Islamic Sword in India!

Muslim rule in India: Could they have converted everyone to Islam if they wanted to?

When I was in class six or seven, I won first place in an upazila‑level essay competition and received Sunil Gangopadhyay’s novel ‘Prothom Alo’ as a prize. It was a huge book. At that age I couldn’t fully understand many parts of it, but many years later I now find myself revisiting some of its themes. ‘Prothom Alo’ is not just the story of a novel; it is an epic document of breaking the chains of subjugation in colonial India and the rise of modern Bengali culture. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to read such books at a young age! I also had the chance to read many works like Golam Ahmad Murtoza’s ‘Chepe Rakha Itihas’. Thus, having guidance from two opposite poles helped me determine my own position.

Many Muslim “mumin brothers” present a widely circulated argument: Muslim rulers governed India for hundreds of years, yet they did not forcibly convert people to Islam; if they wanted, they could have turned the entire subcontinent Muslim — this is “proof” of Islam’s tolerance. This claim is historically incomplete as well as misleading. The real question is: why didn’t they? The reality is that the spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent began with the sword, bloodshed, destruction, and widespread violence. Yet complete Islamization did not occur — the answer lies deep within the region’s politics, economy, geography, society, and the resilience of its people.

Beginning with destruction — breaking the myth

Bakhtiyar Khilji and the destruction of Nalanda (1193 CE)

At the very beginning of Muslim military conquest in India occurred the complete annihilation of one of the world’s greatest centers of knowledge. The destruction of Nalanda Mahavihara by Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji — where hundreds of thousands of manuscripts were burned and Buddhist monks were killed — was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of Islamic expansionism.

In Minhaj‑us‑Siraj’s *Tabaqat‑i‑Nasiri*, the description of this campaign makes it clear that Bakhtiyar carried out widespread killing and plunder in the conquered regions. Historian Victoria Susan Barlow and other modern scholars have identified this destruction as a major cause of the disappearance of Buddhism from India.

Mahmud of Ghazni: Looting for religious purposes (998–1030 CE)

Mahmud of Ghazni conducted seventeen campaigns in India. His court historian Al‑Biruni himself wrote that Mahmud’s invasions caused Hindus to consider Muslims as eternal enemies.

The destruction of the Somnath Temple, the killing of more than twenty thousand Hindus there, breaking the idols and laying the stones on the steps of a mosque — these were all part of a deliberate religious‑political program.

Tamerlane and the massacre of Hindus (1398 CE)

Tamerlane’s Delhi campaign is one of the most brutal massacres recorded in history. In his own work *Tuzuk‑i‑Timuri*, he admitted that before entering Delhi he ordered the killing of nearly one hundred thousand Hindu prisoners because, in his view, it was impossible to keep so many captives on the battlefield.

Historians Riazul Islam (*A Calendar of Documents on Indo‑Persian Relations*) and Irfan Habib (*Medieval India*) have both documented the massive scale of this genocide.

Nadir Shah (1739 CE)

In the Persian ruler Nadir Shah’s plunder of Delhi, more than thirty thousand people were killed within just a few hours. The Peacock Throne and vast wealth were carried away.

Economic reasons — an Islamic state cannot function without non‑Muslims

Jizya tax: The economic necessity of non‑Muslims

In the Islamic state system, non‑Muslim subjects received the status of dhimmi, and the jizya tax was imposed on them — essentially a tax in exchange for the “permission” to practice their own religion.

In India, jizya was a crucial source of state revenue. Historian K. S. Lal (Muslim Slave System in Medieval India) showed that a large portion of the Delhi Sultanate’s revenue came from taxes imposed on Hindu and Buddhist subjects. If everyone were converted to Islam, this revenue stream would have completely disappeared.

Aurangzeb re‑imposed jizya in 1679, which Akbar had previously abolished. This step itself proves that the state was dependent on its non‑Muslim subjects.

The slave system and ghanima: The economy of war

In Islamic war doctrine, ghanima (war booty) and the acquisition of slaves were lawful. These resources came from non‑Muslim enemies. To sustain the economy of continuous war and conquest, the existence of “kafir” or non‑Muslim enemies was necessary.

K. S. Lal showed that in every campaign of Mahmud of Ghazni, thousands of Hindu slaves were taken to Ghazni and sold in Middle Eastern markets. This slave trade depended entirely on the existence of non‑Muslim populations.

Agriculture and the tax structure

The economy of medieval India was agrarian. The massive military and administrative expenses of the Sultanate and Mughal Empire were met by imposing taxes on Hindu farmers and artisans. If they were converted, the legitimate tax base would shrink.

Geographical and political limitations

The vastness of India

Compared to the vast size and population of the Indian subcontinent, the manpower of Muslim rulers was extremely limited. The effective control of the Delhi Sultanate was largely confined to the plains of North India. In South India, the Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1646 CE) survived for nearly three hundred years as a fortress of Hindu resistance.

Historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund (A History of India) noted that the Mughals were never able to bring the entire Indian subcontinent under control — they were practically absent or weak in Rajputana, the Maratha regions, Kerala, and the northeastern states.

Rajput and Maratha resistance

The Rajputs maintained military resistance for centuries. Maharana Pratap of Mewar (1572–1597) fought against Akbar throughout his life. Shivaji Maharaj (1630–1680) effectively fractured the Mughal Empire.

The rise of the Maratha Empire was itself a reaction to Aurangzeb’s religiously intolerant policies. Within fifty years of Aurangzeb’s death, the Mughal Empire collapsed — because the Marathas had by then expanded their influence across almost all of India.

Mountains, forests, and inaccessible regions

Many Hindu, Buddhist, and indigenous communities took refuge in mountains, forests, and remote regions where Muslim armies could not easily penetrate. The Nair warriors of Kerala, the tribes of Odisha, and the Himalayan hill states never came fully under Muslim control.

Political reality — power is greater than religion

Akbar’s policies and “Din‑i‑Ilahi”

Mughal emperor Akbar (1556–1605) understood that to rule over a vast Hindu‑majority population, religious tolerance was essential. He married Rajput princesses, appointed Hindu mansabdars to high positions, and abolished the jizya tax.

He attempted to introduce a syncretic religious doctrine called “Din‑i‑Ilahi,” which incorporated elements from Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. This was a strategy for political unification rather than widespread religious propagation.

The luxury and priorities of Mughal emperors

The Mughal court was a center of royal extravagance. While universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and the Sorbonne were being established in Europe, Shah Jahan spent enormous wealth building the Taj Mahal in memory of his wife. Historian Vincent Smith noted that during the construction of the Taj Mahal, a devastating famine in the Deccan killed millions.

The emperors were absorbed not in spreading religion, but in protecting the throne, fighting succession wars, and indulging in luxury.

Aurangzeb: The opposite outcome of religious fanaticism

Aurangzeb (1658–1707) adopted strict Sunni Islamic policies — re‑imposing jizya, destroying Hindu temples, banning music, and more. But the result was the opposite: the rise of the Marathas, Rajput rebellions, and armed resistance from the Sikhs. Within fifty years of Aurangzeb’s death, the Mughal Empire collapsed.

Sufism — peaceful propagation, but limited impact

The role of the Sufis

The role of Sufi saints in the spread of Islam in India is undeniable. Sufis of the Chishti, Qadiri, Suhrawardi, and Naqshbandi orders reached ordinary people. Their devotional spirituality, music (qawwali), and message of equality attracted lower‑caste Hindus.

However, historian Richard Eaton (Sufis of Bijapur, The Rise of Islam on the Bengal Frontier) cautioned that the role of Sufis should not be exaggerated. Many Sufis maintained close ties with rulers and also propagated religion for political purposes.

Frustration with the caste system and conversion

In the rigid Hindu caste system, lower‑caste people who had endured humiliation and discrimination for centuries were attracted to Islam’s ideal of equality. In Bengal especially, conversion rates were higher among lower‑caste peasants.

However, this was not entirely voluntary — economic pressure, tax burdens, and the desire for social liberation worked together.

The strength of human resolve and identity

The example of the Jews

During the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza in Medina faced severe persecution — expulsion, confiscation of property, and mass killing of men. Yet they did not abandon their religion. They paid jizya, left their homeland, endured death — but did not renounce their faith.

This steadfastness of religious identity reveals a deep truth of human psychology — people strive to preserve their core religious identity even in extreme danger. In India too, resilient Hindus, Buddhists, and indigenous groups were determined to preserve their respective faiths. Even under killing and persecution, they held on to their identity.

The example of the Parsis (Zoroastrians)

After the Arab Muslims conquered Persia in the 7th century, the Persians faced immense pressure. A large group fled to India and took refuge in Gujarat — they are today’s Parsi community. In India, they have practiced Zoroastrianism for more than 1300 years. Even under Muslim rule, they did not abandon their religion.

Comparison with Spain (Al-Andalus)

After 711 CE, when Muslim forces conquered Spain, Christians and Jews lived under Muslim rule for centuries. Yet they did not abandon their religion. Even after paying jizya, facing discrimination, and living as second‑class citizens, they preserved their faith. When Christian forces reconquered Spain in 1492, the Muslim population collapsed within a few decades — which proves that their religious identity was not as deeply rooted as that of the Christians and Jews.

This comparison shows that the strength of religious identity varies from society to society. In India, the religious identity of Hindus, Buddhists, and indigenous groups was far stronger than that of the conquered populations of Spain. That is why complete Islamization of India never occurred.

Why the sword of Islam did not win everywhere

The popular claim that “Islam spread peacefully in India” is only partially true. The initial spread occurred through war, destruction, and political domination. But complete Islamization did not happen because:

• The economy of Islamic rule depended on non‑Muslims (jizya, agriculture, slave trade).
• The vast geography of India made total control impossible.
• Rajput, Maratha, Sikh, and southern Hindu resistance remained strong for centuries.
• Mountainous and forest regions remained outside Muslim control.
• Mughal rulers prioritized power, luxury, and political alliances over religious conversion.
• Sufi influence was real but limited.
• The religious identity of Indians was extremely resilient.

Therefore, the idea that Muslim rulers “did not convert people because Islam is tolerant” is historically inaccurate. The real reasons were political, economic, geographical, and psychological — not theological.

History is more complex than religious slogans

The history of Islam in India is neither entirely peaceful nor entirely violent — it is a complex mixture of conquest, politics, economics, culture, and human resilience. Simplistic claims like “Islam spread peacefully” or “Islam spread only by the sword” both ignore the deeper realities.

India did not become fully Muslim because the subcontinent’s social structure, geography, political resistance, and strong religious identities made total Islamization impossible. Muslim rulers themselves depended on non‑Muslims for revenue, labor, and political stability.

History teaches us that no religion — not Islam, not Christianity, not Hinduism — has ever spread purely through tolerance or purely through violence. The truth lies in the intersection of power, economy, culture, and human psychology.