Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Abbas Raf‘ati Na’ini, a student of great authorities such as the late Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani, has been teaching advanced and higher-level courses at the Qom Seminary for many years. For several years, he has pioneered the first advanced course in the jurisprudence of media at the Qom Seminary and has continued to teach it. In this oral note, he examines the concept of lahw as one of the most significant notions leading to the prohibition of artistic subjects. He believes that jurists, due to their lack of attention to subject identification, have erred in their jurisprudential rulings on lahw. The full text of the exclusive oral note by a member of the Academic Council of the Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media Group at the Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies is presented below:

Introduction

Before delving into the discussion of lahw and its application to the prohibition of artistic works, I would like to offer three preliminary points and then proceed to the main discussion.

First Point: The topic of lahw has been discussed and elaborated by jurists across various jurisprudential issues due to its significant instances in different chapters of jurisprudence, such as leisurely travel and hunting, the discussion of fruits, leisurely tools and instruments, and so forth. Although the late Shaykh [Ansari] addressed all these matters in the twentieth issue of Makāsib Muharrama (Forbidden Transactions), others after him have also discussed them.

Second Point: There is considerable disagreement among jurists regarding the meaning and concept of lahw, and this disagreement in conceptualization has led to differences in rulings as well.

Third Point: There is also disagreement regarding the ruling on this matter, whether lahw is forbidden (harām) or not, and whether, for instance, it is merely disapproved (makrūh). These disagreements largely stem from differences in identifying the subject matter and concept of lahw. If jurists had reached a common understanding regarding the identification and concept of lahw, perhaps there would not be such discrepancies in rulings or opinions regarding its prohibition or disapproval.

The Meaning of Lahw

Based on my examination of the usage of lahw and the statements of jurists, the lexical, customary, jurisprudential, and narrational meaning of lahw is joyful and entertaining amusement. However, many authors of lexical and jurisprudential texts have defined lahw based on its instances, as they have discussed it in the context of ghinā (forbidden singing) and leisurely sound (sawt lahwī). They state that leisurely sound refers to a melodious or exhilarating sound, whereas exhilaration (tarab) is specific to sound and is not inherent in the meaning of lahw. Those who have defined lahw as “intense joy,” “a state of ecstasy and dance,” “clapping hands,” “spiritual wandering in matters of no consequence,” “that which the soul takes pleasure in and arises from the appetitive faculty,” or “movement without a rational purpose” have all defined it based on its instances. However, the concept of lahw itself should be articulated, not its various jurisprudential instances.

Therefore, if an art is intended for amusement and brings joy, it is lahw, although the discussion of its permissibility or prohibition must be addressed elsewhere. The late Imam [Khomeini] in Makāsib Muharrama and the late Ayatollah Khoei in Misbāh al-Fiqāha write that we cannot derive from the evidence and narrations that lahw in its absolute form is forbidden.

Subject Identification of Lahw

Based on the definition we provided for the concept of lahw, we must identify its subject matter. The reality is that joyful amusements are abundant, but they are not all of the same kind, and not every amusement can be considered forbidden. This is a natural matter. Human life is intertwined with amusement; has the Lawgiver prohibited all of them? By no means.

On this basis, the late Shaykh [Ansari] stated in the subject identification of lahw that “exhilarating lahw is forbidden,” but non-exhilarating lahw—meaning play—is not forbidden. In my opinion, this division in the subject identification of lahw, where exhilarating lahw is deemed forbidden and non-exhilarating lahw is deemed permissible, is incorrect. First, this division in the subject identification of lahw cannot be derived from narrations, which I will discuss shortly. Second, designating exhilarating lahw as the criterion for forbidden lahw in subject identification is not discernible and will confuse the obligated individual. Subject identification must be such that when the jurist or issuer of fatwas articulates the subject and its ruling, the obligated individual can identify its instances.

Based on my examination of the narrations on lahw, it seems to me that in identifying the subject matter of forbidden lahw, the criterion must be presented differently. The criterion I propose is derived from the narrations themselves, so the initial objection I raised against the late Shaykh’s division and subject identification of lahw does not apply here.

In my view, lahw is divided into vain lahw and rational lahw. In some narrations, rational lahw is also referred to as rightful lahw (lahw haqq). Vain lahw is forbidden, and rational lahw is permissible.

