Ibrahim (pbuh) and the Birds

Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because God had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is God that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth God Give guidance to a people unjust.

Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! how shall God bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" but God caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said: (Perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: And that We may make of thee a sign unto the people, Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that God hath power over all things."

Behold! Abraham said: "My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead." He said: "Dost thou not then believe?" He said: "Yea! but to satisfy My own undertaking." He said: "Take four birds; Tame them to turn to thee; put a portion of them on every hill and call to them: They will come to thee (Flying) with speed. Then know that God is Exalted in Power, Wise."

2:258-260, Yusuf Ali Translation of the Qur'an

Jay Solomon, at The Zen of South Park, has been working his way through the Qur'an, trying to understand its meaning better. This week he focused on verses 2:258-260; the central point of his that I try to address is below:

It seems especially odd to me that someone speaking to God would then question matters that God says are so, like resurrection. It seems somewhat illogical since faith is believing without proof and Abraham already has proof of God since they’re chatting casually. Why would Abraham tell God that he has faith but that he just needs a little proof to lay his mind at ease. Needing proof is the essence of not having faith. As Jesus said, it is a wicked generation that needs signs. Not to go all Jesus quoting on anybody - I think it can be very annoying when people do that to make a point - but I do it to emphasize the notion of faith, which is Jesus’ point. You have to believe in things without being shown that they are so. Otherwise you don’t have faith.

This is my response:

I think your connection between verses 2:258 and 2:260 (faith vs. no faith) is very interesting. Personally, I don't see these two verses as being in such a black-and-white contrast; I do view them as a reaffirmation of Allah's (swt) power and ability in light of our niggling doubts.

Here's how I see these two verses. I think Ibrahim (pbuh) was an intelligent man, although he made occasional mistakes in judgment; for example, by associating the stars, moon and sun with Allah (swt) (6:74-79). In the end, he realized his errors and began worshiping Allah (swt) alone. Thus, by the time of his meeting with the king (Nimrod, according to Ibn Kathir) in 2:258, he correctly points out that the king's power is very limited, especially in comparison to that of Allah (swt).

However, as an intelligent man, he is beset by niggling doubts. I think this is a "curse" of intelligence, that we become so filled with facts and enamored with logic that our conscious and subconscious minds begin to fill us with questions about our faith. Some people lose that faith entirely; others (like me) battle time and time again with the questions. In this regard I see Ibrahim (pbuh) in a sympathetic light. I don't believe that I have no faith simply because I have doubts or questions. I believe my faith is tempered and strengthened through my internal jihad against the doubts and questions. In other words, despite the doubts and questions, my faith in Allah (swt) and Islam remains and grows stronger (and will continue to in the future, insha'allah).

So, by the time of verse 2:260, Ibrahim (pbuh) has his doubts and asks Allah (swt) for reassurance. Interestingly enough, Allah (swt) normally spurns providing such "proof," at least to unbelievers; for example:

If their spurning is hard on thy mind, yet if thou wert able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them a sign,- (what good?). If it were God's will, He could gather them together unto true guidance: so be not thou amongst those who are swayed by ignorance (and impatience)! (6:35)

They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth, "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water; "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring God and the angels before (us) face to face: "Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- an apostle?"(17:90-93)

Ibrahim, however, is both a prophet (nabi) and a messenger (rasul) of Allah (swt), so Allah (swt) provides him with a miracle. Now the Qur'an mostly focuses on what I call lower-case miracles, the signs of Allah (swt) that permeate the universe to the point where we largely take them for granted. But in 2:260, we have an upper-case MIRACLE. Except, in Muhammad Asad's translation, you'd never know it.

In 2:259, the nameless traveler ('Uzayr/Ezra, according to Ibn Kathir) dies, is resurrected in 100 years, then is told to look at his food and drink, which remained fresh after all that time, and his donkey, which had died and was nothing more than bones. The donkey is resurrected in front of the traveller ("When this was shown clearly to him..."):

As-Suddi said, " `Uzayr observed the bones of his donkey, which were scattered all around him to his right and left, and Allah sent a wind that collected the bones from all over the area. Allah then brought every bone to its place, until they formed a full donkey made of fleshless bones. Allah then covered these bones with flesh, nerves, veins and skin. Allah sent an angel who blew life in the donkeys' nostrils, and the donkey started to bray by Allah's leave.'' All this occurred while `Uzayr was watching, and this is when he proclaimed,

(He said, "I know (now) that Allah is able to do all things,'') meaning, "I know that, and I did witness it with my own eyes. Therefore, I am the most knowledgeable in this matter among the people of my time.'' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Now the traveler knows the true power of Allah (swt). Likewise, with Ibrahim (pbuh). He says to the king in 2:258 that "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." But apparently he thought to himself afterwards, "Did I speak truly?" So he asks Allah (swt) for a similar demonstration in His power to resurrect the dead. Allah (swt) asks, "Don't you believe?" To which Ibrahim (pbuh) says, "Yes, Lord, but I wish to be stronger in faith."

