In the gist of the two arguments he lays out for the view of the law as this new religion of people, the first:

Is this persistance in the practice of law as the people’s new
religion but NOT in the metaphysical premises that seem necessary to
support the practice. To shift the religious vocabulary, if
contemporary law is a species of idolatry, it is a peculiar and
confusing sort of idolatry in which the devotees regulary deny that
the idol has the transcendent qualities it would need to justify the
uses they make of it.

This confusing condition leads to considering the second, not only
different but almost opposite possible view: Could it be that at some
level legal practitioners do sincerely believe in “the law,’ and that
if they are guilty of ‘bad faith,’ their misrepresentation or
self-deception occurs not when they engage in the practice an
discourse of the law but rather when they consciously or explicity
disavow its metaphysical commitments? Meaning, while lawyers and
judges might be in ‘bad faith’ when they engage in practice of law,
their overall behavior seems more consistent with the hypothesis that
self-deception occurs when they engage in explicit theorizing about
law- and when in the course of such theorizing they deny the
metaphysical commitments that they in fact hold.

Interesting huh? Not many lawyers, judges, or even Americans view
their legal system in such a light… and this isn’t even comming from
a Muslim but thier own legal theorist.

Dostoevsky made a similar point when he said, ” Man cannot exist
without bowing before something…. Let him reject God, and he will
bow before an idol.”

The souls are dispatched armies, so what is recognizable to them attracts, and what is not recognizable to them causes separation. (Bukhari)

The witness sees what was not seen by the absent. (Sahih ul Jami, 3728)

People’s relationship to Adam and Hawwa is like the most insignificant measure, by it alone they would never be complete. Indeed Allah will not ask you about your bodies nor your lineages on the Day of Judgment, the most noble of you to Allah are those of you with the most piety. (As Sahiha, 1038)

One of you looks at the dust in the eye of the brother, while he forgets about the large splinter in his own eye. ( Adab al Mufrad)

The parable of the one who gives something then takes it back is that of the dog who eats until he vomits, then he eats his vomit. (Sahih Sunan at Tirmidhi, 1730)

The parable of the believer is that of grain stalk, sometimes it sways and sometimes it stands straight. ( Sahih ul Jami, 5845)

{The above mentioned have been taken from Sahih Kitaab al Amthaal (parables) by Abu Ash Shaykh al Asbahani.}

A brother and I have been discussing about starting a joint-blog to write and debate issues ranging from Islam, literature, history, etc., and relate them to how they affect Muslims in the west.

One of the reasons we choose our name –frankincense– was to show that something can be called by one name yet still retain it’s core composition. Frankincense is better know in the Muslim world by its Arabic name, al luban, but the west know it as frankincense because it was re-introduced into Europe by the Frankish Crusaders returning from the Muslim world.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about how a blog serve’s multiple purposes: Ranging from a outlet to vent personal rants/thoughts, to a forum of discussion on community issues, to a journalist reporting on a war from the frontlines. It’s all there on the blogosphere.

I have another blog but its more personal, in the sense that I often write about things on my mind without regard to clearly expressing those viewpoints across to others.