The Gentle Power of the Sufi Tradition

oye yar all murad is saying as that shankara is not the same league as other. i think i agree with him..noone knows about shankara or what he stands for and such. certainly 80% of "hindoos" dont. not the same with guatama, nanakji, yesu or offcourse muhammed.

hindoos are simply ignorant people about teaching their kids "history", instead they teach them unverifiable myths. all other real religions, give their children a solid foundation on jihadis of their religions, reiterate the good and supress the bad. hindutvas tried a little bit with vivekandand and such but the larger hindoo is simply ignorant. he knows little abour shankara..for vast majority of hindus e.g. of north india hinduism is saying om jai jagadish hare and eating prashad while wearing a ghunghat.

given this, its a tough to put shankara in the same dais as others..in fact there is noone amongst the hindoo who can share that dais, so i would suggest that hindoos better give up on that.

"Buddha and Muhammad were founders of religion(s) and as such I would not consider them evangelists"

So If Adi Shankara had founded Hinduism and done everything else the same, converting etc , he would not have been an evangelist ?

So then murad's criticism of Shankara , in this respect of evangelism , is only that he didn't found a religion ?

( Om, please understand I am not trying here to get to your conception of evangelism but whether murad had a conception of evangelism that is internally coherent or a reflection of prejudice ?)

"Jains and Buddhists were not much different from Hindus"

I didn't present that argument, only that Hindu view is non exclusivist, and the muslim view is so, and the consequences for "imperialistic spread" and violence are different in both.

#320 om_prakash

[One could argue that evangelism is a christianity-specific term and has no meaning outside of it.]

I am curious. How would one "argue" that?

[Regarding Muhammad, he was not arguing theological points to convert. Again, technically, I would not consider it evangelism. I would not consider Khilji an evangelist either. ]

That sounds very technical indeed. Now where did you find that you have to "argue theological points" to be an evangelist?

This is most curious. Do tell.

Publius
To recap what I said - Shankara was an evangelist, converting Jains and Buddhists. As to the argument that Jains and Buddhists were not much different from Hindus, I cited instances where such conversion was accompanied by violence.
Buddha and Muhammad were founders of religion(s) and as such I would not consider them evangelists. Forced conversion is forced conversion, not evangelism in my book. In the case of Buddha, I don't think he particularly cared to start a movement.
Anything else?

#300 muradbaig

[Yes quite a lot including the Rgveda, Gita, summaries of the other vedas, upanishads, Sankhya, Dvaitya, Advaitya, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Osho and others. ]

Have you noticed how you avoided my first question in #298, but answered the second?

Could you please address the first question, then I could give you a comprehensive response?

No om I am not off topic, if violence done in the name of superior god is relevant to shankara , then it is equally relevant to muhammad.

I would like a clear definition of "evangelism" that includes Buddha and Muhammad but not Shankara. Please state your defintion explicitly.

Jang
Read my previous post on the killing of Jains in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

Publius
You are going off topic here trying to compare violence in different religions.
I don't consider Buddha an evangelist. He had a realization that he felt he had to share. I don't think he had a conception of a 'Buddhism'. He was opposed to organized religion any way.

Let me also ask you om , in your conception of evangelism, was Buddha an evangelist ?

"at some airy. philosophical level. These could be life and death conflicts"

At times yes but we are talking here of whether the Hindu conception of God and religion in comparison to muslim conception of God and religion caused greater violence in the name of superior God.

And how murad can escape accepting that difference and it's consequences.

So once again I ask you which history, on the standard of violence in the name of superior god is worse and why ?

omp i dont know what you are talking of, i am talking of deeksha jains of today take based on talking with them (i talk to a lot of jains since i am from bombay and its full of it).

i was surprised to learn that there are 100 odd sects in jains!

Jang
If it was as simple as that why did the Jains convert to escape death?

Publius
My point in bringing up sectarian fighting within 'hinduism' is to point out that the differences were not simply at some airy. philosophical level. These could be life and death conflicts.

#331 SaimaShah

[The facts are that the essence of all religions is the same. Hinduism and Islam are aspects of the same truth. I mean they are the same. ]

Saima,

In a sense, all religions serve to fulfill some basic needs of human beings which are universal in nature. Most people are not theologians, and don't bother themselves with the intricate or simple theologies of their respective "faiths". Without something to hold on to, this universe can seem a pretty bleak place, and in that sense, all religions/faiths serve a useful purpose in providing that mental crutch.

But the similarity ends there. Islam, indeed all Abrahamic faiths are political in nature, and seem to have the goal of winning the numbers game by attrition. As for philosophy, on which for example the indic "religions" are based, there is NONE in any of the Abrahamic faiths. I know this because I have actually taken the trouble to wade through the Koran, the Bible and the Torah. Not one word that would stimulate any intellectual curiosity in a thinking person. Unthinkable that people could be reading that stuff day in and day out.

In any case, I recognize that your intention is noble. But you are part of the entity called Islam, and just like an ant in an ant-colony has no clue about what the purpose of the overall ant colony is, and how it's role fits into and enables the overall effort, so too you have no idea of your enabling role in the survival and propagation of Islam. You, and Osama Bin Laden, drink from the same well. In fact, people like Urstruly and Osama Bin Laden are much more harmful for the cause of Islam than are people like you, Tahmed and Om Prakash, just to name a few. People like Urstruly and Bin Laden are overt, not deceptive, so Islam's opponents find a clear target that liberals find hard to divert the world's attention from. People like Tahmed, Murad etc. intentionally deceive the world to give non-Muslim liberals some ammunition against those that could do any harm to Islam. People like you, who are in all probability well-intentioned, merely serve as a defensive shield for Islam - much like any civilian muslim population provides cover for Islamic terrorists. People like you, wittingly or unwittingly, provide cover and sustenance for people who carry on Islam's agenda. Well-meaning non-Muslims are reluctant to take a decisive stand against Islam for fear of collateral damage - to people like yourself.

in indian shyte, you get a deeksha..become a follower of a guru. its not a conversion..but formal declaration, of acceptance of a guru.

e.g. even today, jains themselves at times take deeksha from a specific sect guru..they convert from jain to jain. its not the same as a "conversion"...so different.

The essential meaning of evangelist has to be a person trying to convert people from one religion to another through preaching. Muhammad fits that definition clearly. Moreover the message of Muhammad makes such efforts more likely.


--------

"violence over which god is superior"

Let me ask you om, If violence done in the name of a superior god was the moral standard which history, Hindu or muslim, would turn out be worse ? And why ?

------------------

"is there a law in India against Muslims reverting back"

dost_mittar , meant, internally binding of course i.e the religion insists that apostasy is a punishable crime vs a religion that doesn't.