Stuffy prose.

The light turns red. The temperature is at least 34C and I have the AC on gently in a grey BMW 520i with diplomatic plates. Reverse is where first gear is supposed to be in these things. Always gets you the first time.

The lake is sparkling in the late afternoon to my left and the "jet d'eau" across the water continues to spew francs into thin air. People take pictures of rainbows appearing in the blowing mist as if it's special.

I probably won't make it home for another half hour since the only road across is jammed with people going home - many back into France. There is a Sotheby's around the corner - Christie's is in the Old Town across the water.

The yellow light joins the red, momentarily; I step on the clutch and put it into first, gently release, and ease on the gas. A swarm of scooters awaken, buzzing through narrow in-betweens formed by our expensive parking lot, ahead of the main rush.

Green.

Wealthy Khalijis and North Africans walk naturally amidst throngs of Europeans along the boardwalk. The juxtaposition is, at times, comical. They rent out waterfront hotels for weeks at exorbitant rates, their temporary immigration peaking in early August, during Les Fêtes de Genève. The Noga Hilton, Beau Rivage, and President Wilson seem to be favorites. Maybe their immediate economic superiority serves as a proxy for the other aspects of their collective deficiency.

I pass a yellow Lamborghini.

Veering left, I fail in my attempt to speed across the bridge named for it's view of Europe's highest mountain (if we exclude the Caucasus). On the right is "Ile Rousseau," complete with a statue of Jean-Jacques, himself. (Voltaire was based in Ferney, 15 minutes the opposite direction - though both are buried together.) Commemorating the Geneva-born Enlightenment thinker, the island and monument appear not be discouraging anyone from living "everywhere in chains," as it were.

For some reason there is a giant clock embedded in flowers at the Southeast side of the bridge.

I'm listening to a radio station broadcasting in both French and Arabic, providing a bizarre background for the sights around me. Based out of Paris, Radio Orient ("ghah-dee-oh oh-ghee-ohn du pah-ghee") has cunningly figured out that the best way to show solidarity with sieged Lebanese is by playing songs by Lebanese artists and on the topic of Lebanon "li ajli lubnaan."

But the signal doesn't reach Qana, I don't think.

Silly Zionist.

Today's Daily had an article about the Israeli slaughter which made me laugh out loud:

Political science and Jewish studies senior Dan Goodman is the Israel programming and issues chairman at Hillel. He has friends studying in Israel and also planned to take a family trip there. He said he'll go, regardless of the violence.

He said he thinks Israel is justified in its actions.

"Hezbollah is a very calculated terrorist group … and that is one reason for the American support for the Israeli offensive in Lebanon - to eliminate Hezbollah."

Hezbollah is the Islamic militant group in Lebanon accused of capturing two Israeli soldiers last week.

Goodman mentioned the Hezbollah stronghold is in the suburbs of Beirut, and Israeli forces "need to do whatever it takes to basically eliminate them."

Wow. Thanks, Dan! You know, next time you manage to GoogleEarth another terrorist "stronghold" in the suburbs, you be sure to let the IDF know. I'm sure they'd love your insight. Actually, at the rate Israel is exterminating civilians left and right, I think they might actually be using GoogleEarth.

I simply can't stand these stupid Zionists charlatans who honestly think that Israel is their birthright, that they are the chosen people, and therefore their ends justify their means.

It's so pervasive a rhetoric that even otherwise (possibly) intelligent poli sci majors like Dan, here, are brainwashed into the company lines: [use a slow, monotonous zombie voice] "Israel is the only democracy in the region," "Israel's actions are only a response to provocation," "Israel has complied with everything the Palestinians have wanted," "Israel is making every effort to minimize civilian casualties..." (casualty = sick euphemism)

Why don't they just be honest and say, "we'll kill as many Arabs as it takes to ensure our ability to continue to take their land unmolested."

Anyway, the article continues with some more biased commentary, but was published in an issue with two great pieces from staff on the situation. (1 and 2)

That being said, we cannot forget this developing situation. Indeed, we are a nation destined for calamity in all senses of the word. We are bombed by humans and assailed by the elements (all of which Allah controls). Everything that strikes us demands of us an appropriate "ummah-tic" response. We have yet, as an ummah, to respond as a unit to a given cause without discrimination, subtle or overt.

As the khatib reminded us here last week, it is all certainly under Allah's permission and control. So while there is an element of shaking our fists and taking to the streets, asking the political powers that be to do something, let us not forget that it is the all-encompassing Power That Is...who is actually the Planner of it all.

For anyone interested, I highly recommend two pieces:

1) Shaykh Hamza's piece (mp3) on the South Asian Tsunami of 2 years ago; and
2) Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad's lecture (text) on the Turkish earthquake of about 7 years ago.

These are a huge discussion piece on their own, as they cut the heart of some serious principles of creed.

The Sociology of Zidane-ism.

Disclaimer: Zinedine Yazid Zidane is hands-down THE consummate footballer of the modern era.

I find it very interesting to differentiate and question how people, especially Muslim and of non-white ethnic origin, are reacting to this situation.

I am among this group, so I can't really say with clarity what exactly I think is going on, but it seems that Zizou became an icon of something, at somepoint. To be sure, this status is not monolithic and is completely dependent on which subpopulation we are talking about.

For instance, Zidane's nominal relation to Islam (i.e. that his name is of Muslim origin) is enough to be a rallying point for many. A lot of Muslims - across various levels of affinity for Islam - who may not even know a word of Arabic will call him Zayn ad-Din, almost matter-of-factly.

His Algerian origin is a point of identification for others - especially given French repression and massacre there. These empathizers may be Algerians or from one of the many other groups of historical recipients of French brutality. And, to extend it a step further for the sake of drawing lofty and unfounded conclusions, Zidane can, thus, by being a member of the colonized, also become a symbol for all those who have been colonized by anyone - Belgians, Dutch, British, etc. (If you recall, there was a similar empathy with the Senegalese at the last World Cup because they destroyed the French squad, all the while being members - many - of them, of the French 1st division league.)

And adding still another flavor to his appeal, Zidane grew up in the projects, making him a socioeconomic icon, as well. To top it off, he is generally shy, understated, and calm, (despite a few documented incidents of serious anger), and carries himself with a certain dignified and urbane manner which probably garners the sympathy of the bourgeousie and upper echelons of French society. (Not to mention he is probably the best overall footballer in recent history.)

Zizou represents so much to so many that even though his last action on the pitch was completely stupid and arguably played a role in France's loss, we will, apparently, never define him by it. (Last count I heard at the time of his interview had 60% of the French public as having "already forgiven" him.)

This is particular notable because it is loosely defining how we barter goods and services when it comes to the purchase of goodwill and the benefit of the doubt. Zizou provides economic, political, and social capital in varying degrees to varying sectors of the societies in which he lives and plays, and the international community, as a whole.

It is almost certainly true that a lesser player (in any of the ways described above) reacting to the very same Materazzi, even, against comments of identical bite would not be so readily excused. (As a side note, the sociology of Zizou defending comments against women in his family is not insignificant in the public rush to defend him. It adds to his hero image the element of a protector of virtue.)

I contend that if Sagnol, solid French player that he was, were called something derogatory, or his kin insulted, and he reacted in a way that similarly damaged the team's performance, there would be little sympathy. "It's just a part of the game," he would be chided. "Everyone deals with it," he would be scolded. But what Materazzi did was not insult Sagnol. He insulted Zizou.

It is worth examining what Zidane has come to embody in the aftermath versus what Materazzi has:

The latter has been taken, unfairly, as the representative of a nation and a people - and the remnants of a war from about 100 years ago. (Yes, I know that fascism didn't die after they lost, but I am being illustrative of the contrast.) One article I read implied Materazzi's vile tongue was symptomatic of an evil, racist tide from Lazio to Lisbon, pervading the realm of FIFA.

Zidane, contrarywise, has come to personify the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the honest and hard-working, and the oppressed; he is decidedly not a personification of anything French, however - not in the eyes of the population described in the first paragraph.

Let us flip the story in hopes of an experiment impossible to prove:

Suppose Marco Materazzi nailed Zinedine Zidane because the latter insulted the former similarly and was roughed up similarly throughout the game, etc., etc., and so forth.

What would be the outcry and who would be demonized and who would be idolized?

The answer to this question is representative of what we, as humans, are willing to overlook when a satisfactory level of goods and services have been exchanged. No matter if that turning of the cheek is unfair. (Recall that the rasul, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, said "la darara wa la dirar" and that definitive "sabr" is to be exercised at the moment of pain/injury/etc. if it is to be valid. As a Muslim, Zidane was, in fact, in the wrong.)

This would have all been a lot easier for most of us if we hadn't made this man a champion for each of our respective points of empathy. To paraphrase another modern icon, "[he] can't be [our] Superman."

My personal answer to why I was so struck with emotion while watching the final (and speculating for days after) is that I created a pedestal for someone who didn't deserve one instead of for the only person who does and ever will.

On going to hell.

This one is a short thought that I often bring up with certain people.

Believing there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad was His final messenger and a guide for all humanity (and following him) is not the same as knowing that Allah is the only deity and Muhammad, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, was a prophet. Factual knowledge and belief that leads to action are distinct, from what I understand. One is knowing, the other is understanding, I guess.

The point of this post is that knowledge may not constitute any guarantee.

Consider Satan.

Satan was in the Garden. He knows God. He knew Adam. He clearly knows Muhammad, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, and everyone in between, upon them be peace. In fact, when he was kicked out of the Garden, he asked God's permission to oppose Him until the Day of Destruction. To add insult to injury, he will literally announce to the residents of Hell, when everyone is cast therein, that God's promise was true and his was false and that he deceived them and is not to blame for their transgressions.

Pharaoh's insane instance of declaring himself Lord aside, would you not agree that Satan is the ultimate transgressor against God?

So, if the prime resident of the deepest circle of Hell knows God exists and of His prophets and revelation, what is the difference between him and us?

He chose not to repent and chose to disobey: a choice we, too, possess.

This, for me, changes the semantics of saying we believe in God.

The only non-depressing note I have for you in this is that if you have an iota of true belief in the one God, it does lead to deliverance from perdition, eventually, insha`Allah. Furthermore, sincere shahada will earn you the prophet's intercession, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, insha`Allah.

Other than that, I'd say constant tawba and remembrance is really all there is.

But we knew that already, I think.