THE story published in Arab News on Tuesday about a judge who ruled that the custody of children should not go to the husband but instead to his runaway wife because the husband had a satellite dish at home, has earned the attention of our local press.
Several well-known columnists in Al-Watan, Al-Hayat, and Asharq Al-Awsat expressed their amazement that such a ruling could even be given in one of our courtrooms.
They warned against the consequences of “personal opinions” on the outcomes of decisions taken by some judges and the effect they would have on the lives of many in our society.
Because of that ruling, and on the same basis of protecting the morals of a family, the judge has done exactly the opposite. He has destroyed the unity of a family by not giving the father the legal right to see his children — not to mention the psychological consequences such a matter will have on the children in the future. Personal opinions or grudges should never have a place in our courtrooms.
When Adnan came into my office four days ago to tell me his story, he said: “This is not my story alone. This is your story. This is everyone’s story. This is just one example of the consequences of a prejudiced ruling in one of our courtrooms. And I want everyone to know the truth about this.”
He also felt hurt because not only was his dignity and integrity doubted by the judge, but he was also deemed unfit to raise children on the basis of the ownership of a satellite dish that screened only Arabic channels.
“If he truly wanted to question my righteousness or ethics, he could have asked the imam in our neighborhood if I am a regular at the mosque or not. He could have asked the neighbors and other people in society about me,” Adnan continued.
And who doesn’t have a satellite dish at his home in Saudi Arabia?
Flying over any of our cities one can see what would be a military zone anywhere else in the world: Dozens of small skyward-pointing satellite dishes installed on all the rooftops.
Without any cable television in Saudi Arabia, and with the transmission of only one Arabic national television channel, viewers in Saudi Arabia are obliged to watch other channels from various Arabic satellite networks that screen their favorite comedy, sports, family, and entertainment programs.
Moreover, a satellite dish allows reception of the sole Saudi national channel even better than a normal antenna. However, that is beyond the point.
A satellite dish is a very common thing in Saudi Arabia today; ownership of one should never be a yardstick to gauge a person’s moral values. A viewer has the right to choose what he wants to see and is responsible for that viewing.
And like many other devices in our era, a satellite dish can be used for good and bad. Everything that surrounds us fits in that category. A car can be used to take a person from one place to another. It can also be used to kill innocent people when traffic laws are not followed. A phone can be used to talk to loved ones, family and friends. It can also be misused to harass others.
Many Islamists themselves have satellite dishes in their homes. Some view news channels, others have subscriptions to Islamic channels. They too have used the freedom of choice to view what they want.
A judge who believes that having a satellite dish is sinful in Islam based on his own views should never be allowed to impose his personal perceptions in court cases.
The same judge in the future could rule against a woman in a certain case being corrupt on the basis of obtaining a mobile camera phone, even though it is legally sold in the country but has been considered sinful by some religious figures.
In both cases, he would have judged and ruled against the majority in our country who are moderate people and own both satellite dishes and mobile camera phones.
Adnan’s case also raises many other questions about the legal system in our courtrooms.
The absence of clear, well-defined laws in the legal system in our country is confusing and disturbing. Without the existence of clear statutes that are agreed upon and defined by the law, people will always be left at the mercy of the ruling of a judge who can, as a human being, make mistakes and rule according to his personal view on the matter.
The other disturbing matter in Adnan’s case is the bureaucracy we have in our government departments. It is outrageous that it has taken five years legal wrangling in search of a solution to a family matter — and still it has not been solved.
Other Adnans are out there suffering. They are told when appearing in one government department to go to a second. At the second department they are told to go to a third. The third department then sends them back to the first. And the cycle is repeated all over again.
With all the paper work, appointments that are delayed to months, and with employees assigned to handle the case — which no one else can handle — on leave, the matter can well take months and even years to be finalized.
In Adnan’s case, after appeals were made to the Tamyeez court, and letters were sent to the Royal Court, the Governorate of Riyadh, and the Ministry of Justice, he ended up four years later right where he first started: At the desk of the same judge who handled his case. Only this time, he was told the judge was on vacation and he had to wait for another appointment till he returns — since no one else, of course, can handle it.
