Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Hassan Moallemi, though better known for his expertise in philosophy and mysticism, has studied and taught jurisprudence and legal theory for many years. Born in 1959 in Isfahan, he has never distanced himself from jurisprudence and legal theory. We spoke with him about “lahw” (frivolity), its nature, and its jurisprudential ruling. He believes that no jurist has issued a blanket ruling declaring lahw absolutely forbidden; thus, even if various arts are always associated with lahw, a general ruling of prohibition cannot be applied to them. In this interview, he articulated existing views on lahw with greater clarity and elucidated its instances. The full text of the exclusive interview by Contemporary Fiqh with this faculty member of Baqir al-Ulum University is presented below:

Contemporary Fiqh: What is lahw, and can it be applied to various forms of art?

Moallemi: Lahw refers to entertainment, enjoyment, futile activities, actions lacking rational purpose, and recreation; it encompasses all of these. For example, if you play with a prayer bead or your beard, that is lahw. None of the jurists have declared lahw, in its absolute sense, to be forbidden. They may refer to actions like playing with one’s beard as lahw, but lahw is certainly not absolutely forbidden. Moreover, some actions that are inherently lahw cease to be so when a rational purpose is attached to them. For instance, sports, when aimed at maintaining health, are no longer considered lahw because a rational purpose is associated with them.

The same applies to “la‘b” (play); thus, neither lahw nor la‘b is absolutely forbidden. No jurist accepts that music, songs, films, or sports are forbidden simply because they involve lahw or la‘b. Even the Supreme Leader, in his book Ghinā and Music, does not deem them absolutely forbidden. This has led jurists to categorize lahw into types, such as lahw associated with gatherings of amusement and debauchery, exhilarating lahw, or lahw that leads one astray from the path of God.

Contemporary Fiqh: Some consider lahw to be any act in which God is not remembered, implying that most actions of Muslims, even the devout, would be deemed lahw. Do you consider this interpretation of lahw correct?

Moallemi: No, the mere fact that someone is not mindful of God does not make an act forbidden. Many of our actions are not accompanied by the remembrance of God; does this mean they are considered frivolous and forbidden? Do we perform every action with the remembrance of God? Yes, if a frivolous act diverts you from the path toward God, prevents you from fulfilling obligations, or leads you to commit prohibited acts, then it becomes forbidden. However, the mere absence of mindfulness of God does not render an act forbidden. Very few people are constantly mindful of God throughout the day and night.

Contemporary Fiqh: Is there any religious evidence that indicates the prohibition or lack of merit of lahw in an absolute sense?

Moallemi: No, such evidence does not exist. There may be a narration suggesting that the more you remember God, the better, but this does not prove that the absence of God’s remembrance makes an act forbidden or disliked. In other words, the merit of remembering God does not establish the prohibition or disapproval of not remembering God.

Contemporary Fiqh: Is there any art that, by its very nature, is an instance of lahw, or does it become lahw only due to accompanying factors such as the mingling of men and women, inappropriate or misleading content, etc.?

Moallemi: When lahw, in its absolute sense, is not forbidden, its instances are not forbidden either. Regarding the prohibition of lahw, some, like Sayyid Kashani, consider lahw associated with gatherings of amusement and debauchery—such as where men and women dance together—to be forbidden. Others, like the late Imam [Khomeini], deem exhilarating lahw forbidden. However, the Supreme Leader does not even consider exhilarating lahw forbidden; rather, he holds that prohibition applies only when it leads one astray from the path of God, as per the verse “to lead astray from the path of Allah” (Quran 31:6). By “leading astray from the path of God,” he refers to lahw that prevents one from fulfilling obligations or avoiding prohibited acts.

Contemporary Fiqh: Does the same ruling apply to the mingling of men and women?

Moallemi: The mingling of men and women is, in itself, forbidden. However, lahw, for instance, according to Sayyid Kashani, may be forbidden if performed in a gathering of amusement and debauchery, but it may not be forbidden in another setting. For example, if Hessamuddin Seraj sings in a gathering of amusement and debauchery, it is forbidden, but in another setting, it is not.

Contemporary Fiqh: Is it correct to say that a misunderstanding of the concept of lahw has led jurists and the devout community to fail to recognize categories such as art, recreation, and joy?

Moallemi: This statement is not true for all jurists, but some, due to the prohibition of certain aspects of ghinā (singing), have, out of caution, declared everything forbidden to ensure no one commits a questionable act. However, as long as we have an Islamic government, we cannot implement rulings based on caution alone. Instead, we must clearly state what is forbidden and what is permissible; it must be clear. Therefore, we need to determine which acts lead astray from the path of God and which do not.

Contemporary Fiqh: Does this mean that jurists’ opinions on this matter differ?

Moallemi: Yes, they differ. For example, Ayatollah Golpaygani deemed all music absolutely forbidden. He issued this ruling out of caution to prevent anyone from committing a questionable forbidden act. However, others, like the late Imam [Khomeini], did not view questionable or dubious music as forbidden and considered it permissible.

Contemporary Fiqh: Is determining whether something qualifies as lahw the responsibility of the jurist, the general public, or the individual obligated to follow the ruling?

Moallemi: The general concept of lahw must be defined by the jurist. For example, there is currently a debate about whether lahw refers solely to acts specific to gatherings of sin, exhilarating acts, or acts that lead astray. This matter must be clarified by the jurist, not the individual obligated to follow the ruling. However, regarding specific instances, individuals must act based on their own discernment: they should avoid instances that are certainly forbidden, perform those that are certainly permissible, and treat questionable instances as permissible, though caution is commendable in such cases.

Another point is that these instances are not perceived uniformly by all people; one person may consider a piece of music to be misleading, while another may have a different judgment.