Dropsite News: Disruptive, New Media in the Age of Misinformation

Dropsite news has been one of my go to sources of news information since the war on Iran began. Apart from leaning in the same direction, there's something about the... dispassionate way in which they present facts and stories that really registers. In a world where our collective spider senses tingle so hard when reading the news, Dropsite brings a sense of objectivity and, well, truthfulness that you would struggle to find elsewhere.

Today Ibraaz hosted Jeremy Scahill, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, and Nika Soon-Shiong, all from Dropsite, to present a talk on new media. It was for sure a pitch, but an effective one, a lot reaffirming what fans of the news source already knew. There's value in hearing the story anyway - today brought a sense of passion that can't be found in objective reporting. All three speakers were sharp, articulate and confident - something that is sometimes lost behind a screen.

A note about the space - Ibraaz immediately threw me back to the vibe felt City Circle at Abrar House, except perhaps a little more prestigious and posh. I hope it becomes a regular venue for these type of events. 

I can't remember a time I've been so enthralled by speakers - and in a moment I'm beginning to see as my return to the talk circuit I left over a decade ago, it's a good affirmation that I'm coming back at the right time.

After the local elections: where next for class politics?

Between Faiza and Leanne we're quite spoilt for choice when it comes to community based political discourse. Today was the former's first post election talk and it's safe to say that it was a little abstract as a result. Yes, it's easy enough to relate anything to the slapping that the Labour Party recently got, but Class Politics is a subject of its own.

Much was learned, and yet I had a feeling that today's talk was more of a catharsis - a sounding board to rant about where we are with respect to class in the UK. Some interesting points were made about class and its relation to the surge in populism, but to my cynical ears we were just dancing around the fact that sometimes people vote in stupid ways.

Otherwise business as usual here.

Ilford in Conversation: Women Challenging the Political Status Quo

Tonight's conversation was of particular interest to me having been moved from the host's constituency to the guest's, Faiza Shaheen's. It turns out that this didn't make much of a difference to the latter, but was of benefit to the former... leaving the redrawing of the boundaries largely an academic exercise.

But that detail aside, tonight was less explicitly about women in politics and more about political troublemaking - although given the vicinity of the two impressive figures on stage you can't help but feel that their power may have come from their chromosomes after all.

I think the main takeaway was one of inspiration and hope, reassurance that there are people who think about things and more, take action. Both were soaked in their humility as well as their struggle, and it was nice to hear first hand Faiza's historical position with Labour.

Ilford in Conversation: Hunger Strikers #Filton24

I've mentioned before how important the Ilford in Conversation talks tend to be - they manage to remain current, honest, and present a depth that is far more than the usual talking points. The guests have been relevant, the audience (largely) sensible and all this with a sense of intimacy that can actually obscure how special and valuable this forum is.

Take tonight's topic for example - yes we may each have some preliminary knowledge into the hunger strikes being held by the Filton 24 but to hear accounts from those closest to them added a dimension you can't get by following social media accounts and reading blogs. I learned plenty over what I already knew, but the real value was in having the story shared.

The evening held no surprises, but that's okay - this particular subject matter wasn't about shock and awe. However if my suspicion about how many such forums have been held covering the topic holds (that they can be counted on one hand), the fact that we were fortunate enough to be present in one is of value enough.

The Lioness of Justice: Dr Naledi Pandor vs Israel

Apart from obvious contextual stuff, there were a few other things that I learned during tonight's audience with Dr Pandor. The most striking was that, yes, it is possible to have a genuine, humane, intelligent and articulate leader (where "leader" is to be taken in its most literal, governmental form).

Perhaps it's as basic as being highly educated, or maybe something a little more deeper about not having travelled through the usual path of hypocrisy and compromise that makes one a candidate in western democracies. Whatever the reasons, this alone, the fact that leaders can be excellent and are not inevitably awful, brought hope (and possibly despair if it's proven such integrity is impossible where we live).

But to the talk itself. A lot wasn't new, apart from in how it was presented (I may have mentioned how excellent the speaker was), and it's the precision and conciseness with which Dr Pandor expressed ideas the audience already knew of that shows why she is so valuable to the cause.

Aamer Rahman was excellent as the QA host - he kept out of the way and acted as a filter to a passionate, yet potentially tiresome, crowd. It was especially cute when the event ate itself when the question of SOAS's actions against its own Palestinian advocates was raised.

The topic is hot, with various deadlines approaching (both legally and on the ground in Gaza), so this was a useful opportunity to re-shift our minds to the apparent working of justice going on miles away from ground zero. 

Amitav Ghosh: Writing and Imagining History: Narrating the Indian Ocean World

I have to admit that I wasn't familiar with Ghosh until today, and it was only in a fit of post social momentum that I ended up attending tonight's fully booked talk by the author. I didn't know what to expect - well apart from what I gathered via osmosis while tagging along with some intelligent friends.

There's a special quality in some people - most of the time authors - in how they're able to communicate complex ideas in both an accessible and deeply nuanced way. That Ghosh is also concise only serves to enhance this ability of his, and it was astonishing (and enjoyable) witnessing him weaving in 30-40 minutes the topics of the environment, colonialism, military elitism and (I'm sure) a few more that I missed. It was kind of like watching a magician spin a trick.

