Introduction

Hujjat al-Islam Mohammad Sadeq Liravi has been engaged in media research for many years. He served for years as the director of the Fundamental Research Office at the Center for Islamic Media Studies and has been the head of this center for several years now. We discussed the challenges of media jurisprudence with him. He believes that the issues raised as challenges in media jurisprudence can be resolved through precise subject analysis. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with the head of the Center for Islamic Media Studies is presented below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is media jurisprudence, and what topics does it address?

Liravi: Much has been discussed about media jurisprudence, and various definitions have been offered. However, if we want a simple definition, it can be said that media is something that conveys a message to someone or something, taking various forms, from books and publications to modern visual and auditory media that are widely used today. Therefore, media jurisprudence involves deriving Islamic rulings from detailed evidence based on modern media, examining issues related to visual and auditory media to determine their religious rulings.

When analyzing media-related jurisprudential issues, it should be noted that media jurisprudence is not limited to individual matters. Part of it concerns individual issues, while another part relates to social impacts. For example, consider the question: What is the ruling if, in a painting or animation broadcast by the media, female animals are depicted without hijab?

From an individual and superficial perspective, the ruling is that it is permissible since animals are not subject to religious obligations. However, if this depiction becomes an animation presented in society, seen by our children, and influences them to become indifferent to hijab, can we still say its display is unproblematic? Here, considering the social impacts changes the ruling of the issue. Therefore, in media jurisprudence, in addition to individual jurisprudence, attention must also be given to social jurisprudence and its effects.

Additionally, it is necessary to create a refined system of issues for media jurisprudence that is accessible to all those working in this field, enabling them to examine the rulings of media jurisprudence based on this system.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Based on the fatwas of jurists regarding the use of satellites, videos, video calls, and similar matters, can it be concluded that they have a pessimistic view of these issues?

Liravi: Our jurists are realistic; they do not harbor unrealistic pessimism. If any pessimism has arisen, it is because their primary focus is on the uses and applications of these tools. When a tool is predominantly used for prohibited purposes, jurists naturally take a stance against it. Therefore, we cannot conclude from the rulings they issue about these tools that they are pessimistic. If a tool is mostly used in reasonable ways, jurists have no negative view of it. However, when they observe that the primary use of a tool—whether it be satellites or video calls—is for unreasonable purposes, they issue rulings of prohibition to prevent its spread in society. Thus, their perspective is not pessimistic but rather based on the tool’s application in society.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the fatwas of jurists regarding music, looking at non-mahram individuals, sculpture, displaying musical instruments, and similar matters, is it fundamentally possible to have an effective Islamic media? For example, is it feasible to produce a dramatic series without music, romantic dialogues between male and female actors, or non-mahram actors looking at each other?

Liravi: The general answer is that an Islamic media is not only necessary but essential in our society today. We cannot say that because there are certain jurisprudential issues, we should deny or question the entire concept and forgo having an Islamic media.

We live in a world where many issues are defined through media, which influence people’s thoughts and lives and play a role in every aspect of society. Thus, we cannot leave this playing field to others and say that due to these issues, we will not have a media or engage with it. If we do so, it would be our first defeat, and we would have nothing to say in the world. Therefore, we must have an Islamic media and pursue it. We should address the issues and challenges that arise along the way rather than eliminating the concept altogether or abandoning it.

Of course, there are challenges in this path. One of these is the issue of music. Apart from one or two religious authorities, all jurists permit music under certain conditions. Using it in films, if it avoids prohibited forms, is entirely permissible. Music plays an undeniable role in conveying messages in dramatic arts, and jurists generally have no issue with it.

Another issue is looking at non-mahram individuals. No one has categorically declared this to be prohibited. Looking at certain parts of a non-mahram’s body, such as hair or above the wrist, is not allowed, but looking at the face or wrists, if done without lustful intent or pleasure, is permissible according to all jurists. Therefore, if in a film a man and woman act together and, due to the storyline, must look at each other—and it is not feasible for them not to—such looking is not problematic. Whether they have lustful intent or not is a private matter and cannot be definitively determined; it may or may not exist.

Regarding romantic dialogues exchanged between them, sometimes these dialogues are genuine, where a man and a woman are truly expressing them to each other, in which case it is problematic, and there is no doubt about that. However, sometimes they are merely acting, reciting the words without any real intent behind them. In such cases, I am not saying it is definitely permissible, but religious authorities should consider that these dialogues are, in essence, a portrayal, not backed by genuine intent or purpose, and thus may not be problematic from this perspective.

As for sculpture, there is currently almost no issue, and jurists generally issue fatwas permitting it.

In conclusion, it seems that the issues raised as obstacles to having a religious media are not true barriers. Therefore, we can have a religious media, as its necessity is undeniable, and such challenges can be resolved through precise subject analysis and clear articulation of the points of contention.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the most significant challenges facing research in media jurisprudence?

Liravi: In my opinion, as mentioned during the discussion, the most significant challenge in media jurisprudence is the lack of precise subject analysis. As noted earlier, imprecise subject analysis can alter the ruling of an issue, whereas with accurate subject analysis, the fatwa may fundamentally change.