The Prohibition of Photography: by Hazrat Maulana Yunus Patel (ra)

[Endymion]

It is a derogatory term among the Pakis who are still slaves of British colonialists, who first gave the negative stereotype to the word Mullah.

Sigh....

 

[CosmicPathos]

Sigh....

yea, they disgust me. Here they are advocating celebrating the Hindu celebration of Holi! Like what in the world?!

http://tribune.com.pk/story/346527/...s-a-little-arrowroot-flour-and-dye-can-bring/

 

[Salahudeen]

I've spoken about such issues many times in the past but then I thought what's the point in taking part in discussions where scholars have differed, there's a difference of opinion amongst scholars on so many things in Islam, if we were to talk about every single one we would just debate all day, if the scholars of the religion can not reach a unanimous agreement, then I doubt us discussing issues on which they differed will change anything, because people stick to the opinion of the scholar that they follow. I think it's best to just present both sides of the argument, and then a person can choose to follow the opinion of the scholar who's ruling makes sense to him.

When we get into the realm of pushing one scholar's opinion over another I don't think it's wise for us. I used to have attitude in the past that only the opinion of the scholar I follow is the correct one, and everyone else is wrong, so I would argue with everyone who followed another opinion, till I realized, they have just as much right to follow the opinion of the scholar they follow as I do mine.

I don't even know how to differentiate between wrong or right opinions, so I just stay in the safe zone and let people follow the opinion of whichever scholar they wish to.

 

[~Zaria~]

I've spoken about such issues many times in the past but then I thought what's the point in taking part in discussions where scholars have differed, there's a difference of opinion amongst scholars on so many things in Islam, if we were to talk about every single one we would just debate all day, if the scholars of the religion can not reach a unanimous agreement, then I doubt us discussing issues on which they differed will change anything, because people stick to the opinion of the scholar that they follow. I think it's best to just present both sides of the argument, and then a person can choose to follow the opinion of the scholar who's ruling makes sense to him.

When we get into the realm of pushing one scholar's opinion over another I don't think it's wise for us. I used to have attitude in the past that only the opinion of the scholar I follow is the correct one, and everyone else is wrong, so I would argue with everyone who followed another opinion, till I realized, they have just as much right to follow the opinion of the scholar they follow as I do mine.

I don't even know how to differentiate between wrong or right opinions, so I just stay in the safe zone and let people follow the opinion of whichever scholar they wish to.

MashaAllah, this is so true.


Im not sure that this is the case in this thread though - thus far, the only differences from the original post (regarding photography) have arisen from personal opinions, rather than any other scholars view on this matter.

Where there are differences of interpretation, e.g between the different madhabs - as you rightly mention, our differences here should be respected.


JazakAllah,

Salaam

 

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Assalamu-alaikum,
How much more proof do we want?

Where is the problem again?

The fact that these commands are not to OUR satisfaction?
If Islam is SUBMISSION to the will of Allah, then why do we find it so difficult to let go of what WE desire?

Salaam

With all due respect, what you've provided is NOT proof - proof is explicit statements from the Qur'an or Sunnah - not an individual's interpretation and cross application of certain texts and narrations. These interpretations, though respected, are not law and are not binding upon anyone to follow, they are open to mistakes and can even evolve from time to time. Disagreement and pluralistic understandings are permissible, even encouraged in fiqh - even more so in modern phenomena such as the camera (i.e. capturing light) which is an issue of ijtihad and has no precedent. You are mistaken in confusing a scholar's understanding of certain texts with what you are terming the "will of Allah" - they are not the same - especially here as there are other scholars of equal and higher repute who hold a different opinion.

We need to be academically mature enough to discuss these issues openly and critically assess topics with the intention of reaching the truth without accusing each other of religious dishonesty in one's relationship with God or following of desires.

Perhaps if you knew anything of the man who spoke these words - you may have reconsidered your above statements.

A man who, by the will of Allah - had turned so many hearts towards Islam, whose humbleness and sincerity is almost unmatched in todays aged, who was truly a living example of this deen.

And whose manner of life was captured by the manner he left this world - after just completing tawaaf, in such close proximity to the Kaaba - a death that we can only dream of tasting.

Allah (subhanawataála) knows better than any critic here, the contents of this servants heart.

Do not be so quick to judge, to mock and disregard.

You honestly do not know what you are saying.

Wa-aliakumsalam

Again, you are confusing a critical response to the content of the article with a critical personal reponse to the author. I don't know who the author is, nor do I believe it matters very much (and I do pray that Allah have mercy on him as he is deceased). My issue is with the content that I disagree with and believe to be impractical.

