The concept of “la‘b” (play), despite lacking a unanimous definition, has generally been used in jurisprudential texts as a criterion for prohibition, particularly in the context of art more than in other areas of jurisprudence. The lack of independent attention to this jurisprudential concept has resulted in fatwas issued based on its application to actions lacking sufficient precision. Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Hossein Adabi, a professor at the Mashhad Seminary with extensive studies and experience in the field of art, explores the meaning of la‘b and its application in the rulings of the jurisprudence of art in this exclusive commentary. The full text of the commentary by this professor and researcher of the Mashhad Seminary is as follows:

Art has become an essential part of contemporary society, with various social strata and classes engaging with one or more forms of art in some way. Certain arts influence the general public profoundly, and with the expansion of virtual communication tools, this influence is growing even further.

One of the key issues in the interaction between jurisprudence and art is the presence of lahw (frivolity) and la‘b (play) in artistic works. In the definitions provided by jurists, la‘b is often equated with lahw. Although some have offered different meanings for these two terms, their conceptual overlap is so significant that, with some leniency, they can be considered synonymous. Assuming the semantic similarity of lahw and la‘b, they can be defined as follows: that which entertains a person and causes them to become heedless of or stray from the remembrance of God. The crux of this definition lies in heedlessness from God’s remembrance and misguidance. Thus, any entertainment falling under this definition is deemed prohibited by jurists. Misguidance and deviation manifest in two forms: ideological deviation and practical or behavioral deviation. Ideological deviation occurs when an entertaining activity causes a person to doubt or question religious teachings, leading to indifference. It may be that, in a normal state, a person, due to their spiritual and intellectual inclinations, is connected to the mosque, believers, and a religious environment, holding a set of beliefs and spiritual tendencies toward religion. However, when engaged in such entertainments, their beliefs gradually change, leading them astray from the path of truth.

Alternatively, the deviation may not be ideological but may alter a person’s behavior, making them negligent or cynical toward religious obligations and duties. Practical deviation means that the entertaining activity leads a person to commit prohibited acts or fosters a state of indifference toward sin.

Artistic works can be entertaining. In this context, the question arises: which artistic works possess the element of entertainment? Generally, performance arts are the most prominent form of entertaining art, whether in the form of television series, films, theater, animation, or other formats. The formats of performance arts have a dual capacity, as they can be used for mere entertainment, education, or the propagation of an idea. Additionally, arts such as music, singing, painting, hosting comedic television programs, and similar activities fall within the category of arts with an entertainment aspect. Among contemporary jurists, the prevailing view is that not all entertainment is prohibited; only entertainments that “lead astray from the path of God” are deemed forbidden. However, the criterion of “leading astray from the path of God,” whether in terms of ideological or practical and behavioral misguidance, requires further clarification.

The apparent statements of jurists indicate that any form of misguidance, whether ideological or practical, from the path of God renders an act prohibited. Therefore, if a precise criterion for misguidance can be established, distinguishing between prohibited and permissible entertainment becomes easier. Many entertaining arts solely possess the element of entertainment without any additional benefit. For example, a film may be produced solely to amuse or excite the audience without pursuing any other purpose. The intent of the producers of such films is merely to entertain the audience, evoke a pleasant feeling, or stimulate excitement, without going beyond that. Similarly, a piece of music or a singer’s performance of certain poems may be created solely for this purpose. Although such artistic works may not involve actual misguidance, they are considered prohibited la‘b and lahw because they rely on mere imagination without a lofty purpose, solely aiming to evoke excitement or a pleasant feeling in the audience without any higher goal. According to the prevailing view of jurists, such works are deemed prohibited. The evocation of emotions in these works includes both joy and sorrow, and it is not the case that excessive joy alone renders a work prohibited.

It is possible that a work may not involve actual misguidance, yet it may be deemed prohibited due to its inherent potential for misguidance. Therefore, futility, emptiness, and the absence of a lofty purpose are considered criteria for misguidance. On this basis, if an entertaining art form helps an individual overcome sorrow or depression and enables them to return to normal life, this can be regarded as a rational purpose, thereby removing it from the realm of futility and la‘b. This aligns with the view of the Supreme Leader (may God preserve him), who considers such arts as la‘b but divides lahw and la‘b into permissible and prohibited categories—a novel and rarely expressed perspective in Shia jurisprudence.