Sistani and Soap Operas: On Resistance and Compromise to Western Influence
In Kerbala today, one of Sistani's trusted spokesman,
Abdul Mahdi al Kerbala'i, came out with the most recent Najaf
position--against foreign dubbed soap operas. By way of background, the Middle East has for years been importing dubbed Mexican and Brazilian telenovelas which have replaced (in part) Egyptian films as the thing to watch every evening. More recently, and in fact right now, there is one from Turkey, titled Noor, which has become the rage in the Arab world. I generally hate these things, and found the Noor hour torture. One air conditioner in one room works in the house, and Noor is on in that house. You can't talk, so you either read over the voices or you listen. Neither is pleasant. The mania has caused consternation throughout the clerical classes, who have issued repeated fatwas against this thing, which nobody has paid attention to. But now Sistani is involved, and he carries significant heft among the Shi'a, so perhaps it will have some effect, though I'm sure Noor will do just fine.
The hoopla over the soap opera, both among its proponents and detractors, seems completely ridiculous, but the ban is fascinating in so many ways, so I will lay it out and then provide my own thoughts.
Kerbala'i gives two bases he says he (or really Sistani, indirectly) has taken from the shari'a. First, if something is damaging to one's mind, or his thoughts, or his religion, then it must be abstained from, and by the way he says in the case of soap operas the ripening of the damage might not appear until well into the future. I still have trouble with this one, it feels cognitively dissonant. It is forbidden if it causes damage. You won't know about the damage until years later. Well then how do I know that it causes that damage when I am watching it, so that I know it is forbidden? I won't know until years later, after all the watching is done. So if I don't know it is damaging, and therefore forbidden, until then, how do I know what to do now?
But the second reason is more interesting. If it leads to vice and personal failings, or leads one to lose their convictions, then it is forbidden. Kerbala'i continues, and I quote
"من جملة وسائل الغزو الثقافي الغربي الكافر لبلاد المسلمين والهدف من ذلك نشر تلك القيم والأعراف والتقاليد ونشر التهتك والتحلل في المجتمع الإسلامي من خلال هذه المسلسلات فينبغي أن يكون لدينا وعي والتفات إلى حقيقة الأهداف التي يراد من خلالها عرض هذه المسلسلات فهناك مسؤولية ملقاة على عاتقنا وخصوصا على عاتق رب الأسرة بان يحفظ ويحصن أسرته من التأثيرات الضارة لهذه المسلسلات، ومن جملة الأمور السيئة التي تحملها هذه المسلسلات أن تجعل من الخيانة الزوجية وإقامة العلاقات غير الشرعية أمرا محببا ومتعارفا وغير منكر وأيضا من جملة الآثار الضارة أن الكثير من الأخلاق والأعراف والقيم التي رفضها واستنكرها الإسلام تصورها هذه المسلسلات على أنها من الأمور المتعارف عليها والمقبولة لدى المجتمع بحيث يتقبله وهو لا يشعر به".
Now my thoughts:
1. One of the things I find most ironic in my realist approach to jurisprudence is that it is Islamic studies people, American academics, not Muslim jurists, who turn red in the face insisting that in fact there IS meaning to the Islamic tradition in a court of law, and that what drives the decision makers, or the real ones anyway, is NOT implacable opposition to Western influence, but rather an attempt to truly relate this Islamic tradition in day to day decisions. It is not jurists who do this is the irony.
Look at this example, is he even trying to deny shari'a is about resistance to the West? Look at the language, "cultural invasion", ruining our societies, deliberate attempt to change us. Jurists in fact say that resistance and shari'a are one and the same thing, not just me. To people like Karbala'i the Islamic tradition IS about resisting the West, that's what so much of the shari'a is about. Their dispute with me is whether or not this is objectively true from an examination of the shari'a, or whether, as I believe, there is no such thing as objectively deriving the shari'a, interpretation involves by necessity the imposition of a worldview. But on whether the shari'a is resistance--jurists don't dispute the fact that the shari'a is the vehicle through which the West is to be resisted, and that they read the Qur'an and the Sunna to be the source of that resistance.
2. It convinces me that Iraq has not come around to accepting and incorporating capitalism. Nobody is spending money bringing Noor to Arab households in the hope of causing marital discord. They are doing it to make money. It sells, this Noor stuff. I can't stand it, but it does sell. Now you can argue I guess forever about whether or not it is in fact harmful, people have different views, but the idea that there is some sort of hidden agenda among the producers is paranoid, and devoid of business sense. I remember a few years back in southern Iraq a few families were disturbed at the popularity of Barbie and Ken, and brought in these dolls from Iran who were Dara and Sara. Dara was Sara's brother, not her boyfriend, and Sara came with headscarves you couldn't really take off, though you could switch the scarves. Kids thought they were stupid and didn't want them. Again, attributed to a deliberate Western conspiracy. Again, just the response of the market.
