Introduction

Looking at the body and hair of a non-mahram woman is forbidden according to the consensus of jurists.This ruling is so clear that the jurists have less discussed it in argumentative books, rather they have discussed more about its limits, gaps and exceptions. Of course, the sanctity of looking at the face and the two palms is a difference: most of the great considered looking at the face and the two palms as haram, just like other parts of the non-mahram body, but most contemporaries think it is permissible if it is without pleasure and riba. There are many proofs in this regard, and it is considered as one of the certainties of jurisprudence and religion and the consensus of jurists; Thus, it does not need to be investigated.

Permission to comment on shameless Muslim women

Some jurists have not considered it haram to look at shameless women. His most important documentary is a narration that the late Kulayni and Shaykh Saduq have quoted from Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) according to which there is no obstacle to looking at the hair of women from Tehama, Arabs, Sawad, and infidels; Because if they are forbidden, it will have no work.

Argument form: In this narration, there is no mention of Muslim women wearing hijab and shameless; But the reason mentioned in the hadith makes the ruling of permissibility include them as well; Because when the Shari’ah states the cause of a ruling, the ruling will be subject to the cause.

Criticism of the reason: Looking at this argument, it can be said: although the primary appearance of these explanations is the statement of the cause, but considering that most of the explanations in the Shari’ah speeches are of the type of wisdom, the origin and secondary appearance of these statements is the wisdom; Thus, the verdict cannot be considered as its finality.

Moreover, the narration of the late Saduq has three differences with the narration of the late Kulayni: 1. Instead of the phrase “Ru’us Nisa’ Ahl Tahameh”, it has “shu’ur Nisa’ Ahl Tahameh”. 2. Instead of the phrase: “Ahl al-Sawad”, “Ahl al-Bawadi” has been added and 3. The phrase “min Ahl al-Dhimmah” has been added. Regarding the difference between the first and second, there is a strong possibility that one of them is the spelling of the other. But the third difference is quite significant; Because according to the proviso “min ahl al-dhimmah” according to the narration of Saduq, the ruling of permissive opinion is only for women of dhimmah and infidels. In addition, documentary problems have been raised regarding this narration, but since the implication of the narration is not complete in our opinion, there is no need to examine those problems.

The verdict is based on the image

Considering that film and photography are human inventions in the new era, we don’t have any clear information from religious sources or the opinions of advanced jurists to rule on this issue, but maybe some evidence or titles include this issue in a way. The possible proofs of respect are:

a. Proofs of respect for strangers: Of course, in a movie that is broadcast live, such an expression is not without reason, as some jurists have considered it. However, regarding the photo, some are of the opinion that looking at a person’s image is not actually looking at him.

b. Argument to the honorable verse “Wa qul l’lilmu’minat yaghdudn min absarehen”: Some have used this honorable verse in such a way that looking at a woman is absolutely forbidden and any kind of looking is excluded and condemned to Hiliyyah, a reason is needed.The requirement of this perception can be that looking at the photo and video of a woman is also forbidden according to the first principle. The basis of the argument to the verse is the rule of “removing the property that is useful to the public”; That is, because the law has removed the property of ghad al-basar, it means that they make ghad al-basar from everything. If this rule is true, it is where the theologian is in the position of expression, not in the position of summary. So we have to make an allocation in this general. Thus, it becomes ambiguous whether it is a woman’s body or a woman’s private parts or “we are the sanctuary of God” or…? If we could not demonstrate a specific property with the evidence, then the mentioned verse is summarized in this respect and it cannot be relied upon for the sanctity of the non-mahram film and photo.

J. Argument through the unity of Manat: This means that the same criterion that caused the Shari’ah to forbid looking at a foreigner, also exists in looking at her image. This argument has been criticized in such a way that although there are the same corruptions in looking at the image, but the intensity and power of stimulation is very different between the two, and this noticeable difference makes us unable to say that the same manat is present here. In addition, it is not clear that what is mentioned in this narration is the reason and reason for the ruling to generalize the ruling.

d. Insulting and Haraming: Looking at a picture in which a Muslim woman does not wear a religious hijab and the obligatory positions are obvious in it is insulting that woman and causes her harm, so it is forbidden. This reason can also be undermined, because first of all, looking at a stranger’s image does not always cause abuse. Secondly, although there is no problem in the fact that it is forbidden to insult a Muslim, the truth and compliance of this title depends a lot on the circumstances and tastes. In addition, we do not have any proof regarding the absolute sanctity of this act, that any action that causes a Muslim to suffer is haram. For example, if a person enters into a business, those who are engaged in that business may be harassed, but that person’s action is definitely not haram.

Jurisprudence ruling on Iranian and non-Iranian women

The question raised in this section is, does being Iranian or non-Iranian make a difference in the rulings we have said so far? By analyzing and examining the evidence and sources of the fatwa, it is clear that ethnicity and nationality have no effect on the verdict.

The verdict of bad veiled women

The fatwa difference that was expressed in the ruling of the show is completely effective. According to the fatwa that views the image as absolutely permissible, the display of that image, based on the basic rule, should not have any problem; However, if it provokes the audience and provokes it, it may be forbidden under the secondary title of contributing to sin. Also, the jurist who does not consider it permissible to comment on the picture if the owner of the picture is known; Because it considers it as an example of abuse or harassment, broadcasting such an image should be prohibited as such. Also, the basis that does not allow viewing of live broadcast images may also consider live broadcast as haram; Because this act is under the secondary title of contributing to sin.

With this introduction, it became clear that the secondary titles, in the discussed sentence, can have a lot of influence. These secondary titles are: pleasure and riba; Because everywhere a jurist has issued a fatwa on the permissibility of an opinion; Such as permission to look at face and shroud, permission to look at Muslim women, permission to look at images, permission to look at unbelieving women, etc. As a result of the inadmissibility of the opinion with pleasure or ribeh, it has been called “Mafrugh Anhu” “Mutasalim Alayh” and “Mujma’ Alayh”.

This note is a part of the electronic magazine “Mabadi’ Fiqh namaish” which was produced in collaboration with the art jurisprudence school and the Ijtihad network website.