Sayyid Nur al-Din Shariatmadar Jazayeri:

1/Principle of drama jurisprudence

The meaning of the forbidden simile is the similair of each of these two to the other in sexual matters, which may be that a man puts himself like a woman and is drawn to the ugly act of sexual immorality, or a woman puts herself like a man and with another woman  need sex and torture.  This kind of analogy is definitely forbidden and many evidences confirm its sanctity.  This is the homosexuality that has spread among the western nations.

Hint: Honoring resemblance to the opposite sex has been mentioned many times in our hadiths. On the other hand, actors have often played the role of the opposite sex in the performing arts. This has spread to the point that in these cases, film festivals are puzzled whether to give him the award for the best actor or the best actress?! We raised this issue with Professor Sayyid Nur al-Din Shariatmadar Jazayeri.  The teacher of the external course of Qum seminary clearly enumerated the different types of resemblance to the opposite sex and explained the verdict of each one. The details of the conversation with this teacher of the external course of Qum seminary will pass through your eyes:

Is it forbidden for women to look like men?  What is the reason for that?

Shariatmadar: The answer to this question requires three introductions and one conclusion.

First introduction: In narrations with different interpretations, the likeness of a woman to a man and the likeness of a man to a woman have been condemned.  In some narrations, it is prohibited, and in some hadiths, the narrator is cursed, and in some others, the Prophet or Amir al-Mu’minin, peace be upon him, ordered the expulsion of a man who appeared in his presence as a woman, and the Prophet was ashamed of this act.

Shi’ah and Sunni jurists have included these hadiths in their hadith and jurisprudence books, and have examined and researched them and deduced the rulings of Shari’ah from them. In this context, the Shi’ah jurists have taken three decisions:

The first word is the absolute respect of similitude; The second sentence, disgust;  The third statement is a description of cases and examples that some are considered permissible and others are forbidden. Of course, in some cases, they all happened on respect and in others, they all happened on the permission that I am explaining.

The hadiths that have been examined in this matter are not free of problems and defects in the document or the evidence, and this has caused a difference of opinion in this matter. Each of the jurists who accepted these problems has been considered permissible, and anyone who has been able to answer these problems has accepted the sanctity. Of course, the reason for this ruling is not exclusive to narrations;  Rather, other evidences have been presented and examined.  I need to mention that arguments based on these arguments, like narrations, have problems.  The one who rejects the problems of reasoning with these arguments is respected, and those who do not accept the problems are considered permissible.  The proofs are the Qur’an, reason, consensus and disruption of the system.

The second introduction: The likeness of a man to a woman and vice versa has a broad meaning that the purpose of the mentioned arguments cannot include this breadth of meaning. Because some examples of analogy are definitely permissible, such as analogy in doing things that are usually assigned to one of the two classes, such as managing household affairs, i.e. cleaning the house, washing clothes, washing dishes, cooking for the family.  These types of work are usually done by housewives, as well as work related to earning income for the purpose of living; Such as agriculture, animal husbandry, industrial affairs, etc., which are usually done by men.  Now, if a woman helps her husband in these matters, or on the contrary, a man helps his wife in doing the household chores and does the things that custom recognizes as feminine, not only has she not committed haram, but she also has rewards.

Thus, comparing a woman to a man and a man to a woman is not forbidden in such matters, and the general meaning of simile, which has been condemned, does not include such cases;  Thus, the meaning of the Haram analogy is the analogy of each of these two to the other in sexual matters, which may be that the man puts himself like a woman and is drawn to the ugly act of sexual immorality, or the woman puts herself like a man and has sex with another woman, satisfy the need for sex and intercourse. This kind of analogy is definitely forbidden and many evidences confirm its sanctity. This is the homosexuality that has spread among the western nations.

As a result, there is no doubt about the two types of similes, one of which is permissible and the other is sanctity, which is beyond the scope of our discussion.  The third form remains, which will be the subject of discussion. That form is simulating the behavior of a man in his behavior and actions, such as wearing women’s clothes, making up his face like women, using women’s cosmetic tools, and displaying feminine mannerisms for men and vice versa.

