The ZamZam Cooler

"A prince must also show himself a lover of merit, give preferment to the able, and honour those who excel in every art. Moreover he must encourage his citizens to follow their callings quietly, whether in commerce, or agriculture, or any other trade that men follow, so that this one shall not refrain from improving his possessions through fear that they may be taken from him, and that one from starting a trade for fear of taxes; but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and to whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state. Besides this, he ought, at convenient seasons of the year, to keep the people occupied with festivals and shows; and as every city is divided either into guilds or into classes, he ought to pay attention to all these groups, mingle with them from time to time, and give them an example of his humanity and munificence, always upholding, however, the majesty of his dignity, which must never be allowed to fail in anything whatever." -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

If you thought Zia Ul-Haq was a blight on Pakistan's history, I introduce you to President Asif Ali Zardari. Zardari is a world-class miscreant who does business with an old-school feudal lord flair. His mind processes this electoral victory as a restoration of his previously denied God-given right to treat the whole of Pakistan as his personal fiefdom (a right that the Sheriffs, Bhuttos and dozens of other aristocratic families in Pakistan could sympathize with). This is a man who has stolen tens millions of dollars from Pakistan's national treasury -- including the theft of a land-grant issued to the late (and super awesome) Eqbal Ahmad for the construction of an alternative university named Khaldunia in order to build another polo pitch -- and has engaged in the sort of thuggery which would make Russian mobsters proud. Beyond his material and documented corruption, the damage he has done to the integrity of the nation as a political figure is forever incalculable. To put this victory into perspective, Asif Ali Zardari being elected to the office of the President in Pakistan is like seeing an incompetent and resurrected Pablo Escobar winning office in Columbia.

But I think the most important part of Zardari's rise to power is how he has done it. His Machiavellian-like rendition of empty promises, flagrant betrayals and the exploitation of his wife's death (some might argue that 'exploitation' is charitable) will earn him the Golden Eagle Seal of approval from Uncle Sam. The US loves kleptomaniacs like Zardari -- he has a price tag, he doesn't need to go through the motions of being discredited and proven corruptible, the deep sense of mistrust towards him destroys the prospect of non-partisan cooperation with the PPP and the unwillingness on the part of Pakistanis to challenge authority so soon after experiencing another round of extreme instability will inevitable reduce whatever pressure there would be on him to accede to nationalist positions -- the sum of these realities make a President Zardari the perfect caretaker of America's promiscuous foreign policy goals.

For Zardari too, this relationship is a match made in heaven. He has no reason to trust any political figure in Pakistan for the simple reason that no one trusts him. Consider his selection for the post of PM, Yousef Raza Gilani -- a political light-weight who perfectly fills the role of servile lapdog -- over the more esteemed and veteran PPP executive, Ameen Faheem, who served as the PPP's steward during BB's "self-imposed" exile. Zardari has even moved into the PM residence! His machinations are designed to send messages to more than his political opponents -- this is a man who is extremely paranoid of everyone and will go to any length to eviscerate the prospect of losing power, inlcuding at the hands of party elites who might disagree with his criminal dealings and/or desire a proportional share of influence during times of such political prosperity for the PPP. I think its pretty clear then, when America, and by consequence, the World, offers to take a blind-eye towards corruption which promises to never end, it will be prudence that ties together Uncle Sam and President Zardari in a tight embrace.

For all those fools who celebrated the purported victory of "democracy" in Pakistan, I offer this: How true to the democratic spirit is a collegiate election which entrusts the complete and total wealth, administration, representation, and legislative authority to a single-minded criminal who has reneged on every single major promise he has issued during his bid for power? Is democracy simply the construction of a revolving door for leaders to enter and exit the halls of power at appointed times or is it not supposed to allow a reconstruction of the nature of authority and a check on power? Is not democratic rule synonymous with having a political leadership devoted to transparency and in service to the will of its constituents? The obsession with having with the edifice of a democracy is ludicrous if it drives us to "celebrate" the staging of a proper election, especially an election of an official as formidable as Mr. 10%.

Prospect and Foreign Affairs Magazine held their second Top 100 Intellectuals poll in July 2008.

