Why didn't Hinduism just get replaced by Islam in the same way that Zoroastrianism was replaced by Islam or Germanic paganism was replaced by Christianity? What made Hindus more resistent to conversion than other pagans/non-Abrahamics?

>>14935397 (OP)

Islam requires you to wash yourself before you enter a mosque.



With water, not with cow dung.



So it's eady to see that Islam never had a chance in India.

??????

>>14935397 (OP)

Poos are more useful as slaves

>>14935397 (OP)

In my opinion, Muslims had a harder time converting Hindus than they did other pagans for a few reasons:

1. Hinduism is a well-developed, formalized religion with a powerful priestly caste. Its adherents and especially its leaders were capable of articulating effective anti-Muslim arguments. It enjoyed patronage from existing rulers. All of these facts made Hinduism much more resilient than paganism as practiced in Arabia or West Africa. (I don't know enough about religion in pre-Islamic Iran to make the comparison there.)

2. On a practical level (not just a theological one), Hinduism is less compatible with Islam than many forms of paganism were. Hindus are major idol worshippers, burn their dead, and venerate cattle, while Muslims smash idols, bury their dead, and eat cattle. These distinctions deterred many potential converts, and furthermore made it harder for there to be any sort of Muslim+pagan syncretism like what you see in West Africa.

3. Muslims didn't rule most of South Asia for that long. There's been uninterrupted Islamic rule of Egypt for over 1300 years; obviously the religiosity of those rulers has varied, but Muslims have been in charge the whole time. Despite this, 5-10% of Egyptians are still Christians. It's a similar story in the Levant. By comparison, Muslim rule in India was shorter-lived and also not as widespread. If the Marathas and the British had never become major players in the region, you'd probably see even more conversion to Islam over time.

>>14935397 (OP)

Well in comparison to Iran, India simply was under Islamic rule for a far shorter time. Iran has been under Islamic rule since the dawn of Islam up until…well today.



Whereas for India, Muslims only really breached modern India’s borders in 1192, with the Second Battle of Tarain. The Mughal Empire began a massive decline in the 1700s. Thats a little over 500 years. Which is long however short compared to nearly 1300 years of Iran. 



In those 500 years many Hindu kingdoms still persisted by the way. Various Rajput kingdoms, the Eastern Ganga dynasty, the Marathas and many kingdoms and Southern India such as the Vijayanagaras. There was a more formidable Hindu resistance than the Zoroastrians. The first 300 years of Islamic rule in India was actually pretty fractured up until the Mughals came along in the 1500s. 



The last reason is India is also far more populated and has a much harder to govern terrain. Theres a lot of jungle and mountains. It was simply harder for Muslims to convert and control people even in their own domains. Still despite all this Muslims now make up 30%+ of South Asia.

Good morning sir



Will you kindly let me into mosque like this so I can do the needful five times a day?