3. Note the fascinating "head of the household" language. That's not typical in fatwas of this sort. Fatwas urging people to vote didn't tell the head of the household to make sure it got done, for example, it's an individual requirement and so therefore no need. What's going on here? I suspect the sexist conclusion that women are the ones watching Noor and so the man's got to come down on this nonsense before his woman starts behaving like Noor and cheats on him. (Actually I don't think she cheats in the series, but whatever.) Judging by the extraordinary reception Noor has had among my friends in the Iraqi law faculties, I wouldn't count on the men being the ones who can toe the line, though.
4. Even with all the talk of eternal resistance to the West, it struck me that what was being done here was a form of imitation of the West, in the creation of a public-private distinction not really recognized, or not like this, in the shari'a. That is, Sistani, or Kerbala'i, does not urge the government to ban the broadcast of Noor in Iraq, or somehow block the satellite signal, or at least arrest people watching it. It's understood to be a private affair. It's a sin, a dangerous one, one that could lead to the dissolution of the family and therefore quite serious, and with far reaching societal and public consequences. But still, it is not ILLEGAL, it is not, despite the social consequences, an affair of the STATE. He doesn't seek to make it one. And to say that this is because a true Muslim jurist doesn't recognize a nation state is wrong, at least in Sistani's case. The balance of the Kerbala'i sermon involved urging the Parliament to pass an elections law. So to review--elections laws are matters of state concern, and soap operas are matters to be enforced not by the state, but the head of the family. Things that are public affairs, and others, involving religious sins, that are private. Don't know--for all of the talk of resisting the West, sounds like a westward drift to me.
HAH
The hoopla over the soap opera, both among its proponents and detractors, seems completely ridiculous, but the ban is fascinating in so many ways, so I will lay it out and then provide my own thoughts.
Kerbala'i gives two bases he says he (or really Sistani, indirectly) has taken from the shari'a. First, if something is damaging to one's mind, or his thoughts, or his religion, then it must be abstained from, and by the way he says in the case of soap operas the ripening of the damage might not appear until well into the future. I still have trouble with this one, it feels cognitively dissonant. It is forbidden if it causes damage. You won't know about the damage until years later. Well then how do I know that it causes that damage when I am watching it, so that I know it is forbidden? I won't know until years later, after all the watching is done. So if I don't know it is damaging, and therefore forbidden, until then, how do I know what to do now?
But the second reason is more interesting. If it leads to vice and personal failings, or leads one to lose their convictions, then it is forbidden. Kerbala'i continues, and I quote
[These programs] are part of a campaign of Western, infidel, cultural invasion of Muslim lands and their goal is to spread their standards and customs and traditions, and their debauchery and debasing in the Muslim world through these soap opera and so it is imperative that we are conscious and look to the true goals of the spread of these programs. There is a responsibility on our shoulders, and particularly on the shoulders of the head of the households, that they protect and keep their family safe from harmful influences, like these soap operas, and from all of the negative matters that these soap operas contain, which make marital infidelity and illicit relations matters that are appealing and acceptable and not filled with vice. Also within this negative campaign many customs and ethics and standards that Islam rejects and deplores are made acceptable and well known in society without one noticing.Arabic below, for those who want to check the translation.
"من جملة وسائل الغزو الثقافي الغربي الكافر لبلاد المسلمين والهدف من ذلك نشر تلك القيم والأعراف والتقاليد ونشر التهتك والتحلل في المجتمع الإسلامي من خلال هذه المسلسلات فينبغي أن يكون لدينا وعي والتفات إلى حقيقة الأهداف التي يراد من خلالها عرض هذه المسلسلات فهناك مسؤولية ملقاة على عاتقنا وخصوصا على عاتق رب الأسرة بان يحفظ ويحصن أسرته من التأثيرات الضارة لهذه المسلسلات، ومن جملة الأمور السيئة التي تحملها هذه المسلسلات أن تجعل من الخيانة الزوجية وإقامة العلاقات غير الشرعية أمرا محببا ومتعارفا وغير منكر وأيضا من جملة الآثار الضارة أن الكثير من الأخلاق والأعراف والقيم التي رفضها واستنكرها الإسلام تصورها هذه المسلسلات على أنها من الأمور المتعارف عليها والمقبولة لدى المجتمع بحيث يتقبله وهو لا يشعر به".