That said, Ghosh suffered from the same strange contradiction good speakers demonstrate in that his Q&A session was even better than his prepared talk - not just because of some of the answers he gave but especially because of how he handled some of the more awful questions (did the contributors in the audience even realise this?)

All in all it was a bonus of a talk (since I had no previous intention of attending) and I look forward to reading some of his more popular work.

The Long Human Tragedy of the Nakba and Israel's Settler Colonial Genocide

There are few worthy champions to the Palestinian cause than Francesca Albanese. It's clear that she didn't become such a force off the back of a UN mandate, but there's little doubt that we (I?) probably wouldn't have heard of her if she wasn't the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. So it was a simple enough decision to jump on the chance to see her speak in person at Greenwich University even if it was only with a few hours' notice.

Most viral content on Albanese have her shooting down yet another errant journalist or questioner, an impressive skill but also telling in that we don't really tend to see much of her pre-canned stuff. And so it was tonight, with the actual presentation lacking slightly - possibly because it wasn't telling an informed audience anything new. That said there were still insightful gems like how the original colonialists happen to be the main beneficiaries of post war peace.

A timely fire alarm went off as the main presentation finished, ringing as loud as the paranoia in the audience. Luckily (?) it turned out to be a genuine false alarm (you know, as opposed to Zionist sabotage), so was as amusing as it was annoying, not least because of the awful scenes of idol worship, selfies and sycophancy on display during the interval by many attending. Ironically Albanese shot it down in her razor sharp yet non-patronising way, making the point that some were missing her point.

Of course the Q&A more than made up for the wait. Albanese was more human than she appears in her tiktoks, and as impossible as it might sound, far more wise. Of course at this point of the more recent developments we're not going to hear any truly novel points, but it was enthralling to see how she was able to connect the war in Gaza (as well as the occupation as a whole) to more wider debates like socialism and capitalism.

I was lucky enough to ask a question about whether domestic policy in Western countries were in the scope of her work (and generally the definition of genocide) and although it wasn't answered directly (probably because it's a no), it did lead to further points about our own respective responsibilities with respect to Palestine and elsewhere. A particularity pertinent point was how boycotts were more essential than protests, and wider financial leveraging was more important than boycotts.

Overall the evening was exactly what I was expecting and in no way disappointing. I am pleased to say the internet hype is real and Francesca Albanese is the real deal.

Nandita Das in Conversation

An impromptu invitation brought some friends and me to the Cine Lumiere in Kensington for an evening with the illustrious Nandita Das.

Das spoke about her life as an actor, director and producer, as well as as a mother and Indian. It was a pleasure just hearing her speak, with her calm and concise demeanour making it easy to scratch well beneath the surface.

What was less impressive, as always, was the Q&A afterwards, with the majority of contributors choosing to hear their own voice rather than that of the guest. Some things never change.

I was pleasantly surprised by the wisdom and wit offered by the "Bollywood star", and it was a throwback to the the talks we used to attend back in my 20s - honest, clever and extremely valuable.

Science Showoff

Well isn't this a treat? A amateur cabaret night themed around the weird and wonderful world of science, Science Showoff is just the ticket for some geeky release. But it's actually more than that, as you actually really do learn something too.

Such is the genius of even today's line up, all of whom are considered to be fresh meat. I only stayed for half of it, but in that time I learned about heart disease, cancer of the uterus research, evolution and saw some contemporary dance demonstrating the magic of stem cells.

It was a laugh, it was insightful and yes, it was oh so geeky. It's the grassroots stuff that takes me back to Rebel Muzik, and has definitely found a future place in my diary.

Islamic Wills and Bequests

Although I've come across many of 1st Ethical's leaflets (mainly in my local mosque) this was the first time I was attending any of their seminars, and I have to say I was pretty impressed. This was in part due to learning about the work that they do, but mainly because of our host this evening, Imam Mohammad Abid Khan. He almost effortlessly led us through the basics of Islam's take on wills and inheritance, giving us a solid understanding of the stuff that will cover most use cases.

I think for me was Imam Khan's ability to engage both the topic and the audience. He managed to talk about the issues on deeper than usual level, both by filling out all the assumptions a typical audience would usually make as well as avoiding the canned reasoning and lip service you'd find elsewhere. That's not to say that the material was overly academic or dry; on the contrary, the real value came from how accessible he made it all.

Of course as usual it was the audience who got in the way of the talk running smoothly, with various digressive questions being thrown in at each slide. I reckon a format with the questions at the end would have allowed Imam Khan to have flowed at a decent pace, but then the interactions did make it more engaging I guess.

So yes, although a lot of what was covered was basic I certainly left the talk feeling empowered. I'd definitely be interested in attending a 1st Ethical seminar again.