The third introduction: The simile in question, that is, the third form, is of two types in terms of its rational purpose: one is temporary and limited to a specific time, like the simile of a man to a woman in the ta’zieh readings, where a man wears a woman’s clothes and is brought to the ta’zieh square as a woman. The purpose of this work is that the real woman is not exposed to the sight of the unmarried, so that the consequences do not arise. The second type, simile without time limit, like a man to a woman and vice versa always put himself in the position of the opposite sex and place his life according to this pattern of behavior.

Regarding the first type, which is limited to a certain time and is done based on expediency and rational and religious purpose, we have no reason to respect it.  Because the narrations that condemned the analogy do not include this meaning.  We can even provide a reason for its permissibility, for instance, we have a tradition that after the end of the war, when the Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) wanted to send Ayesha from Basra to Medina, he ordered women in disguised clothes, with a completely masculine appearance, to send Ayesha to Medina. On the way, Ayesha started to blame the Holy Prophet and said that Ali bin Abi Talib had sent the Prophet’s honor with strange and illegitimate men.  When they reached Medina, those women showed their true selves and it became clear that the men who accompanied Ayesha were actually women and not men.

After the lack of reason for sanctity, the turn comes to the principle, which is the principle, justification and permission.

Thus, it can be concluded that two of the four types of similitude, i.e. similitude in sexual matters and similitude in habitual behavior, are forbidden and the other two types, i.e. similitude in doing housework and helping a woman, are not forbidden for men. Also, a temporary and limited analogy that has a rational purpose is permissible.

It seems that the rule of sanctity or abhorrence of analogy has wisdom and expediency, such as “combating the disappearance of differences and the status of men and women in society”, which is specific to the real world and does not enter the field of drama and media.  What do you think about this?

Shariatmadar: The principle of the claim, it is true that sanctity does not reach the field of drama and media, because we stated that in cases where the resemblance is specific to specific cases, specific time and for a specific rational purpose, sanctity does not include it. And we said that the reason why the simile is permissible is the absence of proof of sanctity, and the existence of the principle of ibahah, not what is stated in the question, which is due to expediency and wisdom. At least our opinion cannot mean such a thing, but we said that the permissibility and disrespect is due to the lack of reason.

Can it be said that the ruling on the sanctity of the similitude is ignorance according to the requirements of the misogynist Arab society and is not enforceable at the present time?

Shariatmadar: As stated, the sanctity of the similitude in sexual affairs is to prevent the termination of the human race, and not because of the misogynistic requirements of the ignorant Arabs. In other words, the resemblance to a woman, especially in sexual matters, is in conflict with the divine wisdom in creation; What if in the device of creation, men and women were created to produce generations;  Thus, if women pay attention to women and men pay attention to men, the human race will be interrupted.  Of course, besides this, there are other restrictions and reasons as well as the sanctity of this practice. Nevertheless, the wisdom or the reason for respecting the similarity of behavior between men and women is the disruption of the system;  For this type of similarity where a woman always considers herself a man or a man always puts himself in the place of a woman, prevents the creativity and emergence of feminine talents in women and masculine talents in men. If each man and woman maintains their position, they will be perfect in performing their specific tasks and the society will progress and evolve. But if a woman pretends to be a man and a man thinks that he is a woman, nothing will progress and both will be helpless in performing their duties, as a result, the order of the society will be disturbed.

Is the honor of simulating the opposite sex, if the viewer is really mistaken in recognizing the gender of the actor, or even if he knows that the woman is wearing a man’s clothes and vice versa, does he still seek the honor?

Shariatmadar: From what was mentioned in the introductions and conclusions, it is clear that there is no difference between the haram of resemblance to the opposite sex, in both ways that are raised in the question. That is, the sentence in both of the above cases is sacredness, because the cause of sacredness exists in both, whether the viewer knows that his original gender is something else or not.

This interview is a part of the electronic magazine “Mabadi Fiqh Namayesh” which was produced in collaboration with the art jurisprudence school and the Ijtihad network website.