Some Random Thoughts

2002:  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was still using moonsighting as the basis for its Ramadan decision.  Boston area masajid had united under ISNA, and awaited a decision from their national moonsighting committee.  Harvard Islamic Society (HIS) also had the policy of following ISNA’s decision, and continued the practice in 2002.  However, in 2002, Boston’s decision to follow ISNA led to some major last-minute trouble.  At slightly after sunset Pacific Time, 2 men spotted the Hilal in Arizona.  ISNA confirmed the report around 10 PM EST.   Bostonians were being phoned at 10:30-11 PM that night they had to fast 6-7 hours later.  Some managed to hold an impromptu taraweeh at the masjid.

2004 or 2005:  The imams in Boston formalized their own Ramadan and Eid Committee.  This committee retained the moonsighting process as the basis for determining the beginning and end of the month.  The announcement released stated that their decision would not come from any actual moonsighting in Boston, but from the decision of the “majority of Muslim countries” overseas.  The whole ISNA thinking of the late 90s had been to sight the moon in N. America, but Boston returned to the old practice of the 80s in order to avoid another mess like 2002.

The first year this new decision-making process was in place, the Burlington, MA imam attempted to force his masjid to accept the Boston-area decision.  The mosque board overturned him and continued to support ISNA.  Thus, the Boston area masajid split on the issue for the first time, with the northern suburbs following one day and the south and west suburbs following another.

2005 – 2006:  The practice as established in 2005 continued, where Boston would follow the “majority of Muslim countries” overseas, and there was largely unity among Boston’s mosques, with the exception of Masjid An-Nur in Roxbury, which continued to sight the moon for itself (or follow decision of like minded mosques in NYC/NJ). 

There was, however, a major unspoken flaw in the system.  The majority of Muslim countries often went with a different date than the one followed in Boston.  Boston often took the decision of Saudi Arabia or Egypt, even when Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran and Indonesia were united on one date (2005?)

2006: ISNA formally abandons the moonsighting process, relying exclusively on astronomical calculation as the basis for determining the start/end of Ramadan.  Groups such as Zaytuna oppose the decision.  Hilal sighting committees form in NYC, Toronto, California and Chicago.

2007:  http://www.isboston.org/v3.1/viewitem.asp?MenuID=14&DocID=5113&ItemTypeID=3

The date for the beginning of Ramadan was announced on the ISB website.  Although the statement notes the importance of the moonsighting process, it does not indicate how Boston concluded the first day of fasting before it was possible to sight the moon. 

as-salaamu alaikum

More people enjoy law school than care to admit it.  I am actually really enjoying myself, especially as my second year has brought new challenges beyond learning how to give a professor what he wants during a 3 hour exam.  In fact, second year has been amazing and exactly what I had hoped for, giving me the opportunity to know my classmates better and participate in a clinic. 

Since high school, I have been active in student groups.  Over the years, I’ve learned how to work with many different types of people, with varying sensitivities and tempraments, on national and local boards.  So I would like to think the following thoughts are coming from someone with substantial experience working in teams. 

On the whole, everyone in law school is very bright and reasonable.  Most listen to each other and are genuinely well-adjusted people.  There have been a few instances however (I am not referring to anyone in specific) where I have noticed certain personality traits that I thought I would never see after high school graduation.  In this post I’d like to point out two difficult personalities that I’ve encountered in the last year:

1. Impotent yet opinionated. 

It can be a real challenge working with people who assume that they know better than everyone else, but lack any position, pedigree or expertise to be authoritative.  The opinionated-yet-impotent person can be very difficult to reason with, because most disagreements result in crisis: the discourse polarizes quickly, and language becomes condescending (“I just can’t fathom how you could ever think x“).  Usually other students are brought into the discussion under the pretense of acting as mediators, even though they are frequently invited to take one person’s side and “gang up” on the other conversant.  I think the discussion becomes tense quickly because the opinionated person is often plagued by insecurity.  They compensate for their lack of authority by throwing a fit.   It is so difficult to watch.

In more general terms, there are some law students who have forgotten when to seek compromise.  I am convinced there are many genuinely good people, but perhaps the competitive nature of the 1L year has changed a handful of us.  I appreciate the need for an adversarial attitude in disagreements — and certainly every attorney needs to know how to be confrontational when necessary.  The problem, though, is that confrontation is frequently unnecessary in student organization work.  I still remember what Professor Schecter said during 1L orientation last year, about learning how to “turn off” our lawyering skils.  He said that football players don’t go down the sidewalk tackling everyone they come across.  Similarly lawyers need to know when to stop being adversarial, and when to seek compromise — in practice and in law school.  

The irony in all this is that it is easy to hold to one position unrelentingly.  It takes a mature, reflective and strategic person to identify places where compromise will actually benefit them, either at that specific moment or some time in the future.