City Circle: Ten Things You Should Know About Happiness

First of all: yikes! Has it really been that long since I last came to City Circle? Crazy stuff. Still, it was pretty poignant seeing the place again - some things had changed, a lot yet hadn't really.
But yes, seeing as my days as a pseudo-regular attendee are long gone, it took something a little more than the usual to grab my attention. And this was it: a talk on how to be happy, a topic I've covered a little here on this blog and elsewhere (in reality). I admit it: I didn't really come for guidance, but more for vindication.

Ajmal Masroor is a Cool Enough Dude. He's concise and accessible, although I wouldn't really call him "one of us" quite yet. A lot of what he says is common sense and he didn't really surprise today either, pretty much telling us all stuff we should have already known. In brief, here are those ten things:

1. Happiness is all around us already (or, be happy with your lot, there is always someone worse off).
2. Happiness is not found in material gain.
3. Happiness comes from within.
4. A content heart is vital to be happy.
5. A happy person is one of sound character.
6. A happy person shares their happiness, their wealth, their time.
7. Happiness stems from true and meaningful relationships.
8. Happiness is correlated with simplicity.
9. Happiness comes from serving others.
10. Those who celebrate life are happy.

I may have paraphrased a little but you get the picture. The talk was a good one and it was good to have attended.

I left the talk after Masroor was done, hoping to avoid the inevitable annoyance brought by an inane Q&A (see? I know how to be happy); it's a little depressing that the majority of people will miss the point of what was being said.

No, you don't have to point out the irony in that.

The Raindance Saturday Film School

In my opinion Groupon is very much the online version of Next; you know with the whole "fake discount" thing. Take this course for instance - a full day of expert tuition usually worth 120 quid for the princely sum of £40 via the coupon site. How could anyone miss that bargain? Well the truth is that not many did - in fact I doubt any of the house capacity 300 who turned up today actually paid the full price for their place.

But clever marketing aside I do think that the day was worth what we paid for it. Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance, was the star of the show. Yes he was a little arrogant at first but eventually this turned out to to his credit rather than something that alienated. He led three of the four lectures, covering subjects like screenplay writing, movie making and how to break into the industry.

A lot of his advice was anecdotal in nature, something that was fun to listen to if only because Grove is such a good storyteller. I really liked the screenplay lecture myself though; he was extremely practical in the way he told us about the regular patterns found in modern movie making.

Like all great speakers though, most of his lessons were not really about the film industry but instead about life; he even went a little metaphysical toward the end. I thought it was great stuff myself, and even if I never make any movies with the stuff I took away from him, I do think that I learned something of value.

Simon Hunter, a director, took the third lecture about, well, directing. Perhaps it was because he had the dreaded post-lunch sleepy session, or maybe because his lecture was less structured than Groves's, but I found his stuff pretty difficult to follow. That said, Hunter has more of a practical approach, with him describing the tools and methods that directors use in their work. He also directly drew from his own experience, even going as far as showing us examples of the bad work he did.

And that's kinda why I enjoyed the film school really. Unlike other lectures which are either academic (where a lecturer separated themselves from the subject matter) or personal (where the speaker is the subject matter), all of the lectures today were both. We were being led by real people, those truly in the industry. I've never really experience this kind of "apprenticeship" tuition before, and I found it to be quite powerful. This, despite the fact that the school was clearly designed to be a platform to pitch to us the other Raindance offerings.

A final note on the venue: apparently The Old Cinema inside the Regent Street Westminster campus is the oldest in Europe. It was actually quite impressive too in a charming way. There are two more dates for the school in the next couple of months, but I think they are in different places.

Islamic Circles presents: CAN THE OBEDIENT WIVES CLUB (OWC) – aka THE POLYGAMY CLUB WORK IN THE UK?

First things first: I am a monogamist, or at least as much a monogamist a single guy can hope to be. And not only am I a monogamist, I am strictly and actively so. I think it is impossible for me to ever be in love with more than one person let alone marry more than once, and I'd rather be alone than in a polygamous relationship. But it goes even further than this, since I'm also a temporal monogamist; I'm one woman for life and only plan on falling in love the one time. It's possibly unrealistic and most certainly pathetic but it's my take on monogamy more than anything else (including my religion) that explains why, for example, that I've never been interested in any kind of casual relationship with a girl - it'd feel too much like cheating - and I'm always puzzled by how some guys get turned on by the idea of multiple women at the same time. I'd even be as lofty to say that to even remarry would be a big deal for me and that I probably wouldn't unless for obviously practical reasons. So yes, I'm definitely in the "lobster" camp; what's more is that ironically this obsession with monogamy is probably one of the biggest reasons why I'm not married yet - but that's for another post.

Hopefully that is enough of a pre-emptive and defensive introduction to convince even the most cynical (read: feminist) of you that this post isn't about any personal fantasy or desire of mine.

Personally, my reason for attending a talk like this one was because it's finally something different from the usual run-of-the-mill Islamic lectures that have almost dominated the social scene of outgoing Muslims (and my poor inbox) during the past ten years. It wasn't about abstract topics like Tawheed or Aqeedah (things I don't think can necessary be prescribed anyway), it wasn't the instructional stuff you're probably better off reading about in a book and neither was it jumping on a passing bandwagon (I'm looking at you Islamic Finance and Green Islam). Unlike other lectures it hasn't been designed to be summarised in a Facebook status update, or to be tagged with the name of some rockstar imam I can't even pronounce the name of. But, again, my bitter cynicism toward Islamic academia is probably something for another post.

