Jump to content

Islam in India - How many converted?


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

FYI, the Muslim population growth rate is 1.8 % / year vs 1.1% for the world population.

But, according to the calculator here:

http://www.endmemo.com/algebra/populationgrowth.php

You would have to have a yearly rate of growth of 4.6% to go from 6mil to 150 mil in 70 years. Having 2.5x the Muslim rate seems quite unlikely.

The calculator here shows you'd have to have a total fertility rate of 8 to move from about 6 mil to 150 mil in 70 years.

Even in the old days, people didn't necessarily have 8 kids. Even the one lady who received a boon from the 6th Master for sons only asked for 7 sons!

I find it quite implausible that every Sikh woman from 1947 to now would have 8 kids given they barely birth two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, StarStriker said:

There was 300m hindus in sub-continent, 92m muslims and 6m sikhs during 1940s/partition.

So out of a total of 392 million Hindus, 92 million converted to Islam?

But that still cannot be the correct figure. What was the demographic in the 18th Century or even going back 16th Century in India when the arabic invaders first started to invade and forcibly convert. Im sure the number of Hindus who converted would have been far less then 92 million.

The reason there are so many muslims both in present india and pakistan today is not all due to the past conversions.  Its due to extremely high birth rates of muslims. For instance Pakistans average birthrate was recorded at an incredible 7 children per household. It is well known that the poorer and more uneducated you are, the more kids you are likely to  have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

How?? How could 6 million become 150 million in 75 years?

That figure was possible and is derived if you take out all the population reduction tactics that were taken before the Hindu punjabi brahminwad arya samajists and SGPC / singh sabha / akali dal had reduced Sikhs population on basis of khalsa rehit to a very low population of Sikhs. Had a census been carried out pre 1920s the Sikh population would have been relatively high in comparable terms because the nirankari's and other sects were part of the Sikh fold.

Also once a country is created the same tactics the muslims had created out could have been adopted by Sikhs meaning "forced" conversions of non-sikhs and anyone that came under the map of khalistan/sikhistan so the population would have rocketed naturally year on year.

Also the dalit hindus who were in their tens of millions were ready to embrace Sikhism to give Sikhs enough population to demand a separate country. Dalit leader Dr ambedkar had proposed that idea to the castist jatt leaders of SGPC/ akali dal but they rejected it because being the neo-brahmins they were they felt their power base would have been threatened by the sheer amount of dalits converting to Sikhi giving them more rights than they had as a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

So out of a total of 392 million Hindus, 92 million converted to Islam?

But that still cannot be the correct figure. What was the demographic in the 18th Century or even going back 16th Century in India when the arabic invaders first started to invade and forcibly convert. Im sure the number of Hindus who converted would have been far less then 92 million.

The reason there are so many muslims both in present india and pakistan today is not all due to the past conversions.  Its due to extremely high birth rates of muslims. For instance Pakistans average birthrate was recorded at an incredible 7 children per household. It is well known that the poorer and more uneducated you are, the more kids you are likely to  have. 

erm, im talkin about pre-partition. There was 92m muslims, hence y i wrote 1940s/partition.

go to 2:50. it gives u rough estimate of the populations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many big reasons y sikh population hasnt grown as much as we had liked in panjab, is because

1)1947 genocide

2)1977-1995 genocide

3)mass migration of panjabis (mostly sikhs) from 50s-70s to uk

4)current deliberate silent genocide by indian govt (alcohol/drugs/female foeticide etc)

5)another mass illegal migration (late 90s-present) from panjab to australia/canada/usa/uk/italy etc

6)akal takht jathedar also idiotically askin the jantha to have less kids

sikhi was fastest growimg dharam in panjab before partition hit. With the highest conversions n birthrates, had we got our homeland at partition n not had the subsequent genocides, we wud easily b sitting on 80/90m at present, no question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

FYI, the Muslim population growth rate is 1.8 % / year vs 1.1% for the world population.

But, according to the calculator here:

http://www.endmemo.com/algebra/populationgrowth.php

You would have to have a yearly rate of growth of 4.6% to go from 6mil to 150 mil in 70 years. Having 2.5x the Muslim rate seems quite unlikely.

The calculator here shows you'd have to have a total fertility rate of 8 to move from about 6 mil to 150 mil in 70 years.

Even in the old days, people didn't necessarily have 8 kids. Even the one lady who received a boon from the 6th Master for sons only asked for 7 sons!

I find it quite implausible that every Sikh woman from 1947 to now would have 8 kids given they barely birth two.

I don't know my family on both sides had large families  mum has five brothers one sister, all my Nana ji's brothers and sisters(four brothers, three sisters (one died in playground accident) had big families averaging six kids  , same my Nani's brothers and sisters (2 brothers five sisters). Cannot say the same of my Pard Dada's generation  because he died early(he had siblings at least two brothers I know of) but had two kids , the daughter never had kids but my dada ji had four sons one daughter. My Thaiya ji had three sons, chacha two sons and a daughter younger chacha based in Canada planned two only . In my generation I have four which is considered a massive family in UK , my siblings 2,2,1. I think it is to do with aspirations for maya vs. strong cohesive family units , my sibs won't have more because of costs of living . That's where the extended family model shines , built in security of youngsters and elderly, division of labour , retention of family history and faith but Western housing and life makes it harder to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

I don't know my family on both sides had large families  mum has five brothers one sister, all my Nana ji's brothers and sisters(four brothers, three sisters (one died in playground accident) had big families averaging six kids  , same my Nani's brothers and sisters (2 brothers five sisters). Cannot say the same of my Pard Dada's generation  because he died early(he had siblings at least two brothers I know of) but had two kids , the daughter never had kids but my dada ji had four sons one daughter. My Thaiya ji had three sons, chacha two sons and a daughter younger chacha based in Canada planned two only . In my generation I have four which is considered a massive family in UK , my siblings 2,2,1. I think it is to do with aspirations for maya vs. strong cohesive family units , my sibs won't have more because of costs of living . That's where the extended family model shines , built in security of youngsters and elderly, division of labour , retention of family history and faith but Western housing and life makes it harder to implement.

Right, you just basically confirmed what I said: Older families may have had 5-7, but very rarely 8 children. And then the next generation less, and now barely even 2.

Which means you cannot get from 6 mil to 150 mil in 70 years by births.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BhForce said:

Right, you just basically confirmed what I said: Older families may have had 5-7, but very rarely 8 children. And then the next generation less, and now barely even 2.

Which means you cannot get from 6 mil to 150 mil in 70 years by births.

muslims didn't just rely on births either , but you also have to consider the politics of the time and I doubt that so few sikhs were there , since other sources say that about 10million were disrupted and had to move across border that is greater than the 6 million total others mentioned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2017 at 2:06 PM, StarStriker said:

erm, im talkin about pre-partition. There was 92m muslims, hence y i wrote 1940s/partition.

go to 2:50. it gives u rough estimate of the populations.

Ah okay. Will check out the video. Incidentally I also heard the vast majority of muslims in India are dalits who only recently started to convert to Islam to escape the Hindu caste system. Obviously as a Sikh I dont recognize low of high caste so dalits or any derogatory name has no bearing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

Ah okay. Will check out the video. Incidentally I also heard the vast majority of muslims in India are dalits who only recently started to convert to Islam to escape the Hindu caste system. Obviously as a Sikh I dont recognize low of high caste so dalits or any derogatory name has no bearing.  

Yea i cant understand y ppl r so obsessed with higher/lower bakwaas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use