Now Muhammad Asad's translation reads,

Said He: “Take, then, four birds and teach them to obey thee; then place them separately on every hill [around thee]; then summon them: they will come flying to thee.

Sounds simple enough. Train the birds, place them on different hills, then call them; they will all return to you. But every other translation that I've checked (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan, Ibn Kathir) all say that the birds were killed and dismembered first! Ibn Kathir:

And (remember) when Ibrahim said, "My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.'' He (Allah) said: "Do you not believe'' He (Ibrahim) said: "Yes (I believe), but to be stronger in faith.'' He said: "Take four birds, then cause them to incline towards you (then slaughter them, cut them into pieces), and then put a portion of them on every hill, and call them, they will come to you in haste. And know that Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.''

(cause them to incline towards you) means, cut them to pieces. This is the explanation of Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Abu Malik, Abu Al-Aswad Ad-Dili, Wahb bin Munabbih, Al-Hasan and As-Suddi. Therefore, Ibrahim caught four birds, slaughtered them, removed the feathers, tore the birds to pieces and mixed the pieces together. He then placed parts of these mixed pieces on four or seven hills. Ibn `Abbas said, "Ibrahim kept the heads of these birds in his hand. Next, Allah commanded Ibrahim to call the birds to him, and he did as Allah commanded him. Ibrahim witnessed the feathers, blood and flesh of these birds fly to each other, and the parts flew each to their bodies, until every bird came back to life and came walking at a fast pace towards Ibrahim, so that the example that Ibrahim was witnessing would become more impressive. Each bird came to collect its head from Ibrahim's hand, and if he gave the bird another head the bird refused to accept it. When Ibrahim gave each bird its own head, the head was placed on its body by Allah's leave and power. ''

What more powerful demonstration of Allah's (swt) ability to resurrect the dead could there be? Ibn Abbas is reported to have said, "To me, there is no Ayah in the Qur'an that brings more hope than this Ayah.''

George Will, Snob

George Will shows how much of a snob he is today in a column devoted to demonizing (of all things) denim jeans. More comments below.

Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

Do not blame Levi Strauss for the misuse of Levi's. When the Gold Rush began, Strauss moved to San Francisco planning to sell strong fabric for the 49ers' tents and wagon covers. Eventually, however, he made tough pants, reinforced by copper rivets, for the tough men who knelt on the muddy, stony banks of Northern California creeks, panning for gold. Today it is silly for Americans whose closest approximation of physical labor consists of loading their bags of clubs into golf carts to go around in public dressed for driving steers up the Chisholm Trail to the railhead in Abilene.

This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly.

I came across this article through the blog Moon of Alabama, where I made the following comment:

On the one hand, Will has a point about how badly most Americans dress. This point was driven home to me when I lived in South Korea; Koreans dress extremely well, even on occasions when one might not expect them to. In short, Koreans make most Americans look like slobs.

On the other hand, Will only shows himself to be out of touch with the public by writing such a column. Most people will give a rat's @$$ about why people like Will think they shouldn't wear jeans or what clothing Astaire and Kelly wore.

(And, for the record, I gave up jeans long ago, when I lived in Arizona, but that was because it's too hot there to wear denim; I prefer khakis, myself. ;) )

One other comment at M of A was very interesting, where anna missed wrote:

This is one of my favorite and insightful passages by Guy Debord:

The root of the spectacle is that oldest of all social specializations, the specialization of power. The spectacle plays the specialized role of speaking in the name of all the other activities. It is hierarchical society’s ambassador to itself, delivering its official messages at a court where no one else is allowed to speak. The most modern aspect of the spectacle is thus also the most archaic.

Of course what Will is ranting about is the "absurdity" of the elites masquerading as commoners wearing blue jeans as a signifier of our wonderful egalitarian society, when nobody, especially himself, really believes it. And, as the veneers of the great society of spectacle continue to delaminate like cheap plywood in the rain, people like Will gaze wistfully back to a 19th century Dickens world where instead, the poor imitated the rich, wearing filthy collars and threadbare top hats, and not the reverse - thus broadcasting their class. Nonetheless though, like Debord says the grand illusion of modernity is in fact archaic at its root - some of which we are now beginning to witness. And it ain't very pretty.

Update: BTW, did you notice this little gem in the first paragraph I quoted above?

Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote.

Apparently, in Will's Bizarro World, if you play video games, you're much too immature to be allowed to vote. I guess it's not only "George Will, Snob," but "George Will, Closet Aristocrat" as well.

George, why do you hate democracy?

Matrix Cow

I caught this video on Eurosport's Watts in a slightly shorter version. It's rather funny. Check it out!

Time: Updating the Mosque for the 21st Century

A couple days ago, I ran across a Time magazine article on how modern masajid are changing architecturally. Although the article mentions various masajid around the world, including Masjid Assyafaah above (in transliterated Arabic, Ash-Shafaah), located in the Sembawang neighborhood of Singapore, most of the discussion focuses on the controversies surrounding various proposed masajid in Europe.

