Niccolao Manucci of Venice d. 1717 on Indian paan chewing

The Great Indian Chew

Niccolao Manucci of Venice came to India as a boy of 14 in 1655, and spent the rest of his life in the country. After living in Delhi, Agra and Goa, practising as a self-taught doctor, he returned to Pondicherry where he died in. His Storia di Mogor has a lot of salacious gossip about the goings-on in the harems of Mughal kings.

On his first journey from Surat to Agra and Delhi, Manucci was much intrigued by Indians’ favourite indulgence. He wrote: “Among other things, I was much surprised to see that almost everybody was spitting something red as blood. I imagined it must be due to some complaint of the country, or that their teeth had become broken. I asked an English lady what was the matter, and whether it was the practice in this country for the inhabitants to have their teeth extracted.

When she understood my question, she answered that it was not any disease, but a certain aromatic leaf called in the language of the country — paan, or in Portuguese, betel. She ordered some leaves to be brought, ate some herself and gave me some to eat. Having taken them, my head swam to such an extent that I feared I was dying. It caused me to fall down; I lost my colour, and endured agonies; but she poured into my mouth a little salt, and brought me to my senses. The lady assured me that everyone who ate it for the first time felt the same effects.

Betel, or paan, is a leaf similar to the ivy-leaf, but the betel leaf is longer. It is very medicinal, and eaten by everybody in India. They chew it along with arecas, which physicians call Avelans Indicas, and a little katha, which is the dried juice of a certain plant that grows in India. Smearing the betel leaf with a little of the katha, they chew them together, which makes the lips scarlet and gives a pleasant scent. It happens with the eaters of betel, as to those accustomed to take tobacco, that they are unable to refrain from taking it many times a day. Thus the women of India, whose principal business it is to tell stories and eat betel, are unable to remain many minutes without having it in their mouths.

It is an exceedingly common practice in India to offer betel leaf by way of politeness, chiefly among the great men, who, when anyone pays them a visit, offer betel at the time or leaving as mark of goodwill, and of the estimation in which they hold the person who is visiting them. It would be great piece of rudeness to refuse it.”

(From Beyond the Three Seas,

edited by M.H. Fisher, Random House) source 

Jharkhand Chief Minister Shibu Soren refuses to burn the effigy of Ravana, his "kulguru"

RANCHI: Jharkhand Chief Minister Shibu Soren's refusal to burn the effigy of Ravana, whom he termed as his "kulguru" and a great scholar, has put Ram Leela organisers at the state capital here in a spot, as they now have trouble finding a VIP willing to ignite the demon king's effigy this Dussehra. 

After Soren's refusal the Punjabi Hindu Biradari (PHB) approached Deputy Chief Minister Sudhir Mahto, but Mahto - who belongs to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), same as Soren - also turned down the invitation. Mahto said that he would be in Jamshedpur with his family members that day and hence unable to do the honours.

PHB has got three invitation cards printed, each with the name of a different chief guest, but is still not sure who will finally set fire to Ravana's effigy.  read 

