Note: Mostafa Dorri has been engaged in teaching and research in the fiqh of art and media for years. Authoring books such as “Fiqh of Display,” organizing fiqh of art conferences, managing the School of Fiqh of Art, and years of presence in the media arena through editing various seminary magazines have positioned him as one of the most familiar individuals with the fiqh of media. In this interview, he has spoken about the future of the fiqh of media and what changes it will face in the next 100 years. It could perhaps be said that the essence of his remarks was optimism while emphasizing the difficulty of the path. The director of the School of Fiqh of Art spoke about the multilineal nature of issue identification in the fiqh of media and that the relationship between artists and jurists will become much better than in the past.

Contemporary Fiqh: What do you consider the most important issues facing the fiqh of media in the next 100 years?

Dorri: Regarding prediction, there are naturally errors, and we cannot say that the future will definitely be this way, but the path we see in media that has begun is moving toward social media, the Internet of Things, and the fact that every individual can be a media outlet. Considering this matter and issues like the simplification of information transfer, I think we will have several important challenges in the future.

The first challenge is the challenge of privacy. When media is simplified and even a young child can come and share their private photo, home, parents, siblings, everything, then with a mistaken click, their private image and video might be broadcast. Individuals who enter someone’s home can publish images from private parts of people’s lives; such as private conversations and generally things referred to as privacy. Of course, some individuals voluntarily violate their own privacy, like those who publish their entire life on Instagram; but if someone does not want this, there is still the possibility of publishing their private matters. The simplification of information transfer and media, in my opinion, creates the challenge of privacy; how can we protect our privacy against the various media around us?

We previously had a phenomenon called paparazzi; paparazzi were reporters who would come and obtain information from the private lives of artists and celebrities; but now there is no longer a need for paparazzi, rather, with this mobile phone, a lot of personal, visual, and audio information can be stored and published.

But the second challenge that I think we will face in the future is the filing and classification of information. When ease of access to information is created and anyone can access information, we face the challenge that some individuals should not access certain information; like bank information or information from security institutions or information on immoral matters that is prohibited for certain classes like children. These matters are referred to as information classification, of which filtering is one tool. For example, these teen or student SIM cards are one of the tools for information classification so that students cannot access everywhere; therefore, given the ease of access to information that has emerged in the modern world, the issue of information classification is a very important issue.

Another issue that will play a prominent role in the future is the issue of media literacy in general; meaning what should we do to not be influenced by media. For example, to be able to distinguish credible media from non-credible and true news from false. Currently, you see that strange rumors whose falsehood is clear are presented differently in some media. Now, how do we detect which media is telling the truth? What is the credibility of media based on fundamentally? Regarding historical books, there was always this challenge of whether they are credible? Is Tarikh al-Tabari credible? Is Tarikh-e Beyhaqi credible? In the past, we only had seven or eight historians and we wanted to see which one is credible; but now we have several billion historians who are all reporting. Now, whose news is credible?

Fundamentally, the method of lying and altering reality in media has changed. For example, in this recent election, I saw that Iran International network had written that several Iranian children were arrested for protesting the election results, while they were 17 years old! But the same media for the killing of Israelis in Gaza wrote: In the Israeli attack, a young woman aged 3 was killed! One time they call a 17-year-old girl a child, and another time they call a 3-year-old child a young woman!

Here, the media does not lie but presents the reality in a way that the audience receives a different message. I think this issue will be an important challenge for humanity in the coming years.

Of course, my prediction about the future is that this space of media onslaught and the speed of information transfer will at some point cause disillusionment. Even now, we see that some people say I no longer engage much in social networks or, for example, I am only on such-and-such network; meaning the excitement that existed at the beginning of social networks no longer exists now. When email came, some would send dozens of emails a day and send interesting things to others, but now it is only used for necessary and official work. This same excitement existed at the beginning of the telephone entering homes, and there was competition over who would pick up the phone first, but now it is no longer like that and the telephone is only used for necessary and essential matters.

Based on this, I think in the future, a disillusionment will arise toward this volume of media and the speed of transfers. I also predict that authentic media like books, cinema, and theater will not only not disappear; but rather, attention will return to them.

Contemporary Fiqh: Will the presuppositions and foundations of the fiqh of media change in the next 100 years?

Dorri: Part of the answer to this question was in the response to the previous question. The first presupposition of media that has changed today is that we were always accustomed to the custodian of media being one person; hence, for example, we would say: Why does the director of IRIB do this? Or why does the BBC director allow such things to be said? But now in Iran, we have 85 million media outlets. Now, whose collar should we grab? Therefore, one of the challenges is the multiplicity of custodians of news and messages, which makes tracking them difficult.

Another presupposition of media that has changed is the new dimensions of influence in media, which have become very soft and multilayered. In the same example I mentioned from Iran International, which said in Gaza a young woman aged 3 was killed, perhaps in terms of traditional fiqh, it cannot be considered a lie, but the negative media impact it has in negating the victimhood of the people of Gaza and clearing Israel of child-killing charges is very large and important.

Another point is that previously, theft had clear instances; but today it has become very complex. For example, today many VPNs or software or social networks steal our information and analyze it or sell it. One of the important sources of income for these companies is precisely this. Why are these applications free? For the reason that they take information from individuals and sell it and earn income. An important part of these companies’ income is this sale of information. The sale of information is not necessarily for the purpose of espionage or terrorist acts and wrongdoings; rather, sometimes this information is used for locating an economic activity; like at what hours of the day do employees engage more? When do they use mobile internet? In which regions do they use the internet more? With this information, someone who wants to start a business knows where the demand for this product is higher to start their business there.

