It could be said that “corruption” (ifsād) is one of those concepts that appears simple but is complex. At first glance, we think we fully understand it, but when it comes to interpretation, we realize it has many facets we have overlooked. In the discipline of jurisprudence, ifsād is a well-known concept, both in criminal jurisprudence, where it is discussed as “corruption on earth” (ifsād fī al-arḍ), and in other jurisprudential domains, where it serves as a basis for invalidating or prohibiting adherence to a ruling. However, this concept has never been independently analyzed as a jurisprudential or methodological principle, which is the source of the ambiguities surrounding it. We sat down with Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Ebrahim Nikdel, a professor of advanced levels at the Mashhad Seminary, to discuss ifsād and its applications in the jurisprudence of art. While Nikdel is renowned for teaching the works of Martyr Sadr and formal and philosophical topics in jurisprudence, such as the “Algorithm of Jurisprudential Principles,” he also has a strong command of jurisprudential issues, particularly emerging topics. The full text of the exclusive interview with this faculty member of the Daneshvaran Research Institute in Mashhad is presented below:

“Misguidance from the path of God” (iḍlāl ‘an sabīl Allāh) is a well-known rationale frequently cited by those who argue for the prohibition or undesirability of an artistic work. However, numerous questions remain unanswered regarding this widely used rationale in the jurisprudence of art: Is misguidance a personal or categorical matter? Who determines its application? Does misguidance inherently lead to prohibition, or does it merely establish the undesirability of its subject? Perhaps one of the main reasons for the lack of clarity surrounding this rationale is its lack of independent analysis as a jurisprudential basis, coupled with its limited standalone discussion in the context of the jurisprudence of art. Dr. Alireza Salehi, a graduate of advanced jurisprudence and principles courses at the Qom Seminary and holder of a PhD in political sociology, seeks in this exclusive commentary to provide an overview of jurists’ approaches to using this rationale in arguments related to the jurisprudence of art.

The use of “corruption” (ifsād) is not exclusive to the jurisprudence of art but is also employed in other jurisprudential domains to indicate the prohibition or undesirability of an act. However, it is undoubtedly one of the most frequently applied concepts in the jurisprudence of art. Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Ali Rahmani, in this commentary, has sought to explore the various dimensions of this lesser-addressed jurisprudential concept and discuss its application to the jurisprudence of art. According to this professor at the Mashhad Seminary, prior to examining this concept jurisprudentially, it is essential to consider terms such as “removal” (raf‘), “prevention” (daf‘), “eradication” (qal‘), and “suppression” (ḥasm), which are often associated with it. He further considers it a strategic error to study the use of this term in narrational and Quranic heritage without regard to the nature of the art contemporary to the issuance of the text. The full text of this insightful and scholarly commentary by a faculty member of the Akhund Khorasani Center and deputy of education at the Office of Islamic Propagation in Khorasan is presented below:

The fatwas of jurists regarding artistic works have a long history, and throughout jurisprudential texts, various jurisprudential concepts have been identified as rendering an artistic work prohibited. However, these concepts have never been systematically compiled into a single cohesive document. Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslemin Yasser Aminian, a professor of advanced levels at the Qom Seminary, has endeavored in this exclusive commentary to not only compile these concepts but also categorize them in a novel manner. The full text of this commentary by the professor and researcher of the Qom Seminary is presented below:

The historical approach of jurists toward art is by no means a matter of consensus among art scholars. Some, citing strict fatwas regarding music and sculpture, view the jurists’ stance as one of opposition and skepticism toward art. Conversely, others, pointing to evidence of many jurists’ engagement in poetry and calligraphy, argue that art, in principle, is not only accepted but even encouraged by them. Amid this debate, Hassan Ejraei, a graduate of the Qom Seminary, does not seek to affirm either side of this dichotomy. Instead, he aims to explore whether jurists have approached art as individual components or as a unified whole. The full text of this insightful commentary by the researcher at the Research Institute for Contemporary Fiqh Studies is presented below: