Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[extra terrestrial]

There are, in fact no particular British theory or interpretation in discussion where they have denied the diversity of local ethnic groups and their numerous branches. The entire discussion on the contrary was never in the direction of finding out the genealogical maps of present Bangladeshis. The debate entirely strolled around the four theories of spread of Islam in what we called Bangladesh at present, the different contemporary accounts of Arab, Chinese and European travellers and the census reports which are not theories but mere observations by Company civil servants. No one in this entire discussion has ever refused to agree to the fact that the urban Industrial proletariat or the peasantry in the lower social and economical order was not an ethnically diverse society.

There you showed your temptation. LOL

My comment about racial diversity was to the whole Bengali ethnicity including Muslims and Hindus of all castes and classes. You would find dark/fair skinned and short/taller folks among both the Brahmins and Muslims. Or is it that West Bengalis have started to perceive "Bengalis" to be of only that group of people which you mentioned?

What was in question then? The doubts were raised upon some conclusions made in the very first post itself. The premature conclusions like Migration of foreign stocks altered the demography in an extra ordinary way where he himself admits that he is having a wild guess( In truth quite wild indeed,varying the native unmixed population from 20%-50%).Doubts were raised over original poster’s findings that migration of Ashrāf elites played vital part in the spread of Islam in the Bengal. There in fact no mention in any of the references he has laboured to post here. There are no solid proof both theoretical or practical, in any such references that the local chieftains, urban artisan class or the peasantry intermingled with the elite Ashrāf class (with a faint reference to the Aryan Invasion theory) changing the DNA pattern of this region. The poster’s assertions lost all its vitality when the changing course of Delta sedimentations towards Meghna-Padma was visibly ignored. The post industrial revolution in Europe and America went through many visible changes in their political and social systems. One of such changes was the surge in European population in parallel with the gigantic leaps in industrial productions within 30-40 years after industrial revolution. Same happened in Bengal during Mughal expansion in the Gangetic delta with the changing course of its fertile rivers towards south and east. The economic surge with the mammoth rice production and the successive growth in rural population are all that can be attributed mainly, instead of the whimsical conclusions made for the exponential growth of Islam in this region.
Again, off course my views are not absolute and is subjected to correction. If any genetic study comes up to bolster the migration theory and its “not so impressive” conclusions, they are most welcome.

Question? My post was about your using the clueless sources from the British raj era to determine the ancestry of Bengali Muslims for the sake of refuting Kalu Miah's opinions. Now since you are so desperate, here's my observation.

Role of migration in spreading Islam in Bangladesh – is there any doubt? Who spread Islam then? Brahmins? LOL

Migration of the Central and West Asians didn't have that "extra ordinary" effect but did had some influence on the demography. (if not then why are you guys concerned with the demographic change by the so called illegal Bangladeshis? LOL) You are also missing the role of the Muslim missionaries from middle-east, Central Asia and West Asia who were the driving force in spreading Islam. Now as in any other part of the world, the Muslim saints and Pirs married the local women in spreading Islam in Bangladesh. You would agree that the most influencing feature of Islam that attracted the local masses was the call of equality and non-discrimination which the missionaries succeeded to manifest. Now if they were really non-discriminative, they shouldn't have any objection to intermingling with the local population which is actually what happened. Now let's get into the British era. When the permanent settlement act came into force, almost all the Muslim Zamindars and landlords of Mughal era in Bangladesh became bankrupt and lost their social status. These Zamindars and landlords were of West and Central Asian origin. The situation created a sense of homogeneity among the Bengali Muslims and removed the social order based on ancestry. Later, the rise of educated Bengali Muslim middle class further accelerated the process and transformed the social order into one that is based on economic ability rather than ancestry. Besides, the migration of the West Asians continued till the mid-19th century ( mostly for trading purposes ), owners of many of the Chittagong based conglomerates like Ispahani, A K Khan are of this last generation of migrants.

All beautiful and colorful graphs are created by humans. Since it is so, therefore, it has certain limitations. You are off the mark about the subject people are discussing here. You have to go through the political history of Bengal and Bihar to and analyze it to know which types of people immigrated here during centuries.

Leave the troll alone, you'd wonder how a Turkish could know about Dalits and a genealogical survey that is concerned with the genetics of India. If you know what I mean.

 

[Roybot]

Photographs show they were taken in Bihar or in Nepal. History cannot be segregated by today's political divisions of the then Bengal or Hindustan. You know that very well, but just to win a mean debate you change the name from Bengal to Bangladesh. When BD is historically a non-existent entity, how silly of you that you randomly use that name to suit your ego!!!

