There exists a belief that the educators of Hindu philosophy endeavoured to formulate concepts aimed at enticing individuals who had departed from Hinduism back to the fold. Such ideas were proposed by a highly regarded figure in this forum (Mr Sangom, a mentor of me in early days of being member here), yet they are unfounded.Was Madhvacharya influenced by Islam or another Abrahamic religion?
Madhvacharya is the proponent of the Dvaita school of Vedanta philosophy.
This school, unlike the other schools of Vedanta, believes:
God, souls, and the universe are all eternally distinct and separate.
Souls can be trapped in hell for eternity.
Souls have their own nature. There are "good souls", "ok souls", and "bad souls" that God creates. These souls are destined to heaven, eternal transmigration, or eternal hell, respectively.
These beliefs are almost identical to the Abrahamic religions, with a slight Vedantic twist.
Madhvacharya lived from 1238 to 1317, when Islam started making its way into south India and started converting people. Is it possible that he tweaked Vedantic teachings to cater towards converts to Islam, in the hopes that they return to Vedanta?
This is similar to the commonly held belief by most previous Acharyas (Ramanujacharya, etc) that Shankaracharya of the Advaita Vedanta school, who lived when Buddhism was very popular, was preaching Vedanta that was very similar to Buddhism, leading people of later times to think that he was doing so in order to bring followers of Buddhism back to Vedanta.
This is also similar to a much more recent claim, that Swami Vivekananda was preaching a form of Vedanta that was highly politicized and fitting for its time (early 1900s India), with claims like "all religions are the same", "castes are discriminatory so abolish it", "Hinduism is pro women", "Yugas and kalpas aren't true" (because it conflicted with Darwinism).
So, is it possible that Madhvacharya was influenced by Islam, or at least took into consideration?
All acharyas genuinely sought to comprehend the truth as influenced by their own conditioning. They provided interpretations that aligned with their perspectives, drawing from the most profound thoughts and sentiments, regardless of their origin. The notion of persuading others to adopt one’s beliefs is foreign to Hindu philosophy. It is primarily those who adhere to an exclusive religious mindset that attempt to convert others, often under the pretext of saving them from eternal damnation or integrating them into their community. When one's thinking is along those lines, it is possible to view the teachings of Acharyas in negative light.
Prominent acharyas, including Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, did not seek to assimilate ideas from other religions merely to reclaim their adherents. Buddha was not a sunyavadi (he was a advita vedantin based on his writings of Dhammapadam), despite the beliefs of his followers. The propagation of Krishna consciousness does not align with the vision presented in the Gita. That is how religions evolve.
Hinduism is not strictly a religion; rather, it represents a way of life and a perspective on existence, as articulated by President Radhakrishnan. The term 'Hindu' was assigned by outsiders to the region. The Mahavakyas are applicable to all beings, thus negating the necessity to convert anyone to their ideology. In the pursuit of truth, individuals engaged in debates in ancient times. This practice has since diminished, giving way to a culture steeped in superstition and ignorance.