LegoRobot

I found this hilarious. Not that I agree with the sentiment of course.



WARNING: Do not browse the rest of LegoRobot's strips. Some are... disturbing at best.

Bonus Day

Well it was on the 11th anyway. Whoops!

Film: Resident Evil: Extinction

More of the same never seem to be enough for most of the 111 minutes this film runs for. But it's not the lack of originality that brings RE:E down; no, it's more the lack of the spirit the previous two had (the same spirit found in the games) that makes this a merely passable film.

The acting and direction is fine, and there are some great set pieces, but just when you feel something big is about to be turned over, the Extinction lets you down and takes the easy way out. The first two weren't epics by any means, but they had a lot more ambition and scope than this did.

One for the fans looking for completion then? For the rest of you, there's always DVD.

New Music

Yes. Yes. I know.

Hey Hey - Swami

Fun little track with a hint of swingness to it.

Last Night Remix - P Diddy ft Keyshia Cole, Lil' Kim and Busta Rhymes

I've not really been a fan of P Diddy's since No Way Out, but I reckon Keyshia makes this a tune.

Everything - Michael Buble

Something I picked up from Brisbane, this is a damn good classic yet modern ballad.

Baba Veh - Desi Vibes

Cheeky filmi/bhangra number.

M.U.R.D.E.R. - Jay Sean ft Thara

A collaborative effort from our very own Jay Sean, pure R&B with not a hint of Asian anywhere.

Kala - M.I.A.

Come Around convinced me to pick up the rest of M.I.A.'s album. Highlights include Jimmy, XR2 and BirdFlu.

Stranger - Rishi Rich ft Mumzy

Good stuff from the upcoming talent Mumzy. Managing to seamlessly put together a range of different styles Mumzy manages to come up with the goods. A tune.

Let's Party - Mumzy

More from Mumzy, and although I don't dig this as much as Stranger, it's still worth an entry on my playlist, if only for a while.

Film: Laaga Chunari Mein Daag

Okay, I admit it, I'm not quite sure what the title means or what proverb it's referring to. Thankfully, that didn't stop me from enjoying this film as much as I did.

More "life" than "love" story, LCMD is mainly about Badki (an ever delightful Rani Mukerji) and the lengths she goes to to save her cash-poor family of all its ills. A heroic but sparse Abhishek Bachchan is thrown in at regular intervals just in case you needed a romantic thread to keep the film together, but I found it largely irrelevant to the main story. Chutki (Konkona Sen Sharma) and the rest of the talented supporting cast are thrown in to round things off.

Shot well, acted adequately and offering a strong balance of both tears and joy, I thought that LCMD was pretty damn good; certainly one of the better "classical" Bollywood flicks I've seen this year. Worth it for the cheesy feel good factor alone, I heartily recommend it.

Film: The Heartbreak Kid

A Farrelly brothers film was probably not the smartest choice with which to begin my post-Ramadan film feast, but it had been on my list to watch at some point and was chosen to be watched.

So we have the usual smut and vulgarity hanging around a plot of sorts, a "real-life" context in which a fairytale is spun out and a fair few laughs we've come to expect from a typical Farrelly flick.

But perhaps it was because we had just come of Eid, or perhaps I was just knackered, but The Heartbreak Kid just didn't quite seem to cut it. I did chuckle and I was revolted and I did go "aaw", just not enough and to the same extent as I would have for one of its predecessors.

One to save for the good ol' DVD, I think.

They Call It Fasting For A Reason

Fastest Ramadan ever, or what?

EDIT: Cripes, it seems that the Middle East have announced, while mosques up and down the UK have too. Didn't see that coming... But Eid Muburak anyway I guess!

An Imperialist Ten Years

It's ten years this week since I started at Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. That's a long time, although since I was there for four of those years it's not that depressing. It also happens to be the university's centenary this year, but unfortunately I missed the events celebrating this due to Ramadan commitments. I last visited the South Kensington campus back in March.

I don't exactly remember my first day at IC, but we did go around in our tutor groups meeting our supervisors during the first week. I remember it well - it was my birthday and I was quite depressed at the lack of girls, the lack of a student atmosphere and the lack of girls there.

I had seen my brother and aunt go through university and had been expecting the same deal, but in hindsight it makes sense that a prestigious place would offer good study rather than social facilities. Students go to Imperial to work, not play.

My first lecture was a nightmare. I was close to tears in fact: coming from a totally non-Computing background I was well out of my depth and totally struggling. Still I guess it goes to show what happens if you stick something out - I made my mark by the end of the first term, started winning prizes and recognition and eventually graduated top of the whole class of 2001. Not bad considering I managed my fair share of back-row sleeping and I'm quite proud of the fact that I never once bought a text book for my studies. On the other hand, I didn't miss a single lecture during my four years there so for those of you who think you can bunk the odd one or two... don't!

