Why is North Indian Buddhist Architecture being called Islamic?

Jun 2014
51
australia
#1
The Sassanid dynasty adopted North Indian Architectural styles, and these then went on to influence the Christians and Muslims, so why is it being called Islamic architecture?


Why is an Indian Architectural style being called Islamic? Whats Islamic about it?


Similarly, why do they say the Islamic rulers in India spoke persian or that India was persianised? They were speaking Hindi not persian. How do we differentiate between Sanskrit and Persian origin of words in Hindi? What exactly is persian about India?
 
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#2
The Sassanid dynasty adopted North Indian Architectural styles, and these then went on to influence the Christians and Muslims, so why is it being called Islamic architecture?


Why is an Indian Architectural style being called Islamic? Whats Islamic about it?


Similarly, why do they say the Islamic rulers in India spoke persian or that India was persianised? They were speaking Hindi not persian. How do we differentiate between Sanskrit and Persian origin of words in Hindi? What exactly is persian about India?
I really doubt that the muslim rulers of northern india,who were of afghan ,turkish or mongolic origin spoke hindi instead of persian.They spoke several languages and often emphasized their non-indian origin. Today urdu is full of persian words and even hindi had many persian words but indians replaced many of this words with sanskrit words.Northern india was very often invaded by central asian invaders and was heavily influenced by them.India was not the centre of the world an modern indian cultures are a mix of indo-aryan,drawidian,iranian and austroasiatic elements.Also islamic architecture is quite different from indian and was much more influenced by byzantine architecture than by indian.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#3
The Sassanid dynasty adopted North Indian Architectural styles, and these then went on to influence the Christians and Muslims, so why is it being called Islamic architecture?


Why is an Indian Architectural style being called Islamic? Whats Islamic about it?


Similarly, why do they say the Islamic rulers in India spoke persian or that India was persianised? They were speaking Hindi not persian. How do we differentiate between Sanskrit and Persian origin of words in Hindi? What exactly is persian about India?
Do you can prove that sassanians adopted indian architecture and that sassanians had no own architectural style?
 
Jun 2014
4,516
India
#4
I really doubt that the muslim rulers of northern india,who were of afghan ,turkish or mongolic origin spoke hindi instead of persian.They spoke several languages and often emphasized their non-indian origin. Today urdu is full of persian words and even hindi had many persian words but indians replaced many of this words with sanskrit words.Northern india was very often invaded by central asian invaders and was heavily influenced by them.India was not the centre of the world an modern indian cultures are a mix of indo-aryan,drawidian,iranian and austroasiatic elements.Also islamic architecture is quite different from indian and was much more influenced by byzantine architecture than by indian.
While it is true that muslim rulers in India were completely foreign in manners, languages, religion etc. I fail to see relevance of dravidian, IA and Austroasiatic elements here, no one is pure IE, all societies except in PIE homeland spoke some non IE language one time but it is hardly relevant. I have already asserted a simple point that Indians are only IE who atleast protected themselves from Semitic hurricane of Christianity and Islam, so if it is not pure IE, other IE societies are not IE at all.
I do not think that OP was even a bit correct about anything, no Muslim ruler spoke Hindi and Islamic architecture is just mixture of Persian and Byzantine which borrowed from older Roman and Mesopotamian models.
 
Mar 2014
185
Battlefield
#7
I do not get this completely, could you be more clear?
Sure! India remained enslaved by foreigners(Muslims & Christians) for >700 years. Although Indian subcontinent is still a Hindu majority but our demography & influence are fast falling w.r.t. to Muslims & Christians.

So to say that we protected from Semitic hurricane may not be false but given the results that protection seems quite inadequate
 
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#8
While it is true that muslim rulers in India were completely foreign in manners, languages, religion etc. I fail to see relevance of dravidian, IA and Austroasiatic elements here, no one is pure IE, all societies except in PIE homeland spoke some non IE language one time but it is hardly relevant. I have already asserted a simple point that Indians are only IE who atleast protected themselves from Semitic hurricane of Christianity and Islam, so if it is not pure IE, other IE societies are not IE at all.
I do not think that OP was even a bit correct about anything, no Muslim ruler spoke Hindi and Islamic architecture is just mixture of Persian and Byzantine which borrowed from older Roman and Mesopotamian models.
I agree with you that india resisted the influences of semitic religions.All modern indoeuropeans have adopted non-indoeuropean elements and pure indoeuropeans not exist and probably never existed.Indians are indoeuropeans but their modern specific culture is a mix of various elements.Other modern indoeuropeans were as much influenced by non-indoeuropeans like indians or even much more
 
Jun 2014
4,516
India
#9
Sure! India remained enslaved by foreigners(Muslims & Christians) for >700 years. Although Indian subcontinent is still a Hindu majority but our demography & influence are fast falling w.r.t. to Muslims & Christians.

So to say that we protected from Semitic hurricane may not be false but given the results that protection seems quite inadequate
Everything you say is similar to what I think in this regard. Yet, one sees some silver lining even in dismal affairs, the very fact that we are the only IE people who can trace our religion to non semitic sources is no mean thing. People often talk about how mammoth population of India protected its Islamisation but forget conveniently that India was not politically one and so different regions faced Islamic hurricane on strength of their own. Persia had more population than Sindh and it was Islamized in 6 centuries, Sindh even in 1940s had more than a quarter of its population as Hindus and that after 1200 years of Islamic rule.

Having said this, I agree that demography is changing, in 1900 dharmics were more than 75 percent of subcontinent, now they are 65 percent at most.
A society where religion is not organised for attaining political objectives will have deficiency compared to aggressive abrahmic ones.
 
Jun 2014
4,516
India
#10
I agree with you that india resisted the influences of semitic religions.All modern indoeuropeans have adopted non-indoeuropean elements and pure indoeuropeans not exist and probably never existed.Indians are indoeuropeans but their modern specific culture is a mix of various elements.Other modern indoeuropeans were as much influenced by non-indoeuropeans like indians or even much more
I have heard that there is some revival of Zoroastrianism among Tajiks of Tajikistan and zoroastrian comunity is not that weak there as it is in Persia.
 

Similar History Discussions