To summarize the potential nature of the relationship between Islam and media visual contents; highlighting some areas of compatibility* and those of potential conflict, with focus on the relevant aspects which may not have received much discussion in the past literature.
To showcase a selection of published jurisprudence opinions related to the topic.
*such content are often called interchangeably: Islam-compatible, Halal, Permissible, Islamic, and Shariah-compliant. ِAnd the concept may be referred to as: Islamic Cinema, Islamic Films, Islamic Movies, Islamic Series, Halal Cinema, Halal Films, Halal Movies, and Halal Series.
It may seem from the first glance that the incompatibilities between Islam and the visual contents far exceed the compatibilities. In fact, it seems that most visual contents have some sort of violations in various degrees to the Islamic guidelines, such are: the excessive showing of the love relations between sexes that is outside the marriage institution, the appearance of women in a liberal manner not adherent to the Islamic guidelines, scenes that normalize abominations like intoxicants and promote what are considered misguided ideas, and the problematic portrayal of two persons from the opposite sexes as are married -including their intimacy with each other- while in reality no such martial bond exist between them. The showing of the proceedings, have pushed some Islamic law specialists to combat visual content and prohibits its establishment in Muslim communities.
Some of those reservationists think that it is better for Muslims to avoid such visual artistic works, as them to be safe from its apparent or inherent disadvantages. The authority of this view increases as many of these works are seen -by them- as recreational luxuries rather than necessities. And perhaps they leaned to idea that repelling what is forbidden takes precedence over bringing on the benefits and to the subject blocking excuses to prohibitions (which according to the reality are not few).
Examples of problems that were discussed in previous literature include: Islam's ruling on photography as a mean. The rule on acting and whether it falls under -the forbidden- lying. The rule on portraying Muslims as non-Muslims, the utterance of infidelity, to act as if a person is consuming intoxicating matters, and to imitate worshiping for the purpose of acting. The rule on music and singing -especially since they are often incorporated as part of the visual works. The rules of the sight; lowering the gaze in Islam (a man to woman and a woman to a man), the staring at others without reservations, and the potential harmful infatuation towards the watched. The rules on mixed-sex work settings, especially in an environment characterized by long/late work hours and cramped spaces. The rule on drawing and creating statues (which can be part of the content creation process).
Others Islamic law specialists permits visual works viewing it as a neutral tools in itself that is essentially legitimate. That they should be judged on case by case bases, since it can be permissible or forbidden based on much it abides to the Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, some even view visual works as something that is needed -especially when considering the significant impact they can have, to be used for the good and benefits of others. According to this last view, visual works can be harnessed to call to Islam and noble morals. It can highlight the lives of the righteous, teach people history, spread stories of virtues wisdom. It can be as merely that it can be tool that brings people happiness and create "halal" jobs for them. Finally, the visual works can constitute as "better" alternative that lures people -to some extent- away from the more problematic mainstream visual contents.
The next section will discuss further the religious attitude that is favorable towards the visuals contents.
Perhaps we can classify the positions of those who are supportive of visual contents -from an Islamic basis into two types:
1- The Conciliation Position
Proponents of this approach see that is essentially possible to reconcile between Islam and the visual contents. Meaning that conflicts between them are not necessary as the conflicts that are associate with it are not fundamental to the core of it as a mean and be dispensed with. For example, if a person adopts the following jurisprudential opinions, he/she should not have an objection over the visual works -in themselves:
A person who considers that modern imagery does not fall under the forbidden imagery; that acting and storytelling are not classified as forbidden lies; that sexes can work with each other within with some boundaries that are attainable; that singing and music are not a taboo in Islam; that consequence of a viewer being infatuated with the viewed is a responsibility of the viewer not the content maker (as long as the maker abided to the Islamic general appearance regulations).
Under this position, a spectrum of different propositions can be formed without necessarily having to adopt the easiest opinion on every aspect related to the making the visual content. For example, it theoretically possible to produce visual works without the participation of both sexes on the same project or/and the use of singing or music (which will work well for those who do not see the permissibility of such aspects). According to this view, a person can tighten and/or loosen any of the visual content aspects to the extent that makes them at the end permissible according to the opinion followed by him/her. But still there exist two aspects that are almost static when it comes creating visual works, which are the permissibility of filming moving images (videos) on first degree, then the permissibility of acting to second degree (for scripted non-documentry works). These two aspects cannot be waived completely as they seem to essential the making visual works.
