Introduction

Hujjat al-Islam Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Rafi’pour Tehrani has been teaching advanced lessons in media jurisprudence at the Tehran Seminary for several years. Having studied for many years at the Qom Seminary under scholars such as Ayatollahs Tabrizi, Vahid Khorasani, Shubayri Zanjani, and Ha’eri, he returned to the Tehran Seminary. In addition to his seminary education, he pursued university studies up to the doctoral level. On the occasion of his teaching advanced lessons in media jurisprudence, we asked him about the nature of media jurisprudence. According to the author of An Introduction to Media Jurisprudence, due to its nascent nature, media jurisprudence has not yet reached a consensus among jurists regarding its definition and scope of issues. Therefore, we must wait a few years for this emerging jurisprudential discipline to achieve relative stability. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with this professor and researcher of media jurisprudence is as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is media jurisprudence, and what topics does it address?

Rafi’pour Tehrani: We can define media jurisprudence as one of the applied branches of jurisprudence that examines the situational and obligatory rulings of Islamic law, based on accepted and recognized methods of ijtihad, concerning media-related issues. We can begin our discussion with this definition and explore media jurisprudence. Since this discipline, or this branch of knowledge, is new and emerging, it naturally faces challenges regarding its scope of activity, overlaps, or exclusions with other areas, as well as intersections with other branches of applied jurisprudence. After several years of discussion and examination, scholars will gradually reach a consensus and agreement, and the details and boundaries of this discipline will become clearer.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the difference between media jurisprudence and similar jurisprudential fields, such as art jurisprudence, virtual space jurisprudence, cultural jurisprudence, and others?

Rafi’pour Tehrani: As I mentioned in response to the previous question, due to the nascent nature of these disciplines, they overlap to some extent. For example, the prohibition of falsehood and lying is currently discussed by some in media jurisprudence, by others in cultural jurisprudence, and by others in art jurisprudence. This is because falsehood is highly relevant in media jurisprudence due to its prevalence in media, in cultural jurisprudence due to its significant cultural impact, and in art jurisprudence because an artistic work, such as a film, might be based on a script rooted in falsehood.

However, there are certain issues that we cannot definitively say belong exclusively to art jurisprudence and not media jurisprudence, or vice versa. It seems we need to wait for these disciplines to develop further, allowing scholars and researchers to present their examples and gradually reach a consensus. The key point here is that the perspective of the discussion differs for each field. This means that if we address an issue in art jurisprudence, it should pertain to its artistic aspect; if we address it in media jurisprudence, it should relate to its role in dissemination and public communication. Thus, even if there is topical overlap, the perspective of the discussion certainly differs. In addition to art and media jurisprudence, issues in these two fields can also be discussed in communication jurisprudence, as they involve mass communication to some extent. Moreover, all of these can fall under social jurisprudence, which itself is a newly established and emerging branch of jurisprudence. Therefore, we must consider the perspective and purpose of the discussion and organize issues under various jurisprudential fields accordingly.

For example, a film has an artistic aspect, with individuals acting and showcasing their artistic talents. From the perspective that the film aims to convey a message to the audience or to praise or condemn a moral issue, it is certainly a medium. Additionally, from the perspective that it can initiate a cultural movement or spark a social movement in society, it is a cultural matter.

Thus, in my opinion, these overlaps are not a cause for concern and are entirely natural, as it is normal for an issue to be examined from multiple perspectives. However, as I emphasized, we must be mindful that the perspective of each discussion is different.

I reiterate that because these issues have not yet been fully refined, and scholars are still in the process of identifying and sourcing issues and presenting their discussions, some overlaps are natural. We should not expect the same level of clarity and standardization as found in books on ritual purity, khums, or zakat, which have been discussed and researched for centuries and have established texts that jurists have thoroughly examined. In contrast, for media jurisprudence, even the foundational texts have not yet been fully developed.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the chapters, categories, and most important issues in media jurisprudence?

Rafi’pour Tehrani: We can outline the system of issues in media jurisprudence from various perspectives and establish, so to speak, a framework or agenda for media jurisprudence.

First, we must determine whether our discussion pertains to the content producer or the consumer. If we are discussing media content production, it involves certain rulings. If we are talking about viewers or listeners who are media consumers, these have different rulings. It may be necessary to produce something in the media, such as a medical or military program, but for an audience member watching it, it might be prohibited if it causes harm. Therefore, these two aspects must be distinguished.

Second, are we discussing religious media or media in general? By religious media, I mean media that produce and disseminate religious content and messages, such as Radio Quran, the Quran TV channel, or the pulpit, which is a traditional religious medium ingrained in our culture. Are we addressing the rulings of religious media, or are we discussing the rulings and regulations of media in general, such as conventional media that broadcast programs on cooking, sewing, or sports? Naturally, the sanctity associated with broadcasting religious media programs does not apply to non-religious media. It is possible that we might say for religious media that broadcasting music is prohibited, as music, even if permissible, does not convey a religious message. However, for non-religious, conventional media, there is no issue with broadcasting permissible music during a program.

In my opinion, it is very important to pay attention to these distinctions and not list the issues of media jurisprudence in a haphazard or disorganized manner.

Third, we must distinguish between private and state-owned media. We live in an era where individuals also have their own media. Many people, including artists, actors, scientists, and writers, have personal pages and private media. However, the issues discussed in state-owned media do not apply to private media.

For example, how should the budget for state-owned media be funded? Should people pay for their government to have media? Should the government directly use public funds to manage media, or is it permissible to do so? The issue of media financing is very important and differs significantly between private and state-owned media.

Before making these distinctions, we should not dive into discussing media jurisprudence issues or simply list them one after another.