Why, of course they don’t. Just like everything else I say or share. Because you say so. Whatever you say, y’all.
If there’s only one god then how can any other one be worshipped?
Enlarging the definition of god to include practially anything is fatuous. It dilutes the value of the word god in reference to The God. Then the true God becomes just another “thing” that you can be devoted to. Which, is not what God is.
What’s so hard about saying that someone is worshipping in an incorrect way?
Btw, Buddhism advises against worshipping the Buddha and Islam forbids worshipping Mohamed.
That the sites you cited did not reference facts when reaching their conclusions seems to me to have very little, if anything to do with you.
You, yet again (or is it *still[/i[?) reveal your utter ignorance in matters of comparative religion, H4E. Muhammed is not the equivalent of Christ for Muslims. Buddha is not the equivalent of Christ for Buddhists. And for most Christians, the Bible itself is not the equivalent of Christ.
You could say that, also. But I think it’s more than just worshipping in an incorrect way in many cases. There’s no correct way to worship, let’s say the Sun and moon or a statue with an animal head or whatever, because they aren’t the true God. It’s more than what you say. IMO it’s not just about worhipping the true God incorrectly, many are worshipping false, nonexistent gods. Ra isn’t the true god, Buddha isn’t the true god, so there’s no correct way to worship. Just my opinion.
There’s a story that’s directly relevant to this question. (I also like this story because a linguist is the hero. 
)
There were these four guys: an Arab, a Persian, a Turk, and a Greek. They only had one coin to buy something to eat. But first they had to decide what to spend it on.
The Arab said, “I want ‘inab.”
The Persian said, “I want angur.”
The Turk said, “I want üzüm.”
The Greek said, “I want staphyloi.”
They couldn’t agree on what kind of food to get, and fell to arguing. Then a linguist happened along and heard their dispute. He said, “Give me the coin and I will satisfy all of you.” He bought bunches of grapes and handed them to each of the others.
The Arab said, “This is the ‘inab I asked for.”
The Persian said, “No, this is angur.”
The Turk said, “No! This is the üzüm I wanted.”
The Greek said, “No, I got the staphyloi I wanted.”
The linguist explained that they all wanted the same thing, grapes, but used different words for grapes in their respective languages.
Jalal al-Din Rumi told this story, in which the linguist represents the Sufi, who understands the same reality behind the names that superficially look different. A further dimension of Sufi meaning in this story is that grapes are used to make wine, in Sufism the symbol of divine knowledge.
His4ever, Buddhists do not consider Buddha a god. Just FYI.
A note: Sufism is a style or approach to Islam, not a coherent body of knowledge.
In some Sufist traditions wine is a symbol of divine knowledge. Some.
For that matter, Ra wasn’t ‘the true god’ either, he was A god. The main one, but that’s not the same as THE one.
Muslims don’t consider Muhammad to be a God, either.
The question of “Are they the same God?” is pretty flawed from the beginning. “Do the Gods possess the same traits?” would be somewhat more to the point, IMHO.
All the monotheistic religious books claim to talk about the “one true God”, and they attribute different traits to the God.
So, if you believe in one of these books, then you will think the others are wrong. The result is that your God must be different from the others.
But if you think all these books are bogus, then you will probably either think there is no God at all or the real God is different from what the books tell us.
If someone could present unrefutable evidence of the existence of God and of his traits, the world would be changed forever.
But since nobody except God himself could do that, we are left to philosophize endlessly.
Just my little take on it.
Collounsbury, your understanding of economic indicators in the Middle East is second to none, but the response you gave concerning Sufism makes me question how well you really understand it. How many Sufis have you known over there? How much Sufi literature have you read? How many dhikr sessions have you attended? Not to be snarky with you, but I feel that Sufism is an important topic that has been little understood.
What I take issue with is your statement that “Sufism is not a coherent body of knowledge.” On the contrary, I would maintain that it is a coherent knowledge tradition whose coherence has been preserved by the silsilah system going back in unbroken continuity for at least 1300 years.
It seems bigoted and intolerant only apply to cites you disagree with.
and to some , rum is. 
