• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What happened to the Dharmics in Afghanistan?

ronki23

Well-Known Member
You can move this thread if you feel this is the wrong section but Afghanistan used to have Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs and now they're almost extinct. Was it the Taliban's fault?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
You can move this thread if you feel this is the wrong section but Afghanistan used to have Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs and now they're almost extinct. Was it the Taliban's fault?

I can only speak for the Buddhist part of your question :)
The Buddhist religion in Afghanistan started fading with the arrival of Islam in the 7th century but finally ended during the Ghaznavids in the 11th century.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
While the fact that the locals accepted such a group as rulers is probably indicative of more ancient trends and events, the Taliban proper is very recent, going back to 1994 or so.

Their decision to destroy Buddha statues in 2001 made much of the world aware of them, and that is probably overall a good thing, despite the cost. It brought some very necessary attention to their excesses.

Historically, once a community is ruled by Muslims for a generation or so, religious diversity there suffered sharply, for reasons that are IMO well explained in this video, from the five minutes mark on.


Edited to add: In a nutshell, this is how it works.

1. A Islaamic regime takes charge, by force (which happened very often historically) or perhaps by votes.

2. It, naturally enough, reinforces the idea that every other creed is wrong and leads to disaster, as does secularism. Historically, it also establishes differentiated rights and even taxes for non-Muslims, with Quranic support.

3. Muslims deal with relatives and friends that, given a choice, would rather avoid a direct confrontation on that notion.

4. Children begin to get used to the frequent repetition that Islaam, Allah and the Qur'an are the only genuine articles in town. To keep peace in the family, those claims are not challenged nearly often enough.

5. As they grow older, those same children often fail to realize that religion is supposed to be a matter of personal inclination as opposed to an imposed demand. They were taught that religion is something to be imposed and that it involves a dispute between the "true" and the "untrue" ways on penalty of God's wrath, and they often enough believe it sincerely.

6. The cycle repeats itself, with every successive generation becoming less aware of what religion is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
You can move this thread if you feel this is the wrong section but Afghanistan used to have Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs and now they're almost extinct. Was it the Taliban's fault?

I think it's just the general effect of Islamisation. Not just Afghanistan.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
While the fact that the locals accepted such a group as rulers is probably indicative of more ancient trends and events, the Taliban proper is very recent, going back to 1994 or so.

Their decision to destroy Buddha statues in 2001 made much of the world aware of them, and that is probably overall a good thing, despite the cost. It brought some very necessary attention to their excesses.

Historically, once a community is ruled by Muslims for a generation or so, religious diversity there suffered sharply, for reasons that are IMO well explained in this video, from the five minutes mark on.

Your YouTube clip makes a very interesting critique of the first 3 Sunni Caliphs in general, and the general lack of acknowledgement of these facts in the Ahmadiyya community.

I have to wonder though if any Ahmadis were even open minded enough to watch it, and what they thought of it.
 
Historically, once a community is ruled by Muslims for a generation or so, religious diversity there suffered sharply, for reasons that are IMO well explained in this video, from the five minutes mark on.

Took 400 + years for the Middle East to become majority Muslim, and centuries of Muslim rule in India didn't lead to anything more than a minority Muslim population.

A couple of generations is usually pretty insignificant in religious demographics.

1. A Islaamic regime takes charge, by force (which happened very often historically) or perhaps by votes.

2. It, naturally enough, reinforces the idea that every other creed is wrong and leads to disaster, as does secularism. Historically, it also establishes differentiated rights and even taxes for non-Muslims, with Quranic support.

3. Muslims deal with relatives and friends that, given a choice, would rather avoid a direct confrontation on that notion.

4. Children begin to get used to the frequent repetition that Islaam, Allah and the Qur'an are the only genuine articles in town. To keep peace in the family, those claims are not challenged nearly often enough.

5. As they grow older, those same children often fail to realize that religion is supposed to be a matter of personal inclination as opposed to an imposed demand. They were taught that religion is something to be imposed and that it involves a dispute between the "true" and the "untrue" ways on penalty of God's wrath, and they often enough believe it sincerely.

6. The cycle repeats itself, with every successive generation becoming less aware of what religion is suppose

Seems a bit anachronistic with terms like 'secular' and 'personal inclination'.

Conversions differed significantly between different groups. The Zoroastrians converted far more quickly than Christians (which consequently led to the significant Persian influence on certain Islamic traditions, most notable among the Shia and limited the Arabicisation of Persian culture).

It also misses out probably the most important source of conversion: mixed marriage.

Mixed marriages of Muslim and non-Muslim could only produce Muslim children. It was less about the parents converting (as per the video) than mixed marriage.

Many people seriously overestimate the degree to which large numbers of people actually chose to convert in general. The maths behind 50% in 400+ years in terms of % per year (minus the mixed marriage %) makes it pretty clear though.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Took 400 + years for the Middle East to become majority Muslim, and centuries of Muslim rule in India didn't lead to anything more than a minority Muslim population.

A couple of generations is usually pretty insignificant in religious demographics.



Seems a bit anachronistic with terms like 'secular' and 'personal inclination'.

Conversions differed significantly between different groups. The Zoroastrians converted far more quickly than Christians (which consequently led to the significant Persian influence on certain Islamic traditions, most notable among the Shia and limited the Arabicisation of Persian culture).

It also misses out probably the most important source of conversion: mixed marriage.

Mixed marriages of Muslim and non-Muslim could only produce Muslim children. It was less about the parents converting (as per the video) than mixed marriage.

Many people seriously overestimate the degree to which large numbers of people actually chose to convert in general. The maths behind 50% in 400+ years in terms of % per year (minus the mixed marriage %) makes it pretty clear though.
You overestimate the changes in mindsets along time.
 
You overestimate the changes in mindsets along time.

You overestimate the degree to which your own personal Westernised, educated, secular, humanistic mindset is representative even of the present, let alone the world of 1000 years ago. It's a common conceit.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Took 400 + years for the Middle East to become majority Muslim, and centuries of Muslim rule in India didn't lead to anything more than a minority Muslim population.

A couple of generations is usually pretty insignificant in religious demographics.



Seems a bit anachronistic with terms like 'secular' and 'personal inclination'.

Conversions differed significantly between different groups. The Zoroastrians converted far more quickly than Christians (which consequently led to the significant Persian influence on certain Islamic traditions, most notable among the Shia and limited the Arabicisation of Persian culture).

It also misses out probably the most important source of conversion: mixed marriage.

Mixed marriages of Muslim and non-Muslim could only produce Muslim children. It was less about the parents converting (as per the video) than mixed marriage.

Many people seriously overestimate the degree to which large numbers of people actually chose to convert in general. The maths behind 50% in 400+ years in terms of % per year (minus the mixed marriage %) makes it pretty clear though.
What do you make of the historicity of the claims of prominent American Muslim Yasir Qadhi who stated that "there is simply no denying that the Khulafa Rashidun and the Ummayads engaged in offensive conquests of other lands" with respect to the Sassanid empire and the Romans?

I understand that you may make the point that these were not in the nature of a religious conquest, but lets assume for the sake of argument that they were expanding purely for the sake of whatever those civilisations had to offer in terms of material benefits. I feel as though we cannot let them off the hook so easily because according to my understanding, the Ahmadiyya see the first 3 Sunni Caliphs as rightly guided in a spiritual sense, yet surely these wars of aggression for material gain were no different in principal to invading somone for their oil for example?
 
What do you make of the historicity of the claims of prominent American Muslim Yasir Qadhi who stated that "there is simply no denying that the Khulafa Rashidun and the Ummayads engaged in offensive conquests of other lands" with respect to the Sassanid empire and the Romans?

Of course they did, it's how all empires were formed.

How post-conquest populations changed culturally is a different issue though. It could even be the conquerers who changed rather than the conquered (for example the Mongols who later conquered the Islamic Empires became Muslims).

I understand that you may make the point that these were not in the nature of a religious conquest, but lets assume for the sake of argument that they were expanding purely for the sake of whatever those civilisations had to offer in terms of material benefits. I feel as though we cannot let them off the hook so easily because according to my understanding, the Ahmadiyya see the first 3 Sunni Caliphs as rightly guided in a spiritual sense, yet surely these wars of aggression for material gain were no different in principal to invading somone for their oil for example?

I was mainly pointing out that conversion of the population didn't require much conversion at an individual level, and was a very slow process.

The degree to which they were religious and/or material conquests is another (very complex) question altogether.
 
Top