2- The Gradualism Position
Here people believe that at least for the time being, with the general scourge of the widespread of works violating the Islamic instructions in the media, and for the urgent need of better alternatives, it should be fine to -temporarily- sacrifice the commitment of some aspects to the Islamic jurisprudence. That this loosening of scrutiny can be overlooked by as long as the visual work is perceived to be overall beneficial its goals; that the expected good from it exceeds the harm. Perhaps here -according to them- the more evident the good intent of the work to the public, the better justification there will be for the sacrifice of the non-obedence parts. This position seems to provide more wiggle room and can be of a more subjective nature.
Proponents of this position sometimes see this approach as necessary if the "Islamic" visual works is to ever compete with the mainstream "non-islamic" works. Otherwise, it seems to them that it will be an impossible "battle" to gain anything from. As completely abiding to to the Islamic jurisprudence, will not give the work the reach it needs, to be able to have a significant positive influence on others. And that a more gradual strategy has to be adopted for the aspired reform to gain momentum.
There seem to be few public and direct endorsement of this position from the Islamic jurists. Several of which appeared to be more in form of private consultation, not directed to the public. Perhaps more literature on this topic can be found from a consumer-standpoint rather than from that of the visual work creators position.
The clarity of the content creators' good intent and noble goals to the public is not an aspect that is in contradiction with the Conciliation Position. They do differ from each other in regards that having a clear guided or purposeful visual work could be a positive merit of the work (especially if it does not affect its effectiveness), but does not count on it being essential feature of the work. Thus, if was not evident in content creator's work or not declared clearly by him/her, the work remains within the Islamic permissibility domain, given it is adherent in its components with Islamic instructions.
This difference between the Conciliation and Gradualism positions, might -in the end- come to determining the extent to which the ends (when good and noble) justify the means and the authority that they have loosen the Islamic regulations based on the spread of misfortune in a community. Here the Conciliators oppose in general the justification of means and the intentional explicit violation of the Islamic instructions.
In the next section, we will present some of the challenges that might face those who adopt a reconciliatory position Islam and visual work.
The most prominent challenge that face those wishing to reconcile between Islam and visual works is the manner in which women gets portrayed in on screen. It is a challenge with no clear plausible way -for the time being- to overcome without a sacrifice.
The Way Women Appear
Surveying the current visual works out there and what Islamic jurists have said on the topic of visual works, the way women appear seem to be the most common violation to the Islamic instructions.
One of the reasons why women in visual works are so problematic from an Islamic jurisprudence point of view is related to the Islamic regulations on sighting, particularly looking towards other people. Visual works being a product that is consumed mainly by watching, while Islamic violations in regards to they way women are portrayed is also intrinsically related to other watching them. Thus, a violation in the way women appear in the visual works will directly hinder the watching process of the Islam-abiding (men mostly) audience. To illustrate this particular further, we will provide some examples.
Example 1:
It is well known that most of the Islamic jurist view consuming intoxicants and making "statue" idols as forbidden for Muslims, but almost non of hem would say that the mere looking at an intoxicant or a statue idol constitutes in its self a forbidden act. On the other hand, they would say that it is forbidden for Muslim women to show off (uncover) the parts other than -mostly- her face and hands in front of other men in public and they would also say that if such appeared from a woman, the men should avoid looking at these uncovered parts of her (the same goes for a man who uncovered a part he is supposed to cover).
Example 2:
If a person writes a narration about a person who exposed his private parts, many jurists would say that the mere reading (and perhaps even writing) of this is considered forbidden, while if such was to be transformed to a visual performative/illustrative medium, the ruling on the matter would definitely change and would probably be in violation of the Islamic Instructions.
In the first example, we can see how in some cases the prohibition is on both the doer and the observer, while in other cases it is only on the doer. In the second example, we can see how the medium in which the matter is portrayed, can make a difference in the prohibition. Whereby, visual performative forms entails more restriction in comparison with the written or oral form. Women and visual arts engage both the stricter form of both examples.
Moreover, since women appearance according to Islamic jurisprudence is stricter than that of men, it seems easer or more likely for women violations to be the ones that occur in visual works. Not to mention, the evident vulgarity by which many actors (and women in particular) appear in, as observed in mainstream visual works, where they appear with excess grooming, makeup, and adornments (which does not confirm with usual jurisprudence opinions), of which some would even consider as a form of a decadent commodification that contradicts with the human dignity.
