Q:”How come in the early modern or medieval period the Muslims routinely outcomp

–Q:”How come in the early modern or medieval period the Muslims routinely outcompeted the Hindus in most fields whether militarily, conquering most of India, culturally or economically. When the British conquered India they preferred working with Muslims, seeing them as more advanced.”–@whatifalthist

Answer: (Despite I assume you know this) 😉
–“Post-1947, India’s stable democracy, economic reforms, and investment in education enabled it to outpace Pakistan, which faced political instability, limited industrialization, and security challenges.”–

This same argument applies to almost everything in the muslim world after the Turk’s conquest of Byzantium. Islamic civ started it’s decline in the 10th century with it’s switch to fundamentalism. Even though, Islamic civ was sufficiently organized for small organizations and their trade even over distances, and for agrarian production. And their use of gunpowder put the indians at a disadvantage. But, the absence of (rejection of) literacy, the low trust society, the inheritance laws, and the inability to form corporations – or any organization of scale – was out competed by the indians in no small part because as subject of british rule they inherited and applied much more advanced systems of government which made the opposite possible, and combined it with slow but successful expansion of education even despite the IQ distribution from northwest to southeast.
Islam is as cognitively and political deleterious as the pseudoscientific religion of the marxist socialist sequence is economically deleterious.
In fact, while Iran, Russia, and china continue to try to preserve the prewar centralization of power and government as a profit center for leading families, the only remaining threat to the world is Islam. The fact that we don’t admit it and only seek to outlast it under the presumption that it will reform is merely a convenience not a conviction.

CD

Reply addressees: @whatifalthist