This is a caption.
“Qahraman Qanbari” translates to “Hero Qanbari.”

A few days ago, I saw a picture on social media in which the director of the film “Flowers and Bullets”, made in 69-70, had requested permission from the head of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in West Azerbaijan province to allow the musician of the film to carry their instrument with them on the route of the film’s screening in Tehran. The director of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in the province had also issued a permit for carrying the instrument, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini.

At first glance, it may seem ridiculous that in the 1970s, the “instrument of love” was considered a criminal offense and its players were required to obtain a permit from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. It is normal for us to like or dislike a certain type of music based on our taste and preferences, and it is not fair to condemn someone for not liking or not being interested in a particular instrument. The main issue here is that we have witnessed a time when carrying a musical instrument required an official letter from the government. This means that carrying a musical instrument was considered equivalent to carrying a weapon or drugs, and only certain individuals with complicated administrative procedures could carry weapons or drugs (pharmaceutical companies) with them, and if stopped and inspected by security forces, they could justify the legality of carrying an unusual and illegal item by showing a special permit and not be prosecuted. For this reason, music and musical instruments are considered unusual in our country’s laws (and

The reality is that the laws of our country are derived from Islamic jurisprudence. Most of these jurists have declared music as forbidden in their fatwas and even emphasize that not only listening to it voluntarily and playing musical instruments is forbidden, but even as a precaution, one should refrain from listening to it even if it is forced upon them. For example, according to Ayatollah Khomeini, Khamenei, Fazl Lankarani, and Nouri Hamedani, “the criterion for the prohibition of music is its ability to bring joy and entertainment, which is in line with sinful gatherings and corruption.” In other words, according to them, music that can bring joy and lead to playfulness is forbidden, but other types of music that do not fall under this ruling are not problematic. However, according to Ayatollah Bahjat and Safi Golpayegani, “the use of musical instruments is absolutely forbidden.” While the latter has expressed his

In ideological systems – of which the religious system is one – the majority of energy is spent on controlling personal and private affairs and matters related to private morality. For example, if we want to give a concrete example, we can mention our own country where we see issues such as the way a headscarf is worn or the type of clothing, shirts, beards, and how to eat and drink, and sexual relationships, to be the main concerns of the government. As citizens of Iran, we all have personal experiences of these types of interventions and if we take a brief look at the speeches of officials and Friday prayer sermons, we see that most of them are concerned with controlling hijab, concerts, and the personal and moral issues of citizens, and are constantly complaining about why security forces do not correct the personal behaviors of citizens. These types of systems, which are mostly committed to creating their own utopia, are all about creating humans who conform to the ideology of the ruling power,

The main point here is that the crisis of music is related to the field of jurisprudence. This means that every jurist has his own followers, and when this jurist declares music to be forbidden, like Friday prayers, his followers, who are known to be in the security and military forces, will eliminate the musician and singer and make the listener aware of the cost of their work. But can a jurist give a ruling on whether something is forbidden or permissible? This is a highly debatable issue. It is clear that a jurist, simply by being human, can agree or disagree with something, and because of this, whether or not he has knowledge of music and literary aesthetics, he has reached a point of disagreement or agreement, and it is ethically permissible for him to convey his opinion to society and ask more people to accept their views based on their reasoning and evidence. For example, it is possible for someone like me to not like the music of Mohammad Reza Sh

In our country, those who were active in the field of music until four decades ago were the first humans to be forced into exile, either by force or by their own will. This initial response clearly showed the mindset of the rulers. The threat to music lies in its colorful and joyful nature, and this threat is a tangible and direct one for the unified utopian society of the black-clad rulers. We are faced with a duality of “joy” and “sorrow”, and people generally prefer joy and music, which is why today we are faced with sorrow and mourners and singers who sing in the style of Los Angeles. This is a sign of degradation, as well as a sign of desperation and exploitation and appropriation for the benefit of the ruling authority. Degradation because the singer and listener know what the truth is, but they are like the famous cat that is not a dog, because it does not have the courage to confront the truth and resist the values of the ruling

Our problem in music – at least for someone like me who has no specialized or aesthetic knowledge of music – is not about the good or bad of this type of music or another. It means that any type of music can be criticized or not liked by anyone. Music is not a mathematical science that can be scientifically accepted or rejected in any case. The deeper issue here is that our humanity, as individuals who value our human subjectivity in any position, is neither recognized nor respected. I am cautious not to be too bold in recognizing the humanity of others, but sometimes I am afraid to say that we are not even considered human, but this is a harsh reality that cannot easily be denied as an Iranian citizen. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we are still not free from slavery and feudalism, and we are still under the control of our masters, and in a way, we may sometimes impose strict rules and restrictions on our five-year-old children, but we are not able to make

It is important to ask when the people of our country, both as citizens of Iran and as those living in the 21st century, will be able to exercise their fundamental rights as individuals in choosing matters such as music, which listening to or not does not negate anyone’s rights. This question is not only significant, but also reflects a deep personal and human crisis.

Note:

• For more information, refer to:

Media and fatwas of religious authorities, Kowsar Cultural Magazine, Winter 1387, Issue 76, p. 168.

What is Ayatollah Khomeini’s view on music? Official website of Ayatollah Khomeini, September 2nd, 2013.