Every third North African is a Sufi. Given the number of North Africans I know, hundreds.
Not much, I am not religious. However, I have read enough analytical materials to understand where you are coming from.
To take an exaple, North African and West African traditions of Sufism are rather different from those of say a Rumi.
A couple. Why?
Indeed.
You misunderstand.
The various Sufist traditions are themselves coherent, but there is not a single unitary tradition. You’re focusing on a certain subset – I am not dissing it, but pointing out that usage of wine as a symbol is particular to certain machreqi Sufist writing. Not “kosher” in the Maghreb in recent traditions, for example. I’d also point that Salafi-Sufist reconciliations have occured as well, giving rise to different strains of thought.
I do not believe one can say that the Sufist approach is any longer (if it ever was) a single coherent body of knowledge. Unless one takes a particular subset of Sufism and calls that the true Sufism … It’s simply that it is diffuse. I’m emphatically not calling Sufi approaches themseles incoherent, only that the concept or approach of Sufism is too difffuse and has come to englobe too many different strains/traditions etc. to be a single body of knowledge.
To rephrase your original statement, I would say it would be better to say, “In the Sufist traditions represented and close to Rumi, wine …”
Oh Summertime, rum is not a symbol, it is divine knowledge in the Lousbury tradition. There is some funny little theological word for that.
Not even a nice try, Summertime. For one thing, that site is rife with falsehoods. For another, there are sites with which I disagree (such as the Community of Christ’s interpretation of Scripture) but which I do not find to be bigoted and intolerant.
Care to try again?
Collounsbury, the wine symbolism in Sufism is not only Persian, not only Rumi. If you have been to Egypt, you may have heard of the Arabic Sufi genre of poetry called the khamrîyah or wine-ode. The Khamrîyah of the 13th-century Egyptian Sufi ‘Umar ibn al-Fârid (a generation or two older than Rumi) is particularly noteworthy.
There are different styles found within the Sufi world, for example the difference between “drunken” and “sober” Sufis (this refers to different emphases within the spiritual method, not alcohol consumption). However, the gnosis they all share regardless of style is still one and the same.
It’s true that Maghribi Sufis usually are on the “sober” side; the “drunken” side being traditionally associated with Khorasan in Iran and Central Asia. The two styles have been traced back to the “sober” Junayd of Baghdad and the “drunken” Bâyazîd al-Bastâmî of Khorasan in the 9th century.
Nonetheless, Muhyî al-Dîn ibn al-‘Arabî came from the Maghribi culture (in Spain) and provided the metaphysical basis for subsequent Sufi developments in both East and West, maghrib as well as mashriq. Both the “sober” Sufis in the west and the “drunken” Sufis in the east incorporated Ibn al-‘Arabî’s gnosis into their methods. There is a strong underlying unity in their doctrine behind the superficial differences.
Well, quibbling a bit, however:
I didn’t claim that, I only pointed out that the symbolism was not universal in Sufism.
I had the deep misfortune of living in Cairo, a city I loathe, so yes, I have had the occasion to hear this poetry.
The essential point in my intervention was to not over generalize on Sufist symbolism, etc. I’m not inclined to debate the detials, but I would warn you that regretably traditions like Rumi have fallen a bit by the wayside under Salafi pressure. Pity that.
Yeah, it sucks. But I have a sense that most Muslims these days have been chafing under Wahhabi*intimidation for so long that now they’re thoroughly sick of it and are not afraid to tell the Wahhabis to fuck off. Witness the anti-extremist riots on the part of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip today.
*Wahhabi is the most commonly used name for an insanely repressive tendency in Islam associated with the rise of the Saudis; the Wahhabis call themselves “Salafi,” misleadingly appropriating the name of a completely different reformist tendency, also called Salafi, that existed about 100 years ago.
If one accepts that;
“God is a concept of which no higher concept can be conceived of.”
Then there can only be one God.
It is almost impossible (if not fully well so) for me to accept multiple Gods. It would be easier to imagine that Allah, God, Yaweh and Rama are sitting around a celestial card table playing poker and drinking beer.