and then our exile

- last night skimmed some instalments of the eteraz/avari.nameh modernism/ postmodernism/ traditionalism debate (as here and here). it is food for thought - at the least so that i can discover why exactly i disagree with each of them. i would lean more towards AHM's original article, but do see their criticisms as formidable. because of time-constraints i can't go too much in depth about them at this point, will leave it at "fideistic commitment" for now (yes, i realize it is a cop-out, but warranted.)(man, i *was* exposed to too much plantinga this year, wasn't i?), but i think it has to do with the function of traditionalist structures. but the crossover between (this i think would go back to the discussions/arguments with h.victor) a reified/idealized tradition and historicity - how including the tradition in faith-commitment "amounts to secularization", but in the interests of pragmatism certainly the edges aren't that strict? facetiously i might call it 'pragmatic traditionalism', to counter eteraz's pragmatic postmodernism...but like i said, i need to give the articles serious reading and more thought, before i actually comment.
- this man must have had a fascinating life. swedish impressionist and sufi, introduced rene guenon to islam, painted in egypt and argued with french anti-ottoman rioters...
- the bolivarian revolution marches on. everyone must hail alba.

today it was suggested i enjoy our sunday school because it gives me an audience - eight people have made a commitment to come listen to me ramble. today's "class" included outlining the purpose of fiqh, doing impersonations of teenage girls arguing, and making reference to matchstick men.

on the way home usman lay sprawled against me, his three-year-old body breathing heavily in his sleep. i wonder what he dreams about.