Hello Mohammed
I went to Wikipedia on "Muslim conquest of India". Interesting article, it seems the Muslims never really had a strong hold on that part of the world; they were always putting down rebellions.
The article offers the reason for conversions:
Conversion theories
Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion as to how conversion to Islam came about in Indian subcontinent, typically represented by the following schools of thought:[136]
Conversion was a combination, initially by violence, threat or other pressure against the person.[136]
As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time into the sphere of the dominant Muslim civilization and global polity at large.[137]
That conversions occurred for non-religious reasons of pragmatism and patronage such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite[136][137]
That the bulk of Muslims are descendants of migrants from the Iranian plateau or Arabs.[137]
Conversion was a result of the actions of Sufi saints and involved a genuine change of heart.[136]
Probably all these reasons applied. And, of course, critics and apologists will emphasize the reasons that support their world view.
--------------
The zakat is, I believe, a voluntary tax dedicated to the poor. The taxes I was referring to were the general taxes used to operate the state. There's no way the zakat could have financed those armies.
The same Wiki article hints at a discriminatory tax:
The Sultans of Delhi enjoyed cordial, if superficial, relations with Muslim rulers in the Near East but owed them no allegiance. They based their laws on the Quran and the sharia and permitted non-Muslim subjects to practice their religion only if they paid the jizya (poll tax).
-----------------
Whether this history is right or wrong, it is still your battle to fight, not mine.
I read a popular Catholic apologist who believed that an earlier Crusade came close to toppling Muslim rule in the Levant, releasing the yoke of oppression from the Muslim rulers. The Muslims would have been free to convert to Christianity--and many would have done so-- if only a Christian general had made the right moves on a battlefield.
I just point this out because i think both you and I know this historian is wrong. But he is popular.
And people are scared of Sharia Law. So too am I.
We always need to challenge our knowledge of history for there are many interpretations of history--even before the internet.
I should spend more time on learning more history, but I have better version of democracy to promote. Until I see a good example from the Muslim world, I need to put my spare time and energy on this project.