No, this is a topic that's largely been unexplored, at least in an open-minded and impartial way, isn't fashionable (yet) and may even be more practical and relevant than the knowledge currently being sought elsewhere. In fact, I'll even say I didn't really attend as Muslim tonight (you know what I mean), and I was genuinely interested in the personal story of those we had come to see. Congratulations to Mizan and Islamic Circles for being so innovative and brave.

Despite my personal take on the issue, there's no question about it: polygamy is hot right now. Apparently on the increase in British born Asians (although the article doesn't explain what it means by "polygamous relationship", or how it compares to the number of open or unfaithful marriages in other demographics), and not, as many may like to assume, always at the insistence of the man in the relationship. Considering the often lamented loser-to-men ratio, the alleged statistic that there are far more decent women than decent men and finally how there seems to be a bit of a marriage crisis for single Muslim women nowadays, the idea of polygamy has finally gathered enough mindshare for at least the initial debate to begin - and that in a more sophisticated way than it may otherwise have been handled.

So we had a triple - a husband with his two wives, naturally - giving their experiences and insight into the issue at hand. They only spoke for ten minutes in total before the floor was opened for questions; a genius move on the parts of the organisers. During the Q&A we learned how Global Ikhwan were not polyagmists by default and how only a small subsection actually participated in the practise. We were given a bit of a background of the various clubs formed - by my understanding there are actually two separate ones serving two separate purposes: The Obedient Wives' Club and The Polygamy Club. The latter was a support group for those in polygamous relationships, whereas the the former was one promoting a particular way in which to be a good wife. The choice of name is possibly unfortunate, especially in a climate where obedience is a weak and bad thing. I do agree with the argument that an Obedient and Responsible Husbands' Club is also desperately required and I'd probably wouldn't mind joining something like that myself.

Mohammad Ali was the husband with the two wives. He explained how it wasn't him who chose polygamy but that he and his second bride were picked by his community for a wider purpose. We were told how all parties including him, his existing wife and his new bride all went through training and counselling to prepare for the change, and, ultimately, how polygamy was about choice, justice and morality and not control, lust or misogyny. Indeed, the three were here to share their lives, not convince, convert or recruit anyone to their cause.

For me the most interesting of the three was the first wife. Highly educated, she was the most comfortable of the three with speaking in English. She explained how polygamy liberated her from the impossible position she had previously placed herself in, wanting to have a career as well as look after the home and children. She said she found that she had the time and energy to focus on the things that made her happy once she was secure in the knowledge her husband and home were being looked after.

The second wife was much quieter but still had a presence in the triple. My question was to ask about the relationship between the two wives and how they considered each other and after rephrasing it to sound less kinky (that wasn't intentional, I swear), they said how it was almost like a sibling relationship. And as I watched them throughout the night this affection was quite obvious as they shared in-jokes and demonstrated a tactile level of body language. They were clearly at the very least good friends.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there was a lot of cynicism shot out from the audience. I think that much was fair enough - Mohammad Ali and his wives were probably prepared for a hostile crowd - but it was still a little disheartening and even embarrassing at times. There were what I can only describe as haters present, people only there to cause hassle, demonstrate close-mindedness, or just to look good in front of the other women in that faux-feminist way some guys have. Especially amusing were the couple of girls getting emotional over a comment the first wife made about how women are prone to becoming emotional. I'm pretty certain they didn't see the irony in their reaction.

Particularly disappointing was Abdul-Rehman Malik of Radical Middle Way fame. His input was to ask random questions about group sex and anti-Semitism, which if I was a cynical chap could only describe as blatant attempts at discrediting the personalities present rather than discuss the issue at hand. He himself didn't even bother to listen to the replies to his question as he tapped on his Blackberry.

Overall, the lack of etiquette by the audience (some even left as the three were making their closing statements) was a little disappointing and ironic considering how most were complaining about the lack of respect demonstrated by polygamous men by default. I wondered how many of the people throwing tomatoes were as ethical and honest in their monogamous relationships as the three on the panel were, or how they would have behaved in a talk about relationship types sanctioned-by-the-west like casual ones, homosexuality or those of mixed faiths. The media was also present in full force; I expect the BBC to report on the topic in their unique and authoritatively misinformed and inaccurate style (EDIT: and here it is. Sigh).

On the other hand we did have some genuinely curious questions and interest from the audience too, as well as the cheeky, including one regarding the challenge of having two mother in laws. My favourite was how one guy juxtaposed the distaste we were supposed to have for Islamic polygamy with the acceptance and championing of the right for men and women in the west to cheat in their marriages or be casual and promiscuous. According to him, Islam was backwards by expecting the husband to be responsible for and honest toward his multiple relationships as opposed to the western idea of the more independent and self-serving toward a partner the better. I suspect his point was as lost on the audience as it was on Mohammad Ali though.

