How Did Islam Spread Across South Asia

[sikhstudent99]

Was it just by the arab an turkic sword or what other ways it happen

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Aurangzeb and Abdali Shah both spread Islam.

[RYK]

Conquests, through Sufi Saints, through trade, immigration, movement of people within South Asia, people following the religion of the "rulers" for social benefits, forced conversions, lower castes trying to escape hindu oppression, and many other various factors.

There was no 'one' factor that contributed to the growth of Islam in South Asia.

[Jonny101]

Was it just by the arab an turkic sword or what other ways it happen

They were largely converted to Islam like this:

And don't be surprised if in future the descendents of these people will also claim Sufis converted them peacefully in order to hide the humiliation their ancestors had to go through like the SA Muslims now do.

[sikhstudent99]

Pakistanis should be embarrassed how there ancestors converted to islam

[MisterrSingh]

Aren't these same Sufi saints considered to be apostates by the Sunni, Salafi, and Shia elements in Islam? These are the same Sufi saints whose shrines and followers are attacked with violence by other sects within Islam?

One would assume if these Sufi saints performed such noble acts as increasing the numbers of Islam through parchaar they'd be venerated and respected as loyal soldiers of their faith. So why does mainstream Islam look down on them as fruity mystics extolling a bastardisation of the "true" message?

[Balkaar]

Aurangzeb and Abdali Shah both spread Islam.

Aurangzeb, yes, not sure about Abdali. Abdali was only really interested in acquiring loot and slaves, not territory. If he had converted all the kafirs of NW India to Islam then he could no longer, in good conscience, steal from them or carry out his intermittent raids. It would have been in his best interest to keep India infidel so he'd always have somebody to pillage.

[RYK]

Aurangzeb, yes, not sure about Abdali. Abdali was only really interested in acquiring loot and slaves, not territory. If he had converted all the kafirs of NW India to Islam then he could no longer, in good conscience, steal from them or carry out his intermittent raids. It would have been in his best interest to keep India infidel so he'd always have somebody to pillage.

Interesting point, Balkaar ji!

[MisterrSingh]

To clear up another misconception surrounding Sufism, the mistaken assertion that it's almost a benevolent strand of Islam at odds with its more forceful and vociferous stablemates is inaccurate and misleading.

Their raison d'etre is the same as the orthodox strands of Islam. The aim will always be the propagation of Islamic superiority, Sufi or not, the only difference being the Sufi will prefer a softly-softly approach, in stark contrast to the immediate rush towards domination of the type of Islam preferred by the Sufi's religious cohorts. The end result will always be the same.

So it's quite perplexing as to why they are considered to be on the fringes of Islam (or beyond its borders according to some) when their aims are identical with the only fundamental differences being the respective approaches, as well as the slight dharmic-derived deviations in belief. The ummah reigns supreme no matter what else may occur.

The phrase, "Killing me softly" springs to mind. If I was playing devil's advocate and I was a Muslim with designs on Islamic supremacy, I'd play the long game, pretend to be the conciliatory friend who means no harm, and then when my moment came I'd quietly sneak up behind the victim and end it. But I suppose the general violent and bloodthirsty Islamic mentality that gets a thrill from suffering and destruction would not be satiated by such a relatively mellow approach, lol.

[RYK]

To clear up another misconception surrounding Sufism, the mistaken assertion that it's almost a benevolent strand of Islam at odds with its more forceful and vociferous stablemates is inaccurate and misleading.

Their raison d'etre is the same as the orthodox strands of Islam. The aim will always be the propagation of Islamic superiority, Sufi or not, the only difference being the Sufi will prefer a softly-softly approach, in stark contrast to the immediate rush towards domination of the type of Islam preferred by the Sufi's religious cohorts. The end result will always be the same.

So it's quite perplexing as to why they are considered to be on the fringes of Islam (or beyond its borders according to some) when their aims are identical with the only fundamental differences being the respective approaches, as well as the slight dharmic-derived deviations in belief. The ummah reigns supreme no matter what else may occur.

The phrase, "Killing me softly" springs to mind. If I was playing devil's advocate and I was a Muslim with designs on Islamic supremacy, I'd play the long game, pretend to be the conciliatory friend who means no harm, and then when my moment came I'd quietly sneak up behind the victim and end it. But I suppose the general violent and bloodthirsty Islamic mentality that gets a thrill from suffering and destruction would not be satiated by such a relatively mellow approach, lol.

Very great post!

Some of the fiercest Jihadis in Indian history were Sufi Saints. People need to learn history.