Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[Joe Shearer]

Well, if you did not know, the reason Gupta dynasty flourished is due to the fact Indian traders were given extra privilege in Egyptian port over the Arab traders when it was under Roman empire. Gupta declined as the Roman declined at the similar time. Broaden your periscope then you can see better. There were enough people who were visiting Arab peninsula and surrounding areas which predated Islam and Prophet. So it is quite understandable if somebody could come in contact with Muslim traders or Muslim preacher in those early days and brought Islam in Rangpur. Building a Mosque might not be a big deal for a trader of that capacity and the artifacts found in the mosque and inscription suggest that the date is around 700AD.

Try to think this through, carefully.

Do you realise that trade followed the riverine structure? And do you realise that the main river, the one which supported trading activity, was the Bhagirathi channel of the Ganges? And that this turned south and broke into three streams at Saptagram, one, the western-most, the Saraswati, forming the lower channel of the present Hooghly river, one, central, went down to Kalighat, flowed down the Adi Ganga, or Tolly's Nullah, and out through Baguipur to the sea, and that the easternmost one went to the sea through Jessore?

This central course is the path taken by Behula in the story of Chand Sadagar. I cite this fable because the geographical insight from the fable illuminates the dry commentary on the course of the Ganges after the Rajmahal Hills.

The trading routes followed these, the main courses of the river, and traders were most prominent on the left bank, and at Tamralipti, the modern Tamluk. So where were these mysterious Rangpur traders from? And why would they build in Rangpur, rather than in their meeting place, the entrepot of Tamluk?

Should we not await a proper investigation of the ruins and their probable dates?

 

[TopCat]

Try to think this through, carefully.

Do you realise that trade followed the riverine structure? And do you realise that the main river, the one which supported trading activity, was the Bhagirathi channel of the Ganges? And that this turned south and broke into three streams at Saptagram, one, the western-most, the Saraswati, forming the lower channel of the present Hooghly river, one, central, went down to Kalighat, flowed down the Adi Ganga, or Tolly's Nullah, and out through Baguipur to the sea, and that the easternmost one went to the sea through Jessore?

This central course is the path taken by Behula in the story of Chand Sadagar. I cite this fable because the geographical insight from the fable illuminates the dry commentary on the course of the Ganges after the Rajmahal Hills.

The trading routes followed these, the main courses of the river, and traders were most prominent on the left bank, and at Tamralipti, the modern Tamluk. So where were these mysterious Rangpur traders from? And why would they build in Rangpur, rather than in their meeting place, the entrepot of Tamluk?

Should we not await a proper investigation of the ruins and their probable dates?

Well, It was a damn mosque built by somebody and we dont know who it was. Rangpur was not a trading center neither we claimed so. It could be somebody from here who came in contact with Islam in very early days. His home in Rangpur was not far away from Gour neither from Pataliputra the biggest trading center of those days. Do you really believe that every person who trades through river has to live by the river?

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is an old saying: Do not debate or quarrel with a woman or with an Indian. A woman is a woman <MOD EDIT>. Whatever amount of argument people put, Indians will keep on coming back with their of non-acceptance of the reality founded on the chronology of history.

Study and learn, you half-educated India, from books like, 1) Taj-ul-Nasiri, 2) Siere Mutakkherin, 3) Riaz-us-Salatin, 4) Bahar-i-stani-Ghaebi, 6) Tuzukh, 7) Baber Nama, 8) Tabakat-i-Akbari, 9) Bangalar Itihash (Rakhaldas), 10) The last Pathan Hero of Bengal (N. K. Bhattasali) etc. etc. etc.

There are tens of other books that were written by the muslim historians in Persian that tell under what process central India lost its muslim population, and at the same time Bengal gained its.

Study well, <MOD EDIT>. You are an otherwise educated, but is always in a denial mood of our identity. Do you think, we need your certification to identify ourselves, and do you think this PDF is the only source of history lesson of immigration of human race?

<MOD EDIT>

Thank you for your advice. I believe I have some advantage over you.

I studied these precise same books as direct sources during my undergraduate studies between 1968 to 1971. Since then, there has been considerable opportunity to study the problems of late mediaeval Indian history at greater depth, and I have taken most of them.

When did these come to your attention?

You are welcome.

Eaton's book is about Agrarian expansion theory to explain the fact that a majority Muslim population somehow popped up in Bengal, far away from older Muslim population centers towards the Western part of South Asia.

While conversion of local dalit/adivashi/fishermen as a result of agrarian expansion was the main factor behind the rise of majority Muslim population in Bengal, this however does not mean that significant migration did not take place. There are plenty of places Eaton mentions these migrant Muslims that settled down in Bengal, starting from soldiers and rulers in early towns from 1200 AD, down to sufi pirs and holymen in rural areas that helped lead the agrarian expansion efforts of clear cutting forests to create arable land, during Mughal rule around 1600-1700. Every time there was invasion by Delhi Sultanate or Mughal Army, migration took place. Even in 18th century Maratha invasions caused internal migration of South Asian Muslims from other areas to the Bengal sanctuary, @eastwatch wrote about this phenomenon really well.

As for Ashraf, racism etc., I think we are trying to understand and reconstruct a more accurate picture of history, but some other people, who are not Bengal Muslims, happen to have some ideas of their own, that they would like to promote, about our history. That is where the problem lies. Bengal Muslims had much more local ancestors than foreign ones, there is no question about that, but we should be able to impartially recognize and celebrate all of our ancestors equally. We, Bengal Muslims, should not have to dump some of our ancestors, just because it makes some other people uncomfortable for whatever reason.

A people who do not know their own history and as a result has some gap in their knowledge, can easily be fed with some concocted pseudo history and thus make them subject to manipulation, brain-washing etc. Much of this went on after fall of Muslim rule in Bengal in 1757. So back in 1800, while all of South Asia's educated people (Muslims and Hindus) were fluent in speaking, reading and writing in Persian, the same people became fanatic about Urdu and Bangla in 1952, while both of these languages were products that were shaped in Fort William college in early 1800's so they could be made ready to ease the burden on English, when Persian was replaced with English as the official court language around 1830. If Muslim Bengali's were fully aware of what they have in common with Muslims of other parts of South Asia, would it be that easy to brainwash the public and engineer a civil war like the one that took place in 1971? These are the things I wonder about.

In some other post, you have mentioned that there was no stand taken that the growth of the Muslim population in Bengal was due exclusively to migration. You have yourself forwarded Eaton's extracts towards that point.

Where is the difference of opinion? It is only when there is a presumption that the majority of Muslims in Bengal were migrants that you may face disagreement. Is that your case? If not, then where is the disagreement?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, It was a damn mosque built by somebody and we dont know who it was. Rangpur was not a trading center neither we claimed so. It could be somebody from here who came in contact with Islam in very early days. His home in Rangpur was not far away from Gour neither from Pataliputra the biggest trading center of those days. Do you really believe that every person who trades through river has to live by the river?

My objection is to the fact that the mosque and its remains have not yet been examined by other than amateurs.

The point about Rangpur not being a major trading centre is very simple: for whom was the mosque built? Would one stray convert have built a mosque, not a common building in any country at that time, for himself and his family?

Why is everybody in such a hurry to claim primacy for this building? And does it in any case affect the more substantive questions that are being discussed elsewhere?

 

[TopCat]

What am I to say to people who don't even know that there are multiple peasant castes, and multiple fisherfolk castes, ranging right through the spectrum of upper-class Hindu obloquy?

@iajdani

You obviously know nothing of either current Hindu society, nor about the caste structure among peasants, meaning those who work in agriculture, or among fishermen, those who catch fish or have to do with the waterways for a living.

Your premises are wrong, your conclusions are obviously wrong.

Instead of making statements in the air, based on your non-existent knowledge of sociology, leave alone Hindu social structures, why don't you find out first? Is that too much to ask? Do you really want me to place all the data in front of you?

Also, I have never heard or read anything as obtuse as stating that Buddhists were considered Hindu in the royal court, when the Hindu position from the time of Sankaracharya clearly was that Buddhists were heretics. Never, except from hindutvavadi fanatics, who insist that all things Indic are almost one and the same.

Congratulations on having found common grounds with these fanatics. Birds of a feather flock together.

If you do not know a term, that does not invalidate it. The Pasmanda movement is an Indian movement, but it carries forward the same interests, the same desire to be free from upper caste oppression, an oppression without justification on any rational grounds, so what is the point of saying that this is not known to Bangladeshi Muslims? It is a matter that affects all Muslims in south Asia.

I might be wrong about Hindu social structure as I dont want to claim that I know better than a Hindu. But from outsiders point of view we were taught (by the Hindus ofcourse) that their main caste divides around Bhramin, Khatria, Baisha, Shudra (sorry if i spelled incorrectly).

Bhramin and Khatrias are well defined and we know who the are and even some of the those upper caste people still bear their titles (eg. Thagore etc) after conversion. Now the real question about the people who actually consisted the biggest mass are Baisa and they are the peasant/kamar/kumar/napit/fishermen right? (PS: I am not sure whether those craftsmen are considered as Shudra or not).

Now what you are arguing that there are sub classes among Baisa, eg. even in peasant class there are somebody with little upper caste and somebody with little lower caste. I even saw people distinguishing between Das and Dash. But my question is whether these sub classes were segregated enough to force one class to get converted to a alien religion like Islam?

The second question is the Buddhist, as they were never a Shudra, how far low they were thrown into (whether they were considered as low as Shudra) so that they had to leave their religion all together? What was the profession of the majority Buddhist? Are they predominantly peasant? As hindu caste system revolves around the profession, so I suppose they were not considered anything below Baisa?

You are right about Pasmanda movement is a indian movement but E. Bengal is a muslim majority region and certainly different than the other region of India. May be Muslim in this region had different slogan that that of Bihar. Dont you think out of nowhere Bengal got so many Muslim, that must have a reason and which is quite different than others.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

@Shabaz Sharif

Can we just declare that Bangladesh was populated by Turks from the Chaghatai tribe and be done with it? This is getting silly, and the thread is no longer a discussion on history but an exchange of prejudices. What do you say? They'll be happy, the Indians will be happy, and I am sure that except for the ten or twenty thousand ethnic Turks in Hazara, Pakistanis will be happy.

I just have very hard time believing anyone of these claims. Parsis community genetic results is in front of our eyes, they came much earlier and despite mixing we can see they are genetically different. Also many UP pathans are actually descendents of pashtuns who settled there, and it shows in their results on Harappadna.

South Asia mixing has been happening but one always will prefer his own biraderi/caste/tribe before looking outside. In fact Bengali brahmins results stand out while other hindu-muslim bengalis are almost similar. So if much older bengali brahmin comunity results can stand out then why not so called bengali muslims of recent central asian admixture?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why to recognize a group of brave warrior Muslims who grabbed Hindu Brahmins by their Tikki and heinously split their throats by swords in 1200 and afterwards? So, now tell me where have gone those muslim Khaliji Turks? Have they ever returned to their homeland in the west, and is it by your order through PDF?

What right do you have to deny the existence of their descendents among us, the Muslims of Bengal? Please stop abusing Muslims of Bengal and do not distort Muslim history of Bengal. Please, please, please, because it will not change what really happened in the historical times.

Refer to another book 1) Haqiqat-i-Musalman-i-Bangal written by Khondker Fazle Rabbi who was the last Estate Manager of Murshidabad Nawabi Estate. English was translated by himself, "Musalmans of Bengal". Bengali translation has been named "Banglar Musalman". This book will really educate you about who and who together are the Muslims of Bengal.

Read another book, "Travelogue of Ibn Batuta". Read carefully about his travel account to Chittagong. Learn his description of hundreds of Omani and Yemeni Arabs migrating to the east coast of Bengal with their families through sea voyage.

If you do not have substantive knowledge about these and many other accounts of Muslim migration to a land of plenty where Muslims were dominant in politics, you should read them. But, please do not come up with your racist and one-sided view any more.

You are virtually bullying the Bangali Muslims with your lies and distortions all the time. If you are not to seek the truth, better keep quite. Let us discuss our own issues.

Why are we discussing these issues in such a hyper-excited state?

To correct a wholly irrelevant point first, I mentioned Chaghatai Turks, not those who led by a Khilji actually led the conquest of Bengal. But my post was sardonic, and not intended to mirror the exact truth of those events. Pity that you take it so seriously.

Those Turks formed a microscopic minority, and were not a significant number of the population. Your own sources say so.

Nobody denied the existence of their descendants among present day Bangla Muslims. Everybody scoffed at claims of their having formed any significant number, or any significant percentage of the population.

I shall address other points made by you later.

 

[Cold Blood]

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.

The greater Rangpur Division has always been a center of flourishing trade route since antiquity. It was also a major part of the South west silk route. There was an ancient fort city named Bhitagarh which served as a major transit point between Tibet and India.

It can be said that the Muslim traders arrived in the area from China, either for trade or in search of Chittagong which was the main gate way of Bengal. Moreover, Al Jazeera has some reputation and it will not report on some flawed archaeological discovery like you are saying.

 

[TopCat]

I think this has already been established. 55% Bangladeshis are of foreign origin (Afghan, Turk, Arab, Persian and other central Asians), 20% mixed, 15% converted from Buddhism and rest 10% are Hindus. Just take a look at the Bangladeshi cricket team, it's abundantly clear.

This guys is a syed and thief. Does he look like Persian?


This woman is a Sheikh and had Arab ancestry. Does she look like a Arab princess

 

[jaunty]

This guys is a syed and thief. Does he look like Persian?


This woman is a Sheikh and had Arab ancestry. Does she look like a Arab princess

Don't know about that but you sure do look like a Yemeni.

 

[TopCat]

Don't know about that but you sure do look like a Yemeni.

No I have predominant local gene inside me (father sides) mother sides (grand mother, mother ) from foreign blood.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

This guys is a syed and thief. Does he look like Persian?


This woman is a Sheikh and had Arab ancestry. Does she look like a Arab princess

Genotype and phenotype is not the same thing all the time. But at least genetic tests does not differentiate how you look.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Why Bangladeshis in west don't take out genetic test? It only cost 99$ Otherwise there is no point in believing theories. Especially when alternatives exist like simple genetic test.

 

[TopCat]

Why Bangladeshis in west don't take out genetic test? It only cost 99$ Otherwise there is no point in believing theories. Especially when alternatives exist like simple genetic test.

... You wanna take a DNA test of your children to find who their real father is?

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

... You wanna take a DNA test of your children to find who their real father is?

Just to see if what you guys say is true at all, very easy to find out in this modern age.