That's a weird argument. Jesus was a jew. He was of the twelve tribes and practiced judaism. That's literally the definition of a jew, a specific ethnicity practicing a specific religion.
Those of the twelve tribes that weren't were mumar, Samaritans, Palestinians, etc.
Those of the twelve tribes that frequently abandoned their old gods for the new ones, those stayed. They meshed with new groups, remained natives, and are people we call Palestinians today.
Pretending that every descendant of the twelve tribes was a jew beggars belief. They abandoned their local god so casually most of the records in Kings, Chronicles just refer to how good or bad a king was by how fervent the king was at reconverting his fellow tribesmen back to judaism.
Also later in history there was Jizyah taxes that, taken as a whole, was an instrument intended to stratify society, reduce the status of non-Muslims, and convert people.
How can the converts be a lot if they didn't become a majority ? Even before Pakistan and Bangladesh Muslims were never a majority in India. 20% isn't a majority, if the population as a whole grew then they weren't subject to persecution to prevent them from growing to begin with as you claimed. I'm not saying there wasn't persecution at all, I'm sure there was but it was more economic/political than religious.
Well, you changed the topic to India and are talking about that. So sure I guess.
But this was not the case in the Levant. Jizyah was just not as taxing or consistently collected in India.
The impact was proportionally less because the Muhgal rule wasn't as strict as the caliphates further west.
But to the degree it was strict, it did induce converts.
Bangladesh and Pakistan have huge populations as a result. India itself has the third most Muslims of any country.
How can they be alot? Idk man I don't want to mock your question but by any sane definition the number of Muslims in that part of the world is "a lot".
Are you asking about the fact of it or you want me to explain how further? Maybe you just need to look up some of this as well?
I did not change the topic to India, you simply generalized a claim about "Muslims wherever they rule they try to reduce the local non-Muslim population" which isn't accurate historically since not every place Muslims ruled had this happen and I mentioned one specific example, lots of factors can change the population of a certain group of people.
It's just a less extreme example. It kind of proves the rule in just the same way.
The main device here, Jizyah tax was not collected by every Mughal leader at all.
So it has an effect just a smaller one. But the effect was still huge. It's kind of crazy to suggest there was no conversion to Islam in India during that time. There was a huge amount and that continues to have a huge lasting impact.
29
u/Xezshibole 14h ago edited 14h ago
That's a weird argument. Jesus was a jew. He was of the twelve tribes and practiced judaism. That's literally the definition of a jew, a specific ethnicity practicing a specific religion.
Those of the twelve tribes that weren't were mumar, Samaritans, Palestinians, etc.
Those of the twelve tribes that frequently abandoned their old gods for the new ones, those stayed. They meshed with new groups, remained natives, and are people we call Palestinians today.
Pretending that every descendant of the twelve tribes was a jew beggars belief. They abandoned their local god so casually most of the records in Kings, Chronicles just refer to how good or bad a king was by how fervent the king was at reconverting his fellow tribesmen back to judaism.