by Russians for 400 years it still has large enough Islamic Tatar and Bashkir minority to justify organization of semi-autonomous republics Tatarstan and Bashkortostan.




Returning to OP’s question I don’t really think that large scale conversions of Central Asians are really possible in XIX century and later.

However modern Kazakhstan unlike further south was sparsely settled and if colonized more effectively and if there is less governmental support for Kazakh language and culture than there was during Soviet times there is a very real possibility of stable Russian Orthodox majority there ( in late soviet period there were as many Russians in Kazakhstan as Kazakhs; given more active colonization and more effective assimilations of Kazakhs Kazakhstan can be three quarters if not more Orthodox Russian).
The other region that had a substantial Russian population is incredibly fertile Fergana valley. While achieving Russian Orthodox majority borders ASB, given how divided local population it is probably possible to get Russian-speaking plurality ( partly by colonization partly by assimilation with divide an conquer policy).

All these scenarios however lead not to local conversions into Orthodoxy but rather to Russian colonization and assimilation ( probably coupled with conversion but assimilation nonetheless). While it is probably not what OP requires I really don’t see a reliable way to provide conversion that is not coupled with assimilation ( at least without de-facto assimilation; IOTL a lot of people in Tatarstan for example while identify themselves as Tatars have Russian as their mother tongue, don’t know more than a couple hundred Tatar words and either indifferent to religion or even Orthodox; same can be replicated in say Fergana valley but it is a de-facto assimilation in my opinion) so this is as close to OP premise as I can think of.
 
.....Are you aware of the demographic history of Crimea after the Russian conquest, and the reason why most people there speak Russian today while there are a million Crimean Tatars in Turkey? Ditto, are you aware that Tatarstan is currently majority Muslim, and that the large Orthodox minority is largely composed of Slavic settlers? The Volga Tatars are almost entirely (as in 99%) Muslim, with the sole exception of the Kryashen Tatars. And a huge number of the Kryashens were crypto-Muslims all the way until 1905. That year the tsar made concessions to Islam as part of the aftermath of the 1905 Revolution, and an enormous number of the Kryashens immediately went back to publicly practicing Islam.
The Crimean bit was wrong, but you should consider that Orthodox Tatars(that exist) would be quite in the position to be Russified in the centuries of the coexistence with Russian, surely you don't think that the whole of the Steppes was subjected to Circassian-like expulsion or genocide. Now I should look more into it to find more accurate descriptions.

Sindh is an atypical case where the Arabs conquered it early on. You are definitely wrong about all of Punjab being Muslim (like why do you think there's an Indian Punjab in the first place?) and those parts that converted were discussed above. The history of Islam in Kashmir is debated, but it seems that it was an indigenous development like in Southeast Asia, so of little relevance to OP's scenario. It also happened rather before my time frame. I have no idea what "Gange" is supposed to mean, but the Gangetic Plain was almost entirely Hindu.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w68D4O9VWI8/Vuq9_CCSSpI/AAAAAAAAE-8/htX7ZdxxfRYioqMqjxswrafcTLDETfIrA/s1600/Muslim+Population+Of+India+in+1941-A.png

Edit:forgot to add a thought there, what I meant to say with the map was that even without majorities, there quite sizeable communities, so in itself the presence of a organized religion didn't preclude conversion, merely slowed it down.

Weirdly enough, the jungle areas West of Assam and Assam itself weren't islamized, despite the area being less religiously Hindu(or better Dharmic)

Also, the Muslim proportion of the population actually rose a lot under British rule. In 1826 the British estimated that only 1 out of 6 Indians were Muslim, while in the 1940s it was 1 out of 4. The vast majority of the Mughal empire (whose Muslim population is usually estimated at around 10%, accounting for the smaller populations of Bangladesh and Punjab) would have a vast Hindu majority.
Might this have been because the Brits didn't expand in the Sikh Empire yet?


No, only Bangladesh, most of which was jungle until the Ganges changed course just as the Mughals were strolling in. The old pre-Mughal capitals are either in now majority-Hindu areas (Murshidabad, Bankura, Gauda, Nabadwip, Pandua) or in places that were only 50~60% Muslim before partition (Sonargaon, Naogaon, Munshiganj). The most Muslim areas are in the northern and eastern parts, which are not major centers of Bengali civilization and some of which weren't even part of India until the Mughals conquered it (Chittagong).