 2. “I speak my mind”

I have also noticed that some people advertise themselves as those who “speak their minds.”  This is an interesting phenomenon, since I always thought that everyone had the right to say what was on their mind.   Why is the person who advertises himself with this statement unique?   

With time I’ve come to understand that the declaration “I speak my mind” is actually just a euphemism.  It is essentially an attempt at obtaining a personality-based license to be rude to others.  Some people, unfortunately, think that good lawyering involves personally offending the other side.  They think that being careful with their words shows weakness, and that to be as direct as possible is the best way to show strength.  When disagreements arise, they “speak their mind” and cut the other person down, usually with some sort of ad hominem remark or condescending tone. 

So my point is that I’ve noticed some (younger) law students who will eventually need to learn to litigate without being rude.  I doubt every successful litigator has a crass, srcew-you attitude that alienates the others in his firm and the legal community generally.   I am sure many do very well while maintaining (largely) positive relationships with their opposing counsel.  

 Unfortunately, most of us in law school either avoid the folks who “speak their minds” or have bought their excuse that somehow their behavior is acceptable because they’ve defined themselves as rude people. 

Gabriel Faure and Maurice Durufle left behind two incredible masterpieces.  I don’t usually listen to choral music, but I wanted to share parts of both of their Requiems with anyone who will see this.  Not enough of us twenty-somethings know about these amazing classical pieces.

The first two parts of Durufle’s Requiem, sung by the VU Kamerkoor Choir: 

Introit.mp3

Kyrie.mp3

Two parts of Faure Requiem:

Libera Me.mp3

In Paradisum.mp3

You might remember “In Paradisum” from the movie 28 Days Later.   The song plays in the background when the weary protagonists finally reach Manchester UK, only to find it in flames.  (Yes, as I wrote that I lamented that such an amazing work with heavy spiritual meaning is now better known for its 30 seconds in a Hollywood zombie movie.)

Amazing mosque in Esfahan, Iran. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYOytbD4Z0s

Think of a time when imams had to address enormous prayer halls of thousands of people — without a microphone.   The dome and mihrab (prayer niche) were an architectural technique to amplify the imam’s voice and reverberate it back to the congregation.   From the dome to the mihrab to the minaret, every architectural freature of the traditional mosque had some utility. 

An emergency on the subway last week forced me to switch to the bus in the middle of the city.  I ended up waiting at a bus stop outside a soup kitchen serving breakfast.

As I waited, a homeless man leaving the soup kitchen asked me for a pen.  I wanted to help him out, and of course I’m not one to refuse such a simple request, or just ignore him (like so many do with the urban poor) so I reached into my bag and I eyed a pen I didn’t really want.  I looked at it again as I handed it to him, making sure it wasn’t one I “needed.”  He got on a payphone, asked someone for an address so he could apply for a job, and then left.  With the pen. 

Later, as I studied the faces of the other passengers on the bus (I am always amazed by the immense class difference between the city bus and the Metro), I started to feel guilty.  I felt guilty not because I had given him a pen, but because I am instinctively selfish.  Without really thinking about it, I made sure to give him something I didn’t want or like.  Sure, functionally, I gave him what he needed.  But had I really been charitable?  What if I had just reached into my bag blindly and pulled out whatever I saw?  Most of the pens I own are ones I’ve found here and there — mostly just freebies I’ve up from offices or the Lexis/Westlaw printing room. 

The point is that even when faced with small, easy moments to be charitable, I try to minimize the cost to me.  What about giving charity freely, for its own sake, especially when it is so easy?  I hate that I don’t give freely from what I love.  Charity has to be more than just convenient. 

 So if I could go back and do it again, I’d reach into my bag and pull out the pen I’d want to keep (not that I think about pens in those terms really). 

 I need to learn how to give from what I value, to sacrifice.  Isn’t that the point of relgion for the people who “have”? Aren’t we are supposed to learn how to give to the “have nots”?

Muslims have to learn to give from what they love — whether that means their pens, their time, their energy, their money… we need to learn to be charitable and take advantage of the small opportunities as they arise. 

This reminds me of Surah Ma’uun, 107 of the Qur’an:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ

Have you seen the one who denies the Reckoning?

فَذَلِكَ الَّذِي يَدُعُّ الْيَتِيمَ

Who shuns the orphan,

وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ

and forgets the hungry?

فَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُصَلِّينَ

الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ

Who worships mindlessly,

الَّذِينَ هُمْ يُرَاؤُونَ

and only to be seen,

وَيَمْنَعُونَ الْمَاعُونَ

and fails in neighborly kindness?

Smoking is haram (prohibited), by Shaikh Ibrahim Desai

He writes:

God says: “And do not kill yourselves.” (An-Nisaa’: 29). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “Whomsoever drinks poison, thereby killing himself, will sip this poison forever in jahannam.”