Instead of claiming that I am ignorant of what I have said, I would hope you would give me a critical response to my points.

 

[CosmicPathos]

With all due respect, what you've provided is NOT proof - proof is explicit statements from the Qur'an or Sunnah - not an individual's interpretation and cross application of certain texts and narrations. These interpretations, though respected, are not law and are not binding upon anyone to follow, they are open to mistakes and can even evolve from time to time. Disagreement and pluralistic understandings are permissible, even encouraged in fiqh - even more so in modern phenomena such as the camera (i.e. capturing light) which is an issue of ijtihad and has no precedent. You are mistaken in confusing a scholar's understanding of certain texts with what you are terming the "will of Allah" - they are not the same - especially here as there are other scholars of equal and higher repute who hold a different opinion.

We need to be academically mature enough to discuss these issues openly and critically assess topics with the intention of reaching the truth without accusing each other of religious dishonesty in one's relationship with God or following of desires.



Again, you are confusing a critical response to the content of the article with a critical personal reponse to the author. I don't know who the author is, nor do I believe it matters very much (and I do pray that Allah have mercy on him as he is deceased). My issue is with the content that I disagree with and believe to be impractical.

Instead of claiming that I am ignorant of what I have said, I would hope you would give me a critical response to my points.

in matters of religion, everything is haram till proven otherwise. Taking pictures/paintings have some antecedent in Sunnah where Prophet pbuh took off the curtains with pics drawn on it. It is up to you to convincingly prove that cameras and picture taking of humans is different from drawing pics with hands.

If you say that back then camera and lens were not available, then I can say that back then modern painting techniques, brushes and paints were not available. And that means even painting humans with hands is allowed and there was no antecedent for modern art and sculpting in Prophet's time. Prophet's condemnation of drawing humans only relates to then prevalent techniques.

and indeed, we welcome rational discourse. So far I have not seen one from you, other than emotional appeal to the concepts of pluralism. And honestly this appeal to modernity is getting tiring. Modernity has given us pathological individualism, how far do you say individualism is important in Islam? None. Communal rights trump individual rights, read any classical book on fiqh.

Modernity has given us beautiful music. Dubstep, chillstep, metal, electric guitar, electronic synths, keyboards. How much should we engage with that? There is far more evidence in Sunnah which condemns painting humans than that which condemns music outright. Why do then the scholars keep on calling music forbidden and photographing humans allowed? Music is reality too, it is everywhere. Why dont you make it allowed too? Actually, music is way more beneficial to the soul than photographing humans is. Read about classical Indian music, it is their way of worshipping God. Listen to Sarangi, it is hypnotic, mindblowing and otherworldly. How then you (or most scholars) call that haram and allow capturing humans (via painting or camera) to be permissible? Dawud (as) and his musical talents are known to us. My point is that if you are going to use the "modernity" card then where will you draw the line?

As for scholars of high repute, we have had our share of "scholars" from "prestigious" Al Azhar and Saudi tell men to drink milk of female co-workers so that they can work together.

salam

 

[Abz2000]

in matters of religion, everything is haram till proven otherwise.

that is not true, we are to use our intellect.
an example in context: the place of sujood is pure unless proven otherwise,

3:93 All food was lawful for Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for himself,
before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
Quran 3:93

all the things that existed weren't specifically made halal for Adam (as), the forbidden tree was.

can you imagine the Quran going through every single act and deed and food and item of clothing or behaviour that is Halal?

 

[CosmicPathos]

that is not true, we are to use our intellect.
an example in context: the place of sujood is pure unless proven otherwise,

I am talking about concepts, not acts.

What does place of sujood has to do with concept of sujood? If you were to say that we should do 3 sajoods after every rakah in salah then its haram till you prove it. I am talking about that.

 

[Abz2000]

actually it's ok to do as many sujoods as you like until it is proven that there are two.
it makes you a believer in contrast to a kafir.
and i am sure that there were many who did this until the Prophet pbuh taught them.
who would you have said was a believer, the one who did 50 sujoods or the one who did none?

 

[جوري]

I am talking about concepts, not acts.

What does place of sujood has to do with concept of sujood? If you were to say that we should do 3 sajoods after every rakah in salah then its haram till you prove it. I am talking about that.

