Hayatan Tayyibah

In the name of Allaah, Most Beneficent and Most Merciful

When television was introduced in the middle of the 20th century, Muslim scholars nearly unanimously opposed it, just like the film before it. They were concerned about its potential social, cultural, and moral impact on the society. In the decades that followed their worst fears came true. Television everywhere caused unprecedented upheavals in the society, changing moral norms, corrupting social structures, and ushering an era of unabashed hedonism and materialism. After watching the destruction caused by the glamorous new toy in their societies for decades, and the apparently unstoppable momentum with which it surged forth, many concerned Muslims decided to do something about it; in increasing numbers they want to use it to promote Islamic teachings. After all when nearly everyone who can afford it — and even many who cannot — have a television in their home, how can you ignore it?

As a result today there are hundreds of “Islamic” channels broadcasting through terrestrial, cable, satellite, and Internet connections. Many have been there for a decade and many more keep coming up. To be sure television still remains a controversial subject in the Islamic world with a small and dwindling minority of scholars considering it impermissible. But for increasing numbers it is not only permissible but desirable to harness this medium to serve the cause of Islamic dawa and education. Some may even say it is a sacred duty.

Underlying this push is an unexamined assumption that television is just a tool that can be used with equal facility in the service of good or evil. Thus the problems caused by television were caused solely because it was in the wrong hands and the only thing we need to counter those problems is have more broadcast power in the right hands. With television signals potentially reaching millions of people, we can preach to and educate such vast numbers as had never been possible before.

Those who are in the opposing camp have only been concerned with a technical issue of the definition of tasweer (picture). Does it violate Islamic prohibition of making and displaying pictures of living things? Or does the definition not extend to pictures on the screen because unlike the ones on paper they are not permanent? The bigger issues of the nature and built in proclivities of the medium itself have unfortunately not entered the debate. But is it possible that visual communication is not just an extension of the aural communication as assumed but an entirely different animal? That the medium itself may be good for some purposes and entirely unsuitable for others? That a serious message like Islamic teachings may be trivialized and distorted by it?

Words and Pictures

Television reflects the idea that serious discourse can be carried out through pictures instead of words. While pictures can sometimes be used in a written document or in a live presentation, their role there is a subordinate one. On television, the picture is the centerpiece. It dominates and controls the entire communication and everything else is subordinate to it. Now words and pictures do not occupy the same universe of discourse. A piece of writing requires one to go beyond the shape of the letters to read them. It requires thought to understand what is being said. To concentrate on a critical idea we sometimes close our eyes or even when they are open we pay no attention to what is visible. We develop insights by opening our inner eyes, so to speak, and turning away from the sights. But in the presence of television you cannot close eyes or ignore what is in front of them. Before you can begin to think deeply about an idea, there is another eye-catching picture on the screen to distract you. Thus television does not only not require reflection; it does not even permit it. With beautiful imagery and a continuous display of dazzling pictures it shuts off our ability to engage in deep thoughts. That is why little children can spend hours in front of the mini screen but get tired very quickly after looking at a picture-less page of text. The disability to think and process textual information is increased with continued watching. Therefore generations nurtured on television have such a short attention span. Television can titillate, it cannot teach. It appeals to the emotions, not the intellect. It can bring images into our heart, not ideas into our mind (1).

In a live lecture people look at the speaker from time to time. They do not constantly gaze at him. And even when they are looking it is not the details of his appearance that interest them. The power of a close up shot does not enter the picture, so to speak, when you are addressing a live audience. That is why speakers do not go to makeup artists before their speaking assignments. Neither is there a need to go to great lengths to decorate the stage and podium to engage the audience’s attention. A person who is not telegenic may still be a very successful speaker.  His words and not his picture are of interest as they should be in any genuine communication. Not so with television where the basic rules of communication are turned upside down. Here appearances and images are the king. Ideas and arguments are of secondary importance.