Also, misleading in media has taken new forms today. For example, the Manoto network, which recently ceased, was a network that influenced lifestyle. The basis of this network was on misleading. Misleading in what sense? In the sense that when you watch this network for an hour, when you see a unveiled person, you no longer feel bad, you no longer get upset about opposite-sex friendships and unregulated opposite-sex relations, you basically become addicted to always watching films, you become addicted to reading less. Look at these American series that are, for example, 150 episodes. Like Prison Break or Friends, all of them are over 100 episodes. These series make you always immersed in these films and not go toward books. Therefore, the misleading they create is indirect.

The concept of corruption has also changed in media and will change even more. Corruption is no longer a sudden and one-time matter; rather, in media, it occurs gradually and over time. For example, in Turkish films, ethical issues may also be raised but within a love triangle where two people fall in love with one woman. Perhaps a person gets upset in the initial instances; but when after a year they watch these series, it becomes normal for them. The same issue exists regarding misleading music and vulgar and immoral words, which become normal after a while.

It seems that in the future, regulating media will no longer be as simple as before. We can no longer take the director of a media outlet to court and say you are convicted of lying or misleading or corruption; because the appearance of these media’s work is compliance with laws and standards, and it is the essence and underlying layers of their work that cause misleading and corruption.

In one of my classes on fiqh of art, one of the researchers asked that a filmmaker has asked, is there a problem if we show eating pork? Because the actor is not really eating pork but we merely show that he is doing so while he is eating lamb, for example. I said: Who eats the pork is important. If a wicked person and negative character eats pork, it differs from if it is eaten by the story’s hero. The effect that the latter leaves on the audiences’ minds is not present in the former. For example, in the Shahrzad series, Ghobad has divorced his wife and she has married someone else. Now Ghobad always wants to marry her again. Well, this in itself is an improper act for a person to express interest in a married woman, but the series shows this matter in a way that everyone empathizes with Ghobad.

Contemporary Fiqh: Will the method of research and solving issues in the fiqh of media change in the next 100 years? What do you think these changes will be like?

Dorri: With the explanations I gave, it is clear that issue identification will become much more difficult and precise and will require greater subtlety. Discovering the consequences of a media matter will become much more difficult, and issues will become so-called multidimensional and multilineal. A few months ago, I went to the Supreme Council of Art, and there the discussion arose about what problem there is with displaying the face of an infallible. I said: The issue is not as simple as saying let’s show it and there’s no problem, and then you applaud and cheer what a powerful and fearless jurist he is! Rather, the issue is complex and precise. We must discuss whether displaying the sacred matter is appropriate at all or whether the sacred matter should be something in the minds so that everyone has their own interpretation; hence, it should not be very clear and evident to allow for various interpretations.

In addition, this actor who comes, for example, suppose plays the role of Imam Hussein (AS), what will he do later? When all people associate Imam Hussein (AS) with him, will his future mistakes not tarnish the image of Imam Hussein (AS) in the minds? Now, as soon as they say Mukhtar to you, you say Mukhtar, Fariborz Arabnia. Basically, everyone’s image of Mukhtar is the image of Fariborz Arabnia. Everyone’s image of Yuzarsif is Mostafa Zamani. You can no longer separate this from him, especially if the series or film is well-made.

Another issue is that should heroes be shown directly at all? In performing arts, it is an established matter that when you want to show a strong character in a film, you should not show him directly; rather, for example, show from behind or while walking or merely show a shadow of him. Now that this is the case, why do we insist on showing the faces of the Imams (AS) who have had this important historical function for these 1400 years. I do not want to say that showing the images of the infallibles (AS) is a forbidden or dispreferred matter, but I want to say that such complex issues should not be simplified. See, these issues are multidimensional issues and cannot be quickly answered with a principle of permissibility.

The result is that in my opinion, in the future, issue identification will become more difficult, discovering the consequences of rulings will become more precise and difficult, and issues will become multilineal and multidimensional.

Contemporary Fiqh: Will the jurists’ responses to issues in the fiqh of media change in the next 100 years? What directions do you think these changes will take?

Dorri: I think yes, they will definitely change. Jurists will pay more attention to consequences and the objectives of the Sharia. To the adverse effects that a media matter may have and to qualitative concepts, concepts that are not quantitative, that are not zero and one, like: misleading, corruption, promotion of indecency, they will pay more attention to these in their issues and will have more precise issue identification.

Contemporary Fiqh: How do you evaluate the communications between jurists and media professionals in the next 100 years?

Dorri: I think in these years, with the widespread adoption of media, good communications have been established between jurists and media professionals. Many fiqh researchers now have their own media. Now all marja’ taqlids have media. Of course, I think the connection between jurists and artists and media professionals will become deeper and they will collaborate on joint projects.

But if you mean the connection between committed jurists and vulgar media actors, no, they will not have good connections and will definitely oppose vulgarity in media, and God willing, it will be so; because giving importance to media does not mean that anyone who claims I have media and works however they want, we embrace them. Fiqh should not be a passive institution, but an active one. Media is the criterion for this. We should have good relations with those who have committed media and observe these standards, and oppose the rest; of course, not in the sense that we say we won’t even sit at the same table with them, but we should have opposition.