Lol nice try, photo is of Bangladeshi laborers waiting to be repatriated from Egypt.

IOM - Photo Gallery - Egypt: Repatriation of Bangladeshi Migrant Workers

 

[TopCat]

Leave the troll alone, you'd wonder how a Turkish could know about Dalits and a genealogical survey that is concerned with the genetics of India. If you know what I mean.

He is a south india trying hard to be an Aryan by taking German and Turkik flag ...

 

[Charon 2]

This whole project was done by some south indian only to show that there is nothing called Aryan or Aryan invasion and South Indians are genetically not inferior than Aryan. So stop referring to this bul$hit. They never came and done a well publicized sampling in Bangladesh. I can always show my desired result by taking samples from dark looking Bangladeshis or by taking fair looking Bangladeshis as the subject and show you that Bangladeshis are either African or Caucasian as I desire.

Thank you

Blah blah. People from Bangladesh are mainly dark looking South Asians with ANI and ASi admixture. You have Aryan ANI admixture but the ASI admixture is still higher which means that Bengalis are genetically predominantly South Indian. Stop with your inferior complexes and stop to connect yourselves genetically with Arabs, Turks, Persians and Afghans.

He is a south india trying hard to be an Aryan by taking German and Turkik flag ...

Of course just because I don't fit in your opinion I'm South Indian know. Gosh I never knew that Bengalis have such high inferior complexes. You are genetically predominantly South Indian and not Arab, Afghan or Turk. Get used to it and live with it!

 

[the just]

Indians are actually white ,they only look black because they live in india.Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka,Nepal all these people are alien descendants. No where anyone can prove that indian subcontinent's people mostly share same genetic pool.people of Bangladesh is south Indian.
So,I suggest we invade our motherland ( south India) take back our land.kick out white Indian's. And live happily ever after.
Case closed.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Blah blah. People from Bangladesh are mainly dark looking South Asians with ANI and ASi admixture. You have Aryan ANI admixture but the ASI admixture is still higher which means that Bengalis are genetically predominantly South Indian. Stop with your inferior complexes and stop to connect yourselves genetically with Arabs, Turks, Persians and Afghans.



Of course just because I don't fit in your opinion I'm South Indian know. Gosh I never knew that Bengalis have such high inferior complexes. You are genetically predominantly South Indian and not Arab, Afghan or Turk. Get used to it and live with it!

Ur post gives an impression of self hatred ..

 

[the just]

All those samples were taken from both Hindus and Muslims from Bangladesh and it shows that you are genetically closely related to each other without worth mentioning admixture from Turkics, Persians or Afghans. You are genetically predominantly South Asian and Dravidian with some Burmese-like Mongoloid admixture. But you don't need genetical tests for that. Look how your people look like and you know your origins

Yeees ,we can also see millions of people just like that in india too.
And post a link and the company names which actually did random tests on thousands of Bangladeshis.

 

[Charon 2]

Ur post gives an impression of self hatred ..

I'm only telling genetical facts nothing else. The only ones with self hatred are the Bengalis who try to white-wash themselves ignoring the fact they are genetically South Indian.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Blah blah. People from Bangladesh are mainly dark looking South Asians with ANI and ASi admixture. You have Aryan ANI admixture but the ASI admixture is still higher which means that Bengalis are genetically predominantly South Indian. Stop with your inferior complexes and stop to connect yourselves genetically with Arabs, Turks, Persians and Afghans.



Of course just because I don't fit in your opinion I'm South Indian know. Gosh I never knew that Bengalis have such high inferior complexes. You are genetically predominantly South Indian and not Arab, Afghan or Turk. Get used to it and live with it!

It's a problem that too many of the sub-continent's Muslims' have. It's a way to make themselves feel better because in reality most of them (not all) are low caste Hindu converts. They try to concoct a history to somehow prove that they have some Persian, Arab or Turk history. There are Muslims in South Asia with some foreign Arab, Turk or Persian blood but they are very small minority. However, there are plenty of Pashtuns/Afghans or Muslims with Pashtun/Afghan ancestry in the Indian sub-continent. That is a fact.

 

[Joe Shearer]

See this link: Ancient mosque unearthed in Bangladesh - Asia - Al Jazeera English

The mosque was built a bit earlier, probably in early 7th century.

What a genius.

