Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

[kalu_miah]

That Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks is a stupid myth which was disproven by every genetic test which were done on Bengalis. Bengalis are genetically Muslim converted Dalits and they cluster neither with Arabs nor with Afghans or Turks, Persians... In genetical tests

First of all no one here is claiming that "Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks", I don't know where you got that strange idea.

2nd, can you show us some links to these genetic tests? I am curiously to see the results. It is already well understood and accepted that majority of Muslim Bengali's are Dalit converts. The point of contention with some Indians here is that according to them there was no, as in zero, migrant foreign Muslims in Bengal. Clearly that was not the case and there is plenty of proof for these migrations from credible historical sources which I am presenting here. I bet you did not care to read any of the posts from the beginning of this thread.

And by the way, when you say Turks, if you mean Antolian Turks who are largely local converts with small admixtures of Central Asians, there would be negligible number of such people that migrated to South Asia. The Turkic migrants were from Central Asia, not Anatolia.

I always reported such posts.But no use.
These people who spits such BS have ostrich mentality.They cant recognize anything that good in India.

Are you reporting the racist posts by Indians as well? The racism on display by Indian posters are sickening. What I see is that Pakistani posters are simply stepping in and countering those racist posts. And I can see why that is so:
A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post

So don't throw stones when you live in glass houses, get your own house in order, as in ask your Indian posters to behave first, but I know it is beyond your power to do that, so just get used to it. There is too much of that going on and there is too few moderators. And if you are going to report, report all such posts, regardless of the country of the poster.

 

[Cold Blood]

First of all no one here is claiming that "Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks", I don't know where you got that strange idea.

2nd, can you show us some links to these genetic tests? I am curiously to see the results. It is already well understood and accepted that majority of Muslim Bengali's are Dalit converts. The point of contention with some Indians here is that according to them there was no, as in zero, migrant foreign Muslims in Bengal. Clearly that was not the case and there is plenty of proof for these from credible historical sources which I am presenting here. I bet you did not care to read any of the posts from the beginning of this thread.

And by the way, when you say Turks, if you mean Antolian Turks who are largely local converts with small admixtures of Central Asians, there would be negligible number of such people that migrated to South Asia. The Turkic migrants were from Central Asia, not Anatolia.

East Bengal was probably the first place in South Asia for Muslim migration. Recently an ancient mosque have been discovered in Rangpur which, according to a British archaeologist, is the first mosque in South Asia.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have already said in my previous post, that you are entitled to your opinion, I will not call them preposterous or baseless, just simply wrong according to the material I have presented so far and will continue to present. And people can read English and make up their own mind to decide which one is the correct view based on these verified sources. You are welcome to present any counter argument with cited credible source materials, not just your conjectures.

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I have scrupulously cited your own references, which presumably are credible source materials.

Where does the question of my own conjectures come into the picture?

A possible explanation might be that you have not actually read what has been said, or cited, or posted.

 

[Joe Shearer]

First of all no one here is claiming that "Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks", I don't know where you got that strange idea.

2nd, can you show us some links to these genetic tests? I am curiously to see the results. It is already well understood and accepted that majority of Muslim Bengali's are Dalit converts. The point of contention with some Indians here is that according to them there was no, as in zero, migrant foreign Muslims in Bengal. Clearly that was not the case and there is plenty of proof for these migrations from credible historical sources which I am presenting here. I bet you did not care to read any of the posts from the beginning of this thread.

And by the way, when you say Turks, if you mean Antolian Turks who are largely local converts with small admixtures of Central Asians, there would be negligible number of such people that migrated to South Asia. The Turkic migrants were from Central Asia, not Anatolia.

Did he even mention Anatolia in his post?

Nobody speaking about Turks or Turkic influence in the context of south Asia has anything in mind but the tribes and ethnicities of central Asia.

Are you reporting the racist posts by Indians as well? The racism on display by Indian posters are sickening. What I see is that Pakistani posters are simply stepping in and countering those racist posts. And I can see why that is so:
A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post

So don't throw stones when you live in glass houses, get your own house in order, as in ask your Indian posters to behave first, but I know it is beyond your power to do that, so just get used to it. There is too much of that going on and there is too few moderators. And if you are going to report, report all such posts, regardless of the country of the poster.

Weird map, considering that the portion marked in deepest red is where the greatest number of diverse races actually live together in a practicing democracy, and where divergent and admittedly dominated sections of the population have been burgeoning in numbers; that one large section marked in the deepest blue has had the greatest criminal record in matters of race in the history of the world, and continues to slaughter through its military machine those who diverge from its own standards of social behaviour.

A map where portions next to the deepest red are marked pleasing hues of powder blue, where one portion systematically slaughters its own races, one sect at a time, through well-organised and state-subsidised bands of armed assassins, and the other portion has reduced its variant sections of the population down to nearly zero.

Race is not everything. Racial tolerance is not the only tolerance to be measured.

You use good references, normally, ones that are relevant and useful; it is interesting to find that you falter on occasion.

East Bengal was probably the first place in South Asia for Muslim migration. Recently an ancient mosque have been discovered in Rangpur which, according to a British archaeologist, is the first mosque in South Asia.

A citation please. Which British archaeologist might this be? Considering that one mosque in Kerala may have been built during the lifetime of Muhammed, this makes strange reading.

And in Rangpur? Really? The first mosque? A part of Bangladesh that may have seen its first converts long after the coast, long after those converted by Bakhtiyar Khalji's ghazis?

 

[Charon 2]

First of all no one here is claiming that "Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks", I don't know where you got that strange idea.

2nd, can you show us some links to these genetic tests? I am curiously to see the results. It is already well understood and accepted that majority of Muslim Bengali's are Dalit converts. The point of contention with some Indians here is that according to them there was no, as in zero, migrant foreign Muslims in Bengal. Clearly that was not the case and there is plenty of proof for these migrations from credible historical sources which I am presenting here. I bet you did not care to read any of the posts from the beginning of this thread.

And by the way, when you say Turks, if you mean Antolian Turks who are largely local converts with small admixtures of Central Asians, there would be negligible number of such people that migrated to South Asia. The Turkic migrants were from Central Asia, not Anatolia.



Are you reporting the racist posts by Indians as well? The racism on display by Indian posters are sickening. What I see is that Pakistani posters are simply stepping in and countering those racist posts. And I can see why that is so:
A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post

So don't throw stones when you live in glass houses, get your own house in order, as in ask your Indian posters to behave first, but I know it is beyond your power to do that, so just get used to it. There is too much of that going on and there is too few moderators. And if you are going to report, report all such posts, regardless of the country of the poster.

Bengalis have some East Asian admixture but that comes mainly from Sino-Tibetan speaking Mongoloids like Burmanese peoples


I am showing only the first 12 ancestral components since all the rest were less than 0.5% for all the Bengalis (Spreadsheet).

Bengalis | Harappa Ancestry Project

They also used Altaian (a Turkic people) as proxy for admixture but as you can see the Altaian admixture is not worth mentioning

 

[Moander]

That Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks is a stupid myth which was disproven by every genetic test which were done on Bengalis. Bengalis are genetically Muslim converted Dalits and they cluster neither with Arabs nor with Afghans or Turks, Persians... In genetical tests

From where the samples are taken from west Bengal or Bangladesh? Is the sample large and diverse enough to generalize the result?

 

[TopCat]

Bengalis have some East Asian admixture but that comes mainly from Sino-Tibetan speaking Mongoloids like Burmanese peoples


I am showing only the first 12 ancestral components since all the rest were less than 0.5% for all the Bengalis (Spreadsheet).

Bengalis | Harappa Ancestry Project

They also used Altaian (a Turkic people) as proxy for admixture but as you can see the Altaian admixture is not worth mentioning

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

East Bengal was probably the first place in South Asia for Muslim migration. Recently an ancient mosque have been discovered in Rangpur which, according to a British archaeologist, is the first mosque in South Asia.

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

First of all no one here is claiming that "Bengalis are predominantly descendants from foreign Muslim invaders like Arabs, Afghans, Persians or Turks", I don't know where you got that strange idea.

2nd, can you show us some links to these genetic tests? I am curiously to see the results. It is already well understood and accepted that majority of Muslim Bengali's are Dalit converts. The point of contention with some Indians here is that according to them there was no, as in zero, migrant foreign Muslims in Bengal. Clearly that was not the case and there is plenty of proof for these migrations from credible historical sources which I am presenting here. I bet you did not care to read any of the posts from the beginning of this thread.

And by the way, when you say Turks, if you mean Antolian Turks who are largely local converts with small admixtures of Central Asians, there would be negligible number of such people that migrated to South Asia. The Turkic migrants were from Central Asia, not Anatolia.



