|
|
|
Last Updated: Oct 12, 2008 - 7:15:37 AM |
I don't know how informative
that section of the sheikh's talk was but I am sure most people who
were watching the program were either not listening or shaking their
heads in disbelief. But the talk did not end with any obvious
statements of harm caused by rats and mice; the sheikh continued by
denouncing the fact that children these days are not getting the
message about mice and rats because they have been influenced by
Western cartoons that represent mice as funny and clever. Think Tom and
Jerry and Mickey Mouse. To conclude and drive his point home he said,
"They like Mickey Mouse whereas in reality Mickey Mouse should be
killed." Thus ended the talk, and although it was as absurd as can be,
it seems that such talks have become a normal thing on TV these days.
As satellite channels proliferate, they pack their broadcasts with as
much as they can of what they feel will attract viewers and religious
programs are sure winners, especially in Ramadan.
The problem lies not only with the channels. Many of the programs often
depend on people's calls and questions. Those questions can vary from
asking for advice about a religious duty to asking the sheikh's opinion
on any subject under the sun - hence the mouse question. On a panel of
women scholars on an Egyptian channel last week, one of the interesting
things the three women agreed upon was that some people ask for
scholars' opinions on almost anything, whether it is a worthy matter or
just a mundane everyday triviality. I have to say that those women's
opinions were refreshing. They wanted people to stick to major,
sensible and important issues. Which brings us back to the death
sentence against Mickey Mouse.
This was not the first - and will not be the last - of verdicts that
will make us question the person who issues it, or the stream of
religious verdicts that almost everyone comes up with everyday and
which have to be countered with questions, debates and discussions. We
cannot just sit and listen and accept anything. When people hear these
opinions, they rightly ask and question and criticize if need be. That
is what reason dictates and it in no way contradicts faith. But this is
not what a prominent Saudi scholar said last week. He actually demanded
that journalists and writers who criticize or object to prominent Saudi
scholars' pronouncements and fatwas be punished, and eventually sacked
from their jobs. The punishment he asks for ranges from lashes to long
imprisonment to firing them from their jobs.
I certainly understand that if a writer has insulted or lied about a
sheikh or any other person, he must face the legal consequences of his
actions. The offended party has the right to sue the offender and this
is how it should be. But what the sheikh has asked for is simple
punishment for even criticizing and questioning the opinions of
religious scholars. With all due respect to the sheikh, I beg to
differ. Criticism and debate does not mean that writers are crossing
any lines; writers and journalists are citizens and are affected - like
everyone else - by religious discourse, and if they choose to discuss a
religious issue, or differ with a scholar that does not warrant that
they be lashed, imprisoned or lose their jobs.
This kind of hasty judgment reminds us that what we really miss in
Saudi Arabia is the ability to discuss matters, and to have the right
to disagree if we think differently on issues being discussed. And as a
reminder we mention a small incident from Islamic history. When the
second caliph, Omar, said in one of his sermons that women should not
ask for high dowries, a woman who was present raised her voice and
disagreed with him and provided proof from the Qur'an in support of
women's rights for dowries. What did Omar do? He acknowledged his
mistake in front of everyone. Just a reminder!
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|