The ZamZam Cooler

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.