1. No 'British' archaeologist, or any other kind of professional archaeologist anywhere in the picture, only a self-styled amateur archaeologist.
2. In the early seventh century, the nearest Muslim in
   
   1. India's north-west direction was in Kabul.
      
   2. India's western direction was in Arabia.
   3. India's south western direction was in Arabia.
   4. On the coast of Bengal, in Samatata, nobody.
3. The region between Chittagong and Rangpur was covered in thick, impenetrable rain forest until Dhaka.
4. The region known as Vanga was soon to be under the Pala Empire, and was Buddhist.
5. The region known as Rarh was soon to be under the Pala Empire, and was Buddhist.
6. The region known as Varendra was senior under the Pala Empire, and was Buddhist.
7. The region known as Kamarupa was under feudatories of the Empire of Harsha, and was a mixed Hindu and Buddhist region.

In northern India, Emperor Harsha ruled, in southern India, the Chalukyas. There may, just possibly, have been some Muslim traders in contact with Chittagong. There may even have been some native Muslim converts in Chittagong and its purlieus. It is extremely unlikely that there were Muslims anywhere else in Bengal. Why there should have been a mosque, when mosques were uncommon in Arabia itself, at Rangpur is baffling.

This is a wildly enthusiastic journalist filing a piece of news on Al Jazeera that we have being reported as this earth-shattering archaeological discovery.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are difference between Hindu Bengali and Muslim Bengali. All the indian based research are based on Indian Hindu Bengali.

Now we have the genetic differences between Hindu and Muslim Bengali.

This is what the whole thread was leading up to, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The most reliable cited work was Eaton; he would be jumping out of the window if he realised what you racists were making out of his thesis.

Yes the Mosque was built around 700 AD within 50 years of Prophet's death.

Of course. So clear, so transparent.

During Harsha's reign, during a period when the closest overland that Muslims had got was to Kabul, at best, when there may - or there may not - have been a handful of converts in Chittagong, converted under the influence of Arab traders, when there was impenetrable jungle in most of south Bengal, that was then Samatata or Vanga, when the Buddhist monasteries of Varendra and Bihar were in full operation, when there was an Emperor, Harsha, who favoured Buddhists and honoured monks, when there was still the Pala Empire, and its pro-Buddhist emperors, still to come, there was suddenly a mosque - a kind of building still uncommon in Arabia itself - in Rangpur, never one of the initial points of conversion until the Khalji conquest of 1203.

And a legend is born.

Dalit hardly converted anywhere in India. They remained dalit till this day.

Go tell that to a Pasmanda Muslim.

In East Bengal it was mostly buddhist who were considered lower caste converted en-mass.

Under the regressive Sen Dynasty, they were considered heretics, and were not in favour. That regime saw an intense Hindu revival, inspired by the orthodox south Indian Sen rulers.

Then again most of the hindu people at that time were Peasant (again low caste yet not that low), fishermen (low caste) got converted.

Dalits, who were not Dalits, for the purposes of our poster, suddenly knowledgeable about Hindu social structures. What, O learned one, was the caste of the peasants and the fishermen that you refer to in such a knowledgeable way?

Only 5% people were actually higher cast in Hinduism. So when you convert a group of hindu people then it will be always the lower class people will be in greater number in percentage term. There were again in percentage term more higher caste people (if you take %of convert from among higher caste) embrace Islam than the lower caste people.

Our poster now demonstrates the art (or perhaps the science - one never knows, with these new-Age things) of verbal and intellectual yoga - how to tie oneself up into a small knot in the least possible time.

Chill.

Both namasudra and Brahmin are of the same genetic stock. So leave your racism at the madrasa and come to the party.

Dalits were rare to get converted as they were outcasted from both Muslim or Hindu society. Thats why you see so many people remained dalit in India till these days.

Don't make up stuff as you go along. This is contemptible.

It was precisely because they were outcaste that they converted from Hindu to Muslim. It was not the custom in those early days to treat Hindu outcastes converted to Islam as Muslim outcastes; that came in later, after Islam had consolidated itself in India, and once the Ashraf started throwing their weight around against the Ajlaf, secure in the knowledge of their superior military strength and the durability of their empire. When they were insecure, as in the early days, they folded the new Muslim into the fold. No questions asked.

No sample taken from Bangladesh, not to our knowledge. Can you show a Bangladesh reference to it?

Please don't politicise knowledge.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Okay, admin needs to close this life sucking thread. It was enjoyable to contribute at first but these lot are just going on and on.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Okay, admin needs to close this life sucking thread. It was enjoyable to contribute at first but these lot are just going on and on.

