To solve the problem of historical skepticism of jurists, as you rightly pointed out, they themselves must think of a solution. The jurists themselves have been the solution to everyone’s micro and big problems and we cannot show them the way. But from a social point of view, my answer is that, in addition to the necessity of familiarizing jurists with social and critical art, currently available solution, the long-term transformation is a “generational change”. The new generation of jurists are more familiar with the social developments of the new era and will have the possibility of new changes and adjustments. In my idea, the new generation of jurists will understand these necessities.

Notice: Art jurisprudence has various presuppositions, including philosophical and theological presuppositions. According to many, the fatwas of jurists in the category of art are, to a large extent, the result of these theological and philosophical presuppositions, and so it is not possible to understand why the fatwas of jurists are issued without understanding these basics. For the same reason, we talked with Dr. Ibrahim Bazargani, the former vice president of education at the Center for Higher Education of Islamic Art and Thought. He, who received his doctorate in the field of wisdom of religious art from the University of Religions and Denominations, studied these basics with a rhythmic and rhyming language, like the subject of his thesis, which is “fields of poetry and its relationship with truth”. He believes that jurists and artists throughout history have never listened to their critics! Of course, he also has solutions for the reconciliation of jurisprudence and art. The description of the fascinating conversation with this professor and researcher of religious art will pass your eyes:

– In what matters do you know the most important presuppositions and foundations of art jurisprudence? Are these presuppositions specific to art jurisprudence or are they current in other new jurisprudences as well?

Mr. Bazargani: Discussing the “jurisprudence of art” in the form of a press interview is a very general topic and our task is unbearable, and due to the scope of the issues it covers, it can completely deviate from its main goal. At the beginning, I will say that I try to have brief reflections on the relationship between jurisprudence and art from a sociological perspective in order to approach the subject from a small and objective angle. In my idea, this view can somewhat open the knot of our and your closed work. Though it can be said as a joke that these two groups, that is, jurists and artists, have never listened to their critics in their history! However, we say our idea on the mustache of that “sleepy dumb” and hope for the listeners!

I am dumb, dreaming, and the world, all, deaf/ I am unable to speak and create from hearing it

You see, when we talk about art and jurisprudence, we mean two things. One is a minimal and limited meaning and the other is a maximal and extensive meaning; That is, we have a maximum jurisprudence and a minimum jurisprudence. In the world of art, we have great and maximal art and minimal and small art. Now I will explain how these concepts and those who look at the world with these perspectives face each other in the real world and form various confrontations. First, I will explain the different meanings of jurisprudence and art.

Jurisprudence, in a sense, has been criticized a lot in our history and culture; From the point of view that jurists have always held a ladle and stir the cauldron of the unknown, many of our philosophers and mystics have given the general framework of their thought in opposition to jurisprudence and stratification of identity; That is, jurisprudence has had a superficial meaning that many still refer to this meaning. You have to jump from the ladder of Shari’at to the sky of truth.

Even today, many intellectuals and religious people consider the exclusion of religion in jurisprudence and the predominance of jurisprudence in religion as harmful. It is this layer that hides the essence of religion. In this sense, jurisprudence is a ladder and the meaning of religion should not be sought in it. This allegory is the minimal meaning that tries to limit the expansionist force of jurisprudence that is interested in conquering all areas of life.

On the other hand, jurisprudence has a very general and extensive meaning; It means that no matter how you look at it, you see the jurisprudence project as very big. It is as if such a task, which is an inseparable part of religion in the era after the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his progeny, and the absence of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, must have been implemented. It is necessary for you to determine the way of living as a believer within the framework of the Qur’an and hadiths and the requirements of time and place; Otherwise, believing life will not be possible for the public.

No scientist has seen such a large unknown fish in his net. Jurisprudence wants to determine the duty of a person from Adam to the end, from the beginning to the end; What he does and does not do, what he eats and does not eat, what he says and does not say, even with which foot he enters the bathroom and performs ablution until he sleeps when he wants and goes on a trip and with others, family and friends and fellow believers and friends and he hangs out with his enemies until he dies and hides his head in the dust mask. This cosmic project seems to be much bigger than human understanding and from this point of view, even a minimal success in satisfying the needs of believers in it is considered a great success.

So, two limited and expanded meanings of jurisprudence are facing each other in our time. A view that limits jurisprudence and considers jurisprudence as a blue sky against the sea of knowledge and possible meanings. According to Maulana, this is like the water of the sea against the water of the sea. “That water is our knowledge”; And the other one that expands the skirt of jurisprudence and takes everything in its hollow. I am borrowing from Rumi again. He says that we take these things – one of which is jurisprudence – to the Tigris:

We will take full loads to the Tigris/ otherwise we will consider ourselves donkeys

and thus:

Jurisprudence, jurisprudence and syntax, syntax and jurisprudence

On the other hand, art is the same. Sometimes you consider art to be that moment of comfort and ease and leisure and neglect of the work of the world, which for a person is a companion of peace and a sense of pleasure. This is the limited meaning of art, which is neither for the work of this world, it means playing a role in the relationships of livelihood, capital, and market nor for the work of the hereafter.

On the other hand, as some critical thinkers of our time have said, the only hope of contemporary man is in art. It is art that can guide the modern commoditized and alienated man towards the hidden reality is another truth. This new mission of critical art is in stark contrast to the marginal role and entertaining meaning of art. By the way, we are dealing here with an art that is not amused by entertaining people; Rather, the issue is awareness and criticism and the collapse of the current capitalist order. “The symbolic language of art” can be an opening for liberation in a time when concepts have been invaded by market relations, power, profit and oppression; Therefore, from this point of view, art has a very prominent role, which is considered the savior – if not the only savior.

For the time being, if we put these two meanings of jurisprudence and art and its claimants in front of each other, four confrontations are formed.

The first confrontation is between those who have a positive and expansive view of jurisprudence, against those who consider art in its negative and limited sense. A very concrete instance is the confrontation of traditional jurists with traditional and cabaret music.

This jurisprudential approach to public art, which is largely reductionist and superficial, is the dominant narrative in our society. In order to overcome its scientific and methodological difficulties, jurisprudence, as a knowledge based on narration and reason, has to do this simplification. By doing so, the highest level of friction between jurists and artists has been of this type. On one side of the argument, we see a jurist who is not interested in listening to music, which, according to him, is played here, and on the other side, a musician who rejects and negates the jurist. Both are right and say the worst. From the heart of this irreconcilable hostility, a critical thinking has been born, for instance, you can notice excellent examples of it in Hafez’s poems:

Do you know what the harp and the lute are singing?

They take away the honor of love and the prosperity of lovers/ the fault of the young and the blame of the old

You can see the peak of Hafez’s criticism and confrontation at the end of this sonnet:

It is true that shaykh, Hafiz, mufti and muhtasib/ if you look carefully, they are all deceiving

The second confrontation is between maximalist jurisprudence, who has a positive and expansive view of the capacities and abilities of jurisprudence and maximalist art who sees art as synonymous with the way to liberate mankind from the current situation. It seems that this concept of art is unknown or less known to the jurists. Perhaps from the point of view that the jurisprudence of Mutakafel is the reply to the Shari’ah questions of the common people and has nothing to do with the circumstances of the properties, this confrontation is not very important; Of course, provided that art is not considered an alternative way. Sometimes, hearing a new spiritual sound from today’s music is considered a kind of competition for the jurists and their market goods, which, in my idea, cannot be tolerated. Here too, despite the fact that it is not universal and there is a hidden conflict, a fundamental conflict can be seen that makes the close relationship between fiqh and art difficult and impossible. From this angle, jurisprudence, which has an old and difficult language, is trying to compare with a new competitor, namely art, which is the achievement of the new era. From a jurisprudential point of view, there is an understandable mistrust and pessimism towards the results of this new spirituality. Throughout history, jurists have had this skepticism towards mystics, as serious competitors for their dominant attitude.

The third confrontation is between those who have a negative and limited understanding of the capabilities of jurisprudence, against those who follow minimal art in its instrumental, even anti-religious or immoral sense. Here we are facing a kind of hatred and avoidance between these two categories. Minimal jurisprudence has the least friction against minimal art; Because both of them are weakened and have no claim in creating power and dignity and are not related to sources of wealth. At the opposite point of this point of view, maximalist jurisprudence has a high potential for friction and conflict against maximalist art.

The fourth confrontation is between those who have a limited understanding of the capabilities and missions of jurisprudence in our world, with those who consider art as the code name of human salvation and finding that lost meaning and forgotten salvation. Here, the primary view mentioned in this division is reversed and changed in favor of art.

Is the concept of happiness, truth, ethics, humanity, and trying to have a more beautiful world, achieved with “art” and “artistic vision”? If such a new tool comes, must it be seen as a new competitor for jurisprudence and the jurisprudential view of religion? Are the jurists worried about this new competitor who claims the salvation of man and the attainment of pure consciousness? Does this look, in fact, mean an alternative to the orthodox religion in the new world, or do these two (jurisprudence and art) have the ability to coexist?

&&&&&&&

In my opinion, it is possible for jurisprudence and art to co-exist and these different languages in which human excellence, beauty and spirituality are spoken about should be recognized. Jurisprudence and Shariah is a ladder that provides the necessary earthly preparations to go to the sky of meaning. In heaven, ladders are no longer used. There are different languages for human behavior and artistic behavior is one of them. Molloy says:

All recite the rosary, if it is the moon, if it is a fish/ but the intellect is the master, he will explain more clearly

A critic may claim that how do you believe in the possibility of coexistence between jurisprudence and art; When one (jurist) issues a fatwa out of respect for something that another (artist) does with love? The conflict between these two is a historical and permanent issue and this gap cannot be filled!

The answer is that the jurists always look at the common side, while the pure artistic view arises from the consciousness of the properties. The jurists may be afraid of being rejected by their followers with such innovations.

If, as we said in the fourth clause, our view of jurisprudence is a minimal view, respecting time and place considerations, it can be reconciled with art. Art here means a new tool to know and understand the truth. Pleasant music, beautiful voice, beautiful handwriting and lasting impression, and any other manifestation of modern art, is a new language to convey an old meaning. In other words: the cup is new and the cup is old. Looking at jurisprudence in a minimal way does not mean to belittle and despise it. In our history, we are faced with the predominance of jurisprudence and its unnatural prominence. Now, discounting it is, in a way, putting it in its place. This view opens the horizon of meaning and the ways of spiritual conduct of man.

Of course, this list of types of encounter and division of jurists and their followers and artists and their enthusiasts is not rigid and dry. Because we have many musicians who play instruments with ablution and jurists who are interested in music; But this does not hide the existing conflicts. In the types of confrontations that we imagined between the two, we rarely see a close relationship based on trust. The only place where our expectations of jurisprudence become weaker and art is freed from the prison of power, wealth and dignity, as if friendship is established. Of course, this relationship is of the “distance and friendship” type. This is the position that most artists have chosen. It is not in vain that many artists are fascinated by mysticism and their spiritual heritage. The framework of mystical thinking provides the possibility of this peaceful coexistence. In fact, mystical life is a response to the fattening of jurisprudence in the religious life of Iranian people, which has narrowed this field to the creation of new meanings. Just as jurisprudence is tied to the work of art; Mysticism, however, unravels the knot. Look at what Rumi says about instruments and music with praise and amazement and caress:

dry wire, dry wood, dry skin / Where does this friendly voice come from?

or elsewhere:

So the sages have said that we got these tones from the spinning wheel

It is the call of the rotation of the wheel that they sing to the tambur and the throat

If I want to answer you a little theoretically, within the framework of functionalist sociology, I must say that in the construction of Iranian religious culture, a balance has been established between its three great sources, i.e. “jurisprudence”, “mysticism” and “philosophy”. In this construction, it has been tried to put each of these sources in their place. Each of the forces have had great enemies and admirers; That is, as the unpleasant progress of jurisprudence is controlled by mysticism; On the other hand, the omnipresence of mysticism is also restrained by philosophy; Similarly, philosophers’ thinking through mysticism. Together, these three forces have presented a demonstration of how to achieve social balance in the structure of Iranian society. Of course, this balance is not permanent and sometimes it breaks down; But the cultural structure of Iranian society is able to restore balance.

For example, jurisprudence’s unkind confrontation with art has been balanced by the public’s approach to it and relying on the support of mysticism; In other words, this behavior was, in a way, a reaction to preserve the structure. I don’t think that in any period of Iran’s history, music has become so widespread as it is now. In every family, you have someone who plays or listens to music, either as a hobby or professionally. If the order to respect and not show the instrument on TV and the likes of these dos and don’ts could have an effect, the reality should be in a different form; But the first type of confrontation – which was mentioned at the beginning of this conversation – has only served to isolate jurisprudence.

The same in sculpture; When an artist hears or reads that jurisprudence is in conflict with his art, which for him is the manifestation of a pure and aesthetic human consciousness, he is completely disaffected from jurisprudence and religion; Otherwise, why should a sculptor have a problem with religion?! Understanding that the function of statues and statues in public places of the city has a completely cultural nature is not a difficult task that requires a lot of research. The fact that these statues do not have the function of the idols of the Jahili period is not a matter of dispute! But why some jurists do not reconsider in this regard is questionable! Maybe they are worried about the religious followers who may have lost their trust in him with these statements and they don’t think he is a religious religious jurist who will guarantee their following in this world and the hereafter.

– What do you consider the presuppositions and theological foundations of art jurisprudence? Are these presuppositions and foundations specific to the jurisprudence of art or are they current in other emerging jurisprudences as well?

But now the age of expanding communication claims that it can provide the possibility of this cohabitation and conversation.

Of course, this point is not only limited to art, and it seems that such a view exists in the English language as well. This approach has nothing to do with westernization and westernization; Rather, the whole of human culture, in order to maintain and improve itself, needs to have a common language for direct dialogue; Therefore, it is not possible to stand in front of these great historical trends and there is no need at all. This supposed hostility comes from ignorance.

To solve the problem of historical skepticism of jurists, as you rightly pointed out, they should think of a solution themselves. The jurists themselves have been the solution to everyone’s micro and big problems and we cannot show them the way. But from a social point of view, my answer is that, in addition to the necessity of familiarizing jurists with social and critical art (currently available solution), the long-term transformation is a “generational change”. The new generation of jurists are more familiar with the social developments of the new era and will have the possibility of new changes and adjustments. In my opinion, the new generation of jurists will understand these necessities.

This interview is a part of the electronic magazine “Fundamentals of Art Fiqh” which was produced in collaboration with the School of Fiqh Honar and the Ijtihad Network website.