Conversion debate by V.VENKATESAN in the Frontline

	Volume 25 - Issue 19 :: Sep. 13-26, 2008 INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE from the publishers of THE HINDU
	COVER STORY Conversion debate V.VENKATESAN in New Delhi The violence in Orissa is the result of prejudice caused by a flawed understanding of the freedom of religion as guaranteed by law. THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY  Rajendra Narayan Singh Deo, Ganatantra Parishad (Swatantra Party) leader, was the Chief Minister when the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, was passed. ORISSA was the first State in India to enact a piece of legislation restricting religious conversions. The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, provides that no person shall “convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means”. What were the compulsions in 1967 for Orissa to enact this law, which became a precedent and a model for several States, namely, Madhya Pradesh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003), Chhattisgarh (2003), Rajasthan (2005), Himachal Pradesh (2006), and Tamil Nadu (a law was enacted in 2002, but repealed in 2004)? Before Independence, some princely states enacted anti-conversion laws meant to protect the local people from religious conversion against their free will. Among these were the Raigarh State Conversion Act, 1936, the Sarguja State Apostasy Act, 1942, and the Udaipur State Anti Conversion Act, 1946. The adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, with Article 25 guaranteeing freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, these pre-Independence Acts were seen more as anachronisms and were allowed to lapse with the integration of the princely states into the Indian Union. But suspicions lingered over the activities of Christian missionaries, especially in States such as Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, which had large tribal populations. The Government of Madhya Pradesh set up a committee to inquire into the activities of Christian missionaries in the State. The committee’s report focussed on, among other things, the inflow of money from abroad. This raised concerns about the misuse of the money in the garb of social service and charitable activities. Strangely, the report of this Madhya Pradesh committee became the basis for Orissa’s law. Does conversion undermine faith? The basic premise of the Orissa Act was debatable. The Act claimed: “Conversion in its very process involves an act of undermining another faith. This process becomes all the more objectionable when this is brought about by recourse to methods like force, fraud, material inducement and exploitation of one’s poverty, simplicity and ignorance.” As the Orissa Act became the model for other States, which provided more scope for abuse by the authorities than what the Orissa Act had envisaged, it deserves a close scrutiny. The Act defines conversion as renouncing one religion and adopting another. It explains that “force” shall include a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind, including the threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication. Under the Act, “inducement” shall include the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind, and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise. “Fraud” has been defined to include misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance. Each of these definitions is amenable to varied interpretations, and the scope for its abuse is inherent. Section 3 of the Act states that no person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion. The loose language in the provision suggests that in its scope, it encompasses every act of conversion, whether forced or otherwise. The Madhya Pradesh Act introduced an additional provision requiring that whoever converts any person, either as a religious priest or by taking part directly or indirectly in a ceremony necessary for such conversion, must send an intimation to the District Magistrate that such a conversion has taken place. Failure to do so would invite imprisonment up to one year and a fine. The Act substitutes the word “inducement” used in the Orissa Act with “allurement” but makes no difference in the scope of its abuse. Both the Orissa and Madhya Pradesh Acts were challenged in the respective High Courts. The Orissa High Court declared the Orissa Actultra vires of the Constitution, insofar as it infringed upon the right guaranteed by Article 25. The court also held that the State legislature had no legislative competence to enact such a law, as only Parliament could legislate on matters concerning religion under Entry 97 of the Union List under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Both the States had claimed that they were competent to legislate in terms of Entry 1 of List II (State List) dealing with public order. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Act. The Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench heard the appeals against these two verdicts in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (1977) and upheld these Acts. As the Supreme Court’s judgment became a sort of licence for other States to enact similar anti-conversion laws, it needs to be asked whether the judgment was correct. The court considered whether the two Acts were violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution and whether the State legislatures were competent to enact them. Right to propagate K. PICHUMANI  AIADMK leader J. Jayalalithaa. Tamil Nadu enacted an anti-conversion law in 2002, when she was Chief Minister, only to repeal it in 2004. Under Article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with Fundamental Rights, all persons are equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The court rejected the argument that the right to “propagate” one’s religion meant the right to convert a person to one’s own religion. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word “propagate”, the court held that what Article 25 granted was not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. The court further held that Article 25(1) guaranteed “freedom of conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulated that if a person purposely undertook the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed alike to all citizens. There are enough reasons to suggest that the court’s ruling needs reconsideration by a larger Bench. H.M. Seervai, the eminent author of Constitutional Law of India, whom the Supreme Court often cites in its many judgments as an authority in support of its conclusions, has pointed out in Volume 2 (1993) of his book that it was unfortunate that the legislative history of Article 25 was not brought to the Supreme Court’s attention in this case (page 1287). Seervai wrote: “When the matter was debated in the Constituent Assembly, there was considerable discussion on the word ‘propagate’. In the course of the debate, T.T. Krishnamachari pointed out what is clear from the language of Article 25 itself, namely, that it was ‘perfectly open to the Hindus and the Arya Samajists to carry on their suddhipropaganda as it is open to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jains and the Buddhists and to every other religionist so long as it is subject to public order, morality and the other conditions that have to be observed in any civilized society’. “But the speech of Mr. K.M. Munshi gave the historical background of Article 25(1) in the paragraph set out below, in which he pointed out the insertion of the word ‘propagate’ was the result of a compromise to reassure the minority communities, particularly the Indian Christian community. He said: ‘Moreover, I was a party from the very beginning to the compromise with the minorities, which ultimately led to many of these clauses being inserted in the Constitution and not because they wanted to convert people aggressively, but because the word ‘propagate’ was afundamental part of their tenet. Even if the word were not there, I am sure, under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees it will be open to any religious community to persuade other people to join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognised. The word ‘propagate’ in this clause is nothing very much out of the way as some people think, nor is it fraught with dangerous consequences’” (emphasis added by Seervai). Seervai was clear that Chief Justice A.N. Ray’s conclusion in the Stainislaus judgment ran counter to legislative history. He submitted that Chief Justice Ray did not ask the central question that was involved in the appeals before him, namely, whether conversion was a part of the Christian religion. This omission, he said, was indefensible because the judgment of the Orissa High Court delivered on October 24, 1972 (Yulitha Hyde vs. State), was under appeal to the Supreme Court and that judgment had squarely raised the central question whether conversion was a part of the Christian religion. In its judgment, the Orissa High Court had held: “Counsel for the several petitioners have freely quoted from several Christian Scriptures of undoubted authority to show that propagating religion with a view to its spreading is a part of religious duty for every Christian and, therefore, must be considered as a part of the religion.Learned Govt. Advocate does not dispute this assertion of fact. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that it is the religious duty of every Christian to propagate his religion” (emphasis added by Seervai). The High Court thus recorded its finding that Article 25(1) saw propagation of religion and conversion as a part of the Christian religion. Seervai observed that the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made no attempt to show that the question raised and decided was either irrelevant, or was wrongly decided. It is clear from Seervai’s comment that the Orissa High Court’s finding still holds the field, irrespective of what the anti-conversion statutes enacted by various States may say. Seervai also explained the basic misconception in the judgment of Chief Justice Ray. He wrote: “Ray C.J. mistakenly believed that if A deliberately set out to convert B by propagating A’s religion, that would impinge on B’s ‘freedom of conscience’. But, as we have seen, the precise opposite is true: A’s propagation of his religion with a view to its being accepted by B gives an opportunity to B to exercise his free choice of a religion.” Freedom of religion Seervai was convinced that the “freedom of religion” guaranteed in Article 25(1) is not limited to the religion in which a person is born but includes any religion. Freedom of conscience, he wrote, harmonises with this, for its presence in Article 25(1) shows that our Constitution has adopted “a system which allows free choice of religion”. Therefore, freedom of conscience gives a person freedom to choose or not to choose any one of the many religions that are being propagated. He elaborated further: “The right to propagate religion gives a meaning to freedom of choice, for choice involves not only knowledge but an act of will. A person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him. To propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of that religion. Successful propagation of religion would result in conversion” (italics supplied by Seervai). Seervai concluded his discussion thus: “The Supreme Court’s judgment is clearly wrong, is productive of the greatest public mischief and ought to be overruled.” The huge atmosphere of prejudice against Christians in Orissa and elsewhere is based on a myth that conversion is unconstitutional. The words of Seervai, who passed away on the Republic Day in 1996, are indeed prophetic. ‘Public order’ and anti-conversion laws A study carried out by the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), New Delhi, and published in Economic and Political Weekly (January 12, 2008) has revealed that none of the anti-conversion laws enacted by the States demonstrates any credible nexus with public order, a justification for the enactment of these laws. The study points out that while the phrase “public order” is very broad, the discretion this leaves to the State legislatures is not unlimited. The State should be required to demonstrate adequately that the disturbance extends beyond mere maintenance of law and order and qualifies as a public order issue, on the basis of its scale and extent, the study has pointed out. The Rajasthan Bill (before its enactment), for instance, merely stated that owing to alleged conversions by force, allurement and fraud, there had been “annoyance in the community”, a weakening of the “inter-religious fabric”, and “law and order problems”. The Bill, therefore, aimed to curb illegal activities and maintain harmony amongst persons of various religions – objectives which could only be termed as vague and irrelevant to the legislation. Indeed, the SAHRDC study found that the crucial distinction between public order and law and order was not reflected in the language of these pieces of legislation. Link