Why, what happened?

Ran out of arguments?

 

[scorpionx]

Question? My post was about your using the clueless sources from the British raj era to determine the ancestry of Bengali Muslims for the sake of refuting Kalu Miah's opinions.

Me using clueless sources!! Are you kidding me? I am just referring to the brilliant work piece provided to us by @kalu_miah only. Are you suggesting that the original poster can form a preposterous opinion by siting Eaton's book and the same book suddenly becomes "clueless source" when the claims get refuted by the very same book!! What kind of sorcery is this?

Now since you are so desperate, here's my observation.

Ok. Let's keep academics aside for a moment and read an extra terrestrial observation.

Role of migration in spreading Islam in Bangladesh – is there any doubt? Who spread Islam then? Brahmins? LOL

Migration of the Central and West Asians didn't have that "extra ordinary" effect but did had some influence on the demography. (if not then why are you guys concerned with the demographic change by the so called illegal Bangladeshis? LOL) You are also missing the role of the Muslim missionaries from middle-east, Central Asia and West Asia who were the driving force in spreading Islam. Now as in any other part of the world, the Muslim saints and Pirs married the local women in spreading Islam in Bangladesh

Let me tell you that you have insufficient understanding of migration theory.Migration theory as you have grasped it,is not diffusion of faith. It is diffusion of people. Eaton says,"In this view, the bulk of India’s Muslims are descended from other Muslims who had either migrated overland from the Iranian plateau or sailed across the Arabian Sea. Although some such process no doubt contributed to the Islamization of those areas of South Asia that are geographically contiguous with the Iranian plateau or the Arabian Sea, this argument cannot, for reasons to be discussed below, be used to explain mass Islamization in Bengal."
Are we clear here?

You would agree that the most influencing feature of Islam that attracted the local masses was the call of equality and non-discrimination which the missionaries succeeded to manifest. Now if they were really non-discriminative, they shouldn't have any objection to intermingling with the local population which is actually what happened.

What you are saying is called social liberation theory. Now let's see what Kalu Miah's clueless source tells us about it.
"Finally, as with the Sword and Patronage theories, the Religion of Social Liberation theory is refuted by the facts of geography. In 1872, when the earliest reliable census was taken, the highest concentrations of Muslims were found in eastern Bengal, western Punjab, the Northwest Frontier region, and Baluchistan. What is striking about those areas is not only that they lay far from the center of Muslim political power but that their indigenous populations had not yet, at the time of their contact with Islam, been fully integrated into either the Hindu or the Buddhist social system. In Bengal, Muslim converts were drawn mainly from Rajbansi, Pod, Chandal, Kuch, and other indigenous groups that had been only lightly exposed to Brahmanic culture, and in Punjab the same was true of the various Jat clans that eventually formed the bulk of the Muslim community."

Now let's get into the British era. When the permanent settlement act came into force, almost all the Muslim Zamindars and landlords of Mughal era in Bangladesh became bankrupt and lost their social status. These Zamindars and landlords were of West and Central Asian origin. The situation created a sense of homogeneity among the Bengali Muslims and removed the social order based on ancestry. Later, the rise of educated Bengali Muslim middle class further accelerated the process and transformed the social order into one that is based on economic ability rather than ancestry. Besides, the migration of the West Asians continued till the mid-19th century ( mostly for trading purposes ), owners of many of the Chittagong based conglomerates like Ispahani, A K Khan are of this last generation of migrants.

These foreign stocks formed the section called religious gentry and the land lords. They have been amalgamated with the local populace in due course of time.Is there any denial to this fact? But the way this amalgamation is being attempted to be used as a crucial factor determining the genetic pattern of Modern Bangladesh is simply intellectual dishonesty from your part.

Next time, if you people bring academic work pieces like Richard Eaton's book into discussion,please DO NOT attach your own interpretation to it. Tolerating the unbridgeable gap between the source and the final conclusion is beyond any academic's mental capacity. Before this thread takes an ugly turn,I think it is better to leave this thread and have a good sleep.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

^^^
Couple of corrections, jat only make 20% of Pakistan punjab population. Though one can they are single biggest biraderi in pakistan punjab. Vast majority of punjabi rajputs converted to Islam, thats why punjabi sikh/hindu rajput population is very low.

Anyway if what Bangladeshis are saying is true then instead of theories they can order dna kit and submit their samples to harappadna.

Parsis who came earlier are clearly genetically different despite mixing with indigenous Indians. So far samples on harappadna does not support Bangladeshis claim.