More often mainstream visual works have focused generally on highlighting handsome and attractive people in their works in a way that is many cases more liberal and ostentatious than even the reality of the target audience. In dramas in particular, actors from between both sexes (who are not in reality mahrams) are shown in love, with many of the details that passionate relationships usually entails.
Finally, it is argued that looking at immodest actors that are not adherent Islamic instructions in the way they appear, may result in a fascination, temptation, or/and an attachment from the viewer to the person viewed, which can have a negative consequence on the viewers and their future or emotional relationship.
The necessity of sacrifice
Undoubtedly, those who take the position of reconciling artistic works with Islam, will often be forced to sacrifice with more aspect for their purpose in comparison to those who are less concerned about abiding their visual works with the Islamic instructions. This is evident with the “additional” controls and restrictions that the conciliator's work strive to follow, which -at lest ostensibly- will makes him less competitive in a market that is dominated with peers that are non-compliant with those same restrictions.
Some these additional restrictions that will often be avoided to keep the realism of the work includes: Not making works in which actors do not abide to the Islamic instructions in their appearance, which includes not portraying women unveiled and in an extravagant beautification -even if they were depicted a negative light. Not depicting a public place (such a street) in the current times in location that is known to have people not abiding to the Islamic instructions in their appearance. Not to portray a famous person that is known perhaps to appear publicly not covered in accordance to Islamic instruction (like a woman's head not covered). Not depicting women that appear in situation that usually involves her downgrading her islamically-approved apparel (like at the place according to the work in considered her home with her self or with other she is permitted to loosen her dress code with).
Sacrificing can usually be don in two ways; the obvious being to avoid filming such examples above, to escape the embarrassment of braking the Islamic restriction. In this case, it will ideal to avoiding having such situations in the scripts n the first place. The second approach being to actually film such situation with some modifications, by either modifying the reality (depicting a woman in her house with her also wearing islam-abiding clothes and showing everyone on the street abiding as well regardless) or by incorporating some tricks which will dwell in more details later on.
It might be a good opportunity here commit on an aspect related to the call for making visual works alternatives, which is that those alternatives will always be partial in some respects and would not -realistically- full overcome the demand for the all the prevailing works nowadays. This is because not every forbidden aspect necessarily have a completely equal permissible alternative. For example, there is not full alternative to alcohol in Islam, having water and juices will always be essentially different. It might be problematic way of thinking for an abiding Muslim to say that he/she would not abstain from what is forbidden unless he/she can find a alternative for that completely satisfy him/her. As this might oppose the principle of submission to the Islamic instructions which many consider a determinantal aspect of the religion, and also does not align well with the concepts of striving against oneself and its whims. When applying this to visual works, there will definitely be no alternatives for those who watch for lustful and forbidden instinctive reasons, whether it was a popular or explicit/dirty materials.
Next , we will present some reflections on the nature of the restrictions imposed on the visual work creators when deciding to reconcile Islam with visible works.
The restriction imposed by the visual work being complaint with the Islamic instruction could be seen by some to be huge hurdle to the content creating process. The aim of the following thoughts is to help give a more realistic perspective on the subject.
1- Limitations do exist on work outside the Islamic instructions framework
Many of the distributed usual prevalent visual works are already limited by some restrictions. Obscene scenes like that of defecation and the explicit showing of people's private parts are in many cases intentionally not depicted in mainstream visual works. Even though, it known that these situations or things do truly happen and appear in the real life (at least when a person is alone). This is because these scenes are usually looked upon with disapproval and sometimes with disgust, as being customarily inappropriate when depicted in the general viewing visual works.
In other time, more legal controls (even in non Muslim-majority societies) are imposed in the form of some sort of regulation on the content. Within this, for example, there exist still a difference between dirty/pornographic content and the other works intended for a more general public. The later which have more restrictions on what is expected to be shown in them. Controls are also used to determine content that is deemed inappropriate for a certain age group. Which usually translate to less type of scenes that can be shown to younger people. And Finally, there is the type of content that is graded to be suitable for the whole family to watch regardless of their ages.
The idea is that placing some controls or limits on the visual content and avoiding filming some scenes all together is something that is today acceptable and implements in many parts of the world without being directly related to the Islamic instructions.
2- Realism is always relative
The idea that realism should always triumphs in all cases seem impossible within the frameworks of the visual works. So long as acting and filming are involved, realism will have to be diminished to some extent. Not to mention that there exist some popular acceptable types of visual works that deliberately deviates from realism in some of the work aspects, such in the care of content with paranormal, supernatural, or fantasy elements.
