Today marks the first of the 12th month, Dhul-Hijjah, of the Islamic calendar. It has been reported that while the last 10 nights of Ramadan are the most blessed nights of the year, these first 10 days of Dhul-Hijjah are the most blessed days.
Fast, Pray, and Worship all you can.
Do a search on the 10 days of Dhul-Hijjah and read up on the enormous blessings. Or just check out Organica's post.
squat [skwot]:
1. to sit in a low or crouching position with the legs drawn up closely beneath or in front of the body; sit on one's haunches or heels.
2. to crouch down or cower, as an animal.
Since I promised this person that I wouldn't use their name in the retelling of this tale, I will instead choose an anonymous acronym. Hmmm...let me think. This person is a woman and I find her very endearing. So let's call her Woman I Find Endearing (W.I.F.E).
Perfect. Anonymity preserved!
===
W.I.F.E: Where are all these annoying flies coming from?
Me: Maybe its the cold weather. They're looking for warmth, I guess.
W.I.F.E: Can't you just go buy a flysquatter and kill them all?
Me: Buy a what?
W.I.F.E: A flysquatter. You know, those things used to kill flies. Sheesh, were you like raised in a cave? You really ought to read more and expand your vocab...
Me: Excuse me, but were you raised to catch the flies and *sit* on them?
W.I.F.E: What're you talking about?!
Me: Uhmm, squat means to sit down and you called it a flysquatter. Its supposed to be called a flySWATTER.
W.I.F.E: Yeah, whatever. Same difference.
Me (laughing): Sure, I'll catch the fly and you can sit on it. Deal?
W.I.F.E: Ha...Ha. Very funny
After a brief moment of silence,
W.I.F.E: Just make sure this doesn't end up on your stupid blog. I know you have nothing else to write about...
Me: Hey now, I maintain a high standard on my blog.
W.I.F.E: Yeah, like putting up a picture of your son wearing all orange.
Me: Well played. Fine, I promise I won't include your name...
As a fly buzzes past me,
Me: Quick my dear Crouching Tiger, there's another fly, go jump on it!
When a friend who's borrowed some money has a heart attack and the first thought that comes to your mind is 'uh-oh, I'm not gonna see my money.'
How pathetic!
And to think, some of you thought my last post was too harsh. Now you understand?
We all know that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. There is no doubting that clear injunction in Islamic law. Nonetheless, the issue of gay marriages in America (see Prop 8) is posing an interesting quandary for American Muslims.
On the one hand, do we stand against the principle of homosexuality on moral grounds?
Or do we take a political stand and support gay marriages as such a stance would prove beneficial to our community in the long run, if ever our rights were threatened in a similar manner?
Br. Sabir Ibrahim writes an interesting post where he is of the latter opinion.
"Muslims’ status as a religious minority in this country thus weighs against extending support to any endeavor that would impose the dominant society’s values as law, even in instances where those values may agree with their own."
I know how this will sting many of our long-time accepted sensibilities, but I really think many of us should give this issue more thought. Most of us simply write it off as haram and cease to ponder over it. For so many of us, being gay is a greater sin than even kufr or shirk. However, the issue is much more than that.
Consider well the points presented by the author as he concludes his article:
“In order to progress and mature as a politically relevant community, Muslims must resist one-dimensional knee-jerk reactions to issues that are actually multi-faceted in nature. A Muslim stand against campaigns to ban same-sex marriage is not a show of support for homosexuals or homosexuality. Rather, it’s a stand against the agenda of the Christian Right, a stand against the imposition of the majority’s values on minority communities that many not share them, and a strategic move aimed at building the Muslim voice in America.”
Truth be told, I found some legitimacy in his argument. The rules of the game dictate strategic political alliances that would normally be unacceptable ('politics make for strange bedfellows').
However, I must admit that I simply can't accept his basic premise is being tenable. It seems as if he's suggesting that for the benefit of the fledgling Muslim-American community and its minority rights, we must stand up for the rights of other minorities - even if it means going against our beliefs.
Hmmm. Would he suggest the same if Muslims were in the majority?
While *he* may not, many American Muslims would have no problem outrightly rejecting such a proposition in a Muslim-majority society. And so I sense a strong tinge of hypocrisy combined with a dose of weakened principles, where we may support gay marriages (going against our moral principles) only because it may prove to be politically expedient.
But I want to take this a step further in exposing us for the weak Muslims we've become.
Let's play a game, shall we?
Pretend that sometime in the hypothetical future, a trend for public nudity was being pushed with the religious right countering by calling for the government to ban such immoral displays. Would the American Muslim community support governmental intrusion on an individual's choice of clothing (or lack of) or would we side with our political conscience and support public nudity, since supporting the naked folks against state intervention dictating their clothing norms is simultaneously supportive of the Muslimah's choice of wearing the hijab? After all, if Big Brother can decide what one must cover, he can also decide what one must NOT cover, right?
Poppycock.
I propose that we ALWAYS stand up for our moral principles, regardless of the political ramifications. And with the support and assistance from Allah (swt) alone, we will collectively deal with whatever fallout may occur in the future.
This issue is bigger than gay marriages. It's about American Muslim sticking to their principles. Whether its choosing the 'lesser of two evils', taking part in interfaith dialogues, buying into home mortgages or any other concessions we may have adopted in trying to integrate, our Islamic values must always trump everything else.
It's about the defeatist attitude that has begun to exude from our numbers: "If we don't compromise in such and such a manner, we won't be able to succeed in the West."
Sorry to get all preachy on you folks, but success is from Allah (swt) alone. Victory and defeat come from Allah (swt) alone.
And if in the process of sticking to your guns, life becomes too difficult, Allah (swt) has given us guidance:
"Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak and oppressed in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah's earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein? So these it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil resort" (4:97)
Oh, and do check out Sophister's take on the same issue. He's got some nice points.
If you never understood the concept of Disaster Capitalism, the raging conflict in DR Congo is a textbook case.
More than 80 per cent of the world's coltan is in Africa, and 80 percent of that lies in territory controlled by DR Congo's various ragtag rebel groups, armed militia and its corrupt and underfunded national army. Coltan is a key ingredient in the production of electronic devices such as laptops, personal digital assistant, and mobile phones. Additionally, the country has rich deposits of diamonds, gold, cobalt, timber, and other natural resources.
"the Democratic Republic of Congo has the world’s purest and largest deposits of strategic minerals, including gold, coltan, niobium, cobalt, heterogenite, columbite (columbium-tantalite or coltan), copper and iron. Heterogenite exports coming out of Congo are alone valued at between $260 million (at $20/lb.) and $408 million (at $30/lb.) every month. That’s between 3.1 and 4.9 billion dollars a year. Diamonds account for another billion dollars annually. Oil has been pumping off the Atlantic Coast for decades, but now oil and gas deposits are being exploited from the great lakes border region—Lake Kivu (methane gas) and Lake Albert (oil)—and deep in the province of Equateur. And then there are the dark rainforest woods that sell by the thousands monthly for around $6000 to $12000 per log." [source]
With the re-surge in violence in DR Congo over the past weeks, it presents us with another opportunity to revisit Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism.
Basically the theory starts off acknowledging that old-school colonialism is long dead and new-age colonialism (Iraq) is too costly. Thus new ways have to be created to continue feeding the insatiable capitalist system. The newest way is to either wait for a disaster to strike (Katrina, tsunami) or initiate/agitate for one (civil war, invasion) and then send in the economic vultures to scoop up the natural resources at bargain basement prices. The West as well as newcomer China have become masters in exploiting the shock of the victim for their economic gain.
"If the Congo were at peace and able to hold democratic elections, its citizens might gain control over its resources, either by claiming national ownership (as Iran and Venezuela do with their oil) or by regulating the multinational companies that seek to profit from those resources. The violent atmosphere, however, makes it impossible for the Congolese government to challenge corruption within or to exert any authority over multinationals seeking profits. It is thus in the interest of the multinational companies to keep the Congo at war.
And this intentional destabilization is precisely what has been happening. A panel of experts set up by the UN Security Council in 2000 issued a series of reports over the next few years describing how networks of high-level politicians from Congo and neighboring countries, military officers, and business people collaborated with various rebel groups to fuel violence in order to gain control over Congo's resources. For example, in 2002 the UN panel noted that as much as 60 to 70 percent of coltan in eastern Congo was mined under the surveillance of the Rwandan military, using the forced labor of Rwandan prisoners.
A 2003 follow-up report by the panel listed eighty-five multinational companies that had profited from the war in Congo, including six U.S.-owned companies: Cabot Corporation, Eagle Wings Resources International (a subsidiary of Trinitech International), Kemet Electronics Corporation, OM Group, and Vishay Sprague." [source]
The chaos has not only been taken advantage of by these corporations, but has also been spurred on by them. What is commonly written off as internal tribal strife or a primitive war over land, the complex conflict in central Africa is much more indicting of the western corporatocracy.
By enlisting the services of Rwanda and Uganda, long time allies of the US, to maintain an atmosphere of political instability and civil strife, business interests remain protected.
"Rwanda and Uganda are allies of the United States, some would even say they are client states to US and British interests. Both countries receive financial and military aid from the United States, World Bank and other Western institutions. This aid has continued unabated even during the invasions of the Congo. During a Congressional Hearing in 2001 held by Congresspersons Tom Tancredo and Cynthia McKinney, it was documented by experts under oath that the US provided military aid to Rwanda during its first invasion of Congo in 1996." [source]
"A 2003 United Nations investigation into the illegal exploitation of natural resources accused both Rwanda and Uganda of prolonging their armed incursions into Congo in order to continue their plunder." [source]
Another angle often overlooked in the analysis is that of the contracts signed between multinationals and DR Congo - contracts heavily favoring the corporations.
As stated in this video report by Dan Rather, in 2005 the cash-strapped Congolese government signed unbalanced contracts handing over share of its mineral-rich mines to no less than 60 foreign companies. These deals were so rotten that even the World Bank, themselves notorious for privatizing national resources the world over, criticized their "complete lack of transparency" and stated that the government "may not have received the full value of the mines".
He also reports how the US embassy in DR Congo had a strong role in pushing one of those crooked deals through, involving Arizona-based Freeport-McMoran, one of the largest copper companies in the world. US support didn't just stop there. A US government agency by the name of Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) supported Freeport with $400million of financing for the projects.
However, those contracts are now under investigation by Congolese president Joseph Kabila.
"In a 2002 report, the U.N. alleged that many foreign mining companies, eager to exploit the lack of a strong central government in Kinshasa and avoid paying fair market value and taxes on the minerals they extracted, signed contracts with commanders from the invading countries as well as with then-President Laurent Kabila, who was struggling to cling to power in the face of the international onslaught. These contracts almost universally favored the mining companies. That is, until May of last year. In a move that sent ripples through the DRC mining community, the government announced that 63 mining contracts, many of them signed during the civil war of the late '90s, would be reviewed by a special ministerial committee." [source]
One wonders whether the current violence in DR Congo has anything to do with the review undertaken by the current Kabila administration of those 60+ mining contracts.
"Kabila’s government has taken the opportunity of a major review of mining contracts to terminate contracts with US, European and Australian companies in favour of Chinese firms. Few companies are prepared to discuss their position in Congo, but those under threat include First Quantum Minerals, Freeport McRoRan, BHP Billiton and Anvil Mining. Vast mineral reserves may be handed over to Chinese firms in the government review." [source]
So folks, be on the lookout for any military intervention sponsored by the UN, the US, or Europe. After all, business interests must be protected.
'Any armed “humanitarian” mission to Congo would be a thin disguise for a naked imperialist intervention that was intent on pillaging the resources of this mineral rich country.' [source]
Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reminded the world in his January 2008 interview with the Financial Times of London that “The international community has systematically looted the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and we should not forget that.”
Let us not forget that the root of the conflict in DR Congo is not a civil war. It is not local tribes jostling for control of subsurface resources. It is not about redressing injustices carried out in the Rwanda genocide (as justified by Rwanda president Kagame who has 'has vowed to root out the Hutu militias from eastern Congo').
It is a contrived conflict intent on destabilizing the region and shocking the locals while the international community plunders and loots.
No, not Obama.
This guy, Davis Fleetwood:
I won’t go so far as to say that Obama’s foreign policy is equal to the Bush doctrine, but clearly there is more than “a smidgen of commonality”.
Like a caged up wild animal, we too are enslaved. We are restricted by our lower desires. We are imprisoned by the insidious machinations of shaytan. We are confined by the attractions of this alluring world.
All the while thinking we are free.
The caged beast acknowledges its condition, constantly looking for a way to free itself. What about us?
We must aspire for true freedom.
We must free ourselves from our spiritual shackles.
And when the wild animal sees an opening, it pounces on the opportunity, never looking back, never thinking twice.
We, too, must make the jump. We, too, must flee to freedom. We must flee to the Source of freedom, Allah (swt). We must run without any hesitation. We must escape our chains of spiritual bondage.
Thus flee towards Allah (51:50)
Where else are you going to flee?
Who else is more merciful and compassionate?
Did He not command his prophet Musa to speak words of gentleness and softness to the defiant one (Pharaoh) who so arrogantly claimed to be the lord, most high (20:44)?
Then what about us, who humbly prostrate ourselves while glorifying Allah the most High? Will Allah not show us even greater gentleness and softness?
So indeed, we all should flee back to Allah, where we shall find true freedom.
And never look back.
