With all the respect I have for these jurists and with all the admission of my own ignorance of jurisprudence, I believe that even in live broadcasts, the image you see reaches you through a camera and the rapid and continuous transmission of images taken from a scene, such as wrestling, and therefore it should have the same ruling as seeing a previously taken photo or film, and this film that is simultaneously broadcast from a sports stadium can never be considered as a direct and immediate look at a man’s body. Perhaps if the technology of photography and film were clearly explained to these respected jurists, they would not see a difference between live and non-live film in terms of sanctity or non-sanctity.

Note: Reducing the issue of hijab and the issue of showing off or improperly covering oneself to women’s hijab and clothing has led to less attention being paid to the issue of men’s hijab and the ruling on showing men wearing inappropriate and non-Islamic clothing. We spoke with Hujjat al-lslam wa al-Muslimin Ali Akbar Safi Isfahani, a senior teacher at the Qum Seminary, regarding the ruling on showing naked or semi-naked men in the media. The former head of the Allameh Majlesi Specialized Center in Isfahan, clearly stated that no matter how much he thinks, he does not understand the philosophy of some fatwas of jurists. The details of the conversation with this teacher and researcher at the Isfahan Seminary, from your perspective:

What is the ruling on obligatory body covering for men?

Safi Isfahani: As far as I know, the obligatory size in a man’s Islamic clothing is one issue, and looking at a man’s semi-naked body is another issue, both of which should be scrutinized, analyzed, and examined in parallel. It seems that the majority of jurists have issued fatwas that prohibit a woman from looking at a man’s naked or semi-naked body – even outside the private parts, which are unanimously considered forbidden – and have even considered it forbidden for a woman to look lustfully or corruptly at parts of a man’s body that are not usually covered and remain uncovered. In the case of homosexuals, jurists have also considered it forbidden for a man to look lustfully or corruptly at other men, other than the private parts of another man – despite differences in the extent of a man’s private parts, the widest and most prudent extent of which is from the navel to the knees.

Are the fatwas of many jurists, including Muhaqqiq al-Khu’i, who consider it obligatory for men to cover their private parts, effective in today’s society?

Safi Isfahani: If a jurist mentions only the private parts as the extent of a man’s obligation to cover his private parts, one should also look at his other fatwas; Because the same jurist, in response to the question of a woman’s gaze at a man’s semi-naked body, that is, a woman’s gaze at other than the man’s private parts, also rules that it is forbidden, and even a woman’s gaze, if it is tainted with pleasure and lust or even leads to the possible corruption of sexual lust, at parts of the man’s body that are not traditionally covered, is not considered free from problems.

Considering the fatwas of jurists, what is the ruling on showing naked or semi-naked men’s bodies in the media?

Safi Isfahani: In the field of media, since there is no direct gaze, the fatwas of some jurists regarding the issue of a woman’s gaze at a man’s semi-naked body, if it is free from lust or corruption of lust, is permissible.

Is there a difference in the rulings on showing men’s bodies between live and non-live broadcasts? If the answer is yes, what is the reason for this difference?

Safi lsfahani: There are also different opinions on the live and non-live broadcast of men’s bodies in the media. Some believe that if football and the like are broadcast live, from a religious perspective, broadcasting the image live and looking at it is tantamount to looking directly at a non-mahram man’s body, and since looking directly at a non-mahram’s body, even if it is without the intention of pleasure, is forbidden and sinful from a religious perspective, therefore it is forbidden and sinful for women to see the bodies of actors in live broadcast. However, if it is not a live broadcast, but rather images recorded on film are broadcast, looking at the image and body of a non-mahram through film does not have the ruling of looking directly at a non-mahram’s body, so there is no problem if it is not with the intention of pleasure or lust. As a result, the main difference between live and indirect broadcasting is that from a religious point of view, live broadcasting of the actors’ film is considered to be seeing and looking at their own bodies, but seeing the image is not considered to be looking at the body of a non-mahram, but rather looking at a photograph.

No matter how much I think about it, I do not understand the difference between live broadcasting and non-live broadcasting. With all the respect I have for these jurists and with all the admission of my own ignorance of jurisprudence, I believe that even in live broadcasting, the image you see reaches you through a camera and the rapid and continuous transmission of images taken from a scene, for example, wrestling, and therefore it should have the same ruling as seeing a previously taken photo or film, and this film that is simultaneously broadcast from a sports stadium can never be considered to be a direct and immediate look at a man’s body. Perhaps if the technology of photography and film were clearly explained to these respected jurists, they would not see any difference between live and non-live film in terms of sanctity or non-sanctity.

This interview is part of the electronic magazine “Principles of the Jurisprudence of Performance”, which was produced in collaboration with the School of Jurisprudence of Art and the Ijtihad Network website.