I'd like your opinion on why this is, if Hindus and animists were equally likely to convert.
Well I don't think that, I just said that the former being less likely to convert wouldn't preclude a conversion per se.


Islam spread under the auspices of the rulers of Sinnar, who were basically animists until the 18th century and never followed Christianity. Christianity was in a general state of collapse in Nubia before the advent of Islam, and animist pastoralists -- who, remember, had greater prestige than agriculturalists, as is generally the case in Africa -- had made huge inroads already.
Well isn't that still animists winning over a organized religion, or does that enter in the exception number 2 of people being demographically replaced?

Because Abrahamic religions and (at least) Theravada Buddhism are transcendentalist religions who tend to become a central marker of identity among a population, to a far larger degree than other religions. This process was exacerbated in the Early Modern era, by which all major world religions had more or less assumed their current orthodox form (hence why your example of the Arab conquests doesn't really work -- early Islam appears to have been a very amorphous thing) and, especially in the case of Christianity and Islam, had an explicitly oppositional attitude towards Islam and Christanity. If you have JSTOR access, read Alan Strathern's Transcendentalist Intransigence: Why Rulers Rejected Monotheism in Early Modern Southeast Asia and Beyond.
I don't exactly get your claim of the religion being solidified, again it seems like putting an arbitrary line in history where conveniently you didn't have any historical mass conversion.

Why was there not a majority in either areas after six centuries of Islamic rule for the former, and four to five centuries in the latter?
While this map might be exaggerated, it still shows the extent of Islamization for the Ottomans:

https://i.redd.it/5uaz25biwdhx.png

For the Mughals, I can't say why it didn't happen, but given the demographic behemot that India is and the lack of major Arab settlement like happend in Egypt and South Iraq(the former still needed 4 century to become majority Muslim). But I wouldn't preclude it to Hinduism alone. I mean people DID convert, 15% of what is more or less today Uttar Pradesh was Muslim and Punjab taken altogether was also majority Muslim, what's today part of India also had between 20-30%. I mean it's not a majority, but is still a lot in itself in terms of numbers and still shows that the population can be converted.

Does your special rule preclude any conversion, slow it down by a given % or specifically says that it can't become a majority?

Well, virtually every sizable Muslim, Hindu, and Theravada area ever conquered by Europeans (except where the old inhabitants were actively chased out or swamped by immigrants, like the Russian steppe or Andalusia)? Not to mention most of India, despite undergoing Muslim rule for more than six hundred years. The Ottoman Balkans.
Andalusia wasn't swamped by immigrants, lol. The population was rechristianized, only the last remaining people of Granada were partially expelled after the conquest(Christian Iberia became intolerant only during the later 14th century or at least the tendencies to porgroms started during that period, before it was Jews and Christian escaping the Berber dynasties and going north to the Christian kingdoms), and then again a century later the Moriscos were expelled, but even then we know good portions of them came back shortly after.

In any case the European conquests lasted about a century and some times a little bit more, I don't think that's enough to make inroads in already solidly Islamic/Buddhist areas.

Actually, look at a map of world religions in 1500 and the same map in 2000. You will see that Muslim-majority territories in 1500 are almost all Muslim-majority in 2000, with the only big exceptions being Spain (where the Mudejars were forcibly converted), Palestine (where the Arabs were kicked out), and parts of the steppe (where the actual Tatars are still almost all Muslim). Similarly, you will see that all Christian-majority territories are Christian-majority in 2000 with exceptions in parts of Turkey and the Balkans, and maybe parts of northeastern Africa (also ethnic change, with Nubians a small minority and the Oromos expanding). If you look at a map comparing the extent of Theravada Buddhism in 1500 and 2000, they will nearly match, the main exception being in southern Vietnam where the Vietnamese aggressively conquered and assimilated the indigenous Cambodians.
Maybe, just maybe, it's because you didn't have Christians ruling over Muslims for centuries nor did you have more solidly Buddhist being ruled by Muslims and so on. In the case of the Mughals, maybe even that time period wasn't enough to replace Hindu(I'd argue it's also because India higher population that precluded any kind of settlements that would lead to further conversions or just a isolated case)

I mean you should also consider the political changes, if you don't have a given organized religion taking over another, it's natural that the other organized religion isn't going to be replaced just because. Even I can admit that.
 
Last edited:
Weirdly enough, the jungle areas West of Assam and Assam itself weren't islamized, despite the area being less religiously Hindu(or better Dharmic
Those areas were never under Mughal rule...

Might this have been because the Brits didn't expand in the Sikh Empire yet?
The reference was to India in general, and the British had a good enough idea of the general population of the Punjab. Also, Muslim proportions in 18th-century Bengal are much lower than in Bengal at Partition. Most historians accept 10%.

Well isn't that still animists winning over a organized religion
A good analogue of the ethnic and religious changes in post-1300 Nubia is the Saxon conquest and rechristianization of England. At this rate it seems like you'd be just as happy using that as an example of how Germanic paganism is just as missionary and conversion-happy as Christianity.

I don't exactly get your claim of the religion being solidified, again it seems like putting an arbitrary line in history where conveniently you didn't have any historical mass conversion.
Following the Islamization of the Middle East, which was atypical and a very unclear process in general, give me examples of actual conversion from one world religion to another in terms of the general population.

We have Spain and Sicily, where the Muslims were forcibly converted and expelled, and Anatolia, where Greeks were actively Turkicized. We have a few outlier cases like Kashmir. We have Nubia, on which see above, and some Christian and Zoroastrian areas which were already small islands in a Muslim sea anyways by around 1000.

That's it.

And again, the consolidation of world religions in the Early Modern era is a well-documented process. Victor Lieberman's Strange Parallels, second volume, is pretty good on this.

While this map might be exaggerated, it still shows the extent of Islamization for the Ottomans:
That map was literally made by an AH.com user and is not a reliable academic source. While high Muslim percentages for the Slavic Balkans are accepted (40% is the absolute highest that academia is willing to consider) do note that a lot of these were ethnic Turks.

For the Mughals, I can't say why it didn't happen
Historians can, however. Richard M. Eaton is the leading authority on Indian Islam and he basically attributes it to Hinduism.

the lack of major Arab settlement like happend in Egypt and South Iraq
Are you actuall aware of the sheer scale of Persian, Afghan, and Turkic settlement in India?

I mean people DID convert, 15% of what is more or less today Uttar Pradesh was Muslim and Punjab taken altogether was also majority Muslim, what's today part of India also had between 20-30%. I mean it's not a majority, but is still a lot in itself in terms of numbers and still shows that the population can be converted.
A Muslim population that was probably in the single digits outside Bengal and the northwest when Aurangzeb died, after a full half millennium of centralized Muslim rule, does not show that the population can be converted without an extremely powerful state.

Does your special rule preclude any conversion, slow it down by a given % or specifically says that it can't become a majority?
Oh, I don't doubt that if Muslims ruled India for another 1000 years, considering the historical rate of conversion in Iran, India would be a majority Muslim subcontinent. Same with the Ottomans.

What do you consider to be the reason that Hindu society in India converted at a rate about four time slower than post-Sasanian Iran (where, remember, Zoroastrian orthodoxy wasn't a popular faith among the population)?

In any case the European conquests lasted about a century and some times a little bit more, I don't think that's enough to make inroads in already solidly Islamic/Buddhist areas.
Exactly my point, so I'm not sure why we're debating this in the first place. I said that OP's analogy with Africa was just nonsensical considering other Islamic societies' experience with Christianity and the role of Islam in the region. You said that this wasn't a problem because Muslims converted the Middle East a long time ago, and here we are. You seem to be misunderstanding my position.

I'm saying that entrenched organized faiths are very difficult to displace without a centuries-long project, and thus Imperial Russia could not have done so in Central Asia without ethnic cleansing or cultural genocide. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible for Muslim societies to convert, only that it is exceptionally difficult. Which you seem to agree with me.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because you didn't have Christians ruling over Muslims for centuries
The area of Hitu, in Ambon, was ruled by Christians for more than 300 years. Fun fact: it's 95% Muslim. Nearby animist areas in Ambon are all Christian. The same story prevails throughout the Indian Ocean area.
 
Well given we effectively agree(and pretty much exhausted the conversation), but I guess we can continue the discussion on the minor things.

Those areas were never under Mughal rule...
Well it was? But you are still right, it was for time period way smaller than the Ganges.

The reference was to India in general, and the British had a good enough idea of the general population of the Punjab. Also, Muslim proportions in 18th-century Bengal are much lower than in Bengal at Partition. Most historians accept 10%.
You mean only 10% of Bengal population was Muslim? That small?