Stories are in general selective in nature, when it comes to choosing what events to tell. It is no usually reasonable for stories to mention and documents every bit that happened or can happen. A sort of selection in necessary for it to confined within a certain medium. When it comes to visual works, more and more selection are usually involved, from the what is on the screenplay, to what is shot, and to what is included in the final cut. Thus, if a certain scene was deliberately not filmed (e.g. for each actor bathing at some point in his house), it won't be perhaps accurate to say that this work in unrealistic. In fact, if the oppose was to be made, the work can be seen perhaps as illogical and possibly even deplorable (by some of the actors for the starts). Though, the viewers know that in real life, people often shower, it would be acceptable if such scenes, were not shown to them. Under this pretense, perhaps we can say that there is some leeway when avoiding to portraying bare-haired women scenes at what is supposed to be their home and it does not seem fair to assume without such a scenes, a visual work cannot be acceptably produced.
Therefore, it seems that we can safely say, even tough we undoubtedly agree that realism is in most cases some that is sought after (even in works with unreal elements), it is still acceptable with intentionally giving up parts of it and this is something that is done with some of the more popular work nowadays. Perhaps it is more accurate to think of realism as a relative factor that is always used in the visual works to an extent that is deemed acceptable by some.
3- Disregarding some of the credibility is acceptable
As pointed before, acting in its nature, is not representative of reality. The normal viewer would know by necessity that actor is acting and that he/she is not necessarily the same person who he/she represents in case the story was based on some true events. And even if the person was the real person that he is representing, he is still -for the purpose of the visual work- acting. Since acting will in its nature diminishes some of the reality, there should always be room for a tolerance toward the work that is viewed, where the viewer would necessarily overlook the fact the he is watching acting, perhaps so he/she can enjoyable consume the visual work. This factor could be more complicated when we watch a work by an actor that we have seen in the past in previous not related works, or if the actor is someone we personally know, here more effort is needed in these cases from the viewer that they might try to mentally sperate those persons from each other, for them to better enjoy what we are seeing now.
One visual work genre that evidently require some adjustment in credibility for the viewer to consume enjoyably what is called musicals; where a mixture of acting and singing is combined in the work in telling the narrative of the story. A blind mental eye seems to be needed here to avoid dwelling into the idea it is not credible for the actors singer performers as well. Perhaps another example in which the concept is clearly manifested is the more primitive theatrical works, in which it seems more acceptable for a person to clearly be represented a person who is older than himself/herself that, or when a gender is represented as another gender, or even a human as non-human (e.g. an animal).
All of the previous aspects are palatable to many people and whom do not see something majorly wrong with them, even though they lack some credibility in their imitation of the reality. This might be interpreted as beam of hope, that there may come a time when it also becomes acceptable or not too harshly denounced the image of a woman that is perhaps veiled (according to Islamic instructions) in her own home, with the viewers accustoming themselves to it and not reject the whole work for it.
4- Limitations can help generate some creativity
A proverb says, 'necessity is the mother of invention'. Muslim societies and the field of jurisprudence have sometimes found or created new outlets in some of the areas in which they found themselves in a legal narrowing or understood that Islamic instructions to have narrowed them.
A prime example is the drawing and making statues of animate beings. Though a prevalent art form in Muslims' neighboring civilizations, in many cases in a number of Muslim regions, these applications were avoided because an understanding that they are prohibited. Some argue that these self-imposed limits contributed to the ingenuity of Muslims art in forms such as decoration, inscriptions and geometric shapes, in a way that made them distinguished among other civilizations. One explanation to this phenomenon, is that perhaps the efforts and energy not spent on the statues and images of animate beings, was instead poured and focused on other aspects, resulting in this distinguishable authentic creativity.
Talking about the current visual works, would it be possible, if Muslims were not to completely imitate how visual works appeared in other societies (e.g. societies of the people whom invented them) in almost everything (as arguably is done with some minor localization), and to instead give our application for it the privacy of our Islamic instructions, will they be establishing wave in the modern visual works field. This might be possible, as more Islam-committed works are tested. It is also possible for the fruits of such new movement or school could even benefit the Non-Muslims as well.