Fiqh il3ibadat differs from Fiqh Al'adat
the first there's no disputation as it is a done deal with no ijtihad. Fast is this way, ablution is that way, prayer is that many raka3as for fajr or for maghrib. etc.
However the rest comes under the latter and that is very much open to interpretation and discussion.

There was a hadith where a companion was walking with the prophet and water fell upon him and he asked the people if it were dirty and the prophet PBUH said, you've made it dirty with your question, and that is what I understood from ABZ's post.

I think there's a consensus that where images can be taken for idols is a clear prohibition. But if you're doing it out of 'necessity' in whatever form then I think it is somewhat misleading to not include it when casting with such authoritative and compassing words as 'ALL' as in 'All images of animate objects are haram..

anyhow I think this topic has been hashed here so many times in many different forms and always a subject of contention. I'd really hate for someone to develop the wrong or an incomplete view of Islam from something so authoritatively final..

 

[CosmicPathos]

actually it's ok to do as many sujoods as you like until it is proven that there are two.
it makes you a believer in contrast to a kafir.
and i am sure that there were many who did this until the Prophet pbuh taught them.
who would you have said was a believer, the one who did 50 sujoods or the one who did none?

in regular fard prayer? I didnt know that I could do 10 sajood if I wanted to. :S

 

[Abz2000]

«أَعْظَمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ جُرْمًا مَنْ سَأَلَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ لَمْ يُحَرَّمْ، فَحُرِّمَ مِنْ أَجْلِ مَسْأَلَتِه»
(The worst criminal among the Muslims is he who asks if a matter is unlawful (or not), and it becomes unlawful because of his asking about it.) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said,
«ذَرُونِي مَا تَرَكْتُكُمْ، فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ كَثْرَةُ سُؤَالِهِمْ وَاخْتِلَافُهُمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِم»
(Leave me as I have left you, those before you were destroyed because of many questions and disputing with their Prophets.) An authentic Hadith also states,
«أَنَّ اللهَ تَعَالَى فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا، وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا، وَحَرَّمَ أَشْيَاءَ فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا، وَسَكَتَ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رَحْمَةً بِكُمْ غَيْرَ نِسْيَانٍ فَلَا تَسْأَلُوا عَنْهَا»
(Allah, the Most Honored, has ordained some obligations, so do not ignore them; has set some limits, so do not trespass them; has prohibited some things, so do not commit them; and has left some things without rulings, out of mercy for you, not that He forgot them, so do not ask about them.) Allah said next,

 

[CosmicPathos]

Fiqh il3ibadat differs from Fiqh Al'adat
the first there's no disputation as it is a done deal with no ijtihad. Fast is this way, ablution is that way, prayer is that many raka3as for fajr or for maghrib. etc.
However the rest comes under the latter and that is very much open to interpretation and discussion.

There was a hadith where a companion was walking with the prophet and water fell upon him and he asked the people if it were dirty and the prophet PBUH said, you've made it dirty with your question, and that is what I understood from ABZ's post.

I think there's a consensus that where images can be taken for idols is a clear prohibition. But if you're doing it out of 'necessity' in whatever form then I think it is somewhat misleading to not include it when casting with such authoritative and compassing words as 'ALL' as in 'All images of animate objects are haram..

anyhow I think this topic has been hashed here so many times in many different forms and always a subject of contention. I'd really hate for someone to develop the wrong or an incomplete view of Islam from something so authoritatively final..

I do believe that in times of necessity Islam gives much leeway. We are allowed to eat haram if we are dying of hunger. I just cant see how taking regular human portrait pics as an art is a necessity?

salam

 

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

in matters of religion, everything is haram till proven otherwise.

Where did you get that from? What's your proof?

 

[ardianto]

in matters of religion, everything is haram till proven otherwise.

Are you sure?

From what I know, Fiqh Ulama said, everything is halal unless there's daleel that prohibit it.

 

[Muhaba]

I agree with the article that photography is haram. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said that the picture maker will get the worst punishment in hell and in these hadith he didn't provide details regarding what sort of pictures were haram. so that means that all forms of pictures / photos are haram no matter how they are made.

 

[~Zaria~]

Taking pictures/paintings have some antecedent in Sunnah where Prophet pbuh took off the curtains with pics drawn on it. It is up to you to convincingly prove that cameras and picture taking of humans is different from drawing pics with hands.

If you say that back then camera and lens were not available, then I can say that back then modern painting techniques, brushes and paints were not available. And that means even painting humans with hands is allowed and there was no antecedent for modern art and sculpting in Prophet's time. Prophet's condemnation of drawing humans only relates to then prevalent techniques.

and indeed, we welcome rational discourse. So far I have not seen one from you, other than emotional appeal to the concepts of pluralism. And honestly this appeal to modernity is getting tiring. Modernity has given us pathological individualism, how far do you say individualism is important in Islam? None. Communal rights trump individual rights, read any classical book on fiqh.

Modernity has given us beautiful music. Dubstep, chillstep, metal, electric guitar, electronic synths, keyboards. How much should we engage with that? There is far more evidence in Sunnah which condemns painting humans than that which condemns music outright. Why do then the scholars keep on calling music forbidden and photographing humans allowed? Music is reality too, it is everywhere. Why dont you make it allowed too? Actually, music is way more beneficial to the soul than photographing humans is. Read about classical Indian music, it is their way of worshipping God. Listen to Sarangi, it is hypnotic, mindblowing and otherworldly. How then you (or most scholars) call that haram and allow capturing humans (via painting or camera) to be permissible? Dawud (as) and his musical talents are known to us. My point is that if you are going to use the "modernity" card then where will you draw the line?

salam

MashaAllah. There is nothing more that I can add to this reply.
At present, we have 3 well-respected scholars who all concur on this subject (whom many here trust and refer to for other matters in deen.....except for this one.....) Vs. many emotionally-driven responses......:hmm:

It is now up to our brothers and sisters to decide where they draw the line, for themselves.

I agree with the article that photography is haram. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said that the picture maker will get the worst punishment in hell and in these hadith he didn't provide details regarding what sort of pictures were haram. so that means that all forms of pictures / photos are haram no matter how they are made.

And this is how simple Islam is.

The definition of a 'picture' or 'picture-maker' has never been as difficult, as it is today. ^o)



Salaam

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

There are separate issues relating to picture-making (taswir), hence it would be good to understand each issue separately and the Shariah ruling on it:

1) Drawing/Painting Pictures of Humans and Animals

As it is common knowledge, there are countless Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that strictly prohibit painting pictures of animate objects, for example:

Sayyiduna Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the keeping of pictures at home and making them." (Sunan Tirmidhi, no: 1749)

Sayyiduna Abu Talha (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Angels (of mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture." (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5609)

Due to these and many other similar narrations, most classical scholars are of the opinion that painting and drawing pictures of humans and animals is unlawful and sinful. They state that 'picture-making' (taswir) of human or animal life has been explicitly forbidden by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and as such it will be sinful. Only Imam Malik (Allah have mercy on him) is reported to have differed with this position of general prohibition.

In one of his narrations, Sayyiduna Imam Malik (Allah have mercy on him), contrary to the other three Imams and most other Mujtahids, is reported to have stated that only those pictures are unlawful that are three-dimensional and have a body to them, such as statues and sculptures. A picture that does not have a body or shadow to it will not be unlawful although somewhat disliked, such as drawing a picture on a paper, cloth or on any other object. This is one of two positions narrated from Imam Malik, with his other position being similar to that of the vast majority of classical scholars.

The position of the vast majority of classical scholars is based on the fact that there is no distinction in the various Hadiths between a tangible and intangible picture. The Hadith indicating the permissibility of intangible and non-solid pictures refers to pictures of other than humans and animals. (See: al-Mugni, 7/7 & Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, 4/155)

Based on this, the reliable and mainstream opinion of the classical jurists is that picture-making is unlawful, whether by painting a picture on an object or making a sculpture. This is the position held by the three main Sunni Schools of Islamic law (i.e. Hanafi, Shafi'i & Hanbali) and also one of two positions related from Imam Malik (Allah have mercy on him). It would be better if one referred to a Maliki Scholar to determine the relied upon (mufta bihi) position of that School. As such, one should avoid drawing/ painting pictures of humans and animals.

2) Photography

In view of the above-mentioned one position of Imam Malik, there is no question with regard to the permissibility of taking photographs, for according to that position, painting pictures of human or animal life on a paper or fabric is allowed, hence camera pictures would hold the same ruling.

However, in view of the mainstream and majority position of classical scholars, the question arises as to whether photos of humans and animals fall under the type of picture-making prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) in numerous Hadiths. Camera photos were not in existence when classical scholars were discussing the issue of picture-making, hence one will not find an express ruling regarding photography in their works. As such, it was left to contemporary scholars to determine whether photos held the same ruling as that of painting and drawing pictures.

Contemporary scholars have differed on this issue:

a) The position of the overwhelming majority of Indo-Pak and some Arab scholars is that photