I think in the context of India it is unfair to call 10% population as Minority. 10% of Indian population is ~135 Million, that is more than the population of several countries.
This is a false argument. Muslims were majority in Kashmir before the exodus of Hindus. Your wiki link states that 300,000 to 600,000 Hindus left Kashmir due to the targeted violence. Muslims were in majority even if you include a Hindu majority Jammu. (https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/share-of-muslims...)
The reason of the violence against Hindus is the Indian government's desire to fully integrate Kashmir into India and deny the special provisions Kashmir was given as precondition to merge into the Union of India.
Muslims first came into Kashmir as refugees when they were fleeing the caliphate.
Muslims got Pakistan and were through in ethnically cleansing the country.
Kashmir & Pakistan is a lesson for the rest of the world, particularly Europe on why Muslims can not be trusted.
Where they are in majority, they have no problem carrying out genocides and ethnic cleansing.
When they are in simple minority they carry out riots and secession.
When they are in small minority they cry "Islamaphobia" and want minority privileges.
This above seems to be universal and is said to be inline with their teachings.
Sadly a soft government has proved time and again its inability to protect its citizens from Islamic genocide.
Well, if you go far enough back in history, it went frmo 0% Hindu and random other tribal religions to mostly Hindu, right?
That's the problem with "going far enough back in history", depending on how far you go, you can get rid of anything (even people), so you either need to provide bounds on how far you go back and why, justifying it, or you might as well not bring up that argument at all.
Islam as with Christianity was a one man, one book affair from the relatively recent time.
The older traditions much of which do not exist thanks to the two above religions, were timeless and pluralistic.
Hinduism has no known history and is assumed to be evolved through the ages, like food or music - Hinduism is unbounded and untethered.
Islam in Pakistan or Kashmir specifically has ethnically cleansed almost all non-muslims, imposes urdu at the cost of local languages and culture, and is now targeting smaller denominations as not being Islamic enough.
No, Islam is an evolutionary offshoot of Christianity. Christianity is an evolutionary offshoot of Judaism. Judaism in incorporated many aspects of Zoroastrianism.
If you're going to make some claim that Hinduism has no discernible stages that can be tracked anthropologically over history that we can look to, that would make it unique among human inventions and beliefs. Such an extraordinary claim needs strong evidence to be accepted.
Hinduism is a jungle anything can grow on its own merit.
Christianity is a strawberry farm with a farmer for whom anything that is not strawberry is weed.
Islam is a corn farm with a corn farmer.
Both farmers want to slash and burn the jungle to expand their farm. And just because the charred remains of the jungle add nutrition to the soil does not mean it is being "incorporated".
There are very few Zorastrians in Iran, the greatest numbers live in India.
I did read the entire article, which documented a pattern of back and forth communal violence stretching back decades. My point was that it's odd to focus on the one wave of refugees and ignore the others. Reparations for historical wrongs shouldn't be restricted to just one group.
> Idol-worshippers like Hindus are considered beastly and low-life. So don't expect foreigners to accept what Hindus says as our moralities are going to cut through their doctrinal abhrahamic morality though they are separate religions.
Once you start telling people your opposition's views, you're stepping into territory that weakens your own argument. This is a textbook example. All you've done is spread the rhetoric of your own side about how the other side views you, which is propaganda.
In the US, this would be akin to BLM stating that anyone that disagrees with their movement is racist and sees them as sub-human, or the police stating that the defund the police movement is about disbanding the police entirely. While there are obviously subsets of people that do believe those things, those are not the stances of the respective groups and do to convey the overall aims of each.
Why should your self-serving statement that vilifies your opposition be viewed any differently?
seriously? Someone who's generally considered to have been very racist is your reference for what people think today? Not exactly a good argument for why you should be taken seriously.
