Contemporary Jurisprudence

Alireza Qurbani

2/Principle of drama jurisprudence

The title "resemblance to the opposite sex" means similarity to the opposite sex in clothing, behavior, etc., is one of the topics that is discussed in the media and shows. In the past, there was a narrower scope for "resembling the opposite sex", so it wasn't as complicated. In our time, one of the fields of truth of this title is in art, film and drama. The question is, is it permissible to resemble the opposite sex? Some jurists consider "similarity to the opposite sex" permissible, but another group respects it and to prove it, they have relied on some narrations, consensus, and associated titles such as "clothing of fame" and "self-humiliation". The following note addresses this issue and proves that "resembling the opposite sex" in itself is not a problem. It is forbidden only if it is used as an example of mahram titles such as "humiliation of the self" and "promotion of falsehood". The author of this note is Hujjat al-Islam Alireza Qurbani, a student of Meshkat educational complex and a professor of advanced levels at Qum seminary.

Problem statement

The expansion of the media and performing arts in the current era has caused some jurisprudential titles, which had fewer instances before, to find a wider scope of realization, and the discussion of it becomes doubly necessary. One of these titles is “Similar to the opposite sex”; It means matching oneself to the opposite sex in clothing, behavior, etc. “Similar to the opposite sex” has many types, among which, the prohibition of “similarity in sexual behavior” (homosexuality) is accepted, but the jurists have different opinions about its other types. The present note tries to answer the question whether it is forbidden to resemble the opposite sex in movies and shows.

To answer this question, first, the concept of “resemblance to the opposite sex” is discussed in order to clarify the issue of possible sanctity. Then, “similarity to the opposite sex” is examined from a jurisprudential point of view. The researches show that al-Allamah al-Hilli in the 8th century AH was the first person who specified that “similarity with the opposite sex” is forbidden. Then Al-Shahid al-Thani addressed this issue in the 10th hijrah century, and after that, this issue became common in jurisprudence books. Later, jurists have discussed this jurisprudential title in the fourth type of “al-Makasib al-Muharramah” – that is, acquisition of actions that are forbidden in themselves. In some contemporary articles, this issue has been discussed, the main part of which is the restatement of the topics discussed in the jurisprudence books of the predecessors.

The concept and types of resemblance to the opposite sex

Whatever is the instance of “identifying oneself with the opposite sex” is the instance of “similarity to the opposite sex”. Based on the induction of external cases, several types of “resemblance to the opposite sex” can be imagined. Some of these types are also mentioned in the words of jurists:

1.Similarity in clothing: It means that a man uses clothing specific to women, whether this specificity is in terms of the type of clothing or in terms of its shape and body.

2.Similarity in adornment and appearance: Al-Shaykh al-Ansari has mentioned the prohibition of adornment of the opposite sex, and has given instances such as the use of women’s bracelets and anklets by men.

3.Similarity in behavior, speech and social roles: This type of similarity has different forms:

a. Similarity in behavior: If a person performs individual or social behaviors that are specific to the opposite sex, he or she is usually a similar instance to the opposite sex.

b. Resemblance in speech: Like analogies in terms of accent and dialect, choosing female names and titles for yourself, choosing words and style that are conventionally feminine.

J. Similarity in social roles: One of the common instances of “similarity to the opposite sex” is the acceptance of social roles specific to the opposite sex by the other persons.

4.Resemblence in sexual behavior: Similarity in sexual behavior and performing the sexual role specific to the other party; It means homosexuality. This type of semilarity is out of the question; because there is no doubt about its sanctity.

The jurisprudential ruling of likening to the opposite sex and testing its evidence in the case of movies and shows

The 4th section is out of the discussion due to numerous traditions and the consensus of jurists on its prohibition. But in order to prove the prohibition of similarity in clothing, similarity in adornment and appearance, similarity in behavior, speech and social roles, the following reasons have been relied on:

1.The prohibition of self-humiliation: The form of the argument is as follows: Almighty Allah has entrusted all the affairs of the believers to himself, but he has not entrusted humiliation to them. Not entrusting a matter to a believer is a manifestation of impermissibility, so “humiliation of self” is forbidden.

Although in many cases, “resemblence to the opposite sex” in its various forms causes “self-humiliation”, there is usually no permanent connection between “similarity to the opposite sex” and “self-humiliation”. The analysis of customs shows that various factors are effective in this phenomenon, including the presence or absence of a rational purpose and a person’s social status. As a result, it can be said: Although “self-humiliation” is forbidden, but according to the effective factors in “self-humiliation”, there is no correlation between the mentioned types of resemblance to the opposite sex and self-humiliation. So it cannot be said that in general, the display of resemblance is prohibited from the point of view of humiliation.

2. Honor of celebrity clothing: Among the titles referring to the similarity of the opposite sex in the shows and films, is celebrity dress, which means clothes that are indecent, revealing clothes, and clothes that cause humiliation. According to the arguments of some, based on traditions, the clothes of fame (meaning the popular dress) is an abomination of the Shari’ah, which has the appearance of prohibition, so it is forbidden to wear them.

In regards to criticizing this reason, it can be said: even if it becomes ambiguous due to the problems of documents and brokers in the related narrations, the first meaning (clothing against the costum) is basically not mentioned in the narrations and such a title does not exist in the narrations. The second meaning of fame clothes; that is, even though the finger-shaped dress is also prohibited, in terms of investigation, this type of fame must be enough, so, violation of other types of fame, even with the abolition of customary character, requires more reason. Although in many cases “resemblance to the opposite sex” in clothing and appearance causes finger-pointing, this is not permanent. The result is that the mentioned reason can be undermined and cannot be relied on.

3.The prohibition of false promotion: The reason is assumed that some cases of “resemblance of the opposite sex” and especially its public display, cause the promotion of certain taboos or facilitate them, and since “false promotion” is haram, “resemblance of the opposite sex” is also haram. Jurists such as the writer of the book al-Jawaher, Imam Khumayni, the late Khu’i, and the late al-Sabzewari are supporters of this argument. However, in jurisprudential sources, there is no detailed discussion about the meaning of this title and the proofs of sanctity. In addition, the meaning of “false promotion” has not been well explained in the books of the aforementioned jurists, and it is not clear whether the meaning of “false” is only haram things or general to haram and makruh (abominated). It is certain that the meaning of this concept only includes “forbidden things’, but does simile to the opposite sex in shows and movies fall under this title or not? There is a difference.

Those who believe in the prohibition of likeness in the show have put forward the following arguments:

Breaking the ugliness of behavioral prohibitions through resembleness: ln the sense that things such as the unveiling of a Muslim woman and the mixing of non-mahram men and women in movies and shows, especially when these behaviors are objectionable in the society (at least in Shari’ah), often cause the reduction of the ugliness of these mahrams in society. And promotion is invalid. It should be noted that the title of false promotion, in addition to the act of the suspected actor, also applies to the act of other effective and involved factors in the production and distribution of the theatrical work (including media staff and trustees).

Disturbance in the realization of the desirable identity system of religion and the systems that follow it: ln this way, the spread of similarity to the opposite sex causes the identity border between men and women to gradually fade and religious, moral, cultural, and cultural systems based on the distinction of rights and duties between men and women, it will be disturbed and eventually the obligatory purposes of the Shari’ah embodied in the form of these systems will die; So, if similes to the opposite sex in films and shows become widespread in terms of quality and quantity, which leads to the weakening of the identity boundary, it will be forbidden; for it is an instance of neglecting the obligatory purposes of Shari’ah and promotion of invalidity.

Conclusion

Based on what has been said, “resemblance to the opposite sex” includes four types: “Resemblance in clothing”, “resemblance in adornment and appearance”, “resemblance in behavior, speech and social plan” and “resemblance in sexual behavior”. The jurisprudence of the fourth oath is prohibition; but in other types of major prohibition is not constant; this is because the evidence does not have the power to prove absolute similarity.

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