One view believes that there is no difference between film and non-film; that is, just as the principle of resembling a man to a woman is forbidden, the occurrence of such a resemblance in a film is also forbidden, and it does not matter whether the person observes the religious dress code or not. The second view is that resembling a man to a woman is forbidden in the real world, but in the world of theater and film, it has a different ruling. According to the first view, if a man plays the role of a woman, it is generally not permissible, but if we accept the second basis, there is basically no problem.

Note: Hujjat al-lslam S. Hamid Mirkhandan has been active in the field of media jurisprudence for many years. During these years, he has written numerous writings in the field and has also taught in various academic centers. In addition to his seminary education, he also received his doctorate in culture and communications from Baqir al-Ulum University. He is an assistant prof. at the Faculty of Radio and Television of Qum, has analyzed the permissibility or non-permissibility of depicting Iranian and non-Iranian women without or with poor hijab. According to a member of the Art, Media and Communications Jurisprudence Group of the Qum Imams’ Fiqh Center, there are various reasons that indicate the permissibility of depicting women without or with poor hijab. The details of the conversation with this teacher at the seminary and university are as follows:

Given the differences of opinion among jurists regarding the limits of hijab, from the necessity of covering the face and hands to the non-obligation of covering the head and neck, what is the limit required for observing hijab in the performing arts?

Mr. Mir Khandan: In the issue of hijab and women’s clothing, in my opinion, there is no difference between images (including photos and films) and clothing in the outside world; That is, just as women’s clothing in the real world is determined and specified from a religious perspective, as reflected in the fatwas of the mujtahids, the same limits must be observed in the world of images.

What is the ruling on showing women without a veil in the media? Does this ruling also apply to showing women who are not veiled? What is the reason for this?

Sir. Mir Khandan: If we accept the premise that in a social system, the veiling limit must be observed by women as a social matter, then this issue also applies to images. As I stated in response to the previous question, there is no difference between photographs, films, and the real world in this regard. Furthermore, according to this premise, the issue of hijab becomes a legal matter that everyone must follow, a necessary and unavoidable matter; therefore, it is no longer an individual matter that someone wants to observe or not, but rather everyone must observe it without any consideration.

One of the arguments for this claim is the rule that states that if someone commits a forbidden act in public and it results in punishment, the Islamic ruler can punish him.

Another reason is to protect the interests of the system. For example, the Islamic system requires individuals to observe a certain law. If we do not consider the rest of the arguments to be complete, we can consider the hijab as a law imposed by the Islamic system, legally binding, based on this argument.

In the Qur’anic verse we read that:

“And let them not display their adornment except that which is apparent thereof, and let them draw their veils over their bosoms, and not display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those their right hands possess, or those who follow them.” “Except for men and children who have not yet attained knowledge of the private parts of women, nor stamp their feet to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And repent to Allah, all of you, O believers, that you may succeed.”At the end of this verse, women are forbidden from touching the ground in such a way that their anklets and hidden ornaments are visible. This expression is used when vocal adornments are prohibited, and visual adornments are primarily prohibited by the law. Furthermore, a woman’s body itself is considered an adornment, and the verse of the Holy Qur’an explicitly prohibits revealing adornment.

Furthermore, in the Illal al-Shari’ah, a narration from Imam Reza (‘a) is narrated by Abdullah ibn Sinan, in which she explained the reason for legislating the hijab:“It is forbidden to look at the hair of veiled women with husbands and other women because it arouses men and leads to corruption and entering into that which is not permissible and does not bear [beautiful], and likewise what resembles hair, except for that which Allah the Most High said: ‘And the women past the age of marriage who do not expect marriage.’” There is no blame upon them for removing their clothes other than the jilbab, and there is nothing wrong with looking at the hair of their peers.[1] There is something wrong with this, it is caused by agitation and irritation, a person who sees corruption and going inside a forbidden place and doing unjust actions; And there is a ruling on non-judgment in it other than that. If they hope for marriage, there is no sin on them. If she gives birth and comes back with his wife, she will have a bad marriage, and she will not wear anything other than that. There is a problem with something like this, for example, if there is any fornication in it.

According to this narration, the reason why looking at women’s hair is forbidden, which arouses lust, also exists in looking at images of women, including photographs and films, and therefore the ruling on covering up in the outside world and images is no different.

Does it make a difference in the ruling if male actors play the roles of women who are not wearing a hijab or are not wearing a hijab?

Mir Khandan: The essence of the issue is that it is forbidden for a man to resemble a woman. Also, resemblance means that a man makes his appearance in such a way that the viewer imagines that person is actually a woman. Now the question is whether it is also forbidden to realize this resemblance in a film?

There are two views in response to this question. One view believes that there is no difference between films and non-films; that is, just as it is forbidden for a man to resemble a woman, the occurrence of such a resemblance in films is also forbidden, and it does not matter whether the person observes religious dress or not.

The second view is that it is forbidden for a man to resemble a woman in the real world, but in the world of drama and film, the ruling is different. According to the first view, if a man plays the role of a woman, it is generally not permissible, but if we accept the second basis, there is no problem with the law; because the intention of the lawgiver is to maintain gender distinctions in the real world, but in the world of drama, which is an artificial and fictitious world, there is no such intention, unless other corrupting titles are found, in which case, based on a secondary ruling and evidence, the new title becomes permissible.

Is there a difference between live and non-live broadcasts of women showing off their hijabs and veils?

Mir Khandan: When it comes to image, there seems to be no difference between live and non-live broadcasts, as we mentioned in response to previous questions.

[1] . Ilal al-Sharaye’, al-Shaykh al-Saduq, published by Davari, Qum, vol. 2, p. 565.

This interview is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of Dramatic Jurisprudence”, which was produced in collaboration with the School of Jurisprudence of Art and the Ijtihad Network website.