The answer is, I don't know. You're radically changing over a millennium of Indian history and, as AH has shown time and time again, there are a multitude of paths you can take a single POD. There is never a definitive answer on whether a single POD makes a certain region better or not, unless it's something like "WI: No Hitler".
What Would an Islamic Indian Subcontinent Look Like?
- Thread starter Srihari14
- Start date
The answer is, I don't know. You're radically changing over a millennium of Indian history and, as AH has shown time and time again, there are a multitude of paths you can take a single POD. There is never a definitive answer on whether a single POD makes a certain region better or not, unless it's something like "WI: No Hitler".
Philip
Donor
It's not a hard timeline. It's an anything-can-happen timeline. You ask how it would turn out. The answer is it depends on the author.
Okay, now I understand. I'm sorry I've been pressing so hard for clarification, but on a forum like this, where not everyone has the same first language and the members come from a lot of different backgrounds, it's extremely important to be very clear and explicit to avoid asking loaded questions. Because the question, "Would an Islamic Indian subcontinent be better for the region?" implies that you think Hinduism and religious diversity in general, are harmful for the region, which is an entirely subjective opinion that doesn't really fit on a (moderately) serious forum like this. A better way to phrase the question would have been, "How would a fully Islamized India have impacted the history of warfare on the subcontinent?" because when phrased like that, it's clear that you're just curious about the issue and your question isn't coming from any kind of prejudice. Sorry for the rant I suppose, just try to keep in mind how important language is when discussing history/politics/culture.
Anyway now for my two cents I guess are that I doubt a fully Islamic India would do much to stop the numerous ethnic tensions in the country. Even given a fully Islamic population, Iran has a significant number of ethnic conflicts, as does Indonesia (both of which have an overwhelming Muslim majority). Furthermore Europe had unifying Christian institutions for 500 years between 1000-1500 CE and there were numerous wars during that period as well. AFAIK religious institutions have not done much to preclude armed conflicts in history
Kaze
Banned
If you want a real world example of what an Islamic India looks like look onto the Taj Mahal and the Mughal Empire. Some of it was good, some of it was bad, and some of it was both at the same time. One of the major problem is the Mughal Empire that it collapsed - Internal dissatisfaction arose due to the weakness of the empire's administrative and economic systems, leading to its break-up and declarations of independence of its former province. Eventually it was torn apart by factions, the Afsharid Dynasty, the Maratha Empire, and the East India Company until there was nothing left.
Srihari14
Banned
Mughal empire's main reason for collapse were overextension and religious intolerance, if inside was religiously homogeneous, 2nd one would not exist
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
A Islamic India would be different in some ways but similar in many. I also do not see one Islamic faith, we already have several interpretations of Islam in the world and I believe that a realistic conversion of India to Islam would of resulted in a fractured Islamic "religions". Would it only be Sunni, or Shia, could we end up with an Indian variety of Islam? if I understand correctly Sikhism has elements of both Islam and Hinduism along with its own beliefs, would an Islam like that be more appropriate to be forced on or able to get millions of people to convert to it.
Now religion aside we alo have nationalism which continues to play a major role in the interaction of the region. If there was no religious tension and I believe there would still have been since it would of been impossible to convert that many people into only one form of Islam and have no different interpretations. even Indonesia had several interpretations of Islam till the 19th century when a movement was launched to stamp out those practicing a form of Islam that also had local custom and pagan rituals attached to it. Think it still happens today much to the anger of those who want only pure Islamic practiced.
Would the Portuguese have found only one country in India and that was only Muslim without any hindu minorities in 1498? find that hard to accept in a non ASB universe. India was too large to be effectively governed by one state during the pre-industrial world. Even Mongol state were not unified state with a strong central government.
Europeans would of still established outposts on the continent and could of begun a program of supplying hindu minority with weapons to fight Islamic governments. So while the European pattern of settlement and countries settling India might of changed they still would of come.
Lastly would an Islamic India really have eliminated the caste system. It has been documented that even today Hindus who converted to Christianity still retained many of their prejudices towards lower cast Indians.
Now religion aside we alo have nationalism which continues to play a major role in the interaction of the region. If there was no religious tension and I believe there would still have been since it would of been impossible to convert that many people into only one form of Islam and have no different interpretations. even Indonesia had several interpretations of Islam till the 19th century when a movement was launched to stamp out those practicing a form of Islam that also had local custom and pagan rituals attached to it. Think it still happens today much to the anger of those who want only pure Islamic practiced.
Would the Portuguese have found only one country in India and that was only Muslim without any hindu minorities in 1498? find that hard to accept in a non ASB universe. India was too large to be effectively governed by one state during the pre-industrial world. Even Mongol state were not unified state with a strong central government.
Europeans would of still established outposts on the continent and could of begun a program of supplying hindu minority with weapons to fight Islamic governments. So while the European pattern of settlement and countries settling India might of changed they still would of come.
Lastly would an Islamic India really have eliminated the caste system. It has been documented that even today Hindus who converted to Christianity still retained many of their prejudices towards lower cast Indians.
Srihari14
Banned
Most probably, vegetarianism might be a major part of Indian Islam
Indian Islam might be a lot similar to Sikhism such as the turban and meat eating, with imams being called gurus
Caste system would still exist, but would be much weaker
Yes. If the Mauryan Empire had survived for a few more centuries it was not impossible. If Ashoka had strong and capable successors the Mauryans could have lasted for say four or five centuries, providing a long enough period for an idea of a unified subcontinent to sink in. Ashoka was unwilling to use force or compulsion to spread the religion he had adopted. The Mauryan dynasty was overthrown by the Brahmin commander-in-chief of the Mauryan Army. The Brahmins were the chief enemies of Buddhism who wanted to uproot the new religion from its land of birth. The fact that a Brahmin could become the commander-in-chief of the Mauryan forces shows either of two cases. Either the successors of Ashoka did not follow the footsteps of their great predecessor or they ignored the dangers that threatened their dynasty and the empire.
Well, not exactly. Islamic traditions widely accept that more prophets than those specifically named by the Qur'an may have existed. There is notionally nothing preventing possible acceptance of Buddha as one of them (it was sort-of done for Zoroaster) though it is likely to remain controversial. It would boil down to the politics of conversion and identity marking rather than any purely doctrinal issue.
The reason there are so few Buddhists in India today is because the Muslim conquerors targeted them specifically in a way they never did the Hindus.
Good to know. I imagine believers in the prophet Buddha would be as aggressively persecuted as Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
I’m not sure if I believe that. The beginning of the decline of Buddhism begins with the rise of the staunchly Hindu Gupta dynasty with all its imperial patronage of Hinduism. The Shunga Dynasty’s persecution of Buddhists is definitely overrated, with the fact that the Shunga were destroyed by the Buddhist Indo-Greeks. There’s also how older schools of Hinduism as well as Buddhism began to converge on esotericism and more accessible Bhakti Hinduism grew at the expense of both. The Islamization of Kashmir and Bengal simply put an end to the last remnants of Buddhism.
In the absence of Islam, there would be more surviving Buddhism. But Kashmiri Shaivism would have still outpaced Kashmiri Buddhism, and Bengali Shaktism still would have outpaced Bengali Buddhism.
Actually things are not so simple.
In the Swat valley in Pakistan there is a saying: "When the words of truth echo from the minarets, the Buddha smiles". In that area there are thousands of Buddha statues. Prior to 1979, Afghanistan was a peaceful country and was often visited by western tourists on the way to India.
Some Muslims do believe Buddha was a prophet. I have met and talked to them about it. Islam isn't anywhere near as monolithic as people think. Especially Sufi minded people will be more likely to see truth as one* (which actually is tawhid, the fundamental essence of Islam anyway).
This really isn't the place to get into a theological discussion but suffice to say one is better served by reading books or talking to people face to face than watching the so called "news", which is really propaganda masquerading as entertainment.
*regardless of who it comes from/who speaks it.
This has nothing to do with me watching the news too much. I’ve heard a lot about Kashmir from some of my relatives who used to live there, and even before the terrorist situation emerged, it would be unwise to call the Buddha a Muslim prophet. With Kashmir having once been a centre of Indian Buddhism, I think that’s relevant.
So yes, I realize things are not homogeneous, but I can’t imagine believers that the Buddha was a Muslim prophet being tolerated judging by stuff like the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.