At the end of this section, we want to point out that the adherence to the Islamic regulations does not need to necessarily translate to either avoiding some scene or imposing them directly in a way that affects the realism of the work. There is rather a third approach. A solution that we can label as tricks (in the positive sense) that enable us to still achieve the compliance goal. Examples for such can be: For abiding Muslim actress acting as if she was in her home, we can hear her being there but not see her, as she is outside the frame of the shot (by this we know that she is there; weather its by her movement or by her directly talking). Another idea can be of her deliberately depicted as she is about to enter or leave her home, in this way should would still appear more ‘realistic’. Alternatively, there can be an open cupboard that is obstructing us from seeing her head, as she is looking for there and talking perhaps to another person at the same time, the same trick could be used with a closet that fully obstruct us from seeing her.
On part with the previous examples one can try to innovate in order to make the scenes flow more flawlessly without the audience giving much importance to the tick. It should be said that deliberately minimizing the embarrassing scenes in general (the ones that would force a strange obvious omission or harshly breaks the realism) seems like the better first line of defense here. For a single scene that would need an innovative dealing with it is much easier to deal with, compared to a visual work whose entire events will be needing for such solutions (e.g. A work that fully revolves around a woman in her home).
In the next section, we will dwell further into some creative tricks that hopefully will help make the reconciling between Islam with visual work run smoother.
Here we will showcase some solutions or "tricks" that are aimed at keep the reconcilers away from directly violating the Islamic Instructions, while there are exits that raise embarrassment for workers in the field. The search for easers and facilitators in Islamic jurisprudence for some of the issues that are causing an embarrassment to people is not something new. There exist a number of examples on this throughout the past, by which a number of excuses were produced.
We will not go into much details about past examples, perhaps we can give one that is more recent to our time; that is of modern banking and financial transactions. There was a considerable effort that was done by Islamic jurist in attempting to find solutions and insights that would avoid the explicit violation of Islamic limits and offer more permissible alternatives that enable a way for many wishing to have dealing with the modern banking transactions. Even if not all of what was presented in that field cam be considered perfect solutions. It still remains like other new areas in a field that develop and improve with time and trails. Exerting the most sincere diligence on these topics with its current shortfalls -in the eyes of many- is certainly better than bluntly delving into what looks like explicitly forbidden with no attention to the Islamic instructions.
Even more far back, as it seems, are the details for the compliance of visual works applications in the Islamic jurisprudence. We strive here to suggest some solutions to some of the problems that visual content makers often face when trying to abide their work to the Islamic instructions.
Problem 1: Presenting actors as a married couple, while in reality they are not.
Part of good acting pushes actors to try to emulate the roles they play. In some cases the actors kind of feel like they are really the people they are portraying. This tactic seems helpful in making the feelings and expressions appear as closer to as if it was a reality as possible. Apply this ideas to people of the different sexes try to act as if they were married will often mean that they will behave in ways that may not be (according to Islam) acceptable from those who are not actually married. Furthermore, these behaviors may be the start of a deviations in their relationship that even goes beyond the mere acting. Such consequences are not outlandish to a person who follows the news of celebrity actors.
Even if the actors in such situations were were able to avoid some of the potential gruesome consequences that could result from acting such roles. They will possibly face some difficulties or embarrassments when acting to treat each others as spouses; when addressing each other and looking at each other in a more natural way. Spouses committed to Islam, can be seen in the public life in several parts of the world as sitting close to each other and also physically contacting each other, with some affection talks and expressions between them. Many committed people would not find such acts as prohibited and would accept it from people who are indeed married.
One of the solutions therefore for removing such embarrassments for the actors to actually spouses. This should elevate a large part of the embarrassment and apprehension that may result when the actors are unrelated foreigners (non-maharim). Moreover, if the actors were truly married in the real life, this might help the authenticity and realism of their performance as well.
It is worth clarifying here that what we have discussed as part of the permissible relationship between spouses, we meant the type of behavior in which committed people do not see an embarrassing concern or harm for exhibiting publicly (such as in the street) and does not include by any means the behaviors that are appropriately reserved for private places, such as 'hot kisses' or what happens on the bed between them. This exclusion perhaps extends to include even scene that are suggestive of such acts, as long as the actors are seen in other scenes as well. The "Iranian" cinema has seemed to have some experiments with such solution, perhaps it be studied more extensively to benefit better.
We can logically apply the same solution to an act of a father and his adult daughter, the mother and her adult son, in that the actors are actually the same people they are acting. Also possible to a second degree preference, as to have those people to be at least "Maharim" to each other. Further more, this same marriage acting ploy cab be applied to portray any love relationship between the different sexes, even outside marriage narrative, as long as the actors are still married in realty and they are not performing acts that is forbidden to be exhibited in the general public.
It is thought that this solution (the requirement of the real relationship for the actors of relationship from the different sexes) to be somewhat awkward at first, and may cause additional difficulty in precuring the actors to whom this criterion applies, but the matter may gradually diminish if this trick was adopted more widely in the future. It also has the potential of creating a new submarket in the casting field for people who are actually related to each other to act with each other as a group. In a perfect situation, it is possible that such direction might encourage more single actors to get married to widen their acceptably for roles and hopefully will help existing couple to maintain and strengthen their relationship.
This seems like a better solution to the current problematic situation in which two people who do not have an Islam-approved relationship to each other in real life to act with each other with all that entails as mentioned before. Finally, it is hoped from this trick to encourage religiously observant actors and actresses to enter this field with less of the understandable hesitation.
Problem 2: Reconciling the Islamic Instructions on sighting and the nature of watching visuals works
Much of the jurisprudential heritage permits the two sexes (non-Maharim) to look at each other, if they limited their looks to what is not considered prohibited to look at and also for the other person to show (Awra). And if we accept for this argument, that the "Awra" of a man in public is from his navel to his knee and that of a woman is of her full body with the exception of her face, hands, forearms and feet. The jurisprudential heritage states that people from opposite sexes when looking at the permissible parts of others (what is not considered "Awra") that it should be done in way that is absent of desire. A preference is also mentioned by may Islamic jurist to look at the permissible parts of other when there is a need for doing so, and to avoid prolonged and unnecessary gazes in general.
Many Islamic jurist stipulated that in case someone -who is not suppose to- looked at the permissible parts with desire, then the responsibility would fall on the person that is looking with desire and not on the person that is being looked at, since the later abided on his/her part in following the Islamic Instruction in regards to what is permitted to show.
The dependence of the visual works on others viewing nature and the fact that these viewers can not be seen back, is something that reduces the natural burden and responsibility that comes with watching others in a normal setting. This makes it upon the watcher to gaze towards the opposite sex directly compared to reality. In addition, there is a tendency for visual content creators to select actors of distinguished beauty and attractiveness in their appearance. A factor that can exacerbate the negative effects associated with this method of unrestricted watching. To mitigate some of these potential problem, the following tips could be of help:
First: It is advisable for the viewer first-and-foremost to practice self-censorship upon him/her-self when it comes to “lowering the gaze” towards what is being watched in general. Perhaps, to avoid persistent staring, especially if he/she feels a beginning of a fascination with person being watched from the opposite sex. If it is merely a scene or two, lowering one's gaze could be a remedy, but in case the person in the visual was recurring for prolonged periods, it would be better to avoid watching this work altogether.
It is worth noting here that the issue of fascination with others is a matter in which people differ, in terms of the degree and personal tastes. This confirms the initial idea that the viewer is first-and-foremost the person that should be in control. Not to lose sight that many of these works are in principle considered non-essential entertainment materials, that shouldn't be of awkwardness and critical hardship to avoid a certain visual work.
Second: It is preferable for the content makers not to put a big emphasis on the attractiveness of the actors when selecting them for the work. And to place more value on the quality of their acting performance. It also seems like a good practice to vary the degree of handsomeness of the actors selected, incorporating the work one or two actors are not considered that attractive. This could have some good effects beyond the aspect of reducing the temptation on the viewer. Among them are normalizing the idea that in real-life people do vary in their attractiveness (so it also improves realism) and the provide an opportunity to those good performing actors, who are not being chosen because they are not attractive enough. Hopefully, this would lessen the pretentious practice of focusing on actors of above-average beauties.
Third: It might be better for content creators to be more reserved in aspects related to the actors' appearances, in being more conservative that what is determined to be permissible to show in regular situations. Examples for this include: to refrain from unnecessarily portraying men with a lot of their bodies exposed or them wearing tight tops, in case that contribute of their temptation and sedition to the opposite sex. And to reduce scenes with women are excessively adorned with makeup, ornament, and additional aesthetics. This later note concerning makeup can also serve the purpose of improving the realism and credibility of the work. It is noticeable that some of the mainstream visual content favors makeup over reality. Examples of this include the likes of actors waking up from their sleep, those who are in war, or are fugitives on the run, that are yet seen with careful (sometimes full) makeup.
Fourth: It might be preferable for content makers to refrain from works that revolve around actresses or an actress as its main character(s). For the case that the actress is the main character in a work, she will usually have many scenes, which can prove the concept of lowering the gaze for men -if needed- difficult. The same logic could apply to the opposite sex, unless we agree that the fascination with other sex is more problematic for men.
One alternative suggestion here could be to allocate works that are designed to be more suitable for women and others that are more suitable for men, with the representation of the opposite sex in each is done respective to the targeted audience.
Fifth: It is better for content creators to avoid having shots in their work that are too close to the actors, except in rare cases. This includes close-up shots that focus on the lips, eyes, and cheeks, or that only captures the face. It is often more difficult with these shots for one to lower his/her gaze when needed, compared to shots that are wider, the latter with which can have other areas on screen that one can look at temporarily. This issue is exacerbated further with the technological advances in the clarity of the image and as viewing screens become larger and higher in resolution.
Another logic for avoiding these shots is that it is usually deemed inappropriate to mimic such a close view in real life “with non Maharim”. Elaborating more on this, in order for one to recreate the view he/she sees on screen, they will need to be to close the this person of opposite sex, to an extent that is deemed by many who adhere to the Islamic teachings as inappropriate without the a true necessity. Thus, some could argue that if such a view cannot be achieved in real life without being objectionable its appropriateness, then using deductive reasoning, it is also probably improper to achieve -without necessity- through binoculars or other means like cameras. In short, here the cameras are showing us more than what a normal Islam-observant person would normally see in regular situations.
Another lesser argument here is that such shots could be considered for some as border-line in invading the privacy of the actors and the etiquette showing them. With the advancement in image processing mentioned, much of the actors' facial details are exposed, which could be considered by some of them as annoying too. Exceptions here can be made for clips such as an injury to the face and so on, from which the potential sedition is less likely.
Problem 3: Having women actresses covered according to the Islamic Instructions while maintaining the visual work realism
As discussed earlier, Almost all of the Islamic jurists seem to be of the opinion that a woman's head (hair) should be covered from the common people in public. A content creator who permits/demands from his/her projects actors to appear with some of their body parts that they are Islamically supposed to cover from others, is participating in showcasing it (the Awara) to others (the viewers). This is due -as explained before- to the axiomatic responsibility of the content creator for the work that he/she creates.
The increase of credibility and realism associated with not abiding to Islamic instruction regarding the Awrat, does not seem to be a sufficient justification from the Islamic jurisprudence -point of view- of the necessity of this want to produce an exception. This is because these visual works are generally considered to be additional supplementary entertaining matters that are more of an optional luxury nature, rather than an urgent important matter that one cannot do without. Even if one considers entertainment to be important, one does not need to exclusively entertain with this medium. And even if one chooses this medium of entertainment, he or she can still do so without the need to expose “Awarat”.
One can argue that since there exist many women who don't abide by the Islamic instruction in the way they appear in public, are the content creators still obliged to have them appear in their work according to the Islamic Instructions? There is no doubt that coercing an abiding actress to give up dressing according to the Islamic Instruction is worse than dealing with a woman that has already given up abiding to the Islamic dress code. But this fact does not align with the idea that a content creator is responsible for his work, which is not the same in relation to other people who are not showing in his project. The responsibility of the content creator towards those other people is limited; one is not responsible for others behavior. So this is the main difference and why does this fact not matter much. In addition, it is a conventional practice for the makers of the visual work to have the right to ask the actors to appear the way they deemed fit for the project. It is the actors job to expect instructions in the way they look and perform. It is of course given that there is no coercion here, as the actors who fundamentally do not like a specific role from the beginning, can willingly opt not to take the job offer in the first place.
The content creator that is deliberately presenting a person showing his/her “Awarah” as part of his visual work -intended for the public, is one that is indeed participating in the spreading of the image of that “Awrah” to others. This is surely worse when the content creators stipulate that an actor role requires the actor to not abide by the Islamic dress code or implies it. In that he/she is giving an advantage to the actors that partly give up following the Islamic instructions in their appearance, over those who abide by it faithfully. This conduct from the content creator could be encouraging for actors who are not abiding to Islamic dress-code to keep in their ways and discouraging to those abiding to keep in their commitment to the Islamic Instruction -for them to have better work opportunities in the industry. This is indeed an ethical dilemma that deems contemplating from whoever considers to lessen his/her project abidance to the Islamic Instructions in this matter, that they are depriving some actors simply because the later chose to be obedient to the Islamic Instructions. A phenomenon of such could be observed in the industry, where some actors that work in the industry end up sacrificing their commitment -as it seems- in order to better fit in and flow with the existing (not very Islamic) environment of the industry.
