History bros here? Can anyone explain how Islam had managed to permanently replace the dominant religions of Iran and North India, 1000+ old at that moment, even after both had overthrown direct Arab (Umayad) rule? Was Islam geniunely this much more popular among lower classes of these societes than the religions of old? (I am prety certain that Islam is more historically progressive than Hinduism, but that alone doesn't mean much). Or Muslims just were so absurdly efficient colonisers?
>>2536062>1000+ years oldMy bad, Hinduism was more than TWO thousand years old at the time of Islamic conquest, and three thousand years old if one is willing to extend its history to the mythical time.
Its not that Islam is much more populist as the fact that Islamic sects provided avenue for legitimizing rebellions. If you were an Iranian or Indian during the Caliphate period you could just say that you were a partisan of Ali and suddenly you had a gazillion people fighting with you to kill and rob and the Arab lords and established Sunni clergy, something that was not possible with Zoroastrianism or Hinduism (at least until the emergence of the Marathas)
This is also the logic behind why you got so many fundamentalist protestant uprisings in Europe. If you want to fuck over the lord just say you were fighting to uphold the Bible against Popery and overnight you went from being a bandit to a peasant revolutionary
Conquest and jizz ya taxes
I feel like there's a connection between Abrahamic faiths and imperialism and they just tend to gel together very well.
>>2536294Medium sized feudal states in Europe were forced to adopt socially destabilizing technologies and methods to compete with each other, if Europe were pagan you would see shrines to Odin all over Asia, the Americas, and Africa
>>2536294They all go back to the old testament where God gave his people a pass to destroy Jericho or w/e. Its the basis for having a supremacist outcome
>>2536062It was more virulent form of a brain parasite compared to former religions.