Note: Drama jurisprudence can perhaps be called the most important and broad field of art jurisprudence. Dramatic arts have such influence and fortune among people that they have produced many questions and every jurisprudential answer to these questions is met with various feedbacks. Perhaps the performing arts can also be called the most challenging field of art jurisprudence. For this reason, we talked with Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nurmufidi, the head of the contemporary jurisprudence research institute. In this conversation, he expressed both the common challenges of drama jurisprudence and its specific challenges in the contemporary era. Of course, he also suggested solutions to solve these challenges. The details of the conversation with this professor of Al-Fiqh al-Kharij and wa al-Usul of Qum seminary are as follows:
What are the most important challenges facing drama jurisprudence?
Ayatullah Nurmufidi: prior to addressing the challenges of jurisprudence, I need to make a reference to “jurisprudence” itself, so that it is clear what we mean by “show” and, accordingly, “jurisprudence”? “Performance” has a broad meaning that includes several disciplines of art. In a view of the show, “show” is the specific movements that humans do to express and describe a special state. In this view, the show includes a set of arts, such as dance, opera, cinema, circus, magic and the like.
According to this, performance art as one of the seven arts has a special meaning that includes a wide range of behaviors. What is mainly meant and comes to mind by “performance” and consequently by “performance jurisprudence” is mainly around cinema, theater and their actors. For instance, if we pay attention to the works written about “jurisprudence” it becomes clear that they mainly discuss topics and issues related to this field. That is, a type of acting that is more related to the issue of cinema and theater, while according to the more technical definition, the show has a much wider circle than that in the understanding of “show” within the school, this wide circle is neglected and parts of “show” neglects things like dance, opera, circus, etc.
Now, according to this article, in response to the question, I would like to say that there are a series of general challenges that affect all “additional jurisprudence”. One of the deepest challenges is that the conceptual limits of “show” are ambiguous; That is, its conceptual boundaries and loopholes have not been clarified as much as they must be. Another challenge is the lack of accurate and correct knowledge and understanding of the subjects and problems of performing arts.
For instance, when we look at the works that have been produced in this field, we see that most of them suffer from the lack of proper understanding. For instance, topics such as the resemblance of men to women, decorating men with decorating women, looking at men and women and vice versa, some special emotional connections that are discussed in the show, the use of hats, the face painting of men by women and vice versa, etc. are usually in these works, while the issues related to this field are much wider, deeper and multiple. It is for this reason that I would like to say that if “performance jurisprudence” wants to be able to solve the problems of this artistic field, it must reach a detailed and complete understanding of the issues and problems related to the art of performance.
For instance, in the field of theater, we see multiple styles that sometimes reach more than fifteen styles. One of these styles is nihilistic and absurd thinking. They consider this style and thinking, the basis of life and existence, to be empty and meaningless. Regardless of how attractive this style and thinking is, the question is, what is the principle of showing absurd and absurdist thinking from a jurisprudential point of view? Is it legitimate to display such styles, ideas and thoughts? The same is the case with the styles of humor that are accompanied by humor and ridicule or other different styles that are common in cinema. Is it permissible and legitimate to use these styles in the show? Likewise in opera and so on.
The third challenge is that “jurisprudence” lacks a codified and organized problem system network; Thus, if it wants to be presented as a systematic knowledge, it has no choice but to compile and form such a network of problems. Normally, if such a network of problems is formed, it becomes a road map for the research that can be carried out in this field.
The fourth challenge is the lack of sufficient and documented resources. For its survival and development, any knowledge needs to produce more, stronger and more reliable resources so that it can solve the problems in front of it as knowledge. Drama jurisprudence is no exception to this rule. By producing enough sources, it is possible to deduce the correct Shari’ah ruling in this area. The fifth challenge is the lack of interdisciplinary knowledge related to “performance jurisprudence”. Nowadays, none of the fields of knowledge can be without interdisciplinary knowledge related to itself, but it must even be said that the growth and development of a knowledge has complete dependence on interdisciplinary knowledge. Meanwhile, “Fiqh al-derama” does not benefit from this gift.
The sixth challenge is the lack of common understanding between the people of art and scholars. Jurisprudents may try to accurately understand the subjects and define the limits of the performing arts; But until they have found a common understanding with the people of art, these efforts will not be very effective. This understanding is formed when there is a continuous dialogue between the people of the performing arts and the researchers in the field of “jurisprudence”.
Apart from the general challenges of newly emerging jurisprudence, such as the lack of specific rules, lack of sources, lack of scientific writings, etc., what specific challenges are facing jurisprudence?
Ayatullah Nurmufidi: Modern art in a general sense and cinema in a specific sense has a special logic that has made the performing arts and their derivatives consider themselves free of religious and moral intent. This logic is based on a premise: art for art, cinema for cinema, theater for theater. That is, we must not consider the moral or religious purpose involved in performing arts. This idea, in addition to being a deadly poison for the art industry, is also a serious challenge for “performance jurisprudence”. Because it fuels a substantive conflict between “performance jurisprudence” and performing arts.
Of course, besides this logic, there is another point of view that believes in the purpose of performing arts, but they also believe that in order to reach the ultimate goal, which can be a religious or moral goal, the audience must be brought along in any possible way, that is, in the art of drama, whatever is necessary to make the audience think of the same thing must be done so that the audience goes along with him, step by step, to reach the desired result and goal; Thus, because we pursue a noble goal in the show, we can use non-noble and even false means, that is, they hold the view that the goal justifies the means. While, from the point of view of jurisprudence, we are basically not allowed to resort to any means or to reach a result in any possible way. To display every negative thing in a naked form, just on the pretext that we are finally conveying a valuable moral message to the audience. But this artistic point of view believes that this is a requirement of the nature and essence of art, that is, if we want to bring the audience to that final stage, we must first pass them through these stages. This is an important challenge for “jurisprudence”. Moreover, it creates an essential conflict between “performance jurisprudence” and modern performing arts, which turns the matter into a circle between negation and proof; That is, if we want to remain faithful to the jurisprudence rules, we have to empty the performance of its essence, and if we recognize the essence of the performance in its modern form, we have to violate the framework and rules of jurisprudence.
Jurists often do not have a good relationship with performing arts (including theater, cinema and television). In your opinion, what presuppositions and bases have caused this judgment on their part?
Ayatullah Nurmufidi: This not-so-correct approach of many jurists towards performing arts is rooted in the premise that they consider all manifestations of the new civilization undesirable and rejected. This is an extreme and unacceptable view that if we accept it, we have no choice but to go into seclusion and isolation and intellectual blockage. Although it is possible that the owners of this point of view have a good goal and intention, as their concern that the manifestations of the new civilization will lead mankind astray is acceptable to a great extent; But their way of facing and approach is devoid of a rational logic.
Another group that did not have this extreme view, itself, is divided into a wide range of categories that consider the origin of art and the dominance of productions in the current world from those who have no religious adherence and many of their artistic products are the foundations of beliefs, morals and behaviors of societies. They have especially threatened and weakened the Islamic society. This has been a serious concern that those responsible for the promotion of religion have had regarding these phenomena and they have been worried about the religious, moral and cultural health of societies, and of course it is appropriate and acceptable to a certain extent, what if it brings about a kind of cultural unrestrainedness and we are witnessing it now that in the digital world, we are moving towards the collapse of moral, cultural and religious boundaries, and there is no longer any power to control and impose restrictions to keep societies and especially young forces away from this environment. Everyone is somehow exposed to this threat and there is no choice.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the media, especially the media, was a tool and a means for the colonizers and rulers who, in order to strengthen their rule and colonialism and plunder the resources of the countries, through this way, attacked the beliefs of the communities in order to attack the hearts and to penetrate their hearts. It means that there have been political aspects, cultural aspects and even economic aspects that have fueled these concerns.
Another point that I think is very important is the approach and attitude of inference and ijtihad in this field. Those concerns and challenges are in their place, but we must not ignore that the inferences and ijtihads without considering the conditions of “time” and “place” that happened in this field were naturally effective in adopting these approaches. For instance, if we pay attention to the Imam’s approach, we can see that it is different from many of those views. He, the late lmam said: We are against prostitution, but we are not against cinema. The secret of this difference in his views is that he paid serious attention to the element of “time” and “place” in ijtihad and based on this attention, he differentiates between two issues, that is, they both recognize this modern phenomenon and he warned about its destructive consequences and said that the direction of art and drama must be taken into consideration so that sinister political, cultural and economic goals are not realized behind it.
In terms of research, what challenges does the research in the field of drama jurisprudence face and how can these challenges be overcome?
Ayatullah Nurmufidi: The challenges that I have listed for drama jurisprudence, almost all of them are reflected in the field of research in this field as well. Its solutions also lie in the same challenges. That is, a thematic movement must be formed in order to clarify the scope of issues and the limits of its gaps, to produce resources, to design the system network of issues, to identify and extract knowledge relationships related to this field, to strengthen ijtihad approaches appropriate to place and time. And the jurisprudential system related to this area must be extracted, which we are now at the beginning of the way in all sectors and we still cannot meet these expectations.
This conversation is a part of the electronic magazine “Mabadi’ Fiqh al-Derama” which was produced in collaboration with the art jurisprudence school and the Ijtihad network website.