Faculty member of Mufid University:

Hijab is irrelevant! It is permissible to look at female actors without a hijab. There is no difference between live and non-live broadcasts in the ruling on the representation of women.

It is clear from some narrations that hijab, meaning covering the hair for women, is not an absolute ruling for all women in Islam, but rather several groups of women are exempted from wearing the hijab, according to the same narrations: Bedouin women, slave girls, women who are no longer interested in marrying them due to their age, the absence of the need for women to wear the hijab for eunuchs (in the Quran, other than the first generation of women) and women from the Dhimmah. Based on the narrations, this group of women can not wear the hijab; whereas if the ruling on the obligation of hijab was general, they would not be exempted.

Note: The dispute over the legal limit of women’s hijab has been ongoing in Islamic jurisprudence for centuries. In recent years, however, with the victory of the Islamic Revolution, another controversy has been added to it, based on the jurisprudential ruling on the “showing” of women without or with poor hijab in the media. In the decades that have passed since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, this debate has come up from time to time and with events that occur in society. In this regard, we spoke with Hujjat al-lslam Muhammad Taqi Fazel Meybudi. He, who has been among the religious thinkers for many years, believes that what is relevant in the eyes of the lawgiver is chastity, not hijab. The details of this exclusive conversation with this university teacher 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 do you think is the limit required for observing hijab in the performing arts?

Fadel Maybudi: One of the issues that has always been a source of disagreement among jurists and there is still no single opinion on it is the issue of hijab and women’s clothing and its limits and restrictions. The reason for this is that we do not have a clear text from the Qur’an that states the limits of hijab in this regard; that is, we do not have a reason for the obligation to protect the hair and protect the head. Of course, the Qur’an says to cover the necks; because it discusses the issue of alcohol and the jilbab; but whether to cover the head or to what extent to cover it or to cover the hair and to what extent this covering is necessary is not clearly explained and we do not have a clear verse in the Qur’an about it.

In our narrational sources, there are many hadiths about hijab, but unfortunately most of them are subject to disagreement. The hadiths that are clear on this issue are not the same and uniform. Therefore, we do not have a solid reason that can be relied on without disagreement.

It is clear from some narrations that hijab, which means covering the hair of women, is not an absolute rule for all women in Islam, but several groups of women are exempted from wearing hijab, according to the same narrations: Bedouin women, slave girls, women who are no longer interested in marrying due to their advanced age, women’s hijab is not required for eunuchs (according to the Qur’an, other than the first generation of women) and women from the Dhimmah. Based on the narrations, this group of women can not wear hijab; whereas if the rule of obligatory hijab were general, they would not be exempted.

Another issue is that if someone looks at women indirectly, for example, from behind a mirror or a photo or film, there is a difference of opinion among jurists. Some have said that this type of indirect gaze is not objectionable, but others believe that looking at women’s bodies indirectly is more forbidden than looking at their faces and shrouds. I have also heard that the fatwa of the late Ayatullah al-Sayyid Khu’i was that if someone looks at a non-mahram woman indirectly, there is no objection. However, if this permissible gaze is accompanied by suspicion and fear of corruption, then the issue is different; that is, in order to prevent a person from falling into corruption, looking at a non-mahram woman becomes forbidden, even if she is wearing a hijab.

However, artistic issues and their relationship to hijab are a separate and detailed topic; since art is one of the important categories of human culture and is also progressing and changing day by day. In short, I would like to say that there is no problem with looking at female actors in films and series; that is, we have no reason to prohibit it unless it is accompanied by riba and fear of corruption, in which case it would be forbidden, and it was said that its prohibition is also documented for a separate reason and has nothing to do with the evidence of hijab; therefore, there is no problem with watching foreign films with female actors without the religious hijab that are broadcast on Islamic Republic TV; because we have no reason to prohibit them unless a viewer becomes riba and corrupt from watching them, which would be forbidden for that viewer, but overall it is not forbidden. Consequently, for me, the viewer, there is no problem with watching films and series without hijab without riba; but whether a Muslim woman wants to act in a film without hijab is another matter.

The result is that, as a general issue, what is important in Islam for both women and men is chastity and purity. The prohibition of not wearing a hijab is also to prevent chastity; that is, the philosophy of hijab is closely related to chastity and impurity.

In other words, it is certain that hijab is a path; that is, it is a path to chastity and purity, but whether it is also relevant cannot be ruled with certainty. Recently, Ayatullah Nuri Hamedani made a contradictory and precise statement, which is: Our women are chaste even if they do not wear a hijab. This statement is a very good statement. In the Qu’ran, chastity is the principle; “It protects my private parts and my private parts” is the criterion.

If we are in a society where chastity and purity are not dependent on covering the hair, the debate arises as to whether hijab is still obligatory in such a society? What is clear to us is that the eyes must be free from impure and lustful looks, and chastity and purity must be institutionalized in society. However, if society is such that not covering women’s hair does not constitute an impure look and does not lead society towards immodesty, then we cannot say with certainty that covering women’s hair is obligatory, because covering hair is not a religious duty, and if it were a religious duty, several groups of women would not be exempted.

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

Fazel Maybudi: In addition to answering the previous question, the answer to this question has become somewhat clear. If the film carries a moral message or cultural and social criticism and is not pornographic or vulgar, there is no problem with its screening in public media, and it is also okay for the viewer and audience to look at them without prejudice. We also stated that the reason for this is the lack of reason for prohibition. However, if a film is a norm-breaking and immoral film that, instead of expressing the problems of poverty, divorce, family issues, children, and thousands of other social issues, violates the boundaries of morality and social values, it naturally finds a secondary ruling and its publication, distribution, and viewing will be prohibited.

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?

Fazel Meybudi: The narrations that have come to our attention are used in such a way that likeness to the opposite sex is condemned and may even be prohibited in some cases. But this issue cannot be resolved in the field of artistic issues; that is, it cannot be said that resembling the opposite sex in films and plays is also forbidden; because the reason that makes resembling the opposite sex in the areas of life forbidden is missing here. Perhaps, due to some religious and moral prohibitions, it puts a man in the role of a woman so that those prohibitions are avoided. What could be wrong with this?! Of course, there is no problem. This is different from a man coming on the street wearing feminine clothes and appearance or, conversely, a woman coming with masculine face and clothing; because in these cases, morally and conventionally, such a thing is not acceptable. However, in the matter of art, the ruling has become secondary and has no connection with the ruling on resembling the opposite sex.

Is there a difference between the ruling on showing women with and without a veil, live and non-live broadcasts?

Fazel Maybudi: In the matter of a performance, there is no difference between live and non-live broadcasts. Both are indirect and through the media. Yes, if the performance is a theater performance where the audience directly watches the actors, the appearance of the actor without a veil and the viewer looking at it is subject to the ruling of haraam. However, in cinema and television, where the audience watches the film through the media waves, even if it is broadcast live, there is no problem unless there is the intention of riba, in which case the issue is different and has nothing to do with what we are in. Of course, there is a difference of opinion among contemporary jurists in this regard. A number of jurists have said that there is a difference between live and non-live broadcasts; that is, looking at women without a veil in a live broadcast is in fact the same as looking at oneself; but it seems that this view cannot be confirmed and in principle no difference can be made between live and non-live broadcasts.

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.