It is the purpose of this article to examine the result of these differences in light of actual experience with use of television for religious programs in the Christian and Muslim worlds. The question we ask is how television has influenced the religious discourse in the two communities.

There are two reasons for looking at the Christian experience. First the Christian world, especially in the US, has been much ahead of the Muslim world in its use of television. While Muslims came to it after several decades, Christians were at it from the first day —since the 1950s.  Their preoccupation with it gave rise to the term televangelism, which refers to the use of television for evangelism or spreading Christian faith. Second, many Muslim broadcasters are following in the footsteps of the televangelists, whether their audiences realize it or not. It is important to see what the televangelists did and what were the results of doing that. That may tell us what is in store for us if we continue blindly on their trail.

The Televangelists

Televangelists like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts (d. 2009), Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and Robert Schuller built broadcast empires whose budgets and audiences ran into millions. As early as 1957 the television programs of Oral Roberts were reaching 80% of the possible television audience in the US. Around the same time Billy Graham boasted that in a single telecast he preached to millions more than Christ did in his lifetime.

How did they do it? By carefully studying and implementing marketing strategies and techniques used by successful commercial television programs. They copied formats, set designs, themes, even musical tunes thereby attracting worshippers to a feel-good Christianity that provided great entertainment while demanding little other than donation dollars. As Reverend Johan Tangelder notes, “Christian television ministry exists within the context of North American culture. In this culture even religion has become a recreational pursuit.”

Television was particularly suited for this transformation because of its need for communication through pictures and its inability to handle abstractions, in depth arguments and any thing requiring reflections. You can certainly place a camera in front of a scholar engaged in some serious discourse, but it is highly unlikely for such a program to have mass appeal. To succeed in building and holding a large audience, you need to constantly attract its members through eye-catching visuals and learn to speak in sound bites. This is even more important because of the setting in which television operates since the next really entertaining program is just a tap on the remote or even a flick of the wrist away.

Persona

Advertisers know that the most popular programs on television take the form of a movie. That is why even a thirty second commercial is a carefully crafted miniature movie with a problem, a climax and then a resolution that is obtained by using the products being peddled. To compete against this the televangelists knew they had to have a better ‘movie’. In that movie the preacher became the hero – the object of viewer adoration, the centerpiece of the entire plot. “Like Hollywood or show business generally, televangelism relies extensively on public persona,” writes Quentin J. Schultze inTelevangelism and American Culture (2). It was the persona of the preacher whose own image and personality dominated the show. People turned to the show to watch their favorite star in action, rather than to listen to a lecture.

Talk Show Format

The successful televangelists also borrowed formats and styles from the entertainment world. Schultze notes that Robertson, Bakker, and Crouch started their talk-pray-sing formula in imitation of the talk shows of Johnny Carson and Merv Griffin. Schuller incorporated a variety show format in his programs. This included guest stars from Hollywood and sports, airy shots of the interior of his Crystal Cathedral, serene images of the outdoor fountains, and majestic skyward pictures of the glass cathedral. Not to be left behind, Swaggart’s “old fashioned” revivalism (as it was named) bore the marks of contemporary variety shows with the cameras alternating between shots of the excited audience and those of the performers. The net result: “The revivalist or evangelist [became] a talk-show host, a variety-show emcee and above all a performer.”

Health and Wealth Gospel

Further, television’s demand for action and drama found a good match in the old art of the faith-healer and those talking in tongues. Thus quite expectedly many of the most successful televangelists made full use of these practices. This even impacted Christian theology by giving rise to the health and wealth gospel, which held that God wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy and the only thing needed to achieve this was to make an offering to the televangelist. To convince the audiences their programs regularly showcased “miracles” performed by the televangelist. A destitute person becoming wealthy, a terminally sick person becoming healthy, all through the power of the prayer of the host whose favors extend to anyone who believed in his gospel and made contributions to his ministry.

Power of Drama

Television is the ideal medium for drama and televangelists made full use of it. They were true masters of this art. The power of drama — and their mastery of it— can be seen in the repentance of Swaggart who had been caught in a sexual scandal involving a prostitute. This, after he had been exposing the sexual scandals of rival televangelists for some time. Quite naturally it was a big shocker but after a few months of not knowing what to do, he finally came up with a brilliant solution. He recorded a one-hour program in his church admitting unspecified sins and focusing on Christian forgiveness. Shots of a crying Swaggart with tears rolling down his face were alternated with those of heart broken congregants who suffered with him. At the end of the show came the resolution of this carefully orchestrated drama: Swaggart hugging and crying with individual supporters, who clearly had forgiven him.

The Result: Religion in the Entertainment Marketplace

Using the full capabilities of the medium in masterly manner televangelists certainly attracted huge audiences. But what was its impact on those audiences? According to Christian critics it was not the promotion of Christianity as it was known before the advent of television. The audiences were attracted and held though the lure of entertainment, which is the “supra ideology” of television as Neil Postman said. Schultze notes that televangelism promoted a new religion whose pillars were selfishness, individualism, and materialism — not to mention superstition in the form of the health and wealth gospel (3).Some would call it the ultimate blasphemy. In Richard F. Collman’s words “The ultimate blasphemy of a consumerist culture is its desire to consume God”(4). This is what happens when religion is sold in the entertainment marketplace.

The effect was not limited to the television program only. After being conditioned by entertainment in the name of religion, people started expecting it everywhere. There was a demand for the church to be like the television program and the local preacher to ape the performance of the favorite televangelist. Schultze noted that congregations accustomed to TV were more easily bored by routine, less likely to follow a lengthy or complicated sermon, and visually tuned to the preacher. In short, as Neil Postman would say, it was not that religion became the content of television but that television shows were becoming the content of religion (5).

Muslim World

We can now turn to the scene in the Muslim world. Could the same thing happen there? Many Muslims would dismiss this suggestion by arguing that the problems were rooted in Christianity not television. Revivalism was dominated by entertainers before the advent of even radio. The health and wealth gospel had historic roots in Christian theology. Such distortions are unthinkable in Islam, where both the Qur’an and Hadith are well preserved and Shariah limits are well defined. Here we can enjoy the promise of television, with huge audiences, without the perils experienced elsewhere.

While certainly there are differences of day and night between Islam and Christianity in terms of the preservation of the source texts and the historic continuity of its dogma, the propensities of television as a medium are the same. And their impact on those who submit to it cannot be different. This is what Marshal McLuhan told us through his aphorism that has become a cliché, that the medium is the message (6). That television will not just communicate but shape and distort the message it is carrying. It will mold it in its own image. By moving the religious discourse to the world of entertainment, it will make religious authority irrelevant.

A critical look at what has been happening in the world of Islamic television may be sobering.

The Amr Khaled Phenomenon

The person who attained phenomenal success with Islamic programs on television is undisputedly Amr Khaled of Egypt. An accountant turned lay preacher, his official resume is full of large numbers. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions. On facebook more than two million “like” him. His television program is seen by millions. He lists the audience size in the gatherings he has addressed during the past decade. 20,000 here, 40,000 there. Like the televangelists he can bask in the glow of an unprecedented popularity. There is no other Islamic television host that comes close.

How did he do it? Exactly the way the televangelists had done.

Amr Khaled rose to stardom in 2001 with the appearance of his show “Kalam min al-Qalb” (Words from the heart) on satellite. His producer Abu-Haibah was very impressed with televangelists saying, “if we did this with Islam it would be a new experience for Islam.” Their stated goal was to make Islamic media “not just as good, but much, much more interesting than the most interesting programs on other channels.”

They did whatever it takes to become more interesting than the vulgar commercial fare. They chose a set that had no relation to Islam, rather it would be “something that will feel like a top-ten [music] program.” They invited celebrities, many of them former film stars who had gone through the coming-back-to-Islam experience. (It was a carefully calibrated conversion where they started wearing a headscarf without stopping a public display of beauty — makeup and all). Amr Khaled wore expensive European suits and a clean shave. The format was that of a talk show and the level of the talk was the same.

“Not a Shaikh”

Amr Khaled frequently says that he is not a shaikh or a religious scholar. What is left unsaid is even more important: “And you do not need a shaikh. I am much much more entertaining and accommodating.” For otherwise he feels fully qualified to challenge any tenets of Islam or give his personal opinions on any subjects.  He stated, for example, that Shaytan was a believer, because of his conversation with Allah as reported in the Qur’an. He justified mixed gatherings of men and women using the incident about Syedna Umar’s acceptance of Islam. He belittled such towering personalities as Imam Malik. In the case of blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, he stood against a united Muslim stand, taking a position that was childish if not sinister. Under normal circumstance these would be considered sufficiently scandalous to end the career of a preacher, but his audiences still love him. They would find some excuse for the aberrant statements and move on. They do so not because he has made major breakthroughs in Islamic scholarship or statesmanship but because he is so entertaining. His style and his content find perfect resonance with the medium.

“Better” Packaging for Islam

There are others who have copied the Amr Khaled technique — with the same great results. In Saudi Arabia it is Ahmad al-Shugairi, who started as a TV host for Yalla Shabab (Hey Youth) program and moved on to his own Ramadan program called Khawater or stray thoughts. He is very popular with the youth who credit him, just like the fans of Amr Khaled, with bringing them back to Islam. His philosophy is that of a Procter and Gamble marketing manager:  “Islam is an excellent product that needs better packaging.” This packaging includes a glitzy studio, lighting, panning between him and his devoted audience, the music montage introducing the show, and soothing sound bites that offer a feel good Islam. In short everything demanded by the entertainment world. In an interview with On the Media he explains his winning strategy of not focusing more than 20-30 seconds on the same frame.

In this marketing-driven preaching, the goal is to give the audiences what they want (It is a minor detail that the entire purpose of dawah is to give people what they need). A fan told the New York Times: “Ahmad helped me see that I can want to be with a girl, and it’s O.K. — I don’t need to feel bad.” According to the report the fan Muhammad Malaikah was able to spend time alone with his girlfriend and still feel he was being true to himself and his culture (7).

Paradise Here and Now

Yet another star in the kingdom of Islamic television is Mostafa Hosni of Egypt. The set for his weekly program looks like that of a pop music show, with the name, Love Story, drawn over a big purple heart in the background. “The time has come to speak to the young in their language, to live in their world,” he says. This is the language of the entertainment media. He opened the first episode of his show ‘Ala bab al-ganna (At the Gates of Paradise) by bringing paradise to a screen near you. Using a studio set that reflected his visualization of paradise in front of a mixed-gender studio audience, he told viewers that tuning into this program would help “transform Paradise from merely an invisible dream to a daily reality.” This is precisely what the entertainment media doctors had ordered. Never mind that Islamic teachings for centuries have praised the believers for believing in an unseen paradise. The Qur’an opens with the statement that it is guidance for those who believe in the unseen. But television cannot deal with the unseen; it cannot communicate without pictures. And so the tenets of the most iconoclastic belief are now to be communicated visually. Although for obvious reasons he cannot present it as a new theology in Islam, his scheme would be the envy of any proponent of the health and wealth gospel.

All about Fun

These are glimpses of some of the most successful “Islamic” television programs — if success is defined by number of viewers. All of them rely heavily on visual stimulation, aim at providing entertainment, avoid serious talk, depend upon the persona of the hosts who are telegenic and charismatic, shun religious authority, and encourage individualism and consumerism. They aim to provide not a break with the profane programs that saturate television everywhere but a seamless connection.

There is another interesting feature to be noted here. All of the hosts mentioned above had led sinful lives and then had a conversion – of sorts. Their fans say that they love them for this reason also that they had not always been pious. This comment — made in interviews with reporters— calls for reflection. Sinful people have always repented and many of them went ahead and became great scholars in Islamic history and became a source of guidance to others. People were attracted to them because of their current knowledge not their past ignorance. This is the first time that the past sinfulness of a preacher is being touted as a qualification. The real reason may be that it makes for an interesting storyline. A person who has no colorful past to repent from would make a dull host. As would be the person who had completely switched to an Islamic life style, which is often referred to as boring by the organizers and fans of these programs. Imagine Amr Khaled sporting a beard, wearing Arabic dress, displaying Islamic mannerism, and deferring to the real scholars, saying ‘I do not know’ or ‘I need to consult a scholar’ regarding questions that are beyond his limited Islamic education. It is a safe guess that such a transformed Amr Khaled would be a flop despite his fabulous communication skills. For that would remove all the fun. And for the mass audiences that we are talking about here Islam on television just like Christianity on television is all about fun.

Other Islamic Television Channels

While not all the Islamic television programs have gone to the extremes outlined above, we can see features of these most successful programs in others as well. Consider QTV, a prominent channel in the Pakistan/India market. Its attractions include female na’t singers in colorful costumes, ignorant and confused youth sorting out their problems themselves, talk shows that center around celebrations, and question and answer sessions where laxity outweighs authenticity. Celebrate, sing, have fun. And remember this great religious entertainment is brought to you by the same company that also brings the openly secular entertainment.

One feature that one can see across the board is the use of music. Through constant exposure we have been so programmed that few people ask why, say, a news program on television opens and closes and is punctuated with music. Postman observed that music is there “for the same reason music is used in the theatre and films — to create a mood and provide a leitmotif for the entertainment” (8). One hoped that at least those who were producing Islamic religious programs would have the sense to see the gravity of the situation where both seriousness and sacredness of the program are under attack by music. One would hope in vain. For, by and large Islamic programs of all persuasions on television have submitted to this commandment of the entertainment world. Music has become such an integral part of all television that most people do not even notice that there is something terribly wrong here. The same people would consider it unthinkable to allow a serious talk in the masjid or even a lecture hall to open with music. But they are perfectly at ease when that enormity is produced on the mini-screen.

In programs which apparently deal with serious topics, the preferred format is to have a debate. As far as television is concerned every topic is debatable. Or else it is not televisable. Controversies and exchanges enliven a program and serious talks drive away viewers. Therefore even the most fundamental and agreed upon principles have to be opened up to debates. It helps if in the debate a scholar is paired with a person who has no religious education but who is a smooth talker and who can air his or her ignorance eloquently and attack the former. This is the way to increased ratings and fatter bottom lines and so it is used regularly in the “Islamic” programs on mainstream commercial channels.

A tendency toward sensationalism also comes with the territory. Zakir Naik’s mention of Yazeed with the words of blessing (i.e. “May Allah be pleased with him”) may have been an inadvertent reflection of the same tendency. While the gaffe occurred in 2007, the hot debates on rival Islamic television channels continued for several years with sparks flying and fatwas of kufr being pronounced with great zeal. No doubt such tendencies have always been there. But their destructive power is magnified manifold on television.

Impact on the larger Islamic Discourse

The Amr Khaled phenomenon is a reflection of the sea-change in our idea of an Islamic discourse caused by our adjustment to television.

Entertainment

Certainly the adjustment started before Amr Khaled came on the scene, although he and others like him may have accelerated it. Its most important aspect is its penchant for entertainment. First television demanded that even the most serious discourse should meet the entertainment test. Then people started demanding the same entertainment in real life as well. This is exactly what happened in the church, where church programs and even church architecture was molded to conform to the requirements of television. And it is now happening in the masjid as well. One can see it in some Friday khutbahs in north America (and probably elsewhere) where the speakers try to tell a joke to enliven the audience. Little do they realize that it is a solemn occasion and the khutbah is an act of worship at the same level as the salat that follows it. Worse, the audiences now expect to be entertained. Many times they burst into laughter during religious sermons because they think the speaker was saying something funny when the poor speaker had no such idea.

There are other signs of change in our entertainment seeking audiences. They like the easy talk that does not emphasize the Hereafter, include admonitions, and mention prohibitions. Their ability to process verbal information — to listen and reflect—- is diminishing as they lean toward more visual communication. To accommodate that conferences and mosques now increasingly have large video screens installed. In youth conferences, entertainment and music are considered an indispensable part.

Lights, Cameras, Action

At new popular Islamic conferences, which are huge crowd pullers, the stage setting follows the path of the televangelists. It is a panorama of light and color and stage designs taken straight from any popular television program. Multiple booms carrying video cameras constantly move throughout the speech and alternate between the shots of the speaker from various angels and those of the audience. This is simply in obedience to the dictate of television for action. Since the speaker stands at one place (at least so far) the elaborate camera arrangement has to be made to provide motion and action. Sometimes the talks are good. But they are so out of place with the environment in which they are delivered.

Mixing the Sacred with the Profane

Another indicator of change is in our adjustment to the ads that appear on free Islamic websites and Internet televisions. There are Islamic television programs on the Internet devoted to Qur’anic recitation, Hadith study or other Islamic talks. Suddenly a semi-nude picture of a woman appears on the screen who is selling something. A note from the site owners explains: “The ads make it possible to bring the program free of charge to you. We do not control the content of the ad.” Apparently that satisfies most viewers or the sites would have stopped this practice of mixing the sacred with the profane. It is like distributing free milk after mixing it with urine as a condition for free distribution. The greater tragedy is that no one complains about this contaminated milk. This again shows how our perceptions and attitudes are influenced by the media. For no one would have accepted its equivalent in the older medium of books. (A book containing Qur’an or Hadith lessons distributed free with the help of such ads.)

The Real Promise of the “Televangelists”

These “televangelists” have been cheered by the pundits. Time magazine declared Amr Khaled to be the 13th most influential person in the Arab world. (Readers are not privy to the calculations that lead to these ratings; there may be an underlying hope that reporting it to be so may make it so). Major radio, television, and print media outlets have run laudatory stories about all of them. The hype is not without reason. They see the big promise of these televangelists in “making it increasingly difficult for any single interpretation of Islam to hold sway over others” (9). In other words in the destruction of scholarly authority as lay preachers with little knowledge of Islam occupy positions of authority through the magic of television. They become celebrities not through knowledge and piety, as had been the case for all these centuries, but through their mastery of the medium. This change in epistemology, in our ways of learning about religion, this is the most catastrophic result of our love with television and our acceptance of the idea that television can be a serious source for learning about Islam. This is more damaging than distortions in particular doctrinal or legal issues introduced so far by the successful televangelists.

This is the problem faced by Christianity and it is exactly the same problem now facing the Muslims. Which should remind us of the following hadith:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, warned: “You will tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they entered into a lizard’s hole, you would follow them in this also. We said, ‘Allah’s Messenger, do you mean the Jews and Christians before us?’ He said, ‘Who else?’” (Sahih Muslim, Chapter 3, Book 34, No 6448)

On the surface the Muslim televangelists are the harbinger of an Islamic revival, especially among the youth. In reality they may be hijacking the Islamic revival that is occurring because of the disenchantment of the masses with all non-Islamic avenues. They appear to be catering to the needs of the wayward; in reality they may be creating a permanent place for acceptable waywardness and making it respectable. They appear to be creating the thirst for Islamic knowledge among people who were far away from it; in reality their popular entertainment programs are quenching that thirst with contaminated beverage labeled as energy drink.

What should be done?

Both the power and the prevalence of television make it very difficult to suggest easy solutions to the problems caused by it.

At the same time we must not underestimate the destructive power of television. Television did not cause all the upheavals in society by being ineffective. Rather the above only highlights its ineffectiveness in carrying a serious discourse. But it is a very effective tool for carrying propaganda. Since television appeals to emotions not intellect, it can be easily used to stir up emotions of, say, hate and anger — something that has been used effectively by the Islamophobes in the Christian world and beyond. Some televangelists have played a major role in the rise in Islamophobia in the US through their media crusade against Islam.These also cannot be ignored in our discussion of television policies.

Obviously simple yes or no answers cannot work. Just ignoring television will not reduce the destruction it is causing in the society. Jumping on to the bandwagon and starting Islamic television programs to reach the large audiences without careful analysis and planning will only perpetuate the problems that have been outlined above. Due to the nature of the medium, if it is given legitimacy as the venue for Islamic teachings, then in time alim and mufti actors will replace the real alims and muftis as is already happening. They will also set the expectations for what the real alims should look like and behave.

There is no ready made solution. The real solution will be the outcome of a rigorous and ongoing discussion involving the scholars, thinkers and the media experts and will require first that we do fully understand the nature of communication in the video world and its peculiar problems.

TV Free Home

The solution they come up with will be a multi-faceted one and will vary with the circumstances of the person. For an individual the prime goal is just to protect him and his family. For this the message should be that the less you watch, the better it is. An atmosphere is to be created in which not watching television and maintaining a TV free home is a perfectly respectable and even desirable option. Grass roots organizations and all means of persuasion should be used to promote this idea. Such an organization exists in the US (10). It is a pity that it does not exist in the Muslim world.

The success of this campaign will not be measured just by how many stop watching but also by what they think about watching it. The objective should be that those who do not have a TV free home should look up to those who do and not the other way around. Declaring Ramadan as a TV free month, where participants pledge to keep television off during Ramadan and use the time so saved to benefit from Ramadan may go a long way towards this objective.

Alternative Channels of Communications

At the same time we need to develop the non-television channels of communication to the best of their potential. In the communication landscape, television is one option. It is not the only one. It is expensive and it is fraught with serious problems in its ability to transmit our message. Even if we cannot avoid it, we do need to put it in its proper place. This means we do need to rethink the older avenues. Friday khutbahs are a case in point. They offer an immense resource for educating the masses. Everywhere Muslims turn in large numbers to them and there are no production or distribution costs like those associated with TV. Unfortunately this priceless opportunity is wasted because the great majority of those speaking have not been prepared for the task. They either do not have an understanding of how to relate Islamic teachings to the problems of today or do not know how to communicate that effectively. As a result most attendees go without any expectation of enlightenment through the khutbah. Squandering of this tremendous opportunity has no excuse. It is a pity that Islamic religious schools have, by and large, failed to step up to the responsibility to have special training programs for speakers and guiding the khateebs.

The Okaz Market Model

What about using television itself?

We may learn from the Prophetic Example in the souq of Okaz, the largest and the most famous of the annual markets and fairs of the Jahliya period. There pilgrims from all of Arabia gathered for business, poetry competitions, networking and entertainment. When the opposition of the Quraish to the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, increased to a point where continued call to Islam within Makah was not possible, he sought all avenues outside to continue his mission. This included his visits to Okaz. The purpose of the visits was to meet the people and pull them out. The place of training and education was Dar Arqam.

Using that model as our guide, we may make a case for reaching out to the people who are today in the Okaz market created by television. That is we must not confuse it with the masjid, or school, or Dar Arqam. The purpose should be to pull the people out from there to these places where real worship, education, and training can take place. Recognizing the peculiar problems of this new venue, we must make sure the programs avoid all the pitfalls outlined above. No run for ratings. No entertainment. No music. No celebrity culture. No expectation of a return on investment. No competition with the commercial world. No ads that can dilute or counter the message. In other words no distortion in the message in exchange for a large audience.

The numbers who respond will be small, just as they were in Okaz. But just as the Prophetic example in Okaz showed, delivering the pure unadulterated message to a small number is infinitely superior to delivering a distorted message to the millions.

Notes: