Although Dr. Mahmud Hekmatnia is more famous for his legal side, his seminary education has not been less than his legal efforts. The former Deputy Minister of Intellectual Property of the Minister of Justice has always been interested in exploring new topics; Whether this is a computer game, a metaphor, or a new challenge in international law. We sat down with him to discuss play and its effect on the sanctity of works of art. According to this prominent jurist, play in itself does not entail a ruling, and what may cause it to be sanctified or not preferred is its comparisons. A member of the Research Council of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, he went on to make a precise point about the types of comparisons that were novel. The details of the exclusive conversation on contemporary jurisprudence with the teacher of the Center for Islamic Culture and Thought are given below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is la’eb and is it applicable to all types of art?

Mr. Hekmatnia: In our religious literature, we are faced with three terms: lahu, la’eb, and laghu, each of which has different dimensions. In jurisprudential literature, various discussions have been raised in the field of lahu, la’eb, and laghu, of which I will only present the headlines. Then I will come to the issue you asked about lahu. One discussion is the psychological discussion about the psychological effects of lahu, la’eb, and laghu on humans, which requires another opportunity. Second, where does this matter fall in terms of moral values? Especially in the field of la’eb and laghu, this matter is more discussed, but in the field of play, it is less discussed. The economic dimensions of play will also be the last topic of my essay.

When you want to discuss la’eb, la’eb is considered more in the sense that it entertains a person and causes fun and relaxation; that is, in la’eb, we deal with an internal and inherent matter; but when we compare la’eb with lahu, its effect on another matter is considered. It is the same in Quranic literature. For example, in Surat al-Jum’ah, lahu is mentioned as something that prevents a person from other important matters; but la’eb does not have this comparative status; because in la’eb, its essence is entertaining. Of course, this entertainment and fun may even be effective psychologically and for expanding the mind or for other things that one wants to do later; therefore, la’eb does not mean that the action is featureless and futile.

Another point that should be noted is that the word lahu in some cases that are also mentioned in the Qur’an is not itself the subject of the ruling; unlike lahu, which is the subject of the ruling; Like amusement equipment, which themselves have an independent ruling.

Therefore, if we want to summarize here, it seems that play is morally good in terms of its own nature; although it may vary in terms of the effects or motivations that result from it. In legal and moral concepts, the ruling varies in terms of the motivation of individuals or in terms of the effects that result from it.

In the field we are discussing now, we separate the discussion of la’eb, the discussion of sports, and the discussion of physical education. Physical education is basically a targeted program to strengthen the physical and mental strengths of humans, which is outside the scope of the discussion; because it basically has a very positive function. It may even be mandatory for some people for reasons such as treatment. We will leave after physical education.

But in the field of sports, it must be said: sports today are an economic, industrial, and social matter. For instance, a football match is an economic and industrial design in which a large amount of money is also transferred. Therefore, if we want to talk about it, we should talk about the whole of this matter, that is, the whole of sports. Sports is not a single act, but an industry that generates high economic income and a huge movement of money; therefore, its literature cannot be considered simply as a game; rather, it is a social program that has many effects. Sports create entertainment, jobs, and public work. Sports should be looked at from this perspective. Therefore, sports is an industry. One small aspect is that it may also have aspects of play and entertainment, but today when we talk about sports, they do not stop at this, but their economic and social aspects are also taken into account.

Another part of la’eb is the field of entertainment. Entertainment does not have the same purpose as sports; rather, it is a separate field that also has positive effects; such as recreation and relaxation. Entertainment is also considered an industry today. Considering this point, to examine it more closely, we must also consider the economic and social titles that are currently being used in games, entertainment, and sports in general, so that we can analyze it later. If we look at it from this perspective, games, entertainment, and sports are economic, cultural, and legal terms that each must be examined on its own basis and viewed as an industry. Yes, it is possible that in terms of policy-making, paying attention to the fact that these are playful and entertaining, will have an impact on its macro-social policies.

In summary, we have three words: lahu, la’eb, and laghu. In the field of lahu, the same intrinsic aspect, which is recreation, rest, and play, is considered. From an ethical perspective, it seems that there is no ruling on play itself. From a jurisprudential perspective, play itself, as it is play, recreation, and rest, as its essence, is not subject to any ruling; so the factors or incidental titles that are imposed on play and have been placed as a subject of prohibition in jurisprudence remain. For instance, if play is placed under leisure, the ruling of leisure is imposed on it, and from an ethical perspective, the ethical ruling of leisure action is imposed on it.

However, how play must be designed in the social system depends on how the social system policies regarding entertainment and sports, as a social and economic matter, are. If policy-making is to consider these as income-generating jobs and as a social matter that can create social entertainment, social joy, and a sense of social pride, it is necessary to make good investments in them. For instance, governments invest in championship sports because they believe that the effect of championship sports in strengthening national spirit, creating national vitality, and national programs is very great.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the implementation or non-implementation of the term “play” one of the duties of a jurist or a common custom or an obligation?

Mr. Hekmatnia: If we accept that play is placed as a ruling and is effective in jurisprudential propositions, we must discuss it from two perspectives. One is its main concept, on which jurisprudential work must be done; but as for what a jurist should do when referring to the concept, the answer is that he must go to a customary expert. Therefore, the work is jurisprudential; But the tool that the jurist wants to use to understand concepts is custom. After the concept is clarified, in the stage of applying the concept to the examples, one should refer to experts. Of course, the late Na’ini and the late Imam consider the application to be a work of precise custom; but since in every example that you find, there may be characteristics that must be recognized in which the concept must be recognized, it seems that this application is an expert application with a jurisprudential aspect; that is, a back and forth between the jurist and the expert must take place in order for the final application to be made. However, the secondary titles that are to be imposed on play are, as a rule, jurisprudential and are the work of the jurist; but the recognition of the concept is the responsibility of custom and its applications are the same as the primary titles that must be carried out in a back and forth between the jurist and the expert.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any religious evidence that indicates the absolute prohibition or disfavor of play?

Mr. Hikmat-Niya:  With that I have searched a bit, it must be said that most jurists have discussed fun, not play. Many verses and narrations do not seek to express moral, jurisprudential, or legal rulings; rather, they actually express the way of looking at the world; that is, they create a kind of mental paradigm regarding how your view of the world should be; therefore, if we cannot use this evidence to rule out play, it seems that there is no reason for its prohibition or lack of preference. In addition, as I mentioned, for play, very positive consequences and motivations can also be imagined in society.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any art that is an example of play by its very nature, or is it always considered a play due to similarities such as mixing men and women, inappropriate and misleading content, etc.?

Mr. Hekmat-Niya: The essence of play, which is simply a type of entertainment and has no prohibitions; therefore, if there is any evidence of its prohibition or lack of preference, it will be due to its similarities. However, regarding similarities, it should be noted that there are two types. Some similarities are accidental similarities. For instance, suppose someone wants to play and goes to play with the opposite sex. Here, playing with the opposite sex is not part of play and is not part of the game; but in fun, its similarities are of the type of necessary similarities. Let me give you an instance. In one of the foreign conferences that I attended, they had a fun program, but we did not participate. In my opinion, the essence of the program and the design of the program by them was forbidden; That is, the program was basically designed and made sense because of those coincidences, not because the coincidences were coincidentally and accidentally included with it; because if those coincidences were not there, the program would basically lose its entertaining nature.