Gmail - *Ar_Ruuh* Fw: ¤ ¤ History Islam ¤ ¤ ¤ Arranging the rows during prayer . - jacobthanni@gmail.com

Gmail - *Ar_Ruuh* Fw: ¤ ¤ History Islam ¤ ¤ ¤ Arranging the rows during prayer . - jacobthanni@gmail.com

ABDUL WAHID OSMAN BELAL

--- On Thu, 31/7/08, Saima Rahman wrote:

From: Saima Rahman
Subject: ¤ ¤ History Islam ¤ ¤ ¤ Arranging the rows during prayer .
To: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, history_islam@yahoogroups.com, "myna"
Date: Thursday, 31 July, 2008, 9:57 PM


Arranging the rows during prayer .

Praise be to Allaah.

It is obligatory for the Muslims to make their rows straight and compact and to close the gaps between them. That is done by standing shoulder-to- shoulder and foot-to-foot.

It was narrated from Anas ibn Maalik that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Make your rows straight for I can see you behind my back."

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 686; Muslim, 425.

It was narrated from 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Umar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Make your rows straight, stand shoulder to shoulder and close the gaps, and do not resist your brothers' hands. Do not leave any gaps for the Shaytaan. Whoever complete a row, Allaah will reward him, and whoever breaksa row, Allaah will forsake him.

Abu Dawood said: What is meant by "Do not resist your brothers' hands" is that a man should be easy-going if his brother pushes him forwards or backwards to make the row straight. ('Awn al-Ma'bood).

Narrated by Abu Dawood, 666; al-Nasaa'i, 819. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 620.

It was narrated that al-Nu'maan ibn Basheer said:

"The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) turned to face the people and said, 'Straighten your rows,' three times, 'for by Allaah either you straighten your rows or Allaah will create division among your hearts.' And I saw men standing shoulder to shoulder, knee to knee, ankle to ankle."

Narrated by Abu Dawood, 662; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 616.

Should a man look to his right or his left so that he can make the row straight?

The Sunnah is for the imam to stand in the front, in line with in the middle of the row, then the rows should start from behind the imam, not from the right hand side of the mosque or the left, as some people do. Rather they should start from behind the imam, then the row should be completed to both the right and the left, so as to follow the Sunnah of having the imam in the middle.

Based on this, then whoever is in the right half of the row should look to his left and align himself with whoever is on his left and whoever is in the left half should look to his right and align himself with whoever is on his right.

With regard to the gaps between the feet, the worshipper should stand in a moderate fashion, neither standing with his feet together nor making them too far apart, because the further apart he makes them, the further his shoulders will be from his neighbour's shoulders. Making the rows straight and compact is achieved by standing foot-to-foot and shoulder-to- shoulder.

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said:

One of the new things that we see some people doing, with no evidence in sharee'ah, is that in prayer they try to align themselves with a person on the right if they are on the right hand side of the row, or to align themselves with a person on their left if they are on the left hand side of the row, and they turn their feet inward so that their ankles are touching the ankles of the people next to them.

This is something for which there is no basis in sharee'ah and it is going to the extreme in implementing the Sunnah. This is wrong on two counts.

The alignment of the row should begin from where the imam is standing. Whoever is on the right of the row should align himself by looking at those who are to his left (i.e., closer to the imam). Thus the line will be straightened and the gaps will be filled. Alignment is done by lining up necks, shoulders and ankles, and by completing the front rows.

But to try to spread the legs wide and turn the feet inward so that one's ankles touch one's neighbours' ankles is an obvious mistake and an exaggeration, and a new interpretation which is indicative of going to extremes in trying to apply the Sunnah. It causes annoyance and is not prescribed in sharee'ah, and it widens the gaps between people standing in prayer.

That becomes apparent when the people prostrate, and when they stand up again they become distracted in trying to fill the gaps and turning their feet to make their ankles touch their neighbours' ankles, which makes them miss out on what they should be doing, which is to make the toes point in the direction of the qiblah.

Doing that is like competing with one's neighbour and trying to take his place. All of that is not prescribed in sharee'ah.

Laa jadeed fi Ahkaam al-Salaah, 12. 13.

Islam Q&A
http://islamqa. com/en/ref/ 21502

Gmail - *Ar_Ruuh* The return of Hadhrat Isa (Alaihis Salaam) to earth, By Harun Yahya Courtesy:http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2008-weekly/iqra-01-08-20

Gmail - *Ar_Ruuh* The return of Hadhrat Isa (Alaihis Salaam) to earth, By Harun Yahya Courtesy:http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2008-weekly/iqra-01-08-2008/index.html - jacobthanni@gmail.com

The return of Hadhrat Isa (Alaihis Salaam) to earth

By Harun Yahya

Hadhrat Isa (Jesus) (Alaihis Salaam) is a prophet chosen by Allah. He is one of the most talked-about prophets in the history of the world. Thank Allah that there is a source in which we can verify what is true and false out of that which has been said of him. That source is the Holy Qur'aan -- the only revelation of Allah that exists unaltered and undistorted.

When we refer to the Holy Qur'aan to discover the real truth about the Prophet Isa (Alaihis Salaam), we see that:

Isa (Alaihis Salaam) is the Messenger of Allah and His Word. (Surat an-Nisa': 171)

Allah gave his name as the Messiah, Isa (Alaihis Salaam), son of Maryam (Alaihas Salaam). (Surah Al 'Imran: 45)

He was made a sign for all the worlds. (Surat al-Anbiya': 91)

Isa (Alaihis Salaam) spoke to people in the cradle (Surah Al 'Imran: 46), and that he performed several miracles. Another miracle is that he will come back to earth at a later time and speak to people. (Surah Al 'Imran: 46; Surat al-Ma'ida: 110)

Isa (Alaihis Salaam) was given the Gospel. (Surat al-Hadid: 27)

Those who divinised him have committed an error and fallen into blasphemy. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 72)

The disbelievers plotted against him in order to kill him, but Allah nullified their plot. (Surah Al 'Imran: 54)

Allah did not allow the disbelievers to kill Isa (Alaihis Salaam), but took him up into His own presence, and announced the good news to humanity that he will come back again one day. The Holy Qur'aan provides information about Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) return in several instances:

One verse says that the disbelievers who set a trap to kill Isa (Alaihis Salaam) did not succeed;

(And We cursed them) for their saying, "We killed the Messiah, Isa son of Maryam, Messenger of Allah."

They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. (Surat an-Nisa': 157)

Another verse says that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) did not die, but was taken from the human sphere into the presence of Allah.

Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat an-Nisa': 158)

In the 55th verse of Surah Al Imran, we learn that Allah will place the people who follow Isa (Alaihis Salaam) above those who disbelieve until the Day of Rising.

It is a historical fact that, 2000 years ago, Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) disciples had no political power.

Christians who lived between that period and our own have believed a number of false doctrines, the chief of which is the doctrine of the Trinity.

Therefore, as is evident, that they will not be able to be referred to as followers of Isa (Alaihis Salaam), because, as it says in several places in the Holy Qur'aan, those who believe in the Trinity have slipped into denial.

In such a case, in the time before the Hour, the true followers of Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will overcome the deniers and become the manifestation of the divine promise contained in Surah Aal-e-Imran. Surely, this blessed group will be made known when Isa (Alaihis Salaam) returns again to earth.

Again, the Holy Qur'aan states that all the People of the Book will believe in Isa (Alaihis Salaam) before he dies.

There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him (Isa) before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them. (Surat an-Nisa': 159)

We learn clearly from this verse that there are still three unfilled promises concerning Isa (Alaihis Salaam).

First, like every other human being, the Prophet Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will die. Second, all the People of the Book will see him in bodily form and will obey him while he is alive.

There is no doubt that these two predictions will be fulfilled when Isa (Alaihis Salaam) comes again before the Last Day.

The third prediction about Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) bearing witness against the People of the Book will be fulfilled on the Last Day.

Another verse in Surah Maryam discusses the death of Isa (Alaihis Salaam).

Peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die and the day I am raised up again alive. (Surah Maryam: 33)

When we compare this verse with the 55th verse of Surah Aal-e-Imran, we can recognise a very important fact.

The verse in Surah Aal-e-Imran speaks about Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) being raised to the presence of Allah.

In this verse, no information is given as to whether Isa (Alaihis Salaam) died or not.

But in the 33rd verse of Surah Maryam, Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) death is referred to. This second death is possible only if Isa (Alaihis Salaam) came to earth again and died after living here for some time. (Allah surely knows best)

Another verse that alludes to Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) return to the earth reads:

He will teach him (Isa) the Book and Wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel. (Surah Aal-e-Imran: 48)

To understand the reference to the "Book" mentioned in this verse, we must look at other verses in the Holy Qur'aan that are relevant to this subject: if the Book is stated in one verse together with the Torah and the Gospel, then it must mean the Holy Qur'aan.

The third verse of Surah Aal-e-Imran serves as such an example: Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining.

He has sent down the Book to you with truth, confirming what has there before it.

And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel, previously, as guidance for mankind, and He has sent down the Furqan (the Criterion of judgment between right and wrong). (Surah Aal-e-Imran: 2-4)

In that case, the book referred to in verse 48, that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) is to learn, can only be the Holy Qur'aan. We know that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) knew the Torah and the Gospel during his lifetime, that is, approximately 2000 years ago. Clearly, it will be the Holy Qur'aan that he will learn when he comes to earth again.

What verse 59 of Surah Aal-e-Imran offers is very interesting: "The likeness of Isa in Allah's sight is the same as Adam..."

In this verse we can see there must be a number of similarities between the two prophets. As we know, both Adam and Isa (Alaihimus Salaam) had no father, but we may draw a further similarity from the above verse, between Adam's (Alaihis Salaam) descending to earth from Paradise and Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) descent from Allah's presence in the End Times.

The Holy Qur'aan says this about Isa (Alaihis Salaam): He (Isa) is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path. (Surat az-Zukhruf: 61)

We know that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) lived six centuries before the Holy Qur'aan was revealed.

Therefore, this verse must refer, not to his first life, but to his coming again during the End Times.

Both the Christian and the Islamic world are eagerly waiting Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) second coming. This blessed guest's honoured presence on the earth will be the important sign of the Last Day.

Further, evidence of the second coming of Isa (Alaihis Salaam) can be found in the use of the word "wakahlan" in Surah Maida, 110 and Surah Aal-e-Imran, 46. In these verses, we are revealed these commands:

Remember when Allah said, "Isa, son of Maryam, remember My blessing to you and to your mother when I reinforced you with the purest spirit so that you could speak to people in the cradle and when you were fully grown (wakahlan)..." (Surat al-Ma'ida: 110)

He will speak to people in the cradle, and also when fully grown (wakahlan), and will be one of the righteous. (Surah Aal-e-Imran: 46)

This word occurs only in these two verses and only in reference to Isa (Alaihis Salaam).

The word is used to describe Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) more mature age.

The word refers to the age between 30 and 50, that is, to the end of youth and the beginning of old age.

Islamic scholars are agreed in translating this word to refer to a period after the age of 35.

Islamic scholars rely on a tradition related by Hadhrat Abdulla bin Abbas (Radhi Allaho anhuma) to the effect that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) was raised to the presence of Allah when he was young, that is, at the beginning of his 30's, and that when he comes to earth again, he will have 40 years left to live.

Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will progress into his old age after he has returned to earth.

So, this verse may be said to be a proof of Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) second coming to earth.

As mentioned, when we closely examine the Holy Qur'aan, we see that this word is used only in reference to Isa (Alaihis Salaam).

All prophets have spoken to people and invited them to accept religion.

All of them communicated their message when they were of mature age. But, the Holy Qur'aan says nothing similar about any other prophet. This word is used only for Isa (Alaihis Salaam), and is a miracle.

The phrases "in the cradle" and "having grown older" refer to two great miracles.

It is a miracle that Isa (Alaihis Salaam) spoke while he was in the cradle.

This was something that had never been seen before, and the Holy Qur'aan speaks several times of this miraculous event. Immediately after these words comes the phrase "and speaking to people when fully grown."

These words also refer to a miracle. If the words "when fully grown" referred to his former life before he was taken up into the presence of Allah, Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) speaking would not have been a miracle.

And since it was not a miracle, it would not have been used after the speaking in the cradle or in the same way as this miraculous situation.

In that case, an expression such as "from the cradle to when fully grown" would have been used and would have expressed communication lasting from the time Isa (Alaihis Salaam) began to speak in the cradle to time he was raised up to Allah.

But, the verse draws our attention to two great miraculous events. The first is the speaking in the cradle; the other, Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) speaking in his mature years.

Therefore, the expression "when fully grown" refers to a time that would be a miracle. It is the time when Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will speak to people in his mature age after he has returned again to earth. (Allah surely knows best)

In the Ahadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) there is information about Isa's (Alaihis Salaam) second coming. In a few Ahadith, this information is given along with other information about what Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will do while he is in the world. You may read the Ahadith relevant to this subject.

It will be beneficial to remind the readers here of a very important matter: Allah sent Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) to humanity as the last prophet. Allah revealed the Holy Qur'aan to Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam), and holds all people responsible for obeying the Holy Qur'aan until the Day of Judgment. Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will miraculously return to this world in the End Times but, as Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) said, he will not bring a new religion. The true religion that Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) taught to humanity is Islam, to which Isa (Alaihis Salaam) will be subject when he comes to the earth again.
Courtesy:http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2008-weekly/iqra-01-08-2008/index.html


ABDUL WAHID OSMAN BELAL

Managing Pluralism, Indian-style - Books & Culture

Managing Pluralism, Indian-style - Books & Culture

Mariasusai Dhavamony, Christian Theology of Religions - review ed by KENNETH CRACKNELL

Christian Theology of Religions:

A Systematic Reflection on the Christian

Understanding of World Religions

By Mariasusai Dhavamony

Bern, Peter Lang, 2001. 252 pp. $37.95.

Theology Today, Jul 2002


With this book, a second, revised edition, the eminent Indian theologian Mariasusai Dhavamony makes a worthy contribution to Lang's Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity series. Fr. Dhavamony is perhaps best known outside Roman Catholic circles as chief editor of Studia Missionalia and for his lengthy service to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Though I suspect that any assertion that "theology is autobiography" would cause a pained expression to cross the face of the one who says, "We understand theology as a scientific discipline," this volume does represent a lifetime's reflection on its subject matter. This reflection ranges from Dhavamony's earliest formation as a priest in India, through his doctoral studies in Rome and Oxford, his living through the Second Vatican Council, followed by his more than thirty years of work in assessing the implications of Nostra agitate (Vatican II's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) and the other documents for Roman Catholic relations with people of different faith traditions. Something of the intellectual biography involved can be traced through the footnotes of this elaborate statement of a Christian theology of religions. He appears to have read all the major writers in this field, with his earliest citations coming from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, and the very latest from just a year or so ago.

Dhavamony's theology is conservative, reflecting both his earliest formation as a priest working in the context of Asian syncretism and religious relativism and, later, as a professor in the Gregorian University, very close to the Vatican. So he quotes with approval the words of Pope John Paul II in 1980 that, when it is a question of Christian faith, it is necessary to confine oneself to the "identical, essential, constitutional patrimony of the very doctrine of Christ, professed by the authentic and authorized tradition of the Unique and True Church." Within this framework, he sees theology as "a normative science" that judges, in the light of faith, the salvific value of other religions. But, within this understanding, he can find room for interreligious dialogue. He makes no claim that "other religions bear no relation to truth at all, or that the Christian himself has apprehended all the truth that is to be found in Jesus Christ." His central chapters are, therefore, christological: about the cosmic Christ and the world's religions, the salvific presence of Jesus Christ in other religions, and the mystery of the cross in other religions. For Dhavamony, the whole of humanity partakes in the Logos through creation; the cosmic Christ informs all persons. God is at work in their religions, bringing them to perfection through the Logos who is Christ. Chapter 5 is, in fact, a restatement of the fulfillment theology that was in vogue in the mid-twentieth century under the influence of, among others, J. N. Farquhar (a Scottish Congregationalist, not an Anglican as Dhavamony suggests) and R. C. Zaehner, himself influenced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In his exposition of the cosmic Christ, Dhavamony acknowledges indebtedness to Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, as well as to Henri de Lubac and Karl Rahner, and to Protestant thinkers such as Joseph Sittler, Allan D. Galloway, and the Anglican bishop John V. Taylor. Many passages in this book are lyrical statements of what has come to be characterized as "inclusive christology." Such theological writing can be exhilarating, even when we are quite sure that we do not share the author's rather old-fashioned presuppositions.

There are some faults with the book's production. Nowhere is there a key to the abbreviations that the author uses for Vatican II documents. More regrettably, in a work that abounds with Dhavamony's own incidental remarks alongside his acute thumbnail sketches and critiques of other writers, we are not offered an index. There is, however, a very full bibliography. We leave the book grateful that we have been able to share one scholar's theological pilgrimage. We may be excited, too, by the ongoing challenge presented by this book to find a Christian theology of religions truly adequate to the needs of the twenty-first century.

KENNETH CRACKNELL

Brite Divinity School

Fort Worth, TX

Copyright Theology Today Jul 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved