Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
@sankrant
Jan 27, 2021 • 57 tweets • 19 min read • Read on X
“Monotheism” does not mean “God is one.” It means “there is one God, that god is MY god, all others are FALSE gods.”

There is no concept of “false gods” in Advaita or Hindu philosophy, no concept of “shirk.”

Monotheism is an imperialist ideology of intolerance and erasure.
Most Hindus don’t understand this (Sikhs do even less).

Neither Sanatan nor Sikhi is “monotheistic.” Monotheism is an ideology of supremacy, the elevation of a petty tribal god to the pretense of the Universal. It is ignorant tribalism universalized.

https://t.co/JDhOHnmGIT
Only the Univeral Consciousness can say no matter who you pray to, the prayers come to me.

A petty jealous rakshas “if you pray to anyone else, make anyone equal to me, or my partner, I’ll send you to hell.”

https://t.co/taFuOOnGWo
हिंदी में “”मॉनॉथीइज़म “ का अनुवाद है एक ईश्वरबाद। यह ईसाई धारा पर आधारित ग़लत अनुवाद है। ईश्वर तो एक ही है, इसमें विवाद क्या। मॉनॉथीइज़म का अनुवाद होना चाहिए “एक दैविकता”। एक ही देव है। लेकिन ऐसा कोई देव नहीं है केवल राक्षस वृत्ति है, हरिणयकश्यप जैसी।

https://t.co/kAjZVbuemo
These insights come from meditation. Our warriors were meditators. You may be confusing with Gandhian dhimmivad.

No, judgemental is ranting against "idol worship" and "false gods." This is merely exposition of your concepts in Indic terms.

A cow is more real than the imaginary "creator god." Kinder too. Definitely gentler and more worthy of respect than the cruel, vindictive, jealous and insecure imaginary "creator" throwing people into "hell."

Lol, your fantasy "creator" can't throw anyone into hell. Eternal hell and heaven (with whiskey and sex with "virgins") are useful for motivating barbaric male armies but little else. I don't worry about Allah, but his "believers" who create hell on earth.
Apparently "Allah" exists because the "word" means the same as "the God" in English. 🤣

Certainly the "god" who fantasized the flat earth and "rivers of milk and honey in heaven" and made sex slaves halal is a desert fantasy.

Oh yes, CAPITAL LETTERS. You've made me a BELIEVER. How could I doubt your CREATOR. 😏

Wake up from these childish ideas of some "god" tormenting you hell and in heaven. Your mind does that here and now. Don't waste your life in silly rules and fears.

The "Allah" who had a "last prophet" certainly doesn't exist. It comes from a very limited sense of time. Why would this "Allah" stop sending prophets? There are certainly plenty of confused Muslims fighting each other today, they could use another one.

And as far as slavery goes, this "last prophet for all times" names 70 acts that are sinful, but not enslaving other human beings. In fact, Islamic countries were last to outlaw slavery, that too under pressure from the West.

Lol, why did Allah send such a confusing "last message" that innumerable sects fight over interpreting it correctly,. Shouldn't you ask for a new prophet to fix that?

Lol, really? Then why would there be so many schools of Islamic jurisprudence and so many contradictory fatwas and mullahs fighting each other. ("Music is haram", "music is not haram" ...)

I'm glad you agree that I'm representing your ideology accurately. This thread was actually for moronic Hindus who don't get that intolerance is inherent in your ideology and think that singing "Ishwar allah tere naam" will fix it. But others jumped in.
We are at stage 2 in the "responses." Stage 3 is next.

"Worship" is an Abrahamic concept "Pooja" (पूजा) is not worship. It means to revere and respect, to pay attention to. We even do "shastra pooja", pooja of our tools.

In Abrahamism "worship" is reserved for the "true god", otherwise it is "shirk."

This one is for all those who rail against "idol worship." Your fundamentalism stems from that. Your "Holy Book" is your biggest idol.

Railing against "idol worship" is also part of monotheism. This is what leads to temple-breaking and Buddh-destroying.

indiafacts.org/murti-puja-ant…
Or better yet.
Monotheism is not “God is One, we all worship the same God by different names.”

It is

“My god, my way is the ONLY true one. My god is true, your god is false.”

Monotheism is really MY-theism, an ideology of supremacy and intolerance.

https://t.co/bqcMEHrcYn
Lol "na tasya pratima asti" means, of which there is no image. Like saying "love is inexpressible." That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with expressing love. Quite different from the psychotic "I'll roast you in hell if you try to make an image."

It is not "33 million gods." It is about 33 types of energies, but let that be.

The world is diverse. Is there only one type of flower or fruit or tree? Diversity is joyous, natural. Why would the Universal Consciousness not express in many Divine forms?

Learn to think for yourself. Don't have to keep repeating with the Maulvis say, keep trying to fit everything to justify one "Holy Book." Set aside the dogmas drilled into you and you'll realize what I'm saying is simple and natural. 😌 Like diversity is.
You need to sharpen on your understanding more than one primitive "creator" god. Do you know what "Advaita" means? And who is this "creator." What does "he" create, out of what?

That happens only in fantasy or kiddie magic shows. Nothing is created out of nothing. Think scientifically, not from a fantasy of an imaginary "being." What did this "Allah" create the world out of, and what is the need for a "creator" at all?

If the creator just popped up why can't the universe just pop up too? 😏 The creator has to be an incredibly complex being no, to create the universe. How did "he" just pop up? And if "he" did why not the universe.

The universe could also always exist, doesn't need to be "created." No "supreme being" to create things by magic is needed. And where does this "supreme being" live btw, can we spot him with a telescope?

Arre bhai, iski date to bata do.

When is this “Judgment Day” when Allah will sort people into heaven-hell and Earth will be destroyed (is it only Earth or the entire universe, did Allah tell?) So many poor sods are rotting in graves waiting for this, at least share the date.
Lol, who are polytheists? Do you know any?

These are Christian/Abrahamic theological descriptions, they have nothing to do with Indic thought. Rather we need to use our terminology to explain them. Monotheism/polytheism are both nonsensical.
Oh I’m not worried . But shouldn’t you be worried?

Sounds like a scam where you pay now and the delivery doesn’t even have a date. If a company did this they’d be sued for deceptive marketing. But calli it “religion” and scare people to “believe.”

https://t.co/Qa6lYhjmH5
Arre bhai, on that date, on that date kar rahe ho, date to bata do.

You spend your whole life following minute rules all in preparation for "judgement day" but you don't even have a date for it? I'd be pretty worried that it's a scam if I were you.

No, it just means that you are uncomfortable with infinity. This is why it took hundreds of years before Arabs and Europeans could understand the mathematics of zero and infinity from India. Still don't quite get it.

Lol, there is nothing to challenge in that claim. It is simply an assumption. The universe can be infinite. No "first cause" is needed. The Nasidaya sukta is much more elegant.

This making "Allah/God" logically contingent is cognitively uninteresting.

If you are really into all those endless logical refutation cycles, you can read this.

Bu think cyclical... it is an elegant infinity. And zero.

warp.povusers.org/grrr/kalam.html
Only Muslims get mother’s milk? 😌

There is much to be grateful for, to our parents, to the Universe. But I don’t need to believe in this wrathful Allah and a 7th century Holy Book for that.

Making the story of one tribe to the “universal god” for all people is the issue.
If you admit of translatability it is not a problem. Problem comes from exclusivism. For me it can be Rama for you Allah. When you seek to impose one set of rules, one prophet, that is the problem.
Tulsidas has a long discourse on that. Ram is a name for the Universal Consciousness and also of the one who was born and died. One who was born and died embodies the Universal as an avatar.

But if Allah is not a specific god Indian Muslims can use the word “Bhagwan”, no?
Worry about “hell”? 😆

As much as aliens will come in a flying saucer and beam me up.

Try living life without fear of this “hell. “ It is much more rewarding. And heavenly.
Stage 3. 😌

Starts with “it’s just a different name”, comes back to supremacy quickly.

Yes, that is what I’ve been explaining in this thread.

https://t.co/kf1Si0oluc
Yes it is a projection of human narcissism, anger , jealousy onto this imaginary “sky father.”

https://t.co/LLpvkctqaw
Religious imperialism of monotheism. Christians use the strategy of "inculturation" to appropriate native symbols in India e.g.. But the Islamists who claim "Allah is simply Arabic for God" would block its use for non-Muslims. Monopoly power struggles.

bbc.com/news/world-asi…
Funny thread. Accuses me of ad hominems, when I didn't attack anyone personally, only the concepts of monotheism. However he starts his entire thread with an ad hominem.🤣 One can't really think for oneself when one twists into pretzels defending a dogma.

Found this wonderful article by Prof. Ravi Ravindra who had originally coined the term "my-theism" for monotheism. The problem with monotheism is the claim of the "monopoly on truth" which each monotheism has, denying others their own path and experience.

parabola.org/2017/07/30/the…
Each monotheism is a "truth claim" combined with a "god claim." Of course, each of the truth claims contradicts the other. Islam contradicts Christianity and its claim of Jesus as "Son of God" and "Savior", Christianity rejects Islam's claim it is "God's revelation" and so on.
Each truth claim is:
1. Monopolistic. One and only one can be true.
2. With divine sanction, so human beings have no ability to change it.
3. Totalitarian. It seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to this truth claim.

This creates "camp followers" not seekers.
Similarly each "god claim" is exclusive.

Each "god" has a particular history. In Judaism he has a "Chosen People", in Christianity he has an "Only Begotten Son" and in Islam the "Last Prophet." But every people from the Egyptians to the Mayans had their own "god story."
Every tribe, every people have their own story with a "creation myth." This does not create conflict.

Conflict arises in Monotheism because the history and story of one people is *universalized*. So the history and belief of one people is made into the history of all people.
Conflict arises when the idea of a "chosen people" is made into a universal truth claim, when the history of one people is to become "the" god of all peoples. When the prophet of one people becomes the "last prophet" for all people and so on. This is why monotheism="my-theism."
Thus "My god " = "THE god."

As Ravindra says: "no other religious notion has had a more pernicious consequence in creating bigotry and fanaticism than monotheism. Monotheism has resulted everywhere in “my-theism,” leading to warfare against other people’s religious forms.
Communism takes the template of monotheism and extends it to materialism. The history of Europe becomes the history of the world. European Orientalist history becomes universal "historical materialism." All nations are a pale variation of that story.

There are other kinds of violence in the world but the primary factor of *religious* violence is Abrahamic monotheism. Also seeds racism, colonialism, Eurocentrism, totalitarianism and terrorism.

It is characterized by "monopolistic truth claims" which deny the "other." Image
"Bigotry" defined: "obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief or opinion; prejudice against people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

Monotheism creates "obstinate attachment to belief" and prejudice against "unbelievers."

Monotheism elevates the history of one people as "the history", and one tribal god as "the god."

Al-lah was likely the designation for Hubal, one of the gods of main gods of the Quraysh tribe to which Muhammad belonged.

"Allah is a god originating in polytheism." ImageImage
This is why both Allah and Jehovah rail about "having no other gods beside me." Not because they are Nirguna Brahman or the "Creator" but because they are demi-gods engaged in competitive tribal fights where one "god" triumphs and declares "He" is Supreme.
Like Allah, Jehovah is one among many gods.

The starting point is making one of the pantheon, Hubal in Islam and Yahweh in Judaism as "first" among gods, which later is turned into the "only" god. Jehovah (Yahweh) and Hubal (Al-lah) become "the one" as a political struggle. Image
So these tribals gods, Al-lah (Hubal) and Jehovah, get "monotheized" as "the only god" and "the creator" as part of a political rhetoric.

Even if one admits of a "creator" concept, .that this "Allah" or "Jehovah" is *that* "creator" is merely a rhetorical and political claim. Image
This is why there is so much angst in this "monotheism" about "thou shalt not have other gods", and "ascribing partners to Allah" being the worst sin. Precisely because these are *not* the Universal, but represent the power struggle for dominance of "a god" in a tribal society.
If you're able to follow the thread, you already are. 😏 You've been conned.

So this whole debate of monotheism vs polytheism is an "intercommunity discourse" within the Israelites serving a particular psycho-political need. This gets extended in Christianity and Islam. It has no reality as such, but for the horror of religious imperialism it unleashed. Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ

Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sankrant

Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Dec 16
This is a direct quote from Sahih Al Bukhari.

Sahih means it is an authenticated hadith.

The terrorists are being authentic to what their prophet said.

Either your reject the prophet, or you follow this. Image
This is exactly the verse quoted in the Hamas charter.

This is what "from the river to the sea" means. It is a call for genocide. It's what all the pro-Palestine crowd is about.

You can check the verse yourself here:

sunnah.com/bukhari:2926
Read 6 tweets
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Dec 5
People keep saying—one day Islam will have its Reformation & become modern.

Wrong. The Islamic Reformation already happened.
The name: Sayyid Qutb (hanged 1966).

The result wasn’t modernism—it was Tehran 1979, Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the biggest U-turn in 500 years. ↓ 1/Image
1970s → 2025

Women students in University in Teheran→Iranian morality police dragging a woman by her hair (2024)

Kabul University women graduating unveiled→Taliban padlocking a girls’ school (2023)

This is what “the real Islamic Reformation” looks like.

Who is Qutb?
2/ Image
Image
Image
Sayyid Qutb

1940s: respected literary critic, and school teacher

1950: two years in America → came home convinced the entire modern world was a new paganism (jāhiliyyah)

1954-66: tortured in Nasser’s prisons → wrote the manifesto that lit the fire.

I read it for you.

3/
Read 12 tweets
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Nov 30
China systematically demolished narratives of Islam and Christianity in China. It declared Islam a mental illness and made sure it controlled all Churches and Church appointments, only authorized sermons could be taught.

It colonized Tibet, inter-married, indoctrinated a Chinese-nationalist Tibetan generation.

India fanned separatism. It allowed false histories in Kashmir, separatism of language, promotion of Urdu and Persian script. It allowed mosques to preach hate and separatism. If it were acting like China, it would have outlawed Persian script and controlled every mosque and sermon. It would have taught the history of Islamic conquest and barbarity to every child. China can promote false narratives in Tibet for integration; India cannot even promote true narratives for what was always part of us.

Similarly in Punjab, India treated Khalistan as a law-and-order problem rather than a narrative war. It allowed fake separatist narratives to flourish. Rather than promoting scholars and narratives which show the unity of Sikhs and Hindus it allowed separatist narratives to flourish. What would China have done?

Same story in the North East. India gave a free reign to Baptist missionaries who converted the indigenous people and taught them to hate India. Separatism come downstream of that. There was no attempt by India to reverse the narrative.

The narrative soft war and the hard war must go together. If you ignore the soft war, you get stuck with constantly fighting the hard war. And the hard war victory will only be temporary tell the false narrative is overturned.
Absolutely, Dravidianism is another false narrative.

All great civilizations were bound by a common narrative. "Secularism" is not a narrative that can bind anything. Minoritism and appeasement create centrifugal forces which split the nation apart.

China's new set of XUAR Religious Affairs Regulations, 2024.

In this it is required that religions promote content for social harmony and interpret religious teaching and rules in line with China's requirements for development and "in line with traditional Chinese culture."

What if India said, mosques and Churches can only teach and promote what is in line with traditional Hindu culture of pluralism and teaching hate and separatism is a cognizable offence?Image
Read 4 tweets
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Nov 28
Reading the book "Hindu polity" and remembering that India has tried, experimented with, and forgotten more forms of governments than the West can remember.

And yet we think "democracy" was this great Western innovation to civilize us. Image
The A-rajak are non-ruled states. There is a Western fantasy of "egalitarian" society where all are equals with no rulers. (It's a fantasy because nowhere in the world it exists).

Well India tried it a few times. It doesn't work. It's where the word "arajakta" comes from.
The "Arajaka" state with the "rule of law" rather than of a person was a subject of derision, because it inevitably failed. But what evidence did we crown it as the best? Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Nov 12
Reading "Two Centuries of Silence"—the lament of the Persians in having the barbaric Arab Muslims impose their religion and culture on the advanced Persian Civilization.

We are not the only ones with this lament. This happened across the world. We are the ones who survived. Image
There was really nothing much of value in Arab lands, and the little that was useful was ruled by the Persians who were looked up to by the Arabs. Image
This is the environment in which Islam emerges from.

"These Bedouin tribes led predatory lives and on their minds there was nothing but greed, profit worship, and what satisfied their most primitive desire...their life’s sole interests were lust, wine, and fighting."Image
Image
Read 12 tweets
Sankrant Sanu सानु संक्रान्त ਸੰਕ੍ਰਾਂਤ ਸਾਨੁ Profile picture
Nov 1
Till people realize the level of violence Christianity brought to the world, it will continue.

Here are the killings from just the 20th century, setting aside medieval horrors and indigenous genocides.

Over 130 million dead. Image
Hitler was born and died a Christian. He was elected by Christians. His “final solution” was to the Christian problem of the existence of Jews.

But yeah, the spin to deny is real.
Non-Christian countries simply did not indulge in that scale of killing whatever the motivations.

Wouldn’t it be worth introspecting why Christians have created so much unending violence in the world?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(