In a nutshell, my time at Imperial was a unique experience. It wasn't quite the university experience I had been looking forward to during college, and a part of me regrets not having had a regular student life during my student years. The same part of me still blames Imperial for not being married yet.

But it was an experience all the same, and anything lacking in that may have been due to me rather than the university itself. It's also safe to say that I wouldn't be the person I am today without my Imperial studies; and since I turned out okay(ish) it's not really something I can regret, eh? Well, not that much anyway.

Islamic Babies

There's no deep and intellectual point here today. No, right now I want to talk about babies. Specifically whether the parents who brought theirs to Salaat-ul-Qiyaam a couple of days ago. The question is, are they being selfish?

For the sake of objectivity, let's consider both answers.

Yes, they are selfish: it's wholly inappropriate to disturb a baby's sleep and take them out into the cold at that time of night. Even if we disregard the baby themselves, it's inconsiderate towards the rest of the jammat - even if the parents can handle their darling's constant wailing that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

No, they are not selfish: they should be applauded for not allowing their situation prevent them from practising their religion. Any small risk they take on the well-being of their child is their risk to take, and the rest of us should be patient and just deal with it.

Practically I don't see a problem with it myself, but principally I do see some issues (and yes, I lied about not having a deeper point).

Firstly we need to talk about the potential trophyism. Is the baby being used to show their commitment to Islam? There is no way of knowing this from an external point of view, but since we're talking about nafl prayer here, it's arguable how necessary it is for both parents to attend - they could rotate babysitting duties or something.

Secondly we need to talk about the sensibility of the parents. I'm not sure many would advocate dragging their babies out of their cots at 3am in the morning, so I think it's a valid question to ask whether these particular ones have a screw loose or not.

Thirdly, we need to talk about what impression is being left on the child. I'll leave the detail for another time, but I've seen people spiritually burn out before.

I'm reminded of how some brought their children on Hajj too. This is slightly different in two ways - firstly Hajj is an obligation so the costs to not do it are higher. On the flip side, it's a much bigger deal physically too, and I for one would never bring my children on the pilgrimage, both for their own safety and that of others (and I still baulk at the thought of those who brought prams along with them to the jamaraat).

Anyway. Practical Islamic exposure to young children: good or bad? I dunno, and I guess it ultimately depends on the parents. Personally I pity the child more than anyone else, and so will keep a lid on any irritations I have when they attend prayers.

TV Presenting For Beginners: Day Two

Continuing on from yesterday, today was pretty much more of the same. Well I say "more" when in actual fact we only created two more pieces of work in front of the camera.

The first was a class exercise using a teleprompter. I think most of us found this pretty straightforward and not as counter-intuitive or off-putting as it could have been. Still it was a bit tricky for some of us to remember that we weren't just supposed to read the words off a page.

The final exercise was to do an individual piece form a choice of around six options. I chose to do the teleshopping activity and for two minutes I was trying to sell a beard trimmer on QVC. It was more fun than it may sound.

And that was it really. The day went ever faster than it did yesterday, and it was a good chance to put into practise the hints we had been already given. The class was rounded up with general tips on how to practice further, how to move forward in the industry and any obstacles we may encounter in the real media world.

As for me, well I'm not sure TV presenting is something I'll be quitting my day job for. As a rare activity I do now and then it's pretty cool though, and this course was just the ticket I needed to smooth over any rough edges I may have had (and no, I'm not just talking about that red topi).

Being a Child of the Seventies

You know, it's a very unique thing being a child of the Seventies. For instance:

• We missed out on cheap housing, just as we got into a position to buy.
• We missed out on making a ton of money with over-inflated IT contract rates.
• We were of the generation that owned Back to the Future and Indiana Jones.
• We did The Transformers first.
• We've been around since the beginning of videogaming.
  
• We were influenced by the hippie-ness of the Sixties, without having to be hippies ourselves.
  
• We were of a youthful partying age when the Millennium hit (although for some of us it was Ramadan anyway).
• We know what Tube trains used to look like before they got upgraded.
  
• We have seen our fair share of wars, including that sparked off by 9/11.
• We know of life before and after PCs and the Internet.
• We know of life before satellite television.
  
• We know what it's like to meet up with friends as a teenager without owning mobile phones.
• We witnessed some major growth and evolutionary changes of Islam in the UK.
• We got stuck in relationship limbo, where, although we could "fight" off forced marriages without too much trouble, we weren't allowed or equipped to find our own instead.

Still, I think it's a brilliant era to have been born in and I wouldn't swap it for any other in its vicinity. All hail the Seventies!

TV Presenting For Beginners: Day One

Another week and another course, this time it's something a bit more practical and hands-on than Philosophy.

