The Gentle Power of the Sufi Tradition

Thanks for this wonderful gently written historical summary of sufism in the sub-continent. I enjoyed this very much.

From what I understand, had Shankara lost any of his debates, he would have had to give up Hinduism also.

Publius
Did you know that once they were defeated (and they all were) Adi Shankara's adversaries had to renounce their religion?
This was a cut-throat affair and Shankara's mission was to save Hinduism from Jainism and Buddhism.
Frankly I don't see a negative connotation to this.

The opposite of "excluisvist view of God and religion" is not that all religions are the same.

om,

From Shankar's pov what was "wrong" with Jainism and Buddhism were certain false views or doctrines, not that they were not the "true creed " from God and Shankara's was.

(In particular the Buddhist view of no self etc).

laddu
I agree with you on conversion by the sword. Murad Baig also has alluded to it in his reference to the different phases in Muhammad's life.

Publius
If Hinduism was the same as Jainism and Buddhism, where was the need to preach or convert?

om,

In the context of this discussion evangelism means having an exclusivist view of god and religion and trying to bering people to that view( which is why murad associated a negative with it). If he had meant just enthusiastic advocacy of a view, no matter what and how it would not have a negative meaning at all.

We can call it X if you like and then it becomes clear that Muhammad and Shankara were different on this parameter.

"arguing theological points to convert"

You don't have argue theological points, only preach that you have the best, final , the only really true message of God for it to constitute "evangelism" as per above.

Mohammad found the ultimate technique for 'evangelism' - it is called DAWAH by Sword.

The arguments are finally settled by Sword.

He who wins in the war of Sword may be considered to have the best argument!!

since, Mohammad won so many wars - hence his arguments were the best!!

QED

Publius
One could argue that evangelism is a christianity-specific term and has no meaning outside of it.
If you go beyond that, then the dictionary definition is an enthusiatic advocacy of a view, philosophy, etc.

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.

"debating and converting."

om in that sense anybody trying to convince anybody else through philosophical arguments can be termed an evangelist. I don't think that is right.

An evangelist is somebody who believes in " the one true creed" based on divine revelation and seeks to convert others to that creed.

The term is far far more applicable to Islam and Muhammad than Shankara and his ideas.

"converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations"

I don't see the difference between converting and "acquiring followers" in this context.

Besides, Muhammad was not a jew.

om_Prakashji:

My understanding is that Muhammad himself claimed to have not brought any new message; the message was the same as brought by earlier prophets, he was sent merely to correct the distortions that had creeped into the followers of the earlier prophets.

dost_mittar
Islam is supposed to be Judaism AND MORE. It was not simply a sect of Judaism with Muhammad as its head.

om_prakash:

"Technically I suppose Muhammad was not an evangelist since he was the founder of Islam and he was not converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations."

Technically, Muhammad did not "found" Islam. Technically, Islam is supposed to be the same religion as was preached by Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Muhammad was only the last messenger of the same message.

muradbaig
Adi Shankara travelled all the way from Kerala to Kashmir debating and converting Buddhists and Jains when they were defeated. In this sense, he definitely was an evangelist.

Technically I suppose Muhammad was not an evangelist since he was the founder of Islam and he was not converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations.

Jesus most definitely was not an evangelist. He remained a jew who was trying to reform the religion from within.