Below, I refer to a few examples of narrations:

One of the narrations cited by many jurists, especially earlier ones, as evidence for the absolute prohibition of lahw is the narration of Abdullah ibn Mughira: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said in a hadith: Every lahw of a believer is vain except in three cases.”

In this narration, three instances of vain lahw are exempted, though in my opinion, these are mentioned as examples and are not limited to these three cases. However, some, such as the late Imam in Kitāb al-Makāsib, due to the use of exclusionary terms, have considered the permissible cases to be limited to these three.

These three cases are: “training his horse”—horse training, which is a joyful and entertaining amusement; “shooting with his bow”—archery; and “playing with his wife, for these are rightful”. In this narration, the term rightful lahw (lahw haqq) is used in contrast to vain lahw.

The reason we stated that rational lahw stands in contrast to vain lahw is that these three exempted cases involve a rational purpose. Thus, the criterion for a lahw being rightful is that it has a valid rational purpose that is “recognized among rational people.”

Another narration, unlike the first, is authentic (sahīh): From Ali ibn al-Rayyān, from Yunus, who said: I asked Imam Reza (peace be upon him) and said, “The Abbasid claims that you have permitted ghinā.” He said, “The heretic has lied. I did not say such a thing to him. He asked me about ghinā, and I said that a man asked Imam Baqir (peace be upon him) about ghinā, and he said, ‘O so-and-so! When Allah distinguishes between truth and falsehood, where do you think ghinā will be placed?’ The man said, ‘With falsehood.’ He said, ‘You have judged correctly.’”

In this narration, the Imam deemed ghinā forbidden because it falls within the category of falsehood.

In the reliable narration (mawththaqa) of Abdul-A‘la, it is stated: “I asked Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) about ghinā and said, ‘They claim that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) permitted a song with the words “We have come to you, we have come to you, greet us, greet us.”’ He said, ‘They have lied. Allah, the Mighty and Exalted, says: “We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them in play. If We intended to take a pastime, We would have taken it from Ourselves, if We were to do so” (Al-Anbiya, 16-17).’”

In this narration, too, the criterion for the prohibition of lahw is its being vain. Regarding rulings such as hunting, the same criterion applies. For example, the prohibition of leisurely hunting is due to its being vain and lacking a rational purpose.

Ruling Identification of Lahw

Some early jurists, without identifying the subject matter of lahw, held that every lahw is forbidden. Regarding the ruling of lahw, there are several categories of narrations, which the late Ayatollah Khoei divides into four groups. If we consider lahw in its general sense, we cannot say that lahw is forbidden, as there are amusements among Muslims that are not forbidden. However, if we divide it into rational lahw and vain lahw, as per our view, we can differentiate between the rulings of these two types of lahw.

According to the late Ayatollah Khoei’s division, the first category of narrations pertains to the prayer of a traveler whose journey is for leisurely hunting, where the ruling is that they must perform their prayer in full. This ruling pertains to hunting and cannot be used to deduce the prohibition of all forms of lahw. This category of narrations supports our view of distinguishing between rational lahw and vain lahw, as the prohibition of such a journey (assuming it is deemed forbidden) is due to the vain and non-rational nature of such hunting.

The second category of narrations counts lahw among the major sins. For example, in the narrations of A‘mash, it is stated that one of the major sins is “engaging in amusements that distract from the remembrance of Allah, such as ghinā and playing stringed instruments.” From this category of narrations, the absolute prohibition of lahw cannot be derived either.

The third category consists of widely transmitted (mutawātir) narrations that address the prohibition of using leisurely instruments and tools in ghinā and similar activities, but these, too, do not encompass all forms of lahw.

The most significant narrations are in the fourth category, which initially appear to indicate the absolute prohibition of lahw. For example, in the narration of Ayyashi, it is stated: “Everything that distracts from the remembrance of Allah is from gambling (maysir).” Or the narration mentioned earlier: “Every lahw of a believer is vain except in three cases.” Some of these narrations are weak in terms of their chain of transmission, while others indicate the prohibition of vain and non-rational lahw.

Lahw in Art

Based on the above discussion, we can apply lahw to various forms of art. Arts that are not vain and have a rational purpose are permissible, while arts that lack a rational purpose are forbidden. Therefore, arts such as fornication, music, and gambling, which are considered forms of art, fall under the category of vain lahw because they lack a rational purpose.