Certain jurisprudential concepts, despite being frequently used, may lead one to assume that extensive scholarly effort has been devoted to them. However, in reality, they fall into the category of deceptively simple matters, and upon referring to jurisprudential texts, one realizes that there is little substantial discussion about them. It appears that the jurisprudential ruling on laghw falls into this category. Jurists have never independently discussed laghw and have always addressed it within the context of topics such as music, gambling, and backbiting. Consequently, there is no clear consensus among scholars of principles or even the majority of them regarding its meaning and ruling. On this occasion, we sat down with Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Sayyid Nur al-Din Shari‘atmadar Jazayeri, a professor of advanced jurisprudence and principles at the Qom Seminary. He believes that despite the numerous pieces of evidence cited for the prohibition of laghw, there is no conclusive evidence for its prohibition. He also does not consider the application of laghw to all forms of art permissible. The full text of the exclusive interview by the Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudential Studies with this professor and author of the Qom Seminary is presented below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is laghw, and can it be applied to various forms of art?

Shari‘atmadar Jazayeri: By referring to lexical and exegetical texts in the context of verses where the term laghw appears, it becomes clear that laghw refers to a futile speech or act that has no benefit for a person, neither worldly nor otherworldly.

In Persian dictionaries, Dehkhoda’s dictionary defines laghw as something useless, futile, vain, false, or invalid. Similarly, this meaning is found in Amid’s dictionary and Arabic lexical texts.

Among exegetical works, the late Allama [Tabataba’i] in Al-Mizan states: “Laghw is an act that lacks benefit, and this varies depending on the context. Sometimes an act is futile and laghw in relation to one matter, but beneficial in relation to another. Laghw is external. Laghw pertains to permissible acts that lack worldly or otherworldly benefit.”

This interpretation aligns with the lexical meaning of laghw. However, there are a few objections to his view:

First Objection: Laghw is not limited to actions but can also apply to speech. Some dictionaries even note that the original meaning of laghw refers to the sound or voice of a bird that has no benefit. Therefore, it is incorrect to limit laghw solely to actions, as he has done.

Second Objection: His view that laghw is a relative and contextual matter, where an act may be futile in relation to one matter but beneficial in relation to another, is incorrect. Laghw is not a relative matter. Rather, any speech or act that has benefit is not laghw, and any speech or act that lacks benefit is laghw. It is possible that a speech or act may be more beneficial in one context and less beneficial in another, but this does not mean that laghw is relative.

From a ruling perspective, laghw is disapproved (marjūḥ). The disapproval of laghw stems from its being futile, distancing a person from the remembrance of God and the Day of Judgment, and leading to inclination toward falsehood and association with those who engage in falsehood.

Based on this definition of laghw, its application to art becomes clear. If an art has an effect or benefit, it is not laghw. If it lacks worldly or otherworldly benefit, it is laghw. Since art, like other human actions, can be characterized as either futile or non-futile, an otherworldly benefit might include films that bring a person closer to God, such as documentaries that showcase the creation and grandeur of God in His creatures or films containing admonition and advice. A worldly benefit might include films that bring joy to a person and prevent depression. In contrast, films that lead to the disintegration of the family, undermine the sanctity of parents or siblings, or promote corrupt morals in society are forbidden (harām) or disapproved (makrūh).

Some films fall in between, neither bringing a person closer to God nor promoting corruption or misguidance. Such arts are called laghw arts because they lack both worldly and otherworldly benefits. Therefore, one cannot categorically state that art is laghw or not.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is there any religious evidence that absolutely indicates the prohibition or disapproval of laghw?

Shari‘atmadar Jazayeri: There is no religious evidence for the absolute prohibition of laghw, but there is evidence for its disapproval or dispreferred status (karāha). Absolute laghw not only lacks evidence for prohibition, but it is also unreasonable to deem it forbidden, as most speech and actions that emanate from a person are laghw, meaning they lack significant worldly rational benefit or otherworldly benefit. However, certain types of laghw have specific evidence for prohibition, such as matters whose prohibition is definitively established by religious law, like gambling and backbiting, which are both laghw—lacking worldly or otherworldly benefit—and have specific evidence for their prohibition.

If there is no specific evidence for the prohibition of laghw, it is divided into two categories: disapproved (makrūh) or permissible (mubāḥ). Disapproved laghw is that which distances a person from God and the Day of Judgment. For such laghw, there is no specific evidence for prohibition, and it is merely disapproved. Permissible laghw is an act that a person performs, lacks specific evidence for prohibition, and does not distance or make a person heedless of God, such as eating food or non-essential daily activities.

Thus, laghw is either forbidden, disapproved, or permissible, but there is no evidence that categorically states laghw is forbidden.

Some argue for the prohibition of laghw based on verses such as Surah Al-Mu’minun, verse 2: “And those who turn away from laghw” (Al-Mu’minun, 23:3). However, this verse does not indicate prohibition but rather expresses a recommendatory or disapproved ruling. This is because, in this verse, God seeks to describe the characteristics of perfect believers, one of which is avoiding laghw, not that it is establishing the prohibition of laghw. This is supported by the subsequent verse: “Those who are humbly submissive in their prayers” (Al-Mu’minun, 23:2), while humility in prayer is certainly not obligatory but recommended (mustahabb). If someone lacks humility in prayer, have they committed a forbidden act? No, they have merely performed a disapproved act and neglected a recommended one. Therefore, this noble verse is about expressing complete faith, not obligatory matters such that neglecting them would be forbidden. This means that complete faith in a believer even distances them from futile and ineffective acts, as such a believer is focused on God and His grandeur and knows that God did not create this world and humanity in vain but for purposes and objectives. Hence, a believer’s actions and words must always have purpose, aim, and benefit, and this complete faith and attention to God keep the believer away from laghw.

Additionally, some have argued for the prohibition of laghw based on the verse: “And when they pass by laghw, they pass by with dignity” (Al-Furqan, 25:72), meaning believers pass by laghw with nobility. However, here too, the intent is the disapproval of laghw, not its prohibition. If laghw were forbidden, passing by it with dignity would be meaningless. It is nonsensical for a person to pass by a forbidden act with dignity. Thus, the verse implies that a person should not make hasty judgments or unwarranted conclusions about another individual. If laghw were forbidden, a person would be required to stand against it and prohibit it.

Some narrations have also been cited to argue for the prohibition of laghw, which is incorrect. In some narrations, laghw is applied to forbidden matters such as prohibited music, gambling, or backbiting. However, this is merely an application of the concept to specific instances. In other narrations from the Commander of the Faithful (Imam Ali), laghw is defined as a futile act, indicating that its interpretation as prohibited music, gambling, or backbiting is solely an application of the concept to specific instances.

In conclusion, there is no evidence for the prohibition of laghw, and reason also deems it disapproved, as laghw distances a person from God, the Day of Judgment, and the purpose and objective of the creation of the universe and humanity.

Having clarified the ruling on laghw, we turn to art. It appears that art does not inherently possess a characteristic that makes all its forms instances of laghw. Rather, art is subject to the fivefold rulings (obligatory, forbidden, disapproved, recommended, or permissible). Thus, it may sometimes be obligatory, sometimes forbidden, sometimes disapproved, sometimes recommended, and sometimes permissible.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is determining whether or not something constitutes laghw the responsibility of the jurist, general custom, or the obligated individual?

Shari‘atmadar Jazayeri: In general, identifying the subject matter for the application of a religious ruling is the responsibility of the obligated individual (mukallaf) for two reasons. First, the person who deals with the subject matter and seeks to implement religious rulings is the obligated individual. Second, the audience of religious injunctions in Quranic verses and narrations of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them) are the obligated individuals, and it is their duty to identify the subject matter of a religious ruling and apply the ruling to it. Therefore, the responsibility of identifying the subject matter lies with the obligated individual. However, sometimes the obligated individual is unable to identify the subject matter, in which case they must seek assistance from an expert. This expert may sometimes be a lexicographer and sometimes a jurist. Identifying subject matters that did not exist before the religious law and were introduced by it is the responsibility of the jurist (mujtahid), such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage. In jurisprudential terminology, these are called deduced subject matters (mawḍū‘āt mustanbaṭa), meaning subject matters whose identification requires deduction from religious evidence. For example, ṣalāh (prayer) in its lexical sense means supplication, but in religious law, it refers to specific acts. Ṣawm (fasting) lexically means restraint, but in religious law, it refers to a specific act of worship. Ḥajj (pilgrimage) lexically means intention, but in religious law, it refers to specific rituals. However, identifying non-deduced subject matters is the responsibility of the follower (muqallid).

The question is whether laghw falls under deduced or non-deduced subject matters. In my opinion, laghw belongs to the latter, as it has not acquired a different meaning in jurisprudential terminology. Therefore, its identification is the responsibility of the obligated individual.