Unusually, the top 10 vote getters were all Muslims. But the peculiarity is now easily explainable: it turns out, most of the top 10 included a link to the poll on their personal or professional websites, effectively channeling their site traffic into votes. If only we could figure out away to be that clever in our politics ;)

Here is a list of the top 10:

1 Fethullah Gülen

2 Muhammad Yunus

3 Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

4 Orhan Pamuk

5 Aitzaz Ahsan

6 Amr Khaled

7 Abdolkarim Soroush

8 Tariq Ramadan

9 Mahmood Mamdani

10 Shirin Ebadi

This is my response to a discussion about PNG posted on facebook.

I think we all must admit – the influence of a scholastic community as revered as the maraja’a of Shi’i Islam extends well past the mundane issues of ritual and jurisprudence, whether they define such a restrictive boundary for themselves or not. People will invariably seek to extrapolate from their edicts and suggestions explanations and guidance on a plethora of issues outside of the legal hair-splitting agenda. So, at the very least, our maraja’a ought to be conscious of, if not liable for, the requests from its follwership to muse the package of political, social and economic challenges they face (in there many diverse manifestations). And hopefully, offer commentary on its religious implications in an insightful and not doctrinaire manner. It is in this respect, I contend that our marja’a have generally been neglectful. One major qualification I mention (of many omitted): I understand the limits and constraints as well as the unfair expectations cast upon any religious leadership (Br. Ali Assar rightfully pointed this out). And it is for such a reason why I prefer these provinces of human life to be free from the unilateral dictates of religious authorities. But the powerful strictures imposed by the consensus of the hawzeh on anyone who dissents from its opinions or silence not only evades the problems at hand, but disproportionately places the burden back onto the hawzeh alone to provide solutions for complex and inherently inter-disciplinary problems – an endeavor which is certain to be over-taxing and unfair to place on the hawzeh to deal with alone. Debates on how diverse issues -- in finance, culture, philosophy, politics and representation, social life, science, technology, and others -- intersect with faith require more than the theologically myopic opinions currently on display. Hence, my suggestion to encourage free-thought in order to develop a shared authority on issues of importance to Shi'is.

I applaud Fadhlallah for being exceptional. He, unlike his peers, seems to lay great emphasis on daily challenges trust upon his followership and is keenly aware of both the unique environment from where they emerge and the nature of the problem, not its superficial consequences. He addresses them as he can while encouraging people to permit reason and an attention to circumstance to govern their lives (at least, this is how I receive his messages).

On final note: this discussion or anything like it cannot be interpreted to be tantamount to a disloyalty to faith. Suggestions like those merely corroborate what I was saying in the first place: an intolerance of reason. There is a tendency to wield the common “specialist argument”: our lack of expertise on a subject should prevent our discussion and exploration of such a topic. Please note, my thoughts are not intended to somehow eclipse or form an authoritative account of what ought to be. It is merely what I hope to be a positive and healthy contribution to a discussion so absent in our community.

Unable to embed, but watch this:

Sayed Fadhlallah is perhaps the most distinguished persona non grata in the Shi'i world. Despite his weighty pedigree as an accomplished scholar and Arab intellectual, his constituency is dwarfed by tens of millions in comparison to those of his contemporaries in Iran and Iraq, and as a consequence, the sum of the religious taxes he collects amounts to an infinitesimal portion of funds provided by the Shi'i faithful. Drowning out his voice and eviscerating his influence, therefore, has become a rather easy undertaking.

Its a very common occurrence to hear him denounced as being heretical in his views or unfit to act as a jurist. In fact, I was first exposed to the man based on remarks of this same spirit in the form of advice from a senior member of my community, advising me not follow his ideas or edicts, lest I be lead "astray" by them (The irony is that he was right ;). But even the briefest surface inspection of what this man espouses, as perhaps the video link above demonstrates, is quick to reveal the reason why he's a popular and important target for polemical assassination: his authority as a scholar-guide comes not from blind, unconditional intellectual surrender to all that he says, but from his encouragement to grow and nourish the follower's mind and soul. As I see it, with Fadhlallah there is no ultimatum -- you are free to, or rather you are encouraged to exercise your intellect not only to understand but to realize your faith amidst your very personal and unique circumstances without the ominous consequence of being a religious "invalid". The parameters of jurisprudence are reconcilable -- indeed sometimes subordinate -- with your autonomy as a free-thinking, curious human being.