One line in the article is bull$#|+, though, where a criticism about minarets is reported: "But they cost a lot, and there are others who argue that [economically,] they're a luxury Muslims can't afford." Minarets are NOT a luxury. They may add to the cost of building the masjid, they may even be unnecessary, but the same criticisms also apply to church steeples. This argument is motivated solely by the Islamophobic desire to make a masjid look like any other secular building. Considering that masajid are normally built with all of the money raised before construction even begins, the notion that Muslims can't afford the "luxury" of one or more minarets is completely false.

One other comment: although there is a very nice (and large) picture of the interior of Masjid Assyafaah in the print edition of Time, the website version of the article omits all but one of the photographs, using only a picture taken from the new Turkish mosque, Masjid Sakirin. However, the above photo of Masjid Assyafaah is my own picture, taken in October 2007, and shows the front of the building. The tall dark brown structure in front is the masjid's minaret.

Some quotations from the article:

A new generation of Muslim builders and designers, as well as non-Muslims designing for Muslim groups, often in Europe or North America, are updating the mosque for the 21st century, sparking not just a hugely creative period in Islamic design, but one riven by controversy. The disputes over modern mosques echo larger debates taking place in the Islamic world today about gender, power and, particularly in immigrant communities, Islam's place in Western societies. Even the simplest design decision can reflect questions that are crucial to Islam and its adherents: Should women be allowed in a mosque's main hall or confined to separate quarters? Are minarets necessary in the West, where laws on noise levels mean they are rarely used for the call to prayer? What should a mosque attended by Muslims from different parts of the world look like? The boldest of the new mosques try to answer such questions but are also powerful statements of intent. "Islam wants to proclaim itself," says Hasan-Uddin Khan, an architecture professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. "These new mosques are saying, 'We are here, and we want it to be known that we are here.'"

...

As Muslims get wealthier, more confident and more geographically diffuse — almost a third of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims live in non-Muslim-majority states — their mosques are no longer just monuments to the rulers whose names they bear. Increasingly, they symbolize the struggle to marry tradition with modernity and to set down roots in the West. The most daring buildings are dreamt up by second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants, who have the confidence and cash to build stone-and-glass symbols of Islam's growing strength in places like Europe. Simply importing traditional mosque architecture "doesn't express loyalty to your current surroundings," says Zulfiqar Husain, honorary secretary of an innovative new eco-mosque in Manchester, England. "It almost expresses that you want to be separate from the society you live in."

The designers behind the best of the mosques take the opposite view: they may be making statements but they are also sensitive to local concerns and aesthetics. The mosque that Husain helps administer, in a gritty working-class Manchester neighborhood, uses reclaimed wood and solar panels on the roof to power its under-floor heating. Inside, peach carpeting and plasma TVs give the air of a prosperous suburban English home, while the prayer hall has carvings inspired by the 10th century North African Fatimid dynasty.

In Singapore, the architects of the Assyafaah Mosque, which was finished in 2004, cater to the country's multicultural population by creating an aesthetically neutral space, sleek and futuristic, where the island's Malay and Chinese Muslims can both feel comfortable.

...

[On the new masjid about to be built in Cologne, Germany:] His plan for the complex, due to be completed in 2010, calls for a piazza with a fountain and a cafe, designed to draw non-Muslims to the site. The local Muslim elders hope that, once there, visitors will browse in the library, check out the art gallery or spend in the shopping mall, which Böhm envisions as "a modern souk with the quality of the traditional souk." The mosque's prayer hall consists of shells of textured concrete connected by glass panels, to create "ideological and architectural transparency," says Böhm. Far from a nod to tradition, the minarets are a declaration that the building is "not a sports hall, a concert hall or a museum, but a mosque."

...

[On the newly built Sakirin Mosque in Istanbul Turkey, designed by Zaynep Fadillioglu:] Fadillioglu's women's section is an expansive balcony overlooking the central hall and divided only by crisscrossed railings. An airy and luxurious sensibility pervades the building. The facilities for pre-prayer ablution have blond-wood and Plexiglas lockers. In the main hall hangs a bronze chandelier, dangling with hand-blown glass raindrops — a visual allusion to the Koranic verse that says Allah's light should fall on believers like drops of rain. The mihrab, which indicates the direction of prayer, is tulip-shaped and turquoise — "an opening to God," says Fadillioglu.

Update: In the comments, "Anonymous" left a link to a BBC report about a masjid being completed in Istanbul, this being the first mosque designed in Turkey by a woman. (Both the designer and the masjid are mentioned in the Time article; in fact, this is the masjid that the online version of the article features in its sole photo.) As you can see in the video below, the masjid is quite beautiful, and will probably look even more spectacular, insha'allah, when the final touches (such as the carpeting) are done.

Wanker of the Day: Texas State Representative Betty Brown

Think Progress has posted a story out of the Houston Chronicle about Texas state Representative Betty Brown (R-Terrell), who suggested to Asian-Americans that they change their names to something that is “easier for Americans to deal with.” Apparently, misanthropes like Ms. Brown can't find a more thoughtful solution to solving identification problems when Asian-Americans try to vote in elections:

Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible.

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Milady, of course, was pissed when she read the story. Personally, I'm not surprised at either the thoughtlessness of Rep. Brown for actually making the statement or her refusal to apologize for her comments, instead blaming the Democrats (naturally) for "using racial rhetoric to inflame partisan feelings against the bill."

Instead I will award Rep. Brown with my first "Wanker of the Day" award. Rep. Brown, I salute you!


Update: The Youtube video of Rep. Brown's comments is available, which I've added to this post below. The offensive comments start at the 0:30 mark:



Crooks & Liars had a good riposte to Rep. Brown's remarks:

Oy. I guess Rep. Brown should be grateful she was not facing Zbigniew Brzezinski. That might have made her look stupid.

Update #2: Rep. Brown has now apologized for her remarks. In The Dallas Morning News:

Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, said that she "apologizes for her remark in the Elections Committee on Tuesday, April 7," in a statement issued late Thursday.

She said she appreciates testimony that made legislators aware of problems faced by Asian-Americans when acquiring identification and that she understands the "diversity of Texas" and the "enrichment" that Asian-Americans have brought to the state.

...

Brown, in the statement, said the controversial quote was one sentence from a conversation dealing with the difficulty in translating names. She pointed out that she was talking about the issue of transliteration and told Ko that she wasn't asking him to change his name.

John C. Liu, a New York City Councilman who had called on Brown to apologize, said Brown's statement is "a fair first step," but doesn't go far enough, in his statement. Liu noted that Brown's comments during the exchange with Ko went well beyond the concept of transliteration.

The Daily Show: Obey!

A number of classic zingers in this clip. I'm not sure which I like better, the one about "Potato Day" or the "$#|+ Taco." :)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Soyjoy: Much Effort, Little Effort

Two very crazy commercials have started airing here in Singapore for a Japanese fruit bar product called Soyjoy. Although the ad campaign was developed locally, the commercials have a very Japanese feel to them. According to BrandRepublic-Asia:

Developed by Ogilvy & Mather Singapore, the campaign targets working women who are health and weight conscious. To appeal to them, the campaign takes on the biggest obstacle that women face when it comes to keeping the pounds off: the amount of ‘effort’ required.

Soyjoy was thus positioned as the secret to staying slim using minimal, or little effort.

Of course I don't buy that last claim for a second, but the commercials are certainly unique (at least to me).

Utah Jazz Dancer

Yeah, he's a fan alright! Can you imagine finding out that you're stuck sitting anywhere near this clown for the entire game? (Like that poor woman who's sitting right behind him? ;) ) For the guys, watching this clown dance will likely cause them to lose any lustful thoughts they may have for the female dancers, along with the rest of their dinners. ;)

Flying Around the International Space Station

An interesting video from NASA. The recent space shuttle mission STS-119 (Discovery) did a fly around of the International Space Station (ISS) after departure. The shuttle flies in an arc 180° around the ISS giving a unique view to both the space station and planet Earth. The video, which has been sped up, is a good reminder that in space there is no up or down. Also, if you watch carefully, you'll see two of the solar panels spin around on their axis by about 180°.

Remember folks, if you have a spare $20 million lying around, you too can fly up to the ISS for an out-of-this-world vacation (not sorry for the pun ;) ). NASA can surely use the money, so start saving your pennies today! ;)

Who is a Radical Muslim?

A few days ago, when I wrote my post CSM: Ten Terms Not to Use with Muslims, I had also cross-posted it to the website Street Prophets as well. The post there, not surprisingly, has generated a lot of commentary (44 comments so far). One person, "Sandbox" (an Islamophobe), has been trying to peddle their definition for a "Radical Muslim." I reject that definition, and I've explained why down below:

FYI, my definition of Radical Muslim is someone who wants to "legally" institute sharia law to govern the host country's Muslim community or who supports violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.

First, I'm aware of your definition; you've written it before at DKos [Daily Kos]. I reject it. You paint Muslims with such an overly broad brush that, to us Muslims, your "definition" is meaningless. All Muslims would be "radical" by your definition. Here's why:

The notion that a Muslim is a "radical" if he or she wants to legally institute Shari'ah to help govern a country's Muslim community is patently absurd from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. First, as a Muslim jurist from Nigeria said in a BBC documentary, "Islam is Shari'ah; Shari'ah is Islam." This is true. The basis for Shari'ah is the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). If one is a practicing Muslim, one will by definition be following Shari'ah. Much of Shari'ah is internalized, meaning that Muslims follow Shari'ah law in their own lives without sanction from the State (to give a Christian example, a person fasting during Lent is following the equivalent of "Christian Shari'ah"). In that regard, no one can stop Muslims from implementing some (probably most) aspects of Shari'ah. The aspects of Shari'ah that are externalized, i.e., need to be legally instituted, tend to be in the following areas: family law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.) and criminal punishments (hudud). Here in secular Singapore, Shari'ah with regard to family law has been part of the country's legal code since the beginning. The Shari'ah Court system here was started over 50 years ago. Muslims are governed by Shari'ah; non-Muslims have their own code of laws. The system works very well. Only hudud isn't implemented here, and there is no pressing claim by Singaporean Muslims to implement it. So, practically speaking, Shari'ah in Singapore works very well. No one is considered to be a "radical" Muslim if he or she supports Shari'ah law. But people like you have tried to transform Shari'ah into such a bogey monster word that, without understanding how Shari'ah really works in the real world, you perpetuate misunderstandings between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

With respect to your second qualification, once again, by not understanding the difference between jihad and qital and harb, you malign a word that is very dear to Muslims. The other day I attended a seminar on fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. One non-Muslim participant's statement was a much better definition (IMO) than yours. He said, "Fundamentalists are people who are just trying to figure things out, versus extremists, who want to hurt other people." That works much better for me. By your definition, you would have to condemn the United States for the war in Iraq and Israel for its wars in Gaza and Lebanon because both countries have used "violent jihad" as ways to settle their international disputes. Somehow, I don't expect to hear any denunciations from you anytime soon.

The irony is that the real extremist Muslims are those people who would seem to be most like non-Muslims. At that same seminar, the professor who led it pointed out that one of the surviving 7/7 (London) bombers (whom he interviewed) did not know the basics of Islam such as how to pray or even how to perform wudu, the ritual ablutions that are required before prayer. Likewise, it's well known that the 9/11 terrorists were known to go drinking, gamble and visit strip clubs. These are not the actions of Muslims, but it is what non-Muslims might do. Your so-called "secular Muslims," the ones who non-Muslims support, are more likely to be extremists than observant Muslims. But you'd never know because they've hidden themselves in plain sight by acting like the rest of non-Muslim society.

Summer School for Klingons

Cute video, especially the kids' birthday party scene. But as one who's taught for a number of years now I find the quotation near the end to be very true: The best teachers teach from the heart, not from the book.

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

The Big Money: China's Stimulus is Working

A very short but interesting - and I dare say important - article from Slate's The Big Money. Important for two reasons: first, because it reinforces Paul Krugman's argument that the size of the stimulus package matters and that the recently passed economic stimulus bill is most likely too small; secondly, because it refutes the noise coming from the hysterical wing of the Republican party as to why the stimulus bill needed to be passed in the first place.

Many commenters, including TBM's Charles Wallace, have argued that the Chinese stimulus package is superior to America's. Partly that's because it represents a larger proportion of GDP and partly because it is more focused on housing and infrastructure, which can create jobs quickly and thereby circulate money through communities. Those points will continue to be debated.

But there's a case to be made that the Chinese stimulus package is now working, both on a psychological level and an economic level. A Reuters story yesterday pointed out that the mere promise that China will increase its stimulus if it needs to boosts confidence and might therefore paradoxically make more stimulus unnecessary. Now comes today's Wall Street Journal, reporting that both housing sales and construction starts are on a mild upswing in China. This is crucial because the world's metal and oil markets are dependent on Chinese demand; not surprisingly, reports the Financial Times, both experienced a jolt yesterday.

True, the Chinese economy will not grow in 2009 at the dizzying pace of the last decade or so. But it's also not going to shrink, and that will provide a needed cushion for the drops occurring elsewhere. The bottom line, as David Leonhardt wrote in yesterday's New York Times, is: "Yes, stimulus works." Critics can say it's too expensive or doesn't stimulate fast enough or deeply enough. But consider the alternatives.

HT: Economist's View

Update: Robert Reich's most recent post reinforces the message above, that the American government needs to work harder on the stimulus package, saying that the amount allocated so far, $787 billion (as huge a number as that may seem), is not enough. What makes Reich's post important is the second half, where he makes a number of very good concrete suggestions as to how the money should be spent:

All this means that the real economy will need a larger stimulus than the $787 billion already enacted. To be sure, only a small fraction of the $787 billion has been turned into new jobs so far. The money is still moving out the door. But today's bleak jobs report shows that the economy is so far below its productive capacity that much more money will be needed.

This is still not the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it is a Depression. And the only way out is government spending on a very large scale. We should stop worrying about Wall Street. Worry about American workers. Use money to build up Main Street, and the future capacities of our workforce.

Energy independence and a non-carbon economy should be the equivalent of a war mobilization. Hire Americans to weatherize and insulate homes across the land. Don't encourage General Motors or any other auto company to shrink. Use the auto makers' spare capacity to make busses, new wind turbines, and electric cars (why let the Chinese best us on this?). Enlarge public transit systems.

Meanwhile, extend our educational infrastructure. So many young people are out of work that they should be using this time to improve their skills and capacities. Expand community colleges. Enlarge Pell Grants. Extend job-training opportunities to the unemployed, so they can learn new skills while they're collecting unemployment benefits.

Finally, accelerate universal health care.

Stephen Colbert vs. NASA: Democracy in Orbit

I suppose this means we can call Stephen "a node" to his face and there's not a thing he can do about it. ;)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Space Module: Colbert - Democracy in Orbit
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Update: NASA decided to name the new node on the ISS "Tranquility," which is a little bit odd as it came in eighth in NASA's poll. As The Register, a British website, noted:

Tranquility wasn't the second most popular vote behind Colbert, or even the fourth. The chosen name was in fact a distant eighth in the list of public write-ins, begging the questions: what was the point of the poll anyway?

(The name "Serenity" came in second.)

As for Stephen Colbert's bid to have his name used for the node:

"We don't typically name US space station hardware after living people and this is no exception," said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for space operations.

However, NASA has shown it has a sense of humor by naming a new treadmill for the ISS "COLBERT," for "Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill." There's even a new patch for the treadmill:



NASA has invited Stephen to try out the treadmill for himself and to attend the launch when "COLBERT" goes into space aboard Endeavour in February 2010. Apparently Stephen is OK with the idea:

"I think a treadmill is better than a node, you know why? Because the node is just a box for the treadmill. Nobody says 'Hey, my mom bought me a Nike box.' They want the shoes that are inside."

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Space Module: Colbert - Sunita Williams
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Corri Fetman's Sexual Harassment Case

Corri Fetman's back in the news; if you don't remember who she is, she's the Chicago divorce attorney who advertised her law firm on the idea that it's better to divorce now in order to marry your trophy husband/wife. She later appeared in a nude Playboy pictorial and wrote the "Lawyer of Love" column for the magazine. (I wrote about her back in 2007; see Life's Short. Get a Divorce. Be a Pathetic Loser. (be sure to read the comment on that post) and Life's Short. Your Marriage Doesn't Have to Be.)

Anyway, it turns out that Fetman was allegedly sexually harassed by a former executive at the magazine. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

Corri Fetman, 45, who authored the Lawyer of Love column, alleged Thomas Hagopian, an executive for the digital branch of Playboy Enterprises, bombarded her with sexually explicit email messages and phone calls, groped her and took away her column last July when she repeatedly rebuffed his advances.

...

Ms Fetman's suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, seeks more than $US4.5 million ($A6.6 million) in damages for, among other things, "gender violence" and emotional distress.

Now, based on what I've read in the article, I agree that she probably has been sexually harassed, and that shouldn't have happened. As her attorney said in the article, "Sometimes attractive women get unwanted attention," and that's completely true. On the other hand, I have very little sympathy for her. I mean, really, what did she expect? That she could pose nude publicly and there would be no consequences? That men would respect her for her mind when she has no respect for her body? Where was your modesty and humility the past two years, Corri?

CSM: Ten Terms Not to Use with Muslims

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article on ten terms not to use with Muslims. I am including the ten terms in the excerpt below, plus the second paragraph, the second sentence of which I think is very important to remember. More below.

I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

...

1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism – which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square – is a much better word.

3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own – and the worldwide Muslim public's – perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.

6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

Of the ten terms, I agree very strongly with numbers 2 through 6 (Secular, Assimilation, Reformation, Jihadi, Moderate); also, with number 9, Religious Freedom. Here's why:

• "Secular" - To a Muslim, there is very little positive about this word. I've heard many non-Muslims complain over time that there must be some secular Muslims out there somewhere, not knowing that "secular Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. A Muslim does not lead a secular life; if only non-Muslims knew how often the name of God passes a Muslim's lips. About to start up the car? Bismillah! Just burped? Alhamdulillah! Something wonderful just happened? Masha'allah! Not sure if something's going to happen? Insha'allah! To be a Muslim means to lead a religious life; if non-Muslims can accept that then we can move forward together.
  
• "Assimilation" - This seems to be a term favored by the far right. At the very minimum, "assimilation" seems to mean for them a shared common language; hence the popularity of the "English Only" movement in several states around the U.S. Beyond that, to be honest, I'm not really sure what people expect when they want others to "assimilate." Does that mean going to the bar for drinks? Eating pork chops for dinner? Neither of those are going to happen with Muslims, obviously. The way the term is bandied about, it seems like "assimilation" really means "conformity." You must be just like everybody else. And if "we're" engaging in sinful behavior, don't rock the boat! Come and join in, too!
  
• "Reformation" - This is another common plea from non-Muslims: if only Muslims would reform their religion. Here's a clue: it ain't gonna happen! Actually, I find the suggested word ijtihad to be almost as offensive as "reformation." Too many weak Muslims pray for a renewal of ijtihad because they can't take their Islam straight. Ijtihad, when spoken of by non-Muslims and weak Muslims, has largely become synonymous with "reformation," with secularism.
  
• "Jihadi" - This is a perfect example of people twisting the meaning of words into something completely the opposite of its original intention. Jihad in Islam is such a positive force, and non-Muslims have completely perverted that positiveness. For more on the subject, see here.
  
• "Moderate" - "Moderate Muslim" isn't necessarily a bad term per se, but the real problem is that for most non-Muslims, a "moderate Muslim" really means a "secular Muslim." The way non-Muslims talk about Muslims, there's little to no difference between an observant Muslim (one who prays, fasts, etc.) and the al-Qaida types. That's what makes "moderate Muslim" such an offensive term. It doesn't help matters when governments promote this type of thinking, such as in the recently leaked British documents that "define" who is an extremist Muslim. (According to the British criteria, I qualify as an "extremist," an idea I find patently absurd.)
  
• "Religious Freedom" - Finally, the author's description of "religious freedom" as how American Protestants perceive it is spot on. Muslims ask for minor changes here and there to accommodate our lifestyle and non-Muslims become upset! Consider the recent case of a Domino's Pizza in the UK that recently switched to halal toppings, the first in the country to do so. "It's a disgrace. ... I can appreciate them having it as an option but to have it completely halal is just not on. I'm all for racial and religious tolerance but if anything this is intolerant to my beliefs and discriminatory against me. Instead I had to travel two miles out of my way to another branch – I was appalled." "This is a global pizza chain that is isolating western values and choice. It's alienating people and that's just not on. I'd been coming here for ages but now I'll go elsewhere because I can't get a pepperoni pizza, which is what I always have." (Actual comments from the original article.) The whining! It's amazing! At least here in S'pore, more and more restaurant chains continue to switch to halal foods. But in the intolerant West, religious freedom really means Christian freedom. Thank God for the East.
  

Update: Although I cross-posted this essay on Street Prophets back on March 31st, the discussion about the diary seems to have finally reached its conclusion (insha'allah!) nearly two weeks later. The essay received a total of 140 comments to date (a personal best; the most comments any of my previous diaries over at SP had gotten was a mere 60). So give that discussion a look-see if you're interested, but be sure to budget at least a half-hour's reading time. ;)

US Unemployment Rates - February 2009

The February US regional and state unemployment figures were released on March 27th. The figures, overall, continue to be bad, although some of the over-the-month rate changes between January and February were not as severe as they were the month before. One state, Nebraska, also had a declining unemployment rate. On the other hand, the number of states with double-digit unemployment rates has increased to seven. Here are some of the highlights:

• Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.5%, from 7.6% to 8.1%, over January's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 3.3%.
  
• For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.9%, from 13.9% to 14.8%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 5.8%.
  
• In terms of monthly change, the states with the largest increases were North Carolina and Oregon, with changes of 1.0% each. One state, New Jersey, had a 0.9% increase, while four states had 0.8% increases. Those states are Georgia, Hawaii, New York and West Virginia.
  
• On an annual basis, three states have increases over 5.0%: North Carolina at 5.5%, Oregon at 5.4%, and South Carolina at 5.3%. Michigan and Nevada are tied for fourth at 4.6%.
  
• The states with the lowest annual increases are Iowa at 1.0%, Wyoming at 1.1%, Nebraska at 1.2%, and North Dakota at 1.3%.
  
• A total of seven states now have double-digit unemployment rates, up from four in January. The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, at 12.0%, up 0.4%. South Carolina comes in second with a rate of 11.0% (up 0.6%), and Oregon places third with a rate of 10.8% (up 1.0%). In fourth place is North Carolina with a rate of 10.7%, also up 1.0%. Tied for fifth place is California and Rhode Island, both with a rate of 10.5%, up 0.4% for California and 0.2% for Rhode Island. The seventh place state, Nevada, also has double-digit unemployment with a rate of 10.1%, up 0.7%.
  
• The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.9%, up 0.2%), Nebraska (4.2%, down 0.1%), North Dakota (4.3%, up 0.1%), South Dakota (4.6%, up 0.2%) and Iowa (4.9%, up 0.1%).
  
• In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since January were California (-116,000), Florida (-49,500), and Texas (-46,100).
  
• For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-605,900), Florida (-399,400), Michigan (-277,000), and Ohio (-222,100).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

Kameelah Rasheed: I Am Not Asking For Your Approval

Kameela Rasheed has an interesting essay at Mecca.com in which she tells the world that she doesn't need their approval in order to wear hijab. In the middle of the essay is an anecdote about a "conversation" (really a monologue) she had with a South African man who tried to "reason" with her that by covering herself she was denying him his "need" to see her, her hair, her body. In this world, where scantily clad women are the norm for advertising, where cable news has become cable nilf, where even female politicians rely upon sex appeal, is it any surprise men "need" women to be "accessible?"

While most comments at this institution were reserved for private discussions, the college experience as well as my time in Johannesburg, South Africa provided an opportunity to understand what literally annoyed people about my Hijab. While in Yeoville, a hybrid inner-city/suburb of Johannesburg, I was approached by a man who was intent on liberating me from not only my gender oppression, but from my racial confusion. Apparently, 'I am not free' in Hijab and Islam is not an African religion. I had committed not only the ultimate sin of embracing a faith that 'forced' me to be modest; I had chosen a faith that had no roots in Africa. Let's not bother with the contrary historical facts, as that is the least of our concerns.

What I found of the utmost importance in this monologue (yes, because I was unable to get a word in edgeways) was that he conceptualised my channels of freedom via the ritualistic removal of my Hijab and his penetration or sexual conquest. I never knew that my freedom toolbox included an instruction guide - I will keep this in mind.

As he continued to speak in a series of poorly phrased insults, I realized that this was no longer about gender oppression or black authenticity; it was about the politics of accessibility to certain bodies. He repeated almost in a hypnotic fashion, 'I cannot see you… I cannot see your essence'. In wearing Hijab, it was his argument that I was making myself inaccessible to men, and particularly to him. Choosing to place myself off the radar was not a choice I could exercise.

In fact, I was required to make myself available and accessible to his gaze as well as the gaze of other men. Thus, the crime I had committed was not one of accepting my subjugation as a Muslim woman and 'confused African woman', but of refusing to situate myself in his myopic discourse of liberation that ultimately puts me at his mercy. If I was mistaken in this assumption, it was further validated by a number of men in Johannesburg and in America who have told me similar tales of my inaccessibility, as a reason why I should not wear Hijab.

They started with a narrative of genuine concern for my oppression and devolved into a shallow desire for a free pass to accessibility. It was not always about what was said, but the delivery of these diatribes. In many of these situations, these men used aggressive and paternalistic tones. They attempted to silence me by raising their voices. They worked to discredit my line of defense by telling me I did not know enough. Most of all they were surprised that I was able to put together a sentence and to give as well as I was given. It was a reminder that the covering of my head is not a covering of my mind or my mouth.

HT: my hijab = my *diamond* crown

Just Do It!

This is a three-part series of commercials from Thailand that promote the benefits of daily exercise. All three commercials are rather humorous. Check it out!

Ken Lee

I came across this video the other night and found it hilarious. The singer is a woman named Valentina Hasan, who tried out for Season 2 of Music Idol, the Bulgarian version of Pop Idol/American Idol. Her performance reminds me the most of American Idol's William Hung. (Remember him?)



However, let's give credit where credit's due. I think the natural reaction for such a performance would be to hide under a rock somewhere and pray for anonymity. However, from watching several later videos (such as the one below), it's obvious that Valentina has continued to practice her music. While the quality of her singing's still not that good, she's worked on learning the lyrics to Without You, and can sing the song much better now than she originally could.

Juan Cole on The Colbert Report

Juan Cole of Informed Comment has been on a tear over the past few days, talking to a lot of the media about his new book, Engaging the Muslim World. Dr. Cole was recently on The Colbert Report, and I've embedded the video clip for the interview below. Be sure to read his post, Blogging Colbert, about what it's like to be on the show; it's quite an interesting read.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Juan Cole
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Cat-in-Mouth

A couple days ago I had to go to the hospital due to severe chest pain. (Nothing to worry about. The problem isn't my heart but one of my nephews who likes to lie on his uncle like the latter is a recliner. ;) My sternum and ribs apparently can't take the weight of his head.) Anyway, in my moment of intense pain at home, I had a couple of symptoms happen all at once, especially nausea and cottonmouth.

So Milady and I went to a nearby hospital where a doctor and two interns decided to examine me. The doctor asked for my symptoms, and I mentioned the cottonmouth.

She looked very surprised. "Cat-in-mouth???"

One of the interns corrected her. "No, cottonmouth."

"Cottonmouth???" As if she had never heard of the condition before.

"Dry mouth," I said, hoping that she finally understood me.

Some time later the thought occurred to me that "cat-in-mouth" is probably just as appropriate to describe the symptom as "cottonmouth." ;)

Baker Fail

I had a good laugh over this pic. More can be found here.

Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer - The Interview

I'll have more commentary on this interview later, insha'allah. In the meantime, I'm presenting almost all of Thursday night's show; the three interview segments are the longer, unedited versions that are available from The Daily Show website; note that there is some mild profanity that wasn't bleeped out as it normally is.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bern After Pleading

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Martha Stewart Loves Jon

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Die Die Must Buy!

Another amazing video out of Hong Kong, where a woman throws a tantrum after being told the restaurant had no more shark fin soup available. This follows the recent tantrum thrown by another woman in Hong Kong who missed her Cathay Pacific flight to San Francisco. For more on that story, see here and here.

The Daily Show on Earmarks (and Cramer)

I hadn't planned on putting up another video about tomorrow's appearance of Jim Cramer on The Daily Show ; however, because I wanted to put up the second video below, I thought I'd add this one to the post as well:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Tomorrow's Jim Cramer Battle

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Jon Stewart brought up the topic of budgetary earmarks tonight in the show's third segment. I wanted to post this video because it brings up an important point about earmarks that I wrote about last September when John McCain tried to use earmarks as a campaign topic (see Economist's View: John McCain's "Big" Economic Plans). As I mentioned last year:

The NY Times also notes that "earmarks ... make up less than 1% of the federal budget.

What most people don't realize is that these Republicans and media hacks (*cough* Faux News *cough*) who complain about the cost of so-called "pork" are using a minor issue to score cheap political points. One million dollars here, two million dollars there, it sounds like a lot of money, but in the larger scheme of things (the US Federal Budget in 2008 is nearly three trillion dollars ($2,979 Billion, to be more precise)), those earmarks turn out to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. Moreover, as Jon mentions in the clip, "It's not pork when it's a project in your state."

But that doesn't stop hypocritical politicians like Lindsey Graham (see the video) and David Vitter from complaining about earmarks publicly while using the system to insert their own earmarks into the federal budget. As President Obama noted:

Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination. I also find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own – and will tout them in their own states and districts.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Pet Projects

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis