Which of these is most likely true regarding the spread of Islam in South Asia?

[phk]

Choose whatever you like.

[Χahar]

All of the above.

[Frodo]

Combo of all except option 1. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

2-7 were all true at various times throughout history.

[dead0man]

Isn't this a "what color is the sky" kind of a poll?  There is a correct, factual answer for this question.

[Χahar]

Isn't this a "what color is the sky" kind of a poll?  There is a correct, factual answer for this question.

And which one is that?

[Gustaf]

Isn't this a "what color is the sky" kind of a poll?  There is a correct, factual answer for this question.

And which one is that?

The sky changes colour from day to night!

[J. J.]

3, 4, 6.

I've never heard of an Arabian fleet conquering  the Philippines. 

I basically think that for the last 2,000 years, monotheism has been on the rise. 

[The Mikado]

It should be noted that before Islam (and to a greatly reduced extent after) there was a soup of related sects (Nestorian Christianity, monophysite Christianity, Manicheanism, Mandaeanism, Zoroastrianism, etc..) which flung themselves across the globe and paved the way for Islam's spread.  To the objective eye of the Chinese Emperor, all of these sects were one ("the Persian religion"), and they were vigorously persecuted there to maintain traditional Chinese homogeneity.  Other peoples without a strongly rooted high Culture obviously found the Persian religion irrestistible.

Incidentally, I recently discovered that I'd been pronouncing Monophysite Christianity incorrectly.

I hate when you see a word a ton in print but have never heard it spoken.

[Senator Sbane]

3, 4, 6.

I've never heard of an Arabian fleet conquering  the Philippines. 

I basically think that for the last 2,000 years, monotheism has been on the rise. 

I think forced conversions also happened a lot, especially in the western part of South Asia (modern day Pakistan). Of course there was more to the spread of Islam than just that. I say a combination of 2,3,4 and 5. 

As for #5, low caste Hindus might have converted to Islam to escape the caste system, but they could never totally escape it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims

Buddhists also converted to Islam in large numbers, especially in east Bengal IIRC.

[Bo]

All except 1.

[phk]

All except 1.

#2 would be an inaccurate depiction.  Islam really entered Southeast Asia through traders and merchants, not warlords.

Some Sultanates may have gone to war with non-Islamic kingdoms, but I'm not really familiar with any mass-conversations by the sword.

#7 is the most true imo.  "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. Like a more peacful version of #1."

Anyone mentioning "spheres" and "polities" knows something about pre-modern Southeast Asia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(Southeast_Asian_history)

This is about South Asia (modern-day Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) not Southeast Asia.

[Lunar]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[kashifsakhan]

none of the above

[Senator Sbane]

none of the above

Elaborate.

[Torie]

In Malaysia and Indonesia, it was due to the Koran being a rather useful uniform commercial code, that gave trade advantages to the Sultans, and because the Portuguese were such vicious predatory religious fanatics, while the Muslims just wanted to make money. How times have changed. In India, as I understand it, many of the Muslims were former Hindu untouchables, that decided to opt out of a religion were they were treated like sh**t. Read my friend Bill Bernstein's book on the history of trade, and you can find out all about this stuff. I read the whole book in one sitting. I could not put it down.

[phk]

In Malaysia and Indonesia, it was due to the Koran being a rather useful uniform commercial code, that gave trade advantages to the Sultans, and because the Portuguese were such vicious predatory religious fanatics, while the Muslims just wanted to make money. How times have changed. In India, as I understand it, many of the Muslims were former Hindu untouchables, that decided to opt out of a religion were they were treated like sh**t. Read my friend Bill Bernstein's book on the history of trade, and you can find out all about this stuff. I read the whole book in one sitting. I could not put it down.

You know Bernstein?

[Torie]

In Malaysia and Indonesia, it was due to the Koran being a rather useful uniform commercial code, that gave trade advantages to the Sultans, and because the Portuguese were such vicious predatory religious fanatics, while the Muslims just wanted to make money. How times have changed. In India, as I understand it, many of the Muslims were former Hindu untouchables, that decided to opt out of a religion were they were treated like sh**t. Read my friend Bill Bernstein's book on the history of trade, and you can find out all about this stuff. I read the whole book in one sitting. I could not put it down.

You know Bernstein?

Yes. I actually "met" him on the internet, when he was a neurologist full time.  Since then, he has become a money manager, written articles, been quoted often in the WSJ, and authored several books, a couple of which I helped edit and comment upon in a modest way. We also did quite a bit of financial research together, using the data base which French of Fama/French fame, gave Bill back in the 1990's, including in particular expected equity permia, and the issue of whether or not the value premia exists, and if so, whether additional risk attends it, and/or whether it is due to "irrational" behavior ala the Richard Thaler model. We also "invented" "Dunn's Law" together (Bill decided that "Dunn's Law" sounded catchier than "Bernstein's Law.") 

I am going to see him again this September in Philadelphia at the Boglehead conclave that we have every couple of years in various places around the country.

I love the internet.