Following the Islamization of the Middle East, which was atypical and a very unclear process in general, give me examples of actual conversion from one world religion to another in terms of the general population.
But atypical compared to what, I mean is not like we have that many similar religions we can compare it to, and it doesn't seem fair to make Islam somewhat special, because after all even the Islamization of the Middle East had a component of migration as well, not solely fueled by locals.

We have Spain and Sicily, where the Muslims were forcibly converted and expelled, and Anatolia, where Greeks were actively Turkicized. We have a few outlier cases like Kashmir. We have Nubia, on which see above, and some Christian and Zoroastrian areas which were already small islands in a Muslim sea anyways by around 1000.
I don't understand exactly why you take the Islamization of Christian Mena and part of Europe as something special, but the Christianization of Andalus is explained by coercion.

That's it.

And again, the consolidation of world religions in the Early Modern era is a well-documented process. Victor Lieberman's Strange Parallels, second volume, is pretty good on this.
I'll try and look into it, but I have my doubts(at least now) that it is more of a process that happened because of the political direction the world took rather than being something that simply would have happened regardless.

That map was literally made by an AH.com user and is not a reliable academic source. While high Muslim percentages for the Slavic Balkans are accepted (40% is the absolute highest that academia is willing to consider) do note that a lot of these were ethnic Turks.
But isn't that always the case when considering conversion by sword?

Are you actuall aware of the sheer scale of Persian, Afghan, and Turkic settlement in India?
I of course know it happened, but I don't know the scale of it. How big % of the population though?

A Muslim population that was probably in the single digits outside Bengal and the northwest when Aurangzeb died, after a full half millennium of centralized Muslim rule, does not show that the population can be converted without an extremely powerful state.
But if limit the range of our inspections to areas that actually were ruled by Muslims for a significant time, don't we reach 2 digits even wihout considering the Bengal or today Pakistan? I mean if we ignore the most vulnerable or the areas that had the most time to convert, we should ignore logically the areas that were never politically in the position of being islamized.

What do you consider to be the reason that Hindu society in India converted at a rate about four time slower than post-Sasanian Iran (where, remember, Zoroastrian orthodoxy wasn't a popular faith among the population)?

Exactly my point, so I'm not sure why we're debating this in the first place. I said that OP's analogy with Africa was just nonsensical considering other Islamic societies' experience with Christianity and the role of Islam in the region. You said that this wasn't a problem because Muslims converted the Middle East a long time ago, and here we are. You seem to be misunderstanding my position.

I'm saying that entrenched organized faiths are very difficult to displace without a centuries-long project, and thus Imperial Russia could not have done so in Central Asia without ethnic cleansing or cultural genocide. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible for Muslim societies to convert, only that it is exceptionally difficult. Which you seem to agree with me.
I pretty much agree, but I still find the rule or the initial statement weird, even the Islamic conquested needed centuries, including migration, to create Muslim majorities in the land they have taken.

Actually I would pretty much agree with your statement if it was phrased without any time restriction and it would still hold true for early Islam, that you seem to have some doubts about.


The area of Hitu, in Ambon, was ruled by Christians for more than 300 years. Fun fact: it's 95% Muslim. Nearby animist areas in Ambon are all Christian. The same story prevails throughout the Indian Ocean area.
I wonder how much of it is(or was) about self-identification in insular communities rather than actual differences practices,beliefs, customsand food. But of course if you don't use self idenfication you can pretty much throw any other metrics out of the window.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The conversion of the Middle East to Islam is a pretty unclear process. If you look at the relevant post-1500 era, there has been almost no (I wanna say none at all) mass conversion from one world religion to another, be it Christian, Islam, Hinduism, or Theravada Buddhism.
Didn't many South Koreans convert to Christianity over the last century, though?
 
Didn't many South Koreans convert to Christianity over the last century, though?
I think around 1/4, but it was a special thing, fueled by nationalism, also maybe it would be considered a case of Buddhism not being that strong, at least compared at how strong it was before the Joseon.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think around 1/4, but it was a special thing, fueled by nationalism, also maybe it would be considered a case of Buddhism not being that strong, at least compared at how strong it was before the Joseon.
Fueled by nationalism how exactly?
 
Didn't many South Koreans convert to Christianity over the last century, though?

This is mainly because Buddhism was associated with the colonizers, and Christianity was associated with independence. I don't see how you can have that same scenario happen with Central Asia, except with either a crazy Persiawank or a crazy Mughalwank.
 
Top