and then our exile

usman: (i was listening to manshawi's juz' 'amma) "dieser mann ho:rt wie er ist traurig"

b: yes, so did farooq tell you we are going to be singing this summer?
salwa: he said something about that, and then i laughed.

b: i just found out this morning, am telling everyone, i was the only canadian they chose.
paul: this is when you get a big head.

usman: was meinnt "wife"?

b: i've always wondered - i've never known precisely what the function of a tie is.
zacharia: usually it's for hanging the groom after the wedding.

- b? who is that?
s's mother: at the kitab he was the one who looked like a white russian.
- oh right the white russian.

rediscovering the 80s: one two three four five
.

the to-do list on the fridge has about seventy items, most exotic of which include visiting venezuela and learning to dance the khattak, juggle, and speak farsi.

in the 339 coursepack there was a selection on symbols and stories – how k.n. believes an important part of understanding the Other is through its icons and mythologies, not of course as condescending anthropologists but with the understanding that these are major sources of meaning. "subjectivity without subjectivism" – a phrase i've used in numerous discussions/papers/things, but don't think i yet actually understand, because (so far as i can see) the moment it is broken into pretheoreticals there is equal validity, which i can't accept. so at that point i fall back on dogma, the belief in fitrah (innate nature, intuitive intellect)...for which there is maybe existential proof, but even that is limited to the individual. so right back again at subjectivism.

read an article yesterday, murad hoffman adding his voice to those who call for a new, occidental madhhab (he does qualify, insist it must be no less authentic than the others, no "euro-islam"). i don't see the point - i think more nuanced understandings of the unique situations of the west on the part of fuqaha' & scholars also steeped in the classical tradition would do a lot more/ would perform the same function while maintaining the overall structure, and would also yield a wider range of rulings? because this way it is going to come down to the lowest common denominator (is hanafi fiqh easier on business transactions? then let us follow hanafi usul here. is maliki fiqh easier on what defines 'awrah? then let us follow the malikis here.), mixing up usul like they are pattern-blocks.
or is there something i'm missing in this?

it is summer now, morning sunlight on mayday blossoms. and the mosquitoes have arrived.