Dr. Mahmoud Hekmatnia, though better known for his legal expertise, has pursued no less rigorous studies in Islamic seminaries than in his legal endeavors. The former deputy of intellectual property at the Ministry of Justice, he has always been keen on exploring new topics, whether they concern a computer game, the metaverse, or a new challenge in international law. We sat down with him to discuss labb and its impact on the prohibition of artistic works. According to this prominent jurist, labb in itself does not inherently carry a ruling, and what may lead to its prohibition or lack of merit are its accompanying circumstances (muqāranāt). A member of the Research Council of the Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies, he further elaborated on a nuanced point regarding the types of accompanying circumstances, which was particularly insightful. The full text of the exclusive interview with the professor from the Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is labb, and is it applicable to various forms of art?
Hekmatnia: In our religious knowledge literature, we encounter three terms: lahw (diversion), labb (play), and laghw (futility), each with distinct dimensions. In jurisprudential literature, discussions have been raised regarding both labb and lahw and laghw, and I will briefly outline their main points before addressing your specific question about labb. One discussion pertains to the psychological effects of labb, lahw, and laghw on individuals, which requires a separate exploration. Secondly, from the perspective of ethical values, where does this matter stand? This is particularly discussed in the context of lahw and laghw, but less so for labb. Finally, the economic dimensions of labb will be the last point I address.
When you wish to discuss labb, it primarily refers to that which entertains and brings amusement or relaxation. In other words, in labb, we deal with an intrinsic and inherent matter. However, when comparing labb with lahw, the focus shifts to its impact on other matters. This is also reflected in Quranic literature. For instance, in Surah al-Jumu‘ah, lahw is described as something that distracts a person from more significant matters. In contrast, labb does not have this comparative status, as its essence is entertaining. Of course, this amusement and entertainment can, from a psychological perspective, be beneficial for relaxation or for preparing one for other tasks. Therefore, labb does not imply a futile or worthless act.
Another point to consider is that the term labb, in some cases referenced in the Quran, is not itself the subject of a ruling, unlike lahw, which is treated as a subject of rulings, such as the instruments of lahw, which carry independent rulings.
Thus, to summarize, it appears that labb, by its very nature, possesses an ethical virtue, though its outcomes or motivations may vary. In legal and ethical concepts, rulings differ based on individuals’ motivations or the consequences that arise.
In the context of our discussion, we distinguish between play, sports, and physical education. Physical education is fundamentally a purposeful program to strengthen physical and mental capacities, which is outside the scope of this discussion due to its highly positive function. For some, it may even be obligatory for purposes such as medical treatment. Thus, we exclude physical education.
However, regarding sports, it must be said that sports today are an economic, industrial, and social phenomenon. For example, a football match is an economic and industrial design involving substantial financial transactions. Therefore, if we wish to discuss it, we must consider the entirety of sports as a system. Sports are not a singular act but an industry that generates significant economic revenue and massive financial movement. Hence, its discourse cannot be confined solely to the category of labb. It is a social program with extensive impacts, creating entertainment, employment, and public engagement. Sports must be viewed from this perspective. Thus, sports are an industry. One small aspect of it may involve playful or entertaining elements, but today, when we speak of sports, we do not limit it to this; its economic and social dimensions are also considered.
Another aspect of labb is the realm of entertainment. Entertainment lacks the goal-oriented nature of sports but constitutes a separate domain with positive effects, such as amusement and relaxation. Entertainment, too, is considered an industry today. To examine it more precisely, we must consider the economic and social dimensions attached to games, entertainment, and sports today to analyze them properly. From this perspective, games, entertainment, and sports are economic, cultural, and legal concepts, each of which must be evaluated based on its own foundation and treated as an industry. Indeed, from a policy-making standpoint, the playful and entertaining nature of these activities may influence broader social policy-making.
In conclusion, we have three terms: lahw, labb, and laghw. In the context of labb, the intrinsic aspect of amusement, relaxation, and play is considered. From an ethical perspective, it seems no ruling is inherently attached to labb. From a jurisprudential perspective, labb as play, amusement, and relaxation carries no inherent ruling. What remains are the incidental factors or circumstances attached to labb, which, in jurisprudence, are considered subjects of prohibition. For example, if a game falls under the category of lahw, the ruling of lahw applies to it, and ethically, the ethical ruling of a lahw-related act applies.
How labb should be designed within a social system depends on how social policy-making addresses entertainment and sports as social and economic matters. If policy-making views them as income-generating professions and social activities that can create social amusement, joy, and pride, significant investment in them is necessary. For instance, governments invest in competitive sports because they believe such sports greatly enhance national morale, create national joy, and support national programs.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is it the responsibility of the jurist, the general public, or the individual to determine whether the concept of labb applies?
Hekmatnia: If we accept that labb is treated as a subject of rulings and affects jurisprudential propositions, we must discuss it from two perspectives. First, its core concept requires jurisprudential analysis. However, when a jurist seeks to understand the concept, they must refer to customary experts (‘urf). Thus, the task is jurisprudential, but the tool the jurist uses to comprehend concepts is custom. After clarifying the concept, in the stage of applying it to specific cases, one must consult experts. However, according to the late Nā’īnī and Imam Khomeini, application is a task for precise customary understanding. Yet, since each case may have unique characteristics requiring re-examination of the concept, it seems that this application involves expert analysis with a jurisprudential dimension. In other words, a back-and-forth between the jurist and the expert is necessary for the final application. However, secondary circumstances attached to labb are, in principle, jurisprudential matters and the responsibility of the jurist. The determination of the concept, however, lies with custom, and its application follows the same process as primary concepts, requiring interaction between the jurist and the expert.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any religious evidence indicating the absolute prohibition or lack of merit of labb?
Hekmatnia: Based on my research, it should be noted that most jurists have discussed lahw rather than labb. Many verses and narrations are not primarily concerned with expressing ethical, jurisprudential, or legal rulings; rather, they articulate a perspective on the world, establishing a mental paradigm about how one should view the world. Therefore, if we cannot derive a ruling on labb from these sources, it appears there is no evidence to suggest its prohibition or lack of merit. Furthermore, as I mentioned, one can envision highly positive outcomes and motivations for labb within society.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any form of art that, by its very nature, constitutes labb, or does it always become labb due to accompanying circumstances such as gender mixing, inappropriate or misleading content, etc.?
Hekmatnia: The essence of labb, which is merely a form of entertainment, carries no inherent prohibition. Thus, if there is any evidence of prohibition or lack of merit, it would be due to its accompanying circumstances. However, these circumstances are of two types. Some are incidental, such as when someone engages in a game with the opposite gender. In this case, playing with the opposite gender is not an inherent part of labb or the game itself. In contrast, with lahw, the accompanying circumstances are inherent. For example, at a foreign conference I attended, they had a lahw program, which we did not participate in. In my view, the essence of that program and its design was inherently prohibited because it was designed around those circumstances and derived its meaning from them, not because the circumstances were incidental. If those circumstances were absent, the program would lose its entertaining quality altogether.