Most encouraging however was a young female college student, adamantly against the concept before the talk started but afterwards much more accepting of it as a choice and even solution to bring happiness to certain individuals. She explained that it still wasn't for her, but that she was now able to accept and even understand why it would be the choice for others in certain situations. In that sense the triple were pretty successful in spreading awareness and understanding.

The main issue of contention for some was the doubt over a person's ability to treat more than one wife with justice. The answer to my question, about how the wives saw each other as siblings, got me thinking about the situation where a parent (single or otherwise) has more than one child, and how in that case we would embrace and even encourage the challenge of sharing our love and being just between people with equal rights to that love and justice. And yet we pour scorn and incredulity on a person who chooses to do the same with two spouses. If we think about it, the issues are largely the same if you consider a marriage where the man and woman have defined (that is different but justly divided) statuses. Of course if a couple decide to have a more "literally" equal marriage then I would say polygamy wouldn't really work for them, and they would probably be wise not to practise it. In that sense, this debate wasn't really about having multiple partners, but more about the respective position of a husband and wife (regardless of the number), and the nature of relationship between them and whether traditional and well defined marriages, even the monogamous ones, can ever be considered fair or just.

For those who cry foul at the disparity of this choice and say that men should refuse polygamy on the grounds that it's a facility unavailable to their wives - I'm not sure negative play is the best tactic in any discussion. Almost by virtue of them being so well defined, Islamic marriages are always going to have a disparity between the man and the woman who choose to partake in them, and to deny this particular right would be like relieving a man obligation to provide for his family - an obligation that the woman doesn't have. To be fair some couples do modify these rights, and that's fair enough if done in agreement and consistency. But generally if we accept an Islamic marriage to be just and fair, then we have to accept all the rights available to both parties are too, no matter how exclusive they happen to be. On a secular level I would absolutely agree that there is no reason why women shouldn't be allowed to marry more than once, and such statuses do actually exist in other parts of society.

But as with all rights and facilities, abuse does occur. And yes, there are a lot of douchebag men out there. But I suspect that there are more douchebag monogamists than douchebag polygamists; a douche doesn't become a douche once he chooses a particular opinion and neither will all douches want the same things. In short the bad qualities most people say manifest themselves in a polygamist - so a lack of character, fickleness, no sense of justice - would probably all be present even if you restricted them to monogamy, since it's certainly possible to be unjust and uncaring toward a single wife too. And even a fantastic guy might not be able to handle more than one wife - the chances are that he wouldn't want to anyway.

I'm often told how relationships and marriages have evolved, and how their nature has moved from that of the practical and well defined to a more loose and flexible "organic" one. In the Muslim community self-determined, causal and non-committal relationships are now more acceptable and even expected and encouraged as a natural consequence of progress, when before they would have been resisted and unheard of. And as we continue to evolve and change who we as individuals are, I suspect the same will happen with polygamy. As well as solving the quite real numbers issues - is half a great guy really worse than a whole loser or not being married at all? - it could also be a solution for the increasing number of independent woman who wish to marry but also, like the first wife today, to be free of certain expectations and pressures in order to allow her to focus on her own things.

If consenting adults can pull it off then you can't really do anything but praise God for allowing it to happen. As the polygamists repeatedly mentioned, their relationship - like many monogamous relationships - was mainly for the pleasure of God and they felt that the fact that they found success in it was an indication of God sending his blessings upon them. And regardless of how religious you are that's the real point here: in the face of countless accusations of polygamists being backwards or the wives in them repressed - accusations laden with ever helpful baggage and preconceptions of the accusers themselves - their specific relationship was anything but sleazy or temporary, but rather quite long term, well-founded and full of love; certainly more so than many of the monogamous marriages we come across in life.

And like all loving relationships that's something that can in no way ever be criticised or seen as a bad thing. If I ever get married and my monogamous relationship is as happy, stable and content as the one I saw tonight, well I'd be nothing but pleased and thankful for what I have.

Software G Forces and Ease At Work

One of the good things about working in a big flashy corporate are the facilities that are made available to employees. For example today we had Kent Beck come in and give a talk for the most part of the morning.

It was a good talk. Beck himself is a brilliant speaker if a little sheepish, but the manner in which that he embraces this side of him in itself gives him an air of confidence. Indeed a major theme in his work is to accept people as people and not assume that just because the work of programmers is largely mathematical that programmers themselves are - as well as accepting that we as an industry have social issues that need to be acknowledged and worked on.

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself here. The first part of the talk was titled "Software G Forces: A talk discussing the dramatic changes to the development as the deployment cycle shrinks", and literally listed what to expect if we attempted to shrink our own release cycles from months to minutes. Beck assumed that we had all already bought into the idea that instant release cycles was the aim and in that sense it was more of a observational than conceptual talk.

Although the talk was very good and did what it aimed to do, I think most of the audience were stuck in stage zero and were not of the position that shorter cycles was always a good thing. As such the questions and feedback was less about what was said and more to do with why we wanted to in the first place. For sure, Beck's ideas require a philosophy change or paradigm shift to work and reap benefits and simply "working faster" wasn't the point.

In other words this talk was probably came a little too early for some of us. Still I found it quite beneficial to know the material effects of moving to a faster release cycle, and I was uplifted when he explained how Amazon manage to release thousands of times a day. It was liberating in the same way as when you realise you don't necessarily need static typing or OOO any more, a kind of vindication of a feeling you may already have had, or a meta-awareness of the software development industry.

The second part of the talk, "Ease At Work: The importance of maintaining an accurate self-image" was pure psychology and in my view didn't have much to do with software but more general work ethic - but perhaps in a way us in technology may understand. Ideas like self-awareness and communication were correct and materially rewarding as well as learnable behaviours, and that the only thing holding us back were the lack of traction, laziness and habit. I already try to implement many of the things he mentioned in my everyday life, but it was refreshing to hear it in the context of IT let alone work.

I'm going to put my hands up here - before today I had no idea who Kent Beck was. That's more an indication of my own disinterest in my chosen career rather than his celebrity status, and having studied XP in university I certainly know of his ideas and work. So yes, it was a privilege to have him address us this morning. I was expecting a fully technical talk but instead found something quite human, commonsensical and practically useful. For sure, I still think Computing is a technical field and can never be seen as a social industry and that a lot of modern effort to make it so is a bit shoehornish. But what I realised today is that there is room for some soft skills in my work and that it's quite worth the time to achieve some of those.

CRG: The Iqbal Sessions

Before today I honestly didn't know much about Mohammed Iqbal. I knew he was a poet and possibly a homie of Jinnah and had some hand in the formation of Pakistan, but that was about it. So when a friend from the CRG (something I have unfortuantely much neglected since those first couple of sessions I had attended) told me they were going to devote a whole day to him I can't claim to have been particularly enthusiastic; but still I do think there's a need to support such things in order for bigger and better stuff to come out of it. So yeah, I wasn't planning to stay for very long.

On arriving I found that this wasn't an arty showcase on the life and talent of Iqbal but more of a series of lectures discussing the quite deep philosophical, religions and political themes he spoke about. I walked in on Dr Mahbub Gani's talk on divinity and was immediately captivated; this wasn't poetry but religious philosophy, you know, the abstract stuff I try to touch on here in this blog. Sure, a lot of it was contextual with respect to Iqbal, but Gani did a good job of extracting the essences and presenting them to us. After his talk had ended I cancelled my lunch plans and decided to stick around for the rest of the day.

After lunch Dr. Rabia Malik talked about Khudi, or the Human Ego, and how it can be defined and measured. AbdoolKarim Vakil took the final slot, talking about how we should consider how Iqbal was read; a discussion on meta-Iqbal if you will.

The plenary (don't worry, I didn't know what that was either - it's basically a Q&A where formal debate and conclusions might be drawn) took things way over my head as the day finally took its toll, although I did notice that it was of a higher quality than usual as the audience resisted making it more about them than Iqbal. And although the whole thing overran by an house I am glad that I hung around; in fact I actually regretted not joining in from the start, although I do hope I'll be able to catch what I missed via a recording or something. I guess if anything I've learned not to be so easily dismissive about stuff I actually don't really know much about of in the first place.

Of Sunni and Shia

In their classically open-minded and quasi-revolutionary style, my local mosque, QMT, invited a prominent Shia scholar (whose name escapes me right now, for shame) in order to open some dialogue, discuss unity and most importantly educate the existing attendees (excursively sunni) on his particualr school of thought.

The pitch was as expected: we were told how the basics were the same (so we have the same obligations, the same Quran and, effectively the same respect for prominent figures) but just differed on implementation. This it turn was due to the more deeper Shia understanding that the opinion of the blood relatives of The Prophet take precedent over that of anyone else.

Although I found the talk to be pretty engaging, it seemed that the theme was more an abstract one about tolerance and understanding rather than one which would tackle some of the more common and concrete misunderstandings those of the sunni persuasion have. Don't get me wrong; I totally believe that tolerance, understanding and evidence backed opinion making are key to defeating any kind of prejudice let alone the intra-Islamic type, and further that most Muslims have to be taught that. I just found the labouring of the point a bit tiring.

The question and answer session was a let down; most people coming forward were more interested in telling us their life stories and how their best friends happened to be Shia than asking anything of any substance. My question regarding whether there were any sub-sects within the Shia who would be considered deviant by the rest was answered by a pretty generic "we shouldn't judge the correct whole by the misbehaving minority", something which I felt kinda went against the message given in the rest of the talk.

But overall it was a good, solid talk and one which feels like the start of a trend being set. Although there's a lot of sunni-shia relations in the professional and social world, it's pretty vital to have the same friendliness in the mosque too if any kind of mutual respect and unity is to be achieved. I'm hoping that there'll be a mirror of today's lecture, one with a sunni scholar talking at a shia mosque, that will not only give balance to today's session but also get us to the goal everyone present this afternoon wanted to achieve.

City Circle: The Futures Project - Investing in the Talent of the Youth

The only real reasons for me to attend a City Circle event these days is either the promise of an entertaining and engaging discussion or the fact that a close friend would be hosting it. Sometimes, like today, I'm even lucky enough to be treated to both (and I'm not just saying that because they might be reading either).

My first and only direct experience with the Muslim Youth Helpline was applying for and being consequently declined for a position on the helpline itself in 2005. From my rejected (and so possibly bitter) position I found the organisation to have had a slightly unfocused aim and message back then; for example when I asked whether the fundamental objective of the helpline was to either help or Islamically guide, I got the impression that the MYH didn't really see a difference between the two.

But a lot changes in three years and although I've had a light exposure to the recent and subtle transformation of the MYH tonight was the first time it would be direct and formal and I was interested in seeing in what way they may have changed. Joining MYH chair Mohammed Choudhury was fellow trustee Dr. Rabia Malik and between them they did a good job of addressing most of the concerns the sparse yet engaged audience had.

Via various case studies and real life stories, we learned why the faith-based help the MYH was providing was so crucial - Islam wasn't just a facilitating common ground between client and counsellor but an important source of identity for those seeking help, and so a baseline or reference on which their own solutions were hoped to be built.

That said it was good to see that the helpline had been thinking about the question I had posed three years earlier - Dr. Malik nailed it when answering a question about the Islamic credentials of the MYH by explaining how they weren't really there to provide technical answers to Islamic questions but to more facilitate a use of a callers own judgement and responsibility. I've been a big fan of Dr. Malik's for a while and it's stuff like this that makes me think it's great move on the part of the MYH to have her on as a trustee.

Mohammed on the other hand dealt more with the structural and strategic design of MYH. He explained how their efforts were now more definably split between support and advocacy and talked about the non-helpline initiatives they were driving - a case in point being the video project we were asked to watch toward the end of the talk. It was encouraging to see the MYH had thought about the more business like aspects of running such a project (as opposed to just winging it like many other similarly helpful organisations would).

Whether the intention behind tonight was to publicise or inform, my feelings towards the MYH has changed from indifference to an interest beyond passing, although probably not enough to become actively involved myself. With their fresh and focused attitude I can pretty much see them affecting major change both in the lives of those they intend to help and quite possibly for the rest of us too. It'll be interesting to see how further they'll be in three more years.

Spiced Spare Ribs!

To be honest when I saw the marketing poster for this, the latest RMW event, I thought that it immediately gave this event away for what it actually turned out to be - a session in scapegoating, rhetoric and, quite frankly, moaning. I would crack a joke about oestrogen, but since I've already placed myself firmly in the "insecure and defensive male critic" bracket I'd better not push my chances of being taken seriously here any more than I already have. Still, I thought it would be a nice way to introduce a friend from abroad to what Muslim London/UK was all about so we popped along for a looksie anyway.

It wasn't all that bad actually. Despite being female only (a criticism of the event's philosophy rather than the sheer individual talent on show), the panel did manage to both enlighten and entertain for most of it. For me, the star of the show was Humera Khan, possibly an manifestation of the ongoing developing attitude she herself lays claim to. There were a few times when she seemed to lay all problems at the feet of Muslim men (and even a thinly veiled "in my experience" qualification didn't really make up for that) but that could be forgiven in the grand scheme of things.

The rest of the panel was also brilliant: Fatima Zohra was the most real and constantly refused to acknowledge the cliches her mainly Asian audience were throwing at her. Catherine Heseltine charmingly did her MPAC proactive thing, having a pop at the establishment and all, and made a nice contrast to the more subtle approach to change suggested by the rest of the panel.

Khola Hasan seemed to represent the traditional angle, scholarly and backing up her opinion with various theological ideas. And of course the awesome Fareena Alam did a brill job as moderator (I've been told I'm not allowed to say that I fancy her out of respect of her marriage to the equally awesome Abdel-Rehman Malik and so I won't).

Topic-wise we actually started out really well, only becoming progressively worse as the strong resistance to conventional thinking and blame started to waver. As a warm-up we first debated the marketing poster (which was pretty fun) before moving on to the always-juicy discussion on relationships and marriage - or how to solve The Problem Of Being Single.

The concept of platonic relationships in Islam was considered and answered without deferring to an obvious "no", segregation was criticised and the value of remaining single touched upon. We did have a couple of redundant questions ("should older women marry younger men?") but they were dealt with quickly and efficiently enough. In hindsight I should have piped up a bit more; but as always is the case with these things I always want to save my self-fool-making for later.

We then moved to the place of women in politics (the conclusion in short: "yes, there in fact is one") which bled onto leadership and then female scholarship. By that point nothing new was really being discussed and the predictable prejudices and insecurities of the audience had taken over.

By that point my eyes had gotten tired by all the incessant rolling, and tonight was one of the few times I had ever left a talk early. A bit of a shame then, as the potential to break new ground and introduce a new way of thinking was squashed by the transformation of it all into a big old soap box.

Loving the Beloved of Allah

To be totally honest, I had no idea who Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi was before being told about his talk tonight. He was the guest speaker at this year's Imperial College Islamic Society's "big event" (see here for the last one).

The "beloved" in this case refers to the Prophet of Islam, which some of you may recognise as something of Sufi terminology. It only occurred to me once I had taken my seat and heard Qari Muhammad Zarzour and Sidi Rafique do their singing thing how Imperial has progressed since my time there; this wouldn't have happened ten years ago when the only people who showed an interest in Islam were either part of a political group or hard core traditionalist. It's a welcome development provided the Isoc maintains the balance.

It was also interesting to see the diversity of the crowd. I think that students were outnumbered by the non, and judging by the way a large number stood up for the Shaykh's entrance this was looking to be bigger than just any university isoc event.

The Shaykh himself was a powerful, strong and confident speaker; I was impressed by his manner of communication and was held for some time by what he had to say. He had a sense of professionalism and wisdom around him indicating that he had been around for a while and knew what he was talking about, and more importantly how to pass that knowledge on.

A large proportion of the lecture covered love itself - the different types and targets of one's affection. Interestingly he noted that there was no concept of marital love in the Quran; the book uses the word "mawada" instead which is more about mercy and friendliness but is often translated as "permanent love". I think I prefer the Shaykh's translation myself although there's always room for that other stuff too.

Applying these types of love to Islam, we heard how we should separately love God (and that our awareness of God increases with that love), his messenger and then Islam itself as a concept. This romanticising of religion is pretty typical of the bits of Sufism I've read and heard about so it wasn't that surprising now.

Focussing on the Prophet, we were told how we have many reasons to love him. Firstly we should since our God does. Secondly (and kinda similarly) Islamic teachings indicate that to love him is a form of worship. Lastly we should love him "materially" due to his total perfection in looks and manner.

This was then followed by historical references to this love of The Prophet resulting in the advice that although loving The Prophet ("more than your father, son and all of mankind") is not an obligation, it's the only way to achieve a perfect belief.

There was no Q&A session but since the Shaykh had been talking for over an hour, I was grateful for this. I have to admit that I zoned out a few times, although that was probably due to me being distracted rather than the talk itself.

Overall, I can't really say that I took much away from tonight; probably because my balance sways in the favour of pragmatism rather than the spiritualism of Sufism a lot of what was said kinda went over my head. That's not to say it wasn't interesting in its own right; judging by the reaction of the audience I suspect I was in the minority with this opinion anyway.

The God Solution: The Islamic Concept of God

Although I've read a bit of his stuff and seen him on the television, I've never had the pleasure of listening to one of Abdul Hakeem Murad's lectures live. That's why I jumped at the chance of attending one down at Guy's this afternoon. To jump straight to the point I wasn't disappointed; he really is a wonderful speaker.

In this session he was to talk about the Islamic concept of God. He did this by covering various questions that had been asked in the history of Islam along with their respective answers. In this way it was tough to tell what his exact opinion was; a good thing since it left us to form our own. This objectivity is what probably impressed me the most.

So the micro-topics covered included the genericness of God as well as the more contrasting aspects between the Abrahamitic faiths, an explanation of why evil could exist in the world with God (including a neato story about an ant and a carpet maker and how the former couldn't appreciate the creation of the latter) and how Islam is largely a fatalistic religion ("everything is in the hand of God"). He also covered atheism as a contrary to theology and the respective implications on free will and choice.

He explained how the much requested (by the West) reform of Islam had already taken place with the rejection of most of the historical advances made in the religion and gave the examples of the peaceful and tolerant coexistence times in the past.

After laying the above groundwork, Abdul Hakeem then moved on to more philosophical topics. He talked a lot about Kalam, or the forming of religious opinion via logic and argument - an example of this was how some theologians started with the "base case" of atheism and worked up to theology from that using principles of logic (as opposed to proving an existing assumption of God). He finally noted that even though some had thought they had proved the existence of God, they also noted that there was no obligation of faith without scripture, or the commandment to believe. Heavy stuff.

The question and answer session was okay. I managed to submit my simple question to Abdul Hakeem Murad:

Isn't the lack of a definite proof of God a pre-requisite of sound belief?

I'm proud to say that this was one of the few questions that made our host pause for thought - I even got a show of appreciation with him declaring it a "good question" after his reply - there's nothing quite like validation you know? Anyway, he agreed that there has to be room for disbelief in order to give belief value, but noted that although there weren't/couldn't be any overwhelming proofs of God that there were so many "almost-proofs" that after aggregation the likelihood was that this stance was correct. A bit of a fudge but elegantly so I thought.

Other good points raised included discussion of how a good disbeliever could be in a better internal state than a bad believer due to the differing obligations on each. We were also told how a perfect level of tauheed should demonstrate itself by a lack of panic over worldly events and calamities, a lack of fear and a lack of regret.

The rest of the Q&A was substandard boring studenty stuff, once again more about the person asking the question than the answer they received. Someone even asked if God could create a stone he couldn't lift - which turned out to be a worthwhile question if only to see how expertly Abdul Hakeem dismissed it. Overall I think it was a wasted opportunity and pretty painful for the speaker.

But this was a brilliant talk that I feel lucky to have attended. Abdul Hakeem Murad is smooth, seamless, clear, concise and witty and an absolute joy to listen to. Just in case you couldn't tell by now I have definitely become a fan of his and I recommend you all check him out if you ever get the chance to.