|
When secular and religious worlds collide
Venture Magazine
1 October 2008
This was a classic case of religious beliefs colliding with the secular world in a globalized world.
It was bound to happen sooner or later: A question from a listener on Radio Quran, a Saudi-run station in Riyadh, to Sheikh Saleh Al Lihedan, chief of the kingdom's highest tribunal, the Supreme Judiciary Council, about TV channels that feature "immoral" soap operas, brought a chilling response. In his view, which is recognized as fatwa, or religious edict, it is permissible to kill the owners of these channels if they do not heed his warning!
This was a classic case of religious beliefs colliding with the secular world in a globalized world. Sheikh Al Lihedan was denouncing an abstract reality; satellite channels that advocate depravity. And what exactly is considered depravity? From the cleric's point of view it almost everything that an Arab viewer sees on the majority of TV channels today, including dubbed soap operas, musical video clips, foreign movies, talk shows and interactive stations where people from both genders can actually message each other.
The fatwa sent shock waves across the media world and made headlines all over the globe. It created so much controversy that the same sheikh appeared on Saudi TV few days later to explain his verdict. He did not back down but said that channel owners may face death only after they are brought to trial and if they fail to repent. The TV appearance was meant to circumvent attempts by zealots to take the law into their own hands. But the sense of anxiety and shock remained high, especially among Saudi owners of the most influential entertainment channels.
The irony is that fatwa programs were made even more popular by satellite TV. Many stations present programs featuring religious figures who give their opinion on a variety of corporal and spiritual issues. The problem is that anxious viewers may sometimes pose sensitive questions such as the one Sheikh Al Lihedan was asked on radio. And when an edict or pronouncement is made by such a venerable cleric trouble begins.
And it is a religious dilemma as well. A particular question may bring different interpretations, or fatwas, from different clerics. More moderate sheikhs have criticized Al Lihedan's judgment and said Muslims should simply avoid viewing "indecent" channels. So which one is right?
It is a complex challenge that will continue to confront Arabs and Muslims as their societies attempt to cope in a globalized world. Certainly so-called bad programs on Arab-run satellite channels represent a cultural, if not religious, conundrum. Few weeks ago The New York Times reported that "The Oprah Winfrey Show" has become a sensation among young Saudi women. "Within months, it had become the highest-rated English-language program among women 25 and younger, an age group that makes up about a third of Saudi Arabia's population," the newspaper reported on 18 September.
The show is broadcast daily on MBC4, part of the Saudi owned, Dubai based, MBC Group. According to the newspaper Oprah has become a role model for many Saudi women. The same channel presents other American talk shows whose hosts and guests discuss typical American issues including extra-marital relationships, drug abuse and teen-age sex among others.
Music channels have become very popular as well and few present video clips of Arab singers that verge on the pornographic. Naturally these channels have come under fire not only from clerics but from conservative elements in the society including writers and intellectuals.
Drawing the line to separate clean and culturally correct entertainment from offensive material is not easy. The question of who, if any, should assume such responsibility is problematic. Censorship is an ugly term and if such an approach is ever implemented then we will face at least two issues. One is that it could never work, and second is that in this age of information revolution, viewers will always find a way to give censors the run around. We know this because governments have tried to censor the internet and failed miserably.
If somehow censors were able to shut down controversial channels or force owners into changing their programs, viewers will simply migrate to other channels. It is a losing battle. On the other hand, Al Lihedan's fatwa may incite vigilantes who are looking for a cause or even give terrorist organizations fresh targets. It happened before with Salman Rushdie, Naguib Mahfouz and others.
Instead the banner should be lifted by intellectuals, academicians, teachers and social workers. The battle of ideas should be fought in classrooms and university lecture halls. These channels expose symptoms of various diseases that Arab societies are suffering from. It would be naive to believe that they are the problem. They are certainly part of it, but media is a double-edged sword and just as news of bloody fatwas reverberate through the air, "bad" programs as well as "good" ones will reach far and make an impact.
The current struggle between religious and secular dogmas will continue. Last month another Saudi cleric decried the participation of women in the Olympics and decided that women tennis is indecent because of what he perceived as players' seductive attire. Such controversial statements and ideas will continue to challenge our societies. And they only underline the deep schism that divides us.
If the differences were limited to expressing divergent opinions, then some of us would not feel scared or threatened. But they are not. A fatwa may lead to murder in the name of religion just as an offensive video clip may be shaking the ethical foundations of young Arab men and women.
Such is the challenge we face today. And while we look for answers in a fast changing world we should strive to underscore the importance of dialogue and exchange of ideas so that we may eventually find a formula that could provide us with the best of both worlds!
|