This unusual respect for reason and rigor is, I believe, anathema to the leading clergymen of the Shi'i world. Fadhlallah effectively creates the subtle yet very real fear of a new religious paradigm which, although not independent of the clergy and perhaps unintentionally, seeks to develop an interdependent relationship between an educated and learned religious mass and an accommodating (and forcibly re-trained) clergy. The proposal of an empowered peoples under the shade of Shi'i Islam is undeniably threatening to the current regime of religious authority within the faith, who have complete impunity and practice absolutism in nearly ever respect. The fearful demands of the learned Shi'i would be much more than silent requests to help remove the social and economic iniquities he is forced to contend with, but in his state of awakening, he might daringly call into question the fairness of unfettered clerical control over religious resources and decision-making. So as Fadhlallah scraps away at the discrepancy between men and women in the traditional order and revises the criteria for political participation in a polity which is ostensibly secular (re: Dawlat al-Insan), these reforms have a greater meaning than just representing the will and needs of his constituents (in his judgment). The greater success he observes, whether he intends for it or not, enhances the prospect of slowly undoing the fabric of a "divinely sanctioned" hierarchy.

Not a day goes by without an "investigative report" on Beijing's uninhabitable air pollution or about systemic human rights abuses rampant across main-land China. Undoubtedly, the intent of this crusading discourse is neither to earnestly defend the rights of China's dispossessed proletariat nor to satisfy our newly acquired environmental tastes. Its rather a convenient pretext for unveiling yet another Orientalist finding. The stream of special broadcasts and editorials depicting an undeserving China fits consistently with the Orientalist dogma of an eternally unequal world that is so deeply ingrained and fortified in our institutions and thought.

And I don't think thats an overly dramatic claim. China, as it stands, is the world's most durable and powerful economy. It sustains the needs for the two worlds -- the developed and undeveloped -- by providing cheap goods for sale and for further production in the creation of locally produced final goods. Alongside its popular material transformation, China has gradually allowed an equally remarkable human transformation. In comparison to decades after the Maoist revolution in China, the liberty it affords is citizenry is one of the most progressive in all of the East. Its economic opportunities and strength would have retarded long ago if otherwise. Improvements in access to education, health care and information demonstrate staggering achievements when one considers from where China began and for the vastly spread billion people it must account for. Certainly, I would not deny impediments to China's social progress have developed from its own calculated conduct, and without doubt, one of the chief causes of its shortcomings is the intolerance and authoritarianism of the Communist Party. Political and intellectual challenge is still unacceptable in China. But to present this criticism as a singular reason to sustain the vilification of a nation like China -- with a peoples tenaciously working for reform -- is perhaps the best indication of the West's resilient stand in defending a supremacist understanding of itself.

I think the real issue here is quite simple and elementary. 'We' cannot take it that the Chinese are hosting 'our' games. The games were founded on 'our' traditions and values, off-limits and not understood by the eternally pedestrian-minded folk of the East. When China hosts the Olympics, it is seemingly acceptable to commandeer the Olympic spirit to impose a political project on China with a laundry list of conditions to meet for compliance with our upright moral standards. But suppose in Vancouver 2010, citizens around the world expressed their discontent with Canada's inescapable complicity in torturing civilians and active participation in a frivolous war by occupying Afghanistan, would any of their demands, however passionately produced, develop anywhere near the level of suspicion we have against China's ability to host the games or would not the pundits dismiss the discussion as crude and inappropriate. This is more than just double-standards -- we've honed an intellectual impulse that kicks in at any perceived challenge to our orthodox reign on power and progress. Our purview of the world has become impervious to equitable considerations and deeply intolerant of reforms which do not disproportionately reward us. This, I think, is the type of smog we really ought to concern ourselves with.