In the “Reflections on the limitations by the Islam-compliant Visual Works” section, we have suggested some of the basic innovative solution (tricks) for implying that a woman was not abiding to the Islamic Instructions, while indeed she is. Here we will present a more advanced workaround for this dilemma, which is for a woman to wear a wig to give the appearance that her head (her hair) is uncovered. In this approach, we view that the actress will be "technically" veiled, as she is not revealing her real head (hair) to others. This might be a good remedy for some exceptional scenes such as those revolving around a woman to be shown as if she was in her own home.
Some may object to this trick as being not acceptable because: it involves deception and a wig may be more beautiful on a woman than her actual real hair. Our refute to this objection is as follows:
First, here we are talking about using this trick only in the context of acting, we are not advocating for women wearing wigs in public places (e.g. the streets). As we mentioned earlier, acting is by its nature not a representation of reality; the actors are not often the real people they are portraying, the story could be made up entirely, and by acting they are essentially behaving naturally, as in a real situation. Therefore, It is "natural" to deal with what appears in this environment differently from what appears outside it and it should be undoubtedly approached by viewers to be less real than what they witness in other situations of the non-acting life. Deception could be argued to be an integral part and an accepted practice in the profession of acting; the more an actor can not make you forget that he is acting the better job he or she is doing. Powders are used to make an actor appear older than he is, and some men wear what makes them appear to be bald or seem to have a bigger belly. This makes wearing a wig in acting for a visual work at par with wearing one in public life to be a flawed comparison.
Second, saying that a wig could make a woman or a man more beautiful than his real hair or in case he/she was bold is true. But not any beatification is prohibited by the Islamic jurisprudence. It is well known that some beatification can be acceptable within some guidelines. It might more accurate to abide to the Islamic instructions firs-and-foremost as part devotion to the religion. For one might argue that some women naturally messy, fizzy, weak (or with a baldness for an illness reason) might appear more beautiful or attractive in a headscarf than if without one. The beauty of one's original hair doesn’t seem to be a reason jurists would use for abiding with the Islamic veiling and therefore it should not be a strong argument against a wig in certain known situations, especially when not done primarily with the intention of attracting the audience.
Third, some additional precautions could be implemented to reduce embarrassment that might come with using this trick and since it seems more daring than others. A disclaimer note can be posted in the work that it was implemented in, as a way of a responsible qualification with the aim of reducing the possible deception of the viewers. Such disclaimer could be placed at the beginning of the work (if one wants to be more cautious) or after the work. Using a disclaimer that goes along with the work is known practice in the field that does gets used for various purposes such as; to tell that a story is completely fictional and might thought to be based directly on a true one, to tell that animals that appeared in the work were not actually harmed (their harm was visual effect), that a certain permission was obtained for such a work, etc. usually with the purpose of alienating some problematic issues.
The fear of deception seemed to be an important element in what already exists in the Islamic Jurisprudence regarding the use of borrowed hair in general. The following scenarios could help with the understanding of the demise of deception in this trick situation; Let's say a veiled woman appears in front of a group of men, then places a wig on her head scarf, would she be considered to have committed a forbidden act by this exhibit in itself? Here neither a deception nor the exposure of an “Awara” was done in front of them. This is why it seems that situation here should be lessen compared to the case with other situations.
Third, acknowledging the use of this trickery, should not logically mean to not uphold the other Islamic Instructions regarding how the actors will appear and should still strive for modesty and stray from enticing temptations.
One last objection could be that by using this logic a woman or man can expose any of the other parts that are not supposed to be shown (Islamically). For example, a fake breast can be made for a woman, and thereafter show to the audience with a deception if it was real. A response to this could be the fact that appearing bear headed today for many women is a common phenomena in many parts around the world and has even become a recognizable scene in the many of the Muslim-majority countries. For a start, revealing a woman's breasts is not closely similar to it. A woman that exposes her breasts in general and in most situations seems to be denounced in most places among most societies. Secondly, revealing a woman's hair does not seem -devoid by itself- to produce the same excitement and sedition compared to that of a breast have among the general public. Not to mention that a woman’s hair -even in Muslim abiding societies- is acceptable without an awkwardness to be shown in front of male “Maharim” with the approval of the jurists for this.
Finally, It can be said, if some reservations are still prevalent regarding this, for this trick to be used temporarily and within some limited cases. It is worth noting that there have been some trials from some islamically-veiled actresses in some Egyptian visual works, in which such a wig solution was implemented partially, so it may be a good case to study further.