How did Bengal become Muslim majority?

[bluesky]

 

[Shorisrip]

Not a very accurate video. For a more correct perspective, people should read "The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier. 1204-1760" by Dr. Richard Eaton.

 

[bluesky]

Not a very accurate video. For a more correct perspective, people should read "The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier. 1204-1760" by Dr. Richard Eaton.

What kind of comment is this? Can a 10 minute video tell you all things of the past? I have verified the video and what it says is (almost) true within the limit. Read also many other authentic books on history in Persian language written during that long Muslim period which have been translated into English and Bengali.

Richard Eaton is certainly not the sole British author. Read also "History of Bengal" by Charles Stewart, and another with the same name by Bucanan or Buchanan. Read also "Bangalar Itihash" by Rakhaldas Bannerjy and "Gour Kahini" by Shailendranath.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Question on Laalan Fakir : ( did I get the spelling right?)
It has been disputed if Laalan was Muslim. Indians say he was merely an ideological rebel of Hindu origin who was against the caste system.
What is the Bangladeshi perspective on this?

 

[Shorisrip]

What kind of comment is this? Can a 10 minute video tell you all things of the past? I have verified the video and what it says is (almost) true within the limit. Read also many other authentic books on history in Persian language written during that long Muslim period which have been translated into English and Bengali.

Richard Eaton is certainly not the sole British author. Read also "History of Bengal" by Charles Stewart, and another with the same name by Bucanan or Buchanan. Read also "Bangalar Itihash" by Rakhaldas Bannerjy and "Gour Kahini" by Shailendranath.

The latter books are good, but I personally think the video is an oversimplification. Viewers will definitely get the wrong idea. You shouldn't compress such a complex history into a 10 minute video. That's very irresponsible on the Channel's part.

 

[Arthur]

Question on Laalan Fakir : ( did I get the spelling right?)
It has been disputed if Laalan was Muslim. Indians say he was merely an ideological rebel of Hindu origin who was against the caste system.
What is the Bangladeshi perspective on this?

!!
You have to realise that man never had faith in organised religion!!

 

[bluesky]

The latter books are good, but I personally think the video is an oversimplification. Viewers will definitely get the wrong idea. You shouldn't compress such a complex history into a 10 minute video. That's very irresponsible on the Channel's part.

I myself did not produce the video, but can you tell me which part is soooo much away from the reality in the video? There are multiple videos on different historical subjects throughout the world.

People should take this kind of video with a positive mind. There are many people who can learn from what this video said, but you are giving objections for nothing.

Please, be positive. I find this quite informative within a limit. If you do not like it, I ask you to send another video that has more information.

 

[Michael Corleone]

oversimplification

that's the point, youtube algorithm is a bitch these days other wise other videos from this channel go into much more details

 

[Shorisrip]

I myself did not produce the video, but can you tell me which part is soooo much away from the reality in the video? There are multiple videos on different historical subjects throughout the world.

People should take this kind of video with a positive mind. There are many people who can learn from what this video said, but you are giving objections for nothing.

Please, be positive. I find this quite informative within a limit. If you do not like it, I ask you to send another video that has more information.

Of course its still a positive message in the video, but history cannot be understand in such a short time. The guy for e.g. talks about conquest of various regions, but fails to explain why it was Bengal but not core Hindi belt that turned majority Muslim when that was the region home to seat of the Muslim imperial powers. It is the social implications of the "why" that he fails to explain, which is of course understandable given its a 10 minute video. His pronunciation is also very horrible, which probably implies that he only has rudimentary knowledge in the matter. Having said that, there's no point in arguing, not everyone will share the same viewpoint.

 

[bluesky]

The latter books are good, but I personally think the video is an oversimplification. Viewers will definitely get the wrong idea. You shouldn't compress such a complex history into a 10 minute video. That's very irresponsible on the Channel's part.

But, you are avoiding to tell us what is the oversimplification or what may be the wrong message?

The commentator did not deal with politics of those days, but dealt with the flow of people from west of India to its east in Bengal. On the contrary, Richard Eaton wrote about the sequential political history along with the dynasties.

Why should you here talk about the book Eaton compiled.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

Muslims had a keen eye for strategic lands because of their inherent ideological sense.... which is why they mostly settled in places of most strategic importance.... most of the world's most important strategic choke-points (except South Africa, Panama, Strait of Magellan and some others) are or had been Muslim lands.... this is the reason Islam proliferated more on the most important parts of the Indian Subcontinent....

the British, though following a different ideology, had a similar sense for strategic lands.... which is why they also went for the strategically most important lands.... just see the British map of India of 1857... also British possessions from Gibraltar to Malacca Strait....