Similar to the acting course I did a while back (also at City Lit), the course was aimed at "beginners". I use quotes since this didn't necessarily mean that none of us had some experience in television or a related field.

The general format was to be given a task, which was then filmed and played back to the group as a whole (and at times painfully so). Feedback would then be given that we would take with us to the next task. This iterative process proved to be quite productive and most of us had changed loads by the end of the day.

In detail, the tasks included creating: a personal introduction, an audition, a ten second slot, a twenty second slot and a two and a half minute interview with a partner. The timekeeping was especially difficult for us; we found it difficult to do more than one thing at a time! Other difficulties included us failing to keep our concentration up, our breathing controlled and our smiles always switched on.

The people making up the class itself were pretty good - and not just because I was one of the only two guys there. Well, okay, it was because of that, but we didn't have any duff players either. It was a fun seven hours and I learned loads. I can't wait till day two - luckily it's being held tomorrow.

The Tarawih Bottle

You know that bottle of water some people bring to their Tarawih prayer? Well I invented that.

Not the actual bottle itself of course, but the idea was original to me; I was taking a refilled bottle to the daily hour-plus long prayer back in the late-eighties, way back when people were raising their eyebrows at such decadent behaviour.

Ironically, I had grown out of it by university, but it seems that now age isn't really a factor determining who brings their own water or not. Thankfully, another tradition related to the bottle (without going into too much detail it involved spinning it) hasn't survived the years and propagated.

I don't need recognition though. Consider it my gift to The Ummah.

Islamic Perspectives

A few weeks ago I found myself in the middle of a debate about what exactly constituted "the People of the Book" in Islam. The conclusion and respective arguments are out of the scope of this post, but what shocked me was an alarming lack of acknowledgement of a difference in opinion.

At one point, a participant was accused of "twisting and cherry-picking" rulings in order to make life easy for themselves. This was all the more ironic considering how the accusers were mainly Muslim women who chose not to wear the hijab. If I was a meaner person I'd go as far as accusing them of mild hypocrisy[1].

Now, I'm not a woman and so I tend not to put too much thought into the issue of hijab. If pushed, I'd say that although it's prescribed and preferable, it's not obligatory in the same way salaat is (say). In any case I believe that the imposition of it on anyone is not allowed.

But I recognise that this might possibly be against the mainstream Muslim opinion. I also recognise that the two opinions have arguments for them. My friends, however, could not see this and thought that theirs, that the Quran merely suggests modesty rather than head covering per se, was the technically correct and reasonable opinion. In other words, they thought that theirs was the absolute truth, and that the majority had gotten it wrong; quite an arrogant position actually. They just couldn't see the blatant subjective interpretation in their reasoning.

It's a brilliant example of how some (or even most) today cannot see a particular issue from a perspective other than their own. I'm not saying that there has to be an acceptance of ideas contradictory to your own; no, being open-minded isn't about accepting the opinion of another as fact, but just that they could have come to a different conclusion even while using the exact same methodology as you.

When coming to any kind of conclusion there will always be a latent amount of personal interpretation even if you don't realise it. Even if you're not in a formal or qualified position to to the hard work yourself, you're always choosing who to listen to (we now have a mufti/webpage for every purpose), and the conclusion that makes sense to you should always be a result of external and internal debate.

Now, it's arguable to claim exactly how many people rigorously think about what they believe (explicitly or not), and it's this that should be criticised, not the conclusions themselves. Think about an issue long enough and with good intent and I think it becomes valid no matter what it says.

In general, I don't think that Islam is about narrow and strict, black and white viewpoints, or actively accusing others of twisting laws for personal gain. I think it's more about active and critical thinking, perhaps a more philosophical approach than usual.

So no, it's not about who constitutes the People of the Book, or whether a woman has to cover her hair or not. It's about looking into the matter deep enough, and thinking about what is right and on what basis long enough, until you're comfortable with the answers that you're looking for. And as long as your counterpart has done exactly the same thing, who are you to say that they're wrong?

[1] To be clear, the "mild hypocrisy" I was referring to above was related to how criticism was being made of a subjective opinion (regarding The People of the Book) by those who were, implicitly, doing the same thing (regarding the hijab), since by their own definitions and terms, my friends could be seen as cherry picking too. The point is that one person's twisting of the rules can be the reasoned conclusion of another, and it's kinda hypocritical of someone to think that they somehow fall outside of this.

Arbitrary Wrongness

Here, in the United Kingdom, the consumption of alcohol and the practise of homosexuality are both considered right by law (or at the very least, not wrong), while things like forced marriages are considered wrong. I can think of a handful of countries in the world where these two positions are in the opposite.

I think that one of the things we often take for granted is how arbitrary right and wrong are. I mean we have the same people all over the world, and yet each have come to their own set of, usually contradictory, rules and norms as to what to do and how to behave.

Perhaps it would be helpful to briefly consider where notions of right and wrong come from. These are the basic roots from what other more complex laws reduce from.

1. A religion or other belief. This one is easy; basically we're claiming that we're told, externally, what is right and wrong and are just doing what we're told. In Islam, drinking is wrong.
   
2. An internal higher faculty. We're born with an inherent set of facts saying what is right or wrong. It's important to realise that these aren't learned, but could be passed down and so subject to genetic rules. Or they could be constant across all humans. Lying is wrong.
   
3. Pain. If something causes pain then it's wrong. The pain has to be physical though, since mental pain might be due to a learned behaviour. It's wrong to murder someone.
   
4. Choice. If something causes a removal of choice, then it's also wrong. It's wrong to steal the property of other people.
   

I have a bit of a problem with this last one, since choice could be considered an arbitrary notion too. Plus we have many situations where the only way to get some choices is to restrict others.

Actually, these are all on pretty shaky ground, since each can be shown to reduce from the others. For example, let's say that alcohol is forbidden in Islam just because it is. At the end of the day a Muslim has chosen whether to follow the religion or not and so he's used another basis to make that decision. But let's pass over this recursive behaviour for now and assume they're all mutually dependant on each other or something and take moral righteousness as arbitrary whether it's based on religious scripture, secular thought or anything else.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. The first is that it's possible for each of us to have our own tailored sets of right and wrong - a more general version of the "Religion is personal" point of view. And if take that as a given, then secondly it becomes impossible to criticise each other for them (although, of course, you can advise or refuse to advocate), since at the core, we each have the same theoretical notion of what is right or wrong.

The Ten Percent Rule

It may come as a shock to hear me say this, but people are not black and white robotic like creatures, but are instead rather grey. They're not all perfect and always follow the rules or do the right thing (for themselves or others). It's this inconsistency that makes them human.

If you lose sight of this inherent ability to fail there's a danger of becoming frustrated or even disappointed with yourself and those around you. So that prat who just cut you up on the pavement, or that short woman who was really inconsiderate with her brolly or even that close friend who just isn't getting the point you're trying to make; if you consider these all irregular lapses on their part rather than normal behaviour, then perhaps you can live with it.

But for those of us who see everything in terms of numbers, this isn't much help. We need a bit of a formal definition for this natural human "looseness". The way I reconciled it was by wrapping the inevitable failure of people in what I call The Ten Percent Rule.

The basic premise is to divide the positive and the negative recognise that, on the whole, the former outweighs the latter nine-to-one. So ten percent of all commuters will refuse to give up their seat to another who needs it more, ten percent of people will walk too slow for you liking and ten percent will always underpay their share of the dinner bill. The point is to recognise for all these guys there are a whopping ninety percent who aren't annoying you.

It's all very well to dissect society in this way. But since we, as individuals are also part of that same society, the rule can be applied to ourselves too. It's within tolerable bounds for you to be late for an appointment ten percent of the time, or to feel way too tired to work for one day in ten.

On the other hand, if you are able to control and monitor your behaviour then perhaps the ten percent can act as an acceptable tolerance for making mistakes. If you were acting like a right obnoxious tit one night, then make sure you show better character the next nine. If you stood someone up for a date, then make sure you make the next nine on time.

If you've been holding out on extravagant spending for nine weeks, well then perhaps by the tenth it's time to treat yourself. If you caught the wrong train, or calculated a sum incorrectly, or even missed your favourite TV show - as long as it's happening within that ten percent don't worry about it. And if you manage to beat the rule and get one hundred percent, then give yourself a pat on the back for being extra special.

But why ten? Well okay, this is where I admit that the above rule is all a bit woolly really. I mean in reality good and bad things probably happen far from this arbitrary boundary. But considering the rule forces you to think about the good too, and how often it happens in comparison to the bad. And if you find that you've got nothing to complain about ninety percent of the time then perhaps you'll be more accepting of the flaws we each demonstrate.

The rule makes the few times people upset you easier to digest, since it says that potentially it could be so much worse. After all, if crap happens only ten percent of the time it means that it doesn't for the other ninety. I'm sure you'll all agree that that's a pretty large margin to be smiling about.

A Touch of Philosophy

I spent a the day attending a one-day class designed to introduce newcomers to Philosophy at City Lit. Coming from a Computing background, I had already done bags of Logic and Reasoning, but I wanted to see if there was any relation between what I learned at Imperial and a more historical presentation of what could be seen as the same kinda thing.

Anyway, the course was pretty good both in terms of topic and tuition. I've recently had a passing interest in the subject and it complemented that pretty well - sometimes it seems like the course was designed especially for me.

Since it was over five hours long I can't really go into much detail as to what we did. But in brief we covered the following:

• Pre-Socrates (Thales, Heraclitus and Zeno), Socrates and Plato - Socratic Method, forms and innate knowledge.
  
• Modern Philosophy and Concepts.
  
• Rousseau and his Social Groups and Interactions.
  
• Rights and Freedoms, Choice.
• Kant's Moral Judgements - The three "oughts": Technical/Instrumental (you ought to wear something to stay warm), Rational (7+5 = 12 and not 11) and Moral/Practical (you ought not to lie. Why? Conclusion reached from higher moral faculty). Categorical Imperative.
  
• Sartre and his Alienation and Bad Faith.

Some of it was pretty challenging too, but I think I engaged the class enough. I'm not sure how successful I'll be, but I'm going to try to incorporate some of these concepts and ideas into my writings too.

Snippet

xxxx says (11:07):
    man my new position in the office means
     i can't turn round and look at hot girl talking to colleage
Shak says (11:11):
    sure you can
    i do it all the tiem
    its why i have a reputation
    shak the starer
xxxx says (11:11):
    er exactly
Shak says (11:11):
    ???
    man
    you care too much about what others think

For Goodness' Sake

I like to think that the majority of people are good. That is, that they make a conscious effort to be good and to avoid being bad. It's a major assumption I know, especially once you take one look at the news nowadays, but for the sake of this post let's just suspend our belief for a bit.

The fact is that no matter how good you are, no matter how on the straight and narrow path you follow, your actions in themselves are no guarantee of good happening back to you- although I would like to believe that some notion of karma exists I think any returns we do get is more a case of cause and effect rather than mystical balance.

So in the worst case then, there's a definite lack of justice. But is that what being good is about?

The way I see it, there are three reasons why a person may demonstrate good behaviour:

1. For reward - treat others how you would like to be treated by them and all that. An example of this may be keeping away from relationships with the idea that you'll eventually find someone who's the same because you deserve it. As I've explained above, there are no guarantees. Oh and even feeling good about yourself is a reward of sorts.
   
2. For status - which may not be as shallow or arrogant as it sounds. Although I'm sure some people act good to be seen doing so, there is no doubt that good breeds good, so those who intend to be an example to others may also fall into this category, as are those who are good for their parents' sake (even during the times they are not around).
   
3. For the sake of being good itself - more subtle than the above, this means you are good simply because you want to be and think it's the right thing to do. People in this category don't need other people to notice their actions, although it's a bonus for all if they do. Needless to say this is probably the smallest group of the three.
   

On the surface it doesn't matter which of these groups a person falls into - being good for whatever reason is, uh, good enough. And in reality it's probably much more grey as we flit from one group to the other depending on the situation and mood at the time.

However I would say that the last of the three is the "purest" state to be in - there are certain implications that the others bring with them. So for the first, you may become disappointed if you don't get the returns you think you deserve, and for the second you may end up in the situation when you're only good depending on who's around to witness it, pretty much making you a slave to circumstance.

Being good for the sake of it also means that it's your natural state, and that it's not an effort for you to do what you do. And the really nifty thing about this hard to reach place is that since people will inevitably see you and most likely mirror your behaviour, you'll get the first two consequences above as a bonus anyway.

So the next time you do something nice ask yourself two questions: are you expecting anything in return? And would you have acted the differently if no one was around to witness it? If the either answer is yes, then pat yourself on the back for being good. If, however, both answers are no, then congratulations: you've just done something good for the sake of being good itself.

Link Of The Day

Wired reports on Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, a devout Malaysian Muslim who's due for a nine day trip to the International Space Station during Ramadan.

I previously touched on the story here, so I won't discuss the findings of Shukor again. But it is heartening to know that the practical technicalities regarding progress aren't beating on the Islamic spirit for once.

Fall Season 2007

Yep, that's right. Amazingly it's that time of the year again. But first, a recap of last year's television going-ons.

2006 was an unusual year, largely because I was playing catch-up for most of it. Four seasons of Veronica Mars were the main culprits, which was fine because the show was so ace (it's no longer with us unfortunately). But that wasn't all I had to cram in and I still have this year's Family Guy and ER pending. Oh, and I haven't even made a dent into the first season of House.

I've also only just finished Season Six of Smallville too. Yes, you read that correctly: despite my best efforts I found myself totally unable to dump this show. I have no regrets with that though - this season was one of the best which is not surprising seeing how heavily it had been borrowing from Buffy throughout.

Talking of dumping, Entourage and Shark have both died before they even had a chance to begin. Despite both featuring the absolutely lovely Sarah Carter, I just don't have the time (although perhaps I'll keep that single episode of Entourage in which she guests). I tried watching Grey's Anatomy, but it wasn't very good. I'll definitely leave that one for the girls.

The OC came to a natural end this year too (thank heavens), but other than that and Veronica I don't have any more drop outs from my schedule. The only new show joining the rest is Heroes, which isn't actually as good as everyone seems to think it is; think the television equivalent of The Da Vinci Code and you'll have an idea of what it's like. Oh yes, and hopefully there'll be a season of Little House to watch.

So the bulk of my schedule for 2007/08 remains the same as last year: 24, Doctor Who, Lost (which totally redeemed itself last season - and then some), One Tree Hill (they're all grown up now, apparently) and the fantastic Prison Break all await my eager attention.

Happy viewing!

Islamic Branching

There are many interpretations of Islam in existence today, and that's disregarding the pedant's stance which says that Islamic practise is unique to all individuals. But even if we stuck to the more formal schools and interpretations there are a dazzling array of opinions, thoughts, philosophy and practise of the religion.

I think what makes these Islams different to the equivalent divisions found in other modern religions are their common baseline, namely the Quran and its corresponding basic theology (and so this discussion is limited only to those Islams which agree on these fundamental ingredients).

The mutual acceptance of a difference in opinion varies in reality though. Sufism was practised by some of the greats, but most mainstream Muslims seem to pour scorn on any mention of it. We have four main accepted Sunni schools of thought, each with a teacher at the head whose lives were spent becoming interpretive experts, and there was no reason to think each weren't equally sensible in forming their conclusions. Yet some of us spend so much time trying to convince each other we are doing something wrong.

Whichever stance a Muslim eventually takes, it must always start from the baseline: a reading of the Quran (if possible without even interpretation). In this way it's like a constant religious axiom. Some further inputs are other scriptural sources (mainly the Hadith), the cultural contexts in which we exist and other "real life" considerations like science, technology and even secular ideals. These are then fed into a methodology which eventually results in outputs in the form of rulings and prescription.

These inputs are "spatially" relatively constant between all the various Islamic groups by virtue of them all living in the same here and now. However, since they change "temporally" (apart from the scriptural sources of course) we should expect the rulings and prescriptions to change over time too - and that's while making the huge assumption that the methodologies remain static. They probably don't since, recursively, they're based on rulings too.

Another source of difference is perception. This acts like a random variable input into the methodology-machine and means that you can get two different outputs with the exact same inputs. As a real life example of this, just check out how Islam is practised in Indonesia versus how it is practised in Saudi Arabia. We can't say which is right or wrong or how they rank in terms of closeness to the truth since they've both developed in exactly the same manner, if not with the same conclusions.

This discussion isn't meant to suggest we all get out our own methodology machines and run them flippantly to get our own tailored versions of Islam; no, most of us just aren't equipped to do this. We have to first spend the months or years it takes to become an expert in doing so, but the point is that there is no reason for us, through this expertise, to stop generating new rulings if we wanted to today.

The various practises of Islam that we see today are nothing but branches of a big old Islamic tree. Each are equivalent in status and validity and none are closer to the truth than the other. And who knows? Once we consider living with our differences as an essential requirement for a genuine ummah, perhaps we might show a bit of unity too?

The Irony of Life, Literally

Today a good friend lost her fourteen day old daughter. In the meantime, another friend became a father to his first born.

It's weird when things like that happen. It just goes to show how eventful life can be sometimes.

Mindreaders

There's a class of people who can actually read minds. Not literally of course[1], but these folk have such an awareness of themselves, their surroundings and those around them that they are able to see a situation outside of their own bodies and perspective. And since they see themselves as another player on the given platform, they get a global view of a situation and its ongoing development.

And so they know how to run an conversation, equally engaging people or pushing their buttons. They can predict the reaction of a single person or alternatively a larger crowd. In fact, most of the times you talk them you're probably just confirming exactly how they thought the conversation would go anyway.

Sounds like the ideal position to be in, right? Well unfortunately for these people this ability is a curse. Since for the most part they're just going through the motions, interactions with others lack any kind of spontaneity, while conversations become patronising, almost fake as if you're just an actor in a play. And if that is indeed the case, then what does that say about the honesty of these Mindreaders? Can you still be genuine when you're always just "playing along"?

And there are further implications for these complex beings. The only interactions they really enjoy are those with a comparable amount of awareness. Only other like-minded people will be able to test and be tested, surprise and be surprised and engage and be engaged by a Mindreader in a flurry of recursive reflection. You'll often notice a bunch of them huddled in a corner relating or laughing at some joke that works on a level only they understand. It's almost like a secret club.

The logical implication for finding a partner is that if a Mindreader is supposed to choose a partner that they're to be fully honest with, someone who knows them as well as they know themselves, then the only person able to do this would have to be another Mindreader. Otherwise, there'll be (at best) a disparity in the level of involvement or (at worst) manipulation and control by the Mindreader over his other half.

Mindreaders also have a much darker side. Since they know themselves so well, they're also aware of their potential. This has the effect of them believing that they're above all others, that they're part of an elite; it can become pretty narcissistic, and a humble Mindreader is a rare beast.

For some it goes even further. They lose sight of the fact that, at the core, they too are human and are subject to the same flaws that they so easily detect in others; namely that others are totally able to read them too, that they also need love, good communication and can exhibit irrational behaviour and stuff.

But I'm not saying that being a Mindreader is a good or bad thing; no, I'm just observing that they exist. Perhaps they go by another name or something... But what I'm really interested in is how many of you actually know the type of person I'm talking about.

[1] Not that I'm discounting the existence of telekinesis altogether or anything...

Link Of The Day

Quran Explorer is a handy little web application that renders Quranic text, a choice of English translations and recitals. It's pretty ace, especially when you need to look up a verse or check your pronunciation.

Thanks to Fuad for the link!

A Dream Final

India versus Pakistan in an international Cricket final. Both teams showing that they're on form and both teams comprehensively beating that benchmark, Australia, in their earlier stages. And when they faced each other in what now seems like many moons ago, they tied (bowl outs aside).

You really couldn't have scripted it any better.


What's more interesting is the way in which each side has reached their respective places in the final. Pakistan have, quite unbelievably, been the balanced and consistent team of the tournament. Each member has been noted for their individual contributions and they've demonstrated a maturity and sportsmanship that belies the fact that they're so new and shiny.

On the other hand, India's performance resembles that of a wedge - they started off on quite shaky and timid ground and have gradually transformed into an almost violent force that's really to be reckoned with. And in some ways they've begun to resemble the English and Australian teams in how they display the passion they obviously hold. I've never seen the team react so loudly on a fall of wicket than I have during the closing stages of this tournament.

The two contrasting styles within this T20 World cup will meet in the final, and as a Pakistan fan I have to admit that I'm a little concerned. What I am sure of is that it's going to be pretty explosive in Johannesburg tomorrow.

One thing I just don't get though: who's brilliant idea was it to hold the final on a Monday at 1pm?

A Glocal Community

There are approximately six billion people currently on this here Earth of ours. That's quite a lot, right? Well you know, I'm not so sure any more.

I mean yes, I don't think any of us can imagine more than a thousand people or so in terms of personal reach or influence (although going by Facebook, some of us do have more friends than others). I guess what I'm not sure of is the size of the world. Just how big is it?

A simple example of this is how some individuals have a relatively large and visible influence. We're talking about the Bushes, Cruises and Gates here. They can literally make decisions that will affect people living in the farthest corners of the globe. This is a relatively new ability for a mere mortal to have.

But this kind of influence isn't limited to just world leaders and big box office movie stars. They say that there is a maximum of seven degrees of separation between any two people in the world. If true, one of the implications of this is that if you transmit an idea to everyone that you know, and then they do the same and so on, it will only take seven iterations for the idea to go global. I don't know about you, but that's quite intimidatingly little.

Okay so it doesn't quite work like this - ideas have a kind of "half life" where they become less effective as they become transmitted. But good ideas do travel; even Islam recognises this behaviour when it talks about being rewarded for teaching a teacher (the original chain combo bonus, perhaps).

Also today, technology helps keep ideas intact during transmission; viral emails are big business now, and things like Facebook's News Feed facility has a lot to answer for when it comes to the almost too rapid dissemination of information.

And Social Sciences evolve by the day too. Groups (of general individuals rather than those based on arbitrary classifications) can now be modelled and so become predictable; this in turn means that they can be educated and taught (or, from another perspective, manipulated and groomed) very easily. They can also be attracted or repulsed to some stimuli in the most efficient way possible. And the scary thing is that it's not at all as difficult to do as it sounds.

Anyway, the point is that all individuals have the potential to make some kind of a far reaching difference in this world, good or bad. Now this last bit isn't intended to sound like the vacuous inspiration message that it almost certainly is: heck if anyone needs to get off their lazy bum and be a positive influence, it's me.

But I like the idea that just one person, no matter who they are, can make a difference in this world by taking advantage of this butterfly effect of thoughts and ideas. It doesn't even have to be overt or intentional; just by leaving a positive example for people to follow you might end up being at the start of something big.

A Dua For Ramadan

Here's a quick and simple dua for when you feel thirsty during Ramadan:

La howla wa la Coca Cola wa la Pepsi Cola wa la any Cola will do; even Qibla Cola

Ameen. Although a part of me wonders if it's okay to find that as funny as I do. Perhaps if we declare it a satire on Islamic commercialism we'd get away with it. Just.

Thanks to Aisha for the gag.

Appropriately Praying

For the past five years or so, I've been using my Ramadan commutes on the Tube to read the Quran. This has gone on largely without incident till today, although thinking about it I guess I'm actually surprised that it's taken this long for something to happen.

A girl, presumably a Muslim, politely interrupted me and asked if it was indeed the Quran that I was reading. I confirmed that it was, at which point she, albeit in the nicest possible way, accused me of being disrespectful for reading it in such an unclean place. At least I think that's what she said since a lot of her words were in hardcore Punjabi (apparently she didn't want to speak her mind so fully in front of all the goriya. Nice).

Now, although she was referring to the level of cleanliness around us, I suspect her real objection was to the appropriateness of praying at all in such a place. Of course since I was doing the actual reading, I held another opinion. As far as I knew there was nothing in Islamic fiqh that would make prayer prohibited for a regular Tube ride no matter how groggy it became or who else is using it at the time. In my view I was okay.

Ironically, this wasn't always the case, and there was a time when I would also pour scorn on fellow commuters who read the Quran on public transport, and for much the same reasons: essentially that it was better to pray in "nicer" surroundings.

I think that it was Hajj that changed my stance. The lack of comfort and far from ideal situations there (for example the crowds or heat) meant that, if I wanted to complete the rites at all, I had to adapt my practice to overcome the obstacles presented to me at the time.

Now when I say adapt, I don't mean compromise; no, it was more a case of figuring out what was important, what my objectives were and the reasons for which I was there in the first place. Once I established these, what seemed like obstacles before suddenly didn't matter much - although not ideal technically and spiritually I was still achieving what I wanted to. This was a general principle I took from my experience there and one of the most important lessons I had learned during my pilgrimage.

Looking at previous Ramadans when I didn't read on the Tube, I didn't really read the Quran much more than I usually did outside of the holy month - and I certainly didn't manage to finish it. Now though, I get through close to two juz (chapters) a day, or one and a half Qurans in the month, by using dead time which would otherwise have been wasted.

Similarly I'm much more steadfast in my salaat (regular prayer) now too; previously I would exclusively pray only in a home or mosque (because they were the ideal locations), choosing to miss and catch up later if I wasn't. But I've now learned to be resourceful enough to find a clean and legally (that is whatever is technically obligatory for a prayer to be valid) suitable place wherever I happen to be - and I reckon that the position I place myself in now is closer to the ideal than it was before, by virtue of my no longer reading a prayer outside of its allotted time.

So I do get where my critic was coming from. I will never instruct someone to read the Quran on a train if they feel uncomfortable doing so. And I will always prefer to pray in a clean room at home too, and stop reading in a place if it really does become objectively and technically unsuitable to continue (which really only amounts to a few extreme cases). But regardless of all of that, I'm not sure that you can accuse someone who is reading more Quran or praying more regularly than they would otherwise of being disrespectful to the faith.

I don't know the situation of this particular lady, but in my opinion real disrespect is putting the holy book in a place so safe or on a shelf so high that it doesn't get read much at all. On the contrary, I reckon that Islamic practice is for all times (unless explicitly instructed otherwise) and God is everywhere, and not just in or during those which happen to be the ideal.

Unfortunately we didn't get a chance to discuss the issue to the detail I've gone into above; she was only with me for one stop. But I'm secretly thankful of this really - in the process of giving me her advice she had put me a page or two behind in my daily read already, restricting me in a way a Tube train or other fellow non-Muslim passengers never would.

Personal Liability

If we assume that people are a product of their experiences, then the implication is that people aren't inherently good or bad, but instead rather lucky or unlucky, since if the same person was in a different environment or situation, they would effectively be someone else. Hmm. I wonder if that last sentence is as difficult to read as it was to write?

Anyway. If we take this causality to the extreme, then it kinda absolves the individual of any liability - the whole "it's not my fault I think in this way" argument. And if that's the case, then who do we, well, blame for all society's ills?

How about the parents? Well maybe. The thing is that they were also a product of their experiences so the blame slides off them too. Which leaves education, schools, community, governments and more generally, society itself. But that all sounds like a big old cop out.

And besides, where does that leave choice and freewill? Technically, personal choice is always there for all of us: we can either do something or not. But I think that it's reasonable to say that some choices may be difficult for us depending on the person we are and the situation we are in, and for a straightforward example see the thief who finds it easy to steal in order to feed his family, while a stubborn person will stick to his ways even when continually proven wrong.

What is this post trying to say? Well, regardless of who is to blame for the ills of this world, whether individually or collectively, I think that the original assumption at the start of this post implies that everyone has the same potential to do good or bad. And if that is the case, then perhaps providing the positive experiences you've had is preferable to punishing those deemed to have done you wrong?