The term “corruption” (afsād), with the precise expression “corruption on earth” (afsād fi al-arḍ), is more commonly known in penal jurisprudence. However, there is another similar term, “corruption” (afsād), which is frequently used in the jurisprudence of art. This term, when applied to a particular artistic activity, sometimes results in a ruling of prohibition or impermissibility. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Mohsen Sheikhani, however, believes that this term is fundamentally an abstract concept and has no essence beyond the specific prohibited acts it encompasses. Sheikhani, born in Mashhad, moved to Qom and studied for years under scholars such as Ayatollahs Wahid Khorasani, Rouhani, and Tabrizi. For several years now, he has been teaching advanced lessons in jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary. The following is an exclusive interview by Contemporary Jurisprudence with a member of the Office of Religious Inquiries in Qom under Ayatollah Sistani:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is corruption (afsād), and can it be applied to various forms of art?
Sheikhani: Corruption (afsād) is the opposite of reform (iṣlāḥ), and corruption (fasād) is the opposite of righteousness (ṣalāḥ). Corruption refers to something that causes the destruction of standards, disrupts the natural state or condition, or goes against the path established for the perfection of a thing. Corruption has a very clear customary meaning, the effects of which are harm, damage, destruction, and ruin. For example, the corruption of a fruit refers to its failure to reach its full potential, meaning it reaches a state where it causes harm. Similarly, a person may act in a way that promotes the righteousness of society, themselves, or others, or they may act in a way that leads to destruction and harm. If someone says, “I want to cause this harm,” this does not mean that the harm becomes a benefit or that the corruption becomes righteousness. For instance, alcohol is harmful to the human body; even if its consumption becomes customary in a certain place and everyone is willing to tolerate this harm, this does not mean that the harm turns into a benefit. In Islamic terms, it can be described as follows: anything that causes a person to become distant from God leads to corruption, though with varying degrees. Not all degrees of it necessarily result in prohibition.
Sometimes, distancing oneself from God occurs with awareness, and sometimes without. Anything that distances a person from God and brings them closer to Satan will lead to corruption.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any religious evidence that absolutely indicates the prohibition or lack of preference for corruption?
Sheikhani: Before discussing religious evidence for prohibition, it is appropriate to address whether corruption or corruptive acts constitute a specific concept or a general one that applies to its various instances.
In the Holy Quran, there are verses concerning corruption, including: “And when it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We are but reformers.’ Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive it not” (Al-Baqarah, 11-12). This speaks about the hypocrites, stating that if they are told not to cause corruption on earth, they claim they are reformers, not corrupters. The Quran then states: “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive it not”—indicating that their behavior, hypocrisy, and actions cause corruption on earth, though they are unaware of it.
In Surah Al-Ma’idah, regarding those who wage war, it says: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth to cause corruption…”—indicating that those who wage war are striving to cause corruption on earth.
Also in Surah Al-Ma’idah, concerning the Jews who claimed that God’s hand is chained, it says: “The Jews say, ‘Allah’s hand is chained.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say…” until it reaches: “Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it. And they strive to cause corruption on earth, and Allah does not love the corrupters” (Al-Ma’idah, 64). This phrase may be used to argue for the prohibition of corruption, which I will address in the conclusion, God willing.
Striving to cause corruption on earth is not a specific concept but generally applies to various instances. One such instance is mentioned in Surah Ar-Ra’d: “And those who break the covenant of Allah after contracting it and sever that which Allah has ordered to be joined and cause corruption on earth—it is they who are cursed, and for them is the worst abode” (Ar-Ra’d). This verse clearly indicates that causing corruption on earth leads to God’s curse, a terrible fate, and a bad abode, which is a metaphor for the fire of Hell.
In verses 151 and 152 of Surah Ash-Shu’ara: “And do not obey the command of the extravagant, who cause corruption in the land and do not reform”—extravagance is considered an instance of corruption on earth, and the command of the extravagant is counted as an instance of corruption.
In verse 64 of Surah Al-Ma’idah, regarding the Jews, corruption on earth is applied to kindling the fire of war. This does not mean physically lighting a fire somewhere but refers to igniting the flames of war, causing discord among people, or destroying them.
From the above explanations, it becomes clear that corruption is a general concept, similar to oppression (ẓulm) or sin (maʿṣiyah). Just as there is no permissible sin, there is no permissible corruption, though its degrees vary.
It appears that the evidence proving the prohibition of forbidden acts is sufficient to establish the prohibition of corruption. Expressions such as “That is for them disgrace in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” in Surah Al-Ma’idah, and “It is they who are cursed, and for them is the worst abode” in Surah Ar-Ra’d, are not specific to particular cases but apply generally to anyone who causes corruption on earth. Thus, we can derive the prohibition of corruption on earth from these verses. However, this prohibition is advisory, not binding—meaning that if someone commits a forbidden act, they do not face two punishments, one for the forbidden act and one for corruption. Rather, corruption refers to those same forbidden acts and does not entail a separate punishment.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any form of art that, by its very nature, constitutes corruption, or does it become corruption due to accompanying factors such as the mixing of men and women, inappropriate or misleading content, and so forth?
Sheikhani: Regarding art, some consider it inherently permissible, while others view it as a general concept that can apply to both permissible and forbidden instances. However, sometimes art, by its very nature, constitutes divinely prohibited acts. This prohibition is not due to the mixing of men and women or inappropriate and corrupt content but because of the very nature of that art—for example, the art of gambling or music suited for gatherings of debauchery and immorality, which is deemed forbidden by the prevalent opinion among later jurists.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is determining whether or not something constitutes corruption the responsibility of the jurist, general custom, or the obligated individual?
Sheikhani: Defining the concept of corruption, given that it is a customary notion rather than a divinely legislated reality, is determined by general custom. However, its application—whether a particular instance constitutes corruption or not—is the responsibility of the obligated individual. Each obligated individual, based on the evidence available to them, may determine that something is corrupt, in which case it becomes forbidden for them, or that it is not corrupt, in which case it is not forbidden. However, in certain cases, identifying instances of a subject matter is the duty of a jurist, such as in cases of retribution or restitution of property, which must be determined by a jurist. An obligated individual cannot, merely based on their own judgment that someone owes them, take retribution from that person’s property.