Cigarettes consist of many poisonous substances and furthermore, the smoker indulges in a slow suicidal act by smoking this poison.”
 

Also, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller holds that smoking is haram in Reliance of the Traveller.  This is referenced here and here on Sunnipath.com

Finally, Dr. Ibrahim Syed makes some excellent arguments against smoking.

Revisiting a major issue this year: drawings and Islam.  I am continuously confronted with Muslims who do not understand that there is no specific prohibition against making images of the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, anywhere in the ahadith or Qur’an.  Instead, such a prohibition does not seem to be limited to the Prophet Muhammad saws, but in fact applies to all animate figures in general!

The whole cartoon controversy earlier this year sadly prompted very few Muslims to look into their canon and investigate why such imagery was prohibited.  It is clear that the images were offensive and degrading, but where did the oft-mentioned prohibition against images of the Prophet Muhammad saws come from exactly? 

 When I began to do some research on this topic, I discovered is that the prohibition we apply to images of the Prophet saws, is in fact based upon a general unrestricted iconoclast tradition in Islam. 

I consulted a local hanafi scholar on this issue last February at the height of the controversy, and he was unaware of any explicit prohibition of images representing religious leaders or the Prophet, peace be upon him.  Instead, his understanding was that there is a prohibition on drawings of animate creatures generally.  He also mentioned, however, that there are extra precautions to take because man has a natural tendency to corrupt Revelation.  Muslims — all of whom venerate Muhammad as a Prophet and leader — could slip into worshipping his image instead of the true Creator Himself.  Moreover, there are precautions to take with the Prophet saws specifically because we should be very worried about misrepresenting him.  Some have exaggerated what he did, looked like, etc, which is obviously not cool.

 So the issue, then, is if images are haraam carte blanche, then why do we have drawings of animate objects everywhere of other things?  I know that traditionalist sunni groups, like the shuyukh that give fataawa on sunnipath.com and Shaikh Nuh Hah Mim Keller, all oppose images to the point that they don’t have any photos of their faces, but most of lay Muslim society seems to be comfortable with a drawing representing them on Facebook.com or Naseeb (not that I’m on it!). 

 I can see how drawings would be permitted if there is a utility to them, like for medical textbooks or to help demonstrate important concepts to children in books and cartoons.  So intention seems to be crucial here, and reason certainly plays a part in how we determine what is religiously acceptable or not (at least for me).

 I wonder where Orthodox Jews stand on this issue…  And protestants of yesteryear….

as-salaamu ‘alaikum

Today I picked up some surveys for a really noble project that I initially didn’t ever plan to join.  The idea is to create a free health clinic for everyone in Cambridge, and I am trying to gather survey responses from shelters in the Central Square area.

Reading through the dozen responses I have so far, I find myself thinking about the individuals who completed the surveys.  Despite good spelling and an education, each of these individuals are in really difficult situations that have forced them to end up at a shelter.  I know so little about these people and their needs that I don’t really understand how one comes to the position where a shelter seems like the best sanctuary.  I feel so ignorant.  Several of the responses said that they were very dissatisfied with free health care and, for example, were not able to see a dentist for several months despite continuous pain.  This, in the city of Mass General, Harvard Medical, Beth Israel… ?

There is so much wealth in this city/state/country and yet there’s still so much suffering.  Why is man so eternally ungrateful for what God has given him?  Why do we turn a blind eye to those who need th most help in society, while we spend so frivolously?

How can those of us who are concerned help to increase awareness by creating a welfare ethic in society?  I know it is human nature to help someone in need — I am convinced we all have an innate desire to be charitable — but in contemporary society where we don’t know each others names and rarely ask about one anothe, how is it possible?

as-salaamu `alaikum

Like pretty much everyone else in the city of Boston (or at least Cambridge), I’ve spent the last week talking about the Democratic National Convention.  Since I’m against talking about my political views on this site, I’m just going to stick to the more interesting stuff — all the madness surrounding the convention.

First, so many of my friends and acquaintances who work in downtown Boston have mentioned how they considered leaving town for the convention.  Employers have encouraged their employees to work in other offices or at home, apparently.  But all this running makes no sense to me – Boston looks great.

For this one splendid week, construction in this city has slowed or even come to a complete halt.  I’ve really appreciated reading positive articles in the Globe about last-minute labor contract deals struck by the Mayor, and about Boston’s eagerness to host the conference.

A big change has been in the subways.  The just look cleaner.  And finally the MBTA decided to post helpful new signs in each subway station to maneuver the area.  The airport has signs welcoming everyone to the city, and Yahoo! had a booth were you could search the internet for free.  (I checked e-mail, of course.)

I just don’t understand why anyone would want to leave the city during this exciting time.  I wish I were involved in the convention simply to be a good host and have a great time showing off the city.