— Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali ابو حامد محمد ابن محمد الغزالی

“If you are irritated by every rub, how will you be polished?”

— Mevlana Jalal-al-Din Rumi جلال الدین محمد بلخى

“Oh My Lord! grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things that I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”

—   Dr. Ali Shariati  علي شريعتي

 http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=3…

“Georgetown values people who are of different traditions, it recognizes that society is diverse,” he said, discussing some of the values that attracted him to working as a Muslim chaplain at a Catholic and Jesuit university.

A chaplain-in-residence in Harbin Hall — a residence hall predominantly made up of first-year students, Rahman works as a counselor and mentor and has experience in interfaith settings.

When discussing his decision to come work with Georgetown students, he addressed them directly saying, “(Georgetown recognizes) you should be exposed to the ideas I have to bring; you should be able to dialogue with me.”

I used this list during my khatira during the 27th night of Ramadan taraweeh service at Georgetown, and thought it would be beneficial to promote here:

There are ten useless matters:

1. Knowledge that is not acted on
2. The deed that has neither sincerity nor is based on following the righteous examples of others
3. Money that is hoarded, as the owner neither enjoys it during this life nor obtains any reward for it in the Hereafter
4. The heart that is empty of love and longing for God, and of seeking closeness to Him
5. A body that does not obey and serve God
6. Loving Allah without following His orders or seeking His pleasure
7. Time that is not spent in expiating sins or seizing opportunities to do good
8. A mind that thinks about useless matters
9. Serving those who do not bring you close to God, nor benefit you in your life
10. Hoping and fearing whoever is under the authority of God in His hand; while he cannot bring any benefit or harm to himself, nor death, nor life; nor can he resurrect himself.

Hamd – Jimmy Attre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJE8Gavz7SY

Ramadan Assalaam – Amir Liaquat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr2BLmWLPYE

By the group Rejjan, about how Ramadan is observed in Sarajevo.  It begins and ends with the ezan (adhan, call to prayer).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Impotent yet opinionated. 

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

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

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

 2. “I speak my mind”

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

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

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

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

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

Introit.mp3

Kyrie.mp3

Two parts of Faure Requiem:

Libera Me.mp3

In Paradisum.mp3

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