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 preaching, 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 out to ordinary people. Devotional spirituality, music (qawwali), and a message of equality attracted lower-caste Hindus.

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

Frustration with the caste system and conversion

In the rigid caste system of Hindu society, lower-caste people who had suffered humiliation and discrimination for centuries were partly attracted to Islam’s ideal of equality. In Bengal, especially, the rate of conversion to Islam was higher among lower-caste peasants.

However, this was not entirely voluntary – economic pressure, the burden of taxes, and the desire for social liberation all worked together.

The strength of human morale and identity

The example of the Jews

During the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Jews of the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza tribes in Medina faced widespread killing and persecution – expulsion, confiscation of property, and mass slaughter of men, in how many ways they were oppressed. But they did not abandon their religion. They paid jizya, left the country, accepted death – yet did not renounce their faith.

This steadfastness of religious identity is a deep truth of human psychology – even in extreme danger, people want to hold on to their core religious identity. In India too, in exactly the same way, determined Hindus, Buddhists, and indigenous peoples were resolute in holding on to their respective faiths. Even under killing and persecution, they preserved their individuality.

The example of the Parsis (Zoroastrians)

After the Arabs conquered Persia in the seventh century, enormous pressure was placed on the Persians. A large portion fled to India and took refuge in Gujarat – they are today’s Parsi community. In India, they have been practicing Zoroastrianism for more than 1300 years. Even under Muslim rule, they did not abandon their religion.

Comparison with Spain (al-Andalus)

From 711 to 1492, large parts of Spain were under Muslim rule. But the people of Spain did not completely embrace Islam. Christian kingdoms in northern Spain survived and gradually completed the Reconquista (reconquest).

These examples show that long-term Muslim rule is not a guarantee of total religious conversion. Islam and Islamic rulers, for the sake of their own survival, were forced to move away from their own radical positions.

Military and administrative limitations

Lack of governance infrastructure

Medieval Muslim rulers did not have the modern administrative infrastructure necessary for mass conversion. Keeping records of the population, monitoring them regularly, and enforcing religious rules across vast regions – these were not possible with the technology and administrative capacity of that time.

Changes of power from sultan to sultan

In the Delhi Sultanate, dynasties changed repeatedly – Mamluk, Khalji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, Lodi. Each change involved internal conflict and power struggles. To face external threats, they were compelled to seek the help of Hindu feudal lords.

Hindu mansabdars and Rajput armies

There were many Hindu Rajput commanders in the Mughal army. Akbar’s general Man Singh was a Rajput. Without this Hindu cooperation, maintaining the Mughal Empire would not have been possible. If Hindus had been forced to accept Islam, this political alliance would have collapsed.

The strength and resistance of culture

The flexibility and adaptability of Hinduism

Hinduism has no central organization or papacy that can be attacked to uproot the entire religion. Religion is sustained through local temples, gurus, folk practices, and family traditions. If one temple is destroyed, worship continues elsewhere. If one guru is killed, another appears. Religious rituals and folk customs vary greatly by region. What will be kept and what will be stopped?

Saints of the Bhakti movement – Kabir, Mirabai, Tukaram, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu – kept the flame of Hindu and Buddhist spirituality burning even in the face of persecution. This Bhakti movement, on the one hand, engaged in dialogue with Sufism, and on the other hand, revitalized Hindu identity.

The resistant identity of Sikhism

The origin of Sikhism is also partly analyzed as a reaction to Muslim rule. Aurangzeb sentenced Guru Tegh Bahadur to death if he did not accept Islam. He embraced death but did not abandon his religion. Afterwards, Guru Gobind Singh reorganized the Sikhs as the Khalsa (armed religious community).

Comparative perspective

Why was Islamization complete in the Arab world?

Islamization was comparatively more successful in the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, Egypt, and North Africa because:

1. Those regions were smaller than India and militarily easier to control.
2. There was no deeply rooted, multi-layered cultural identity like Hinduism.
3. Both Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians had central structures which, once broken, weakened the entire organization.
4. The pace of Arab conquest was extremely rapid – territories were captured before local resistance had time to organize. In most cases, Islam was aggressive, waging proactive jihad and war.

None of these factors applied equally in India.

Bangladesh and Pakistan: the fruits of partial Islamization

The Muslim majority in today’s Bangladesh and Pakistan proves that the process of Islamization was at least partly successful – though not complete. Richard Eaton’s research (The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier) has shown that the spread of Islam in Bengal occurred mainly through the zamindari system, agricultural expansion, and Sufi activities – not purely by the sword.

Debunking the myth of Islam’s so-called “tolerance”

The core fallacy of the argument

“Muslim rulers could have converted everyone to Islam if they wanted, but they didn’t – this proves their tolerance” – this argument suffers from a fundamental flaw. It assumes that the reason for not doing so was a moral decision, whereas in reality the reasons were outcomes of practical failure and constraints.

If you want to kill someone but are not able to, that cannot be called your tolerance. There is no beauty of Islam here; here Islam failed to run its empire of the sword. This is where the answer lies to that first question, ‘why didn’t they do it.’

Will Durant’s observation

Renowned historian Will Durant commented in his work The Story of Civilization that Muslim rule in India was one of the bloodiest chapters in history.

K. S. Lal and demographic research

Indian historian K. S. Lal, in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, claimed that during the Delhi Sultanate period (1000–1525), India’s population declined significantly – due to war, mass killings, famine, and slavery. Though his figures are debated, it is difficult to deny the scale of deaths.

Islam did not because it could not – simple arithmetic!

Muslim rulers in India did not manage to turn everyone into Muslims – behind this lay not any moral ideal of tolerance, but multiple practical constraints:

Economic: Without non-Muslims there is no jizya, no slave trade, no spoils of war.
Geographical: India’s vastness and diversity made complete control impossible.
Military: Armed resistance from Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, and other powers.
Political: Without the cooperation of Hindu feudal lords and commanders, running the empire was impossible.
Cultural: The depth and adaptability of Hindu religion and culture.
Human: Human identity, individuality, morale, and religious self-respect – which history has repeatedly proven.

Muslim rulers did not make everyone Muslim – but in many cases they could not, and where they could, they did. The principle of Islam is expansion by the sword, but the idea that it would be victorious everywhere is baseless. Understanding this distinction is essential for an honest reading of history.

History is not a list of crimes of one group, nor is it a book of glorification of any ruling class. History is the complex story of human struggle, failure, and survival – reading it with an impartial eye is the true path to knowledge. Our “mumin brothers” do not tread that path of impartiality. For them, history means only the kind of history found in books like “Chepe Rakha Itihash” (“Suppressed History”). If you do not accept that, many of them rush at you with machetes in hand.

Sources and further reading

• Irfan Habib — Medieval India: The Study of a Civilization (translation)
• Sunil Gangopadhyay — Prothom Alo (novel, historical setting)
• Ahmad Sharif — Bangali o Bangla Sahitya (Bengali and Bengali Literature) (medieval chapter)
• K. S. Lal — Muslim Slave System in Medieval India (1994)
• K. S. Lal — Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (1973)
• Richard Eaton — The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier (1993)
• Richard Eaton — India in the Persianate Age (2019)
• Hermann Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund — A History of India (2004)
• Vincent Smith — The Oxford History of India
• Will Durant — The Story of Civilization, Vol. 1: Our Oriental Heritage (1935)
• Al-Biruni — Kitab ul-Hind (Kitab al-Hind)
• Minhaj-us-Siraj — Tabaqat-i-Nasiri
• Timur’s autobiography — Tuzuk-i-Timuri
• Audrey Truschke — Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King (2017)