Are you reporting the racist posts by Indians as well? The racism on display by Indian posters are sickening. What I see is that Pakistani posters are simply stepping in and countering those racist posts. And I can see why that is so:
A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post

So don't throw stones when you live in glass houses, get your own house in order, as in ask your Indian posters to behave first, but I know it is beyond your power to do that, so just get used to it. There is too much of that going on and there is too few moderators. And if you are going to report, report all such posts, regardless of the country

Dalit hardly converted anywhere in India. They remained dalit till this day. In East Bengal it was mostly buddhist who were considered lower caste converted en-mass. Then again most of the hindu people at that time were Peasant (again low caste yet not that low), fishermen (low caste) got converted. 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.

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.

 

[Charon 2]

I

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



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




Dalit hardly converted anywhere in India. They remained dalit till this day. In East Bengal it was mostly buddhist who were considered lower caste converted en-mass. Then again most of the hindu people at that time were Peasant (again low caste yet not that low), fishermen (low caste) got converted. 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.

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.

Not really. If you had read my link you would have known that Muslims were also taken as sample and there is no huge genetic differences between Hindu Bengalis and Muslim Bengalis. In fact there appear to be the same on average

 

[scorpionx]

So you are presenting the British Raj bullshits as facts? They didn't even realize that East Bengal was actually a Muslim dominated region until the end of 19th century and you are using their interpretations to determine the genealogy of Bengali Muslims? I'm not at all paranoid with Arabian or Central Asian ancestry, but you do realize that Bengali is an ethnicity based on wide range of racial mixtures, applicable to both the Hindus and Muslims.

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.

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.

 

[Roybot]

From where the samples are taken from west Bengal or Bangladesh? Is the sample large and diverse enough to generalize the result?

Sorry for being crass, but you don't need samples or studies to tell whether Bangladeshis have any major Turkic, Persian or Afghan genes in them.

 

[TopCat]

I



Not really. If you had read my link you would have known that Muslims were also taken as sample and there is no huge genetic differences between Hindu Bengalis and Muslim Bengalis. In fact there appear to be the same on average

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

 

[Cold Blood]

Did he even mention Anatolia in his post?

Nobody speaking about Turks or Turkic influence in the context of south Asia has anything in mind but the tribes and ethnicities of central Asia.



Weird map, considering that the portion marked in deepest red is where the greatest number of diverse races actually live together in a practicing democracy, and where divergent and admittedly dominated sections of the population have been burgeoning in numbers; that one large section marked in the deepest blue has had the greatest criminal record in matters of race in the history of the world, and continues to slaughter through its military machine those who diverge from its own standards of social behaviour.

A map where portions next to the deepest red are marked pleasing hues of powder blue, where one portion systematically slaughters its own races, one sect at a time, through well-organised and state-subsidised bands of armed assassins, and the other portion has reduced its variant sections of the population down to nearly zero.

Race is not everything. Racial tolerance is not the only tolerance to be measured.

You use good references, normally, ones that are relevant and useful; it is interesting to find that you falter on occasion.



A citation please. Which British archaeologist might this be? Considering that one mosque in Kerala may have been built during the lifetime of Muhammed, this makes strange reading.

And in Rangpur? Really? The first mosque? A part of Bangladesh that may have seen its first converts long after the coast, long after those converted by Bakhtiyar Khalji's ghazis?

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

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



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




Dalit hardly converted anywhere in India. They remained dalit till this day. In East Bengal it was mostly buddhist who were considered lower caste converted en-mass. Then again most of the hindu people at that time were Peasant (again low caste yet not that low), fishermen (low caste) got converted. 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.

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.

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

 

[Charon 2]

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

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

 

[TopCat]

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

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

 

[eastwatch]

Bengalis have some East Asian admixture but that comes mainly from Sino-Tibetan speaking Mongoloids like Burmanese peoples


I am showing only the first 12 ancestral components since all the rest were less than 0.5% for all the Bengalis (Spreadsheet).

Bengalis | Harappa Ancestry Project

They also used Altaian (a Turkic people) as proxy for admixture but as you can see the Altaian admixture is not worth mentioning

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 and analyze it to know which types of people immigrated here during historical times.

Sorry for being crass, but you don't need samples or studies to tell whether Bangladeshis have any major Turkic, Persian or Afghan genes in them.

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!!!