Now my thoughts:
1. One of the things I find most ironic in my realist approach to jurisprudence is that it is Islamic studies people, American academics, not Muslim jurists, who turn red in the face insisting that in fact there IS meaning to the Islamic tradition in a court of law, and that what drives the decision makers, or the real ones anyway, is NOT implacable opposition to Western influence, but rather an attempt to truly relate this Islamic tradition in day to day decisions. It is not jurists who do this is the irony.
Look at this example, is he even trying to deny shari'a is about resistance to the West? Look at the language, "cultural invasion", ruining our societies, deliberate attempt to change us. Jurists in fact say that resistance and shari'a are one and the same thing, not just me. To people like Karbala'i the Islamic tradition IS about resisting the West, that's what so much of the shari'a is about. Their dispute with me is whether or not this is objectively true from an examination of the shari'a, or whether, as I believe, there is no such thing as objectively deriving the shari'a, interpretation involves by necessity the imposition of a worldview. But on whether the shari'a is resistance--jurists don't dispute the fact that the shari'a is the vehicle through which the West is to be resisted, and that they read the Qur'an and the Sunna to be the source of that resistance.
2. It convinces me that Iraq has not come around to accepting and incorporating capitalism. Nobody is spending money bringing Noor to Arab households in the hope of causing marital discord. They are doing it to make money. It sells, this Noor stuff. I can't stand it, but it does sell. Now you can argue I guess forever about whether or not it is in fact harmful, people have different views, but the idea that there is some sort of hidden agenda among the producers is paranoid, and devoid of business sense. I remember a few years back in southern Iraq a few families were disturbed at the popularity of Barbie and Ken, and brought in these dolls from Iran who were Dara and Sara. Dara was Sara's brother, not her boyfriend, and Sara came with headscarves you couldn't really take off, though you could switch the scarves. Kids thought they were stupid and didn't want them. Again, attributed to a deliberate Western conspiracy. Again, just the response of the market.
3. Note the fascinating "head of the household" language. That's not typical in fatwas of this sort. Fatwas urging people to vote didn't tell the head of the household to make sure it got done, for example, it's an individual requirement and so therefore no need. What's going on here? I suspect the sexist conclusion that women are the ones watching Noor and so the man's got to come down on this nonsense before his woman starts behaving like Noor and cheats on him. (Actually I don't think she cheats in the series, but whatever.) Judging by the extraordinary reception Noor has had among my friends in the Iraqi law faculties, I wouldn't count on the men being the ones who can toe the line, though.
4. Even with all the talk of eternal resistance to the West, it struck me that what was being done here was a form of imitation of the West, in the creation of a public-private distinction not really recognized, or not like this, in the shari'a. That is, Sistani, or Kerbala'i, does not urge the government to ban the broadcast of Noor in Iraq, or somehow block the satellite signal, or at least arrest people watching it. It's understood to be a private affair. It's a sin, a dangerous one, one that could lead to the dissolution of the family and therefore quite serious, and with far reaching societal and public consequences. But still, it is not ILLEGAL, it is not, despite the social consequences, an affair of the STATE. He doesn't seek to make it one. And to say that this is because a true Muslim jurist doesn't recognize a nation state is wrong, at least in Sistani's case. The balance of the Kerbala'i sermon involved urging the Parliament to pass an elections law. So to review--elections laws are matters of state concern, and soap operas are matters to be enforced not by the state, but the head of the family. Things that are public affairs, and others, involving religious sins, that are private. Don't know--for all of the talk of resisting the West, sounds like a westward drift to me.
HAH
In my naive, simplistic view of things, Sistani sounds to me to be very liberal. I am basing this on my concept of how a Grand Ayatollah would react to such a show on TV. My concept, of course, is that which the western media and government has instilled in me.
Then again, they have told me that Iran is basically a suicidal theocracy hell-bent on Israel's destruction. It was easy to filter out the suicidal part just by looking at the age of Iran and/or the Persian empire versus that of the United States and/or Israel.
The theocracy label the US places on Iran carries with it the implied characteristics of an ultra-conservative, totalitarian government that is nearly inflexible with regards to western ideals and attributes.
I make no friends when I mention that Iran has in fact cloned sheep, designed some of the advanced instruments for the CERN particle accelerator, and is a prolific publisher of scientific papers. It's a jarring contrast to the reality that has been constructed by the media, and people do not like having their reality jarred.
I guess my question is, did Sistani accede to staying within the framework of the law when he issued his condemnation of the soap opera, or does it appear that he is predisposed to that way of thinking naturally?
Reply to this
I think naturally predisposed. I think Sistani does view it as a jurist's role to make sure the state doesn't do things wildly un-Islamic (what that means is the subject of an upcoming paper) but that the main role in the protection of virtue and the prevention of vice, even in matters of grave concern, is left to the jurists, and enforced through private non state means (meaning shaming, familial organization and the like).
Reply to this