Today, profound questions are raised in the field of movies and cinema as one of the examples of art that require special examination. Today, the questions are not limited to whether it is possible to show a woman’s face or a woman’s clothing in a way that does not comply with religious standards? For instance, can a man put makeup on a woman and vice versa? The questions go beyond these. These challenges must be examined in the jurisprudence of art and the philosophy of jurisprudence of art.

Note: It seems that emerging jurisprudences have been experiencing increasing growth in the past two decades. Scholars of jurisprudence have almost reached an unwritten agreement that they must respond to the problems of today’s humanity from the perspective of jurisprudence. One of the most important things that is necessary to form a new jurisprudence branch and to be able to solve its problems is to create jurisprudence rules specific to that science. We talked about the specific rules of art jurisprudence with Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Nur Mufidi, a teacher of the course of Al-Fiqh al-Kharij and principles at the Qum Seminary and the author of numerous books on contemporary jurisprudence. The head of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Institute, however, focused more on explaining art and the precise definition of art jurisprudence. Of course, at the end, he expressed some points about the specific rules of art jurisprudence and the general approach to these rules in solving art jurisprudence problems. The details of the conversation with this teacher of al-Bahth al-Kharij at Qum Seminary are as follows:

-What is art jurisprudence and how does it differ from similar jurisprudences, such as media jurisprudence, communications jurisprudence, and cyberspace jurisprudence?

Sir Nur Mufidi: To define art jurisprudence, we must first understand art itself. The definition of jurisprudence is clear; but art is a concept that has a wide range of differences regarding this concept and is one of the concepts that may be easy and impossible to define. From those who have defined art as an internal state and description, or a knowledge and science, or a work that humans create, to those who have considered the difference in its purposefulness or non-purposefulness; that is, there are differences in the category of art from several dimensions. Some consider art as a knowledge. Some consider art as a state of the soul. Some consider art as an act and practice that comes from humans; therefore, defining the jurisprudence of art based on different definitions of art will have different results. If we say that art is a kind of knowledge and understanding, there is a need to discuss whether the jurisprudence of art, as a jurisprudence that explains the ruling on the behaviors of those responsible in different fields, can it seek to express the ruling on an aspect of humanity that falls within the realm of knowledge and understanding? Therefore, it must be seen whether a position can be taken regarding knowledge itself or not.

Or, for example, if we consider art as an internal state, can jurisprudence have a position on external actions or is it only related to external actions? Therefore, with the difference in the definition of art, it is difficult to define the exact jurisprudence of art unless we take a common measure of these definitions or focus on one of the elements and works of art and agree on it, and then define the jurisprudence of art. In addition, modern art is fundamentally distinguished from traditional and authentic art. The essence of this issue cannot be denied that art is a companion of mankind, and man naturally loves beauty, and God Almighty has also confirmed this: “Indeed, Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.” Therefore, if we say that art is a companion of mankind, and mankind has always tried to leave behind works of himself that are the most beautiful; whether in the form of poetry or music or some prose or drawing paintings or making sculptures, we have not said too much. This is a matter that has a very long history and therefore is a companion of mankind. Even now, when archaeologists talk about searching for ancient times, it is not uncommon for them to find a work of art alongside the discovery of a work related to humans and human life in the past, such as artistic aspects in the clothes, utensils, and ornaments they used.

It may be said that in the modern world, modern art has become different and has found specific branches and a specific color and flavor can be observed in it. For example, some Western scientists at one time emphasized that art is basically something that is completely devoid of religious and moral purposes; that is, the theory of art for art’s sake that some believe. When this statement is placed next to the statement of Ibn Sina’ in al-Asha’at that says that the benefit of art is to transform the egoistic soul into a confident soul, and that art is something that causes human imagination to be directed towards sacred imaginations and to emerge from sensual illusions, then it becomes clear that there is a great distance between these two views.

In some Islamic thinkers, we see even more than this; that is, specific orientations that can be indicative of a characteristic or description of art. The purpose of mentioning this was that in defining art, we encounter a wide range of views and ideas. If we want to define the jurisprudence of art based on these differences of views and opinions, we must define the jurisprudence of art in parallel with the definitions that have been made for art; but regardless of this point that I mentioned and regardless of whether art should be known through the expression of conceptual components or through its accessories and effects or a combination of the two, in any case, in order to be able to determine the position of jurisprudence in this regard, we base it on the fact that art is a manifestation of the inner states of man that manifests itself in the form of an act.

Considering these premises and the differences that exist, if we want to express a brief definition at the level of explaining the noun in such a way that a distinction is created between this jurisprudence and other additional jurisprudences, we must say that the jurisprudence of art is the ruling related to any verb of the actions of the subjects and their actions that are somehow related to a relatively extraordinary and beautiful work, and perhaps even extraordinary. Because art in its essence has this aspect of beauty, even if it is claimed. This feature cannot be denied that a work of art is a work that the subject creates in the form of speech or action, with or without tools. This is in a way distinct from the words, behaviors, and ordinary actions of people. If he says a poem, it naturally has beauty, even if beauty has degrees. Creating music or making a statue and other branches of art that have been created in the modern world also all have a type of beauty.

In any case, we want to know what rulings these works and actions have in different dimensions from the perspective of jurisprudence and from the position of the Shari’ah, which explains the rulings on the behaviors of those who are obligated. Of course, with this definition, the jurisprudence of art is completely distinguished from other additional jurisprudences that were stated in the question. If we consider art in a general sense, it may manifest itself in wearing a dress; that is, if someone shows a special taste and flair in wearing a dress, we do not say that he has created a work of art. In media jurisprudence, in the field of communications or in cyberspace, you may show a special taste and flair and use this tool. This is the same art in a general sense.

For example, someone in the media may use a special taste and flair to have a greater impact, whether in advertising or in reporting news or introducing a book and the like, which naturally attracts a larger audience. A teacher who teaches in a classroom may have an attractive way of teaching, or a speaker’s style of speaking may captivate the audience; Therefore, art can be included in the framework of all aspects of human life, but when we talk about art, art is in a special sense and the term art is what causes the person who created a work to be recognized as the creator of that work of art and to be described as an artist; therefore, a teacher who teaches a class in an attractive manner is not called an artist. Even if they may say that he conveys the material artistically; but they do not call him an artist; therefore, the jurisprudence of art is completely distinct from some of the additional jurisprudences mentioned in the question, and art itself can naturally be present in all these human activities and actions.

Of course, art in a general sense can also be the subject of jurisprudential studies; but in this question, what is meant is art in a special sense. The general meaning that was mentioned, although it is used in other fields, cannot be the meaning of the question.

It is important to note that the jurisprudence of art itself, even though I have tried to provide a brief definition of it, contains many ambiguities in terms of subject matter, and in order for us to properly pay attention to the category of art as an additional layer of jurisprudence, in the first step we must try to resolve many of these ambiguities that exist in this issue.

When talking about the jurisprudence of art, the first thing that comes to the mind of a researcher in the field of jurisprudence is to search for its background in jurisprudential books, in terms of topics, questions, and issues. To see the evidence and examine topics such as painting and images with or without spirit, and the issue of singing, music, and musical instruments. Then we come to the issue of performance, which has been raised in a simple form in the past, in the form of matters such as the resemblance of men to women and vice versa, or the issue of mixing; but the category of art has become completely different from the past even in these topics that have a background and precedent. For example, music and singing have truly changed. The questions that are raised in these cases today have become completely different. To limit ourselves to the same simple questions that were raised in the past in order to organize the network of issues based on the jurisprudence of art in various dimensions and to try to answer new issues from them is not very fruitful. The type of writings and issues that are raised in relation to art are with an approach to the same simple questions of the past; whereas if a serious work is to be done in the field of jurisprudence of art, it seems necessary to first disambiguate art and its various branches, to recognize the topics and to enumerate the questions.

Today, deep questions are raised in the field of films and cinema as one of the examples of art that require special examination. Today, the questions are not limited to whether it is possible to show a woman’s face or a woman’s clothing in a way that does not comply with religious standards or not? For example, can a man put on makeup for a woman and vice versa? The questions go beyond these. These challenges should be examined in the jurisprudence of art and the philosophy of jurisprudence of art.

– Please give some examples of new questions and challenges in the jurisprudence of art.

Mr. Nur Mufidi: The art of cinema is of great importance, and the right of this art requires that when it shows the life of a husband and wife inside the house, naturally the woman should not wear a veil in front of the husband or there must be a special emotional relationship between them. Or in order for a play or a film or story to be effective, we have to show some aspects of a negative character, some of which may be illegal or immoral. Is such a thing permissible from a jurisprudential perspective?

This question goes beyond the simple questions of the past. The reason for stating this example is that the issues that artists face go far beyond the past and require more dialogue and understanding and a common understanding of the issues in order to be fruitful. I do not mean that the path of human life goes in any direction and we should passively move in the same direction; because in this case, after a while, no trace of jurisprudence and religious rulings will remain; rather, I mean that there should be mutual understanding and communication and specialized topics should be fully known and these topics should not be approached with a simple view.

In the jurisprudence of art, these issues should be paid attention to.

-What are the specific rules of jurisprudence of art? Name a few rules?

Sir Nur Mufidi: In the field of jurisprudential rules, we are not so empty-handed in using rules in the field of jurisprudence of art. My suggestion is that our evidence, verses and narrations, if reread and reviewed, will help us a lot. I sometimes feel that some people insist in their speeches and writings that we should only go for rules. Yes, rules can be used in many cases. Rules such as the prohibition of giving charity over sin, or the rule of negation of the mustache, or the rule of obligation, and the like, are rules whose effectiveness is evident in all the jurisprudences of the Madhhab (denomination); but we should not neglect the generalities, applications, and specific evidence that has been cited to prohibit some aspects of art.

For example, in the issue of singing or music or sculpture and painting, the late Shaykh is subject to some views, such as the opinion of Muhaqqiq Sabzevari, who says that it is not unlikely that we should apply them to a specific issue that existed at that time; therefore, this evidence was more concerned with the aspects that were used at that time. Or, in the issue of sculpture, the late Imam Khumayni himself says that the prohibition of this issue was because statues were worshipped at that time. Considering that the evidence was issued in that container and in view of those circumstances can be very helpful for us. I do not want to say that every reason that prohibited a work of art was necessarily related to that time; but we must review and reread the evidence from this perspective and review the issues in new conditions. After all, these issues have not changed, even if they appear to be; but they have been placed in complex equations; therefore, the interference of time and space in ijtihad is a very important issue that some people look at on a superficial level. But the issue is deeper than this; but in my opinion, the evidence itself that we have is really worth examining and, along with the jurisprudential rules, can help us a lot.

This dialogue is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of Art Jurisprudence” which was produced in cooperation with the School of Art Jurisprudence and the Ijtihad Network website.