Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sayyid Hamid Mirkhandan, emphasizing that media developments have transformed the process of production, delivery, and consumption of music, stated: “In the era of new media, one can no longer judge the prohibition or lawfulness of music solely based on melody; rather, conditions of delivery, the publishing media, accompanying imagery, and the consumption space also play a role in the jurisprudential subject-identification (mawdu’-shenasi) of music.”
According to the news portal of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence, the brainstorm session “The Impact of New Media on the Jurisprudential Ruling of Music” was held by the Department of Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media of this research institute with the presence of a group of seminary and university professors and researchers on March 13, 2025.
In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Sayyid Hamid Mirkhandan examined the relationship between media developments and the foundations of music jurisprudence.
The member of the Scientific Council of the Department of Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence, at the beginning of his speech, differentiating vocal music and instrumental music, considered ghina’ one of the forms of vocal music, specifying: “The prohibition of music in jurisprudence is not applied to the title of music itself; rather, it has been applied to three titles: ‘lahw’ (diversion), ‘zur’ (falsehood), and ‘laghw’ (frivolity), and in truth, the ruling of prohibition attaches to these titles.”
Dr. Mirkhandan, pointing out that a precise understanding of these concepts plays a decisive role in identifying unlawful (haram) and permissible (mubah) music, added: “That unlawful ghina’ is the ghina’ that represents an instance of ‘misleading diversion’ (lahw mudill)—meaning it hinders man from the divine path and the remembrance of God.”
Citing Quranic verses and narrations, he considered the concept of “lahw” opposite to “dhikr” (remembrance), stating: “Dhikr in the culture of the Quran and narrations does not merely mean uttering verbal remembrances; rather, obedience to God is also an instance of dhikr. Hence, the jurisprudential evaluation of music must occur considering its relationship with concepts such as dhikr, truth, and divine obedience.”
This researcher in jurisprudence, further explaining the titles “zur” and “laghw,” emphasized that these concepts, alongside the title “lahw,” represent the main criteria of jurisprudence for distinguishing lawful music from unlawful music, and without their precise explanation, offering a clear framework for duty-bound subjects (mukallafin) and decision-making bodies will be impossible.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mirkhandan then, differentiating “form” and “content” in music, stated: “In vocal music, in addition to melody, poetic content also plays a role in jurisprudential evaluation; however, the whole issue is not limited to poetry, because even if the content is correct, the mode of execution and tone might become a subject of jurisprudential discussion.”
He added: “In instrumental music as well, although various viewpoints are raised regarding the presence or absence of content, musical form remains one of the most important elements in its jurisprudential examination.”
The session’s presenter devoted the main portion of his speech to examining the impact of new media on the subject-identification (mawdu’-shenasi) of music jurisprudence, pointing out that in the era of legislation (‘asr-e tashri’), the production, delivery, and consumption of music occurred mostly simultaneously and in a single gathering (majlis), stating: “Modern media and subsequently new media separated these three stages from one another, and this very transformation significantly increased contextual elements effective in jurisprudential evaluation of music.”
He explained that today music might be published in the format of films, series, music videos, video games, social networks, or official media, and each of these platforms creates different conditions and requirements for jurisprudential evaluation.
Dr. Mirkhandan considered imagery, the publishing media type, media goals and identity, the music execution space, and its consumption environment among the most vital contextual elements, specifying: “A piece of music in the format of characterization in a film or within a specific media context might acquire a function different from that same music outside that space, and this difference is examinable in jurisprudential subject-identification.”
The presenter, in summarizing his remarks, emphasized: “If in the era of legislation, identifying the prohibition of certain melodies was easier due to social context and prevalent gatherings, today, owing to the vast diversity of methods of music delivery and consumption, one can no longer judge its prohibition or lawfulness merely based on melody; rather, contextual elements have acquired a decisive role in subject-identification and the deduction of jurisprudential rulings.”
Continuing the session, Ayatollah Sheikh Ja’far Najafi Bostan, expressing appreciation for Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mirkhandan’s presentation, engaged in critiquing certain foundations raised in this view, stating: The main issue in examining narrations related to music is whether applying titles such as “diverting speech” (lahw al-hadith) to ghina’ and music carries a restrictive aspect (taqyidi) or is merely by way of assimilation (tanzil) and expressing an instance (bayan-e masdaq).
Emphasizing that these narrations cannot be considered restricting the ruling, he said: If the Lawgiver introduced music or ghina’ as an instance of “lahw al-hadith,” this application is by way of assimilation, not restriction; hence, one cannot by citing these titles divide music into two sections, lawful and unlawful.
The member of the Scientific Council of the Department of Jurisprudence of Culture, Art, and Media at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence added: In general custom as well, ghina’ and music are regarded as two independent titles, and many jurists on this very basis examined the rulings of these two separately.
Ayatollah Bostan, pointing to the views of certain contemporary jurists, including Grand Ayatollahs Khoei, Sistani, and the Supreme Leader, noted: The divergence of fatwas in this issue, rather than tracing back to restriction of narrations, stems from differences in principles of jurisprudence foundations (mabani usuli) and the manner of understanding proofs; and based on this, if someone advocates separating lawful and unlawful music, he must explain this separation based on his ijtihad and Usuli foundations, not based on restricting narrations that possess an assimilative aspect.
Concluding his remarks, he emphasized: Discussion regarding criteria for identifying unlawful music requires more precise examination of jurisprudential and Usuli foundations, and one cannot merely by citing titles such as “lahw al-hadith” or “false statement” (qawl al-zur) rule to divide music into two categories of lawful and unlawful.
Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Ali Nahavandi, expressing appreciation for Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mirkhandan’s presentation, while raising several questions regarding the discussion foundations, stated: It seems among titles such as “lahw”, “laghw”, and “zur”, the title “batil” (falsehood/vanity) is the most comprehensive criterion for examining the jurisprudential ruling of music and possesses greater capacity for analyzing narrations of this chapter.
Citing the narration of Imam Baqir (a) regarding placing ghina’ in the front of falsehood (batil), he added: Many of the restrictions raised to determine unlawful music—such as itrab (inducing enrapture), intensity of tarab, suitability for gatherings of corrupt people (ahl al-fusuq), rhythm, musical order, environmental conditions, etc.—are not obtained from the apparent meanings of verses and narrations, and cannot be considered the primary reasons for the prohibition of ghina’.
Pointing to the theory raised regarding the impact of new media on the subject-identification of music, he posed the question that if music is intrinsically an instance of “batil,” how can merely changing the delivery platform or adding contextual elements like imagery cause its ruling to change?
Dr. Nahavandi, referring to certain media experiences, including using music alongside revolutionary imagery, specified: Separating production, delivery, and consumption of music, and the impact of contextual elements on jurisprudential rulings, are among discussions still requiring scientific dialogue and deeper examinations.
This session concluded its work in a scientific atmosphere with raising various views and critiques regarding the relationship of new media and music jurisprudence. What was emphasized above all in this session was the necessity of rethinking the subject-identification (mawdu’-shenasi) of music jurisprudence proportionate to media developments, as well as continuing ijtihad dialogues regarding the impact of contextual elements on the deduction of jurisprudential rulings—a topic capable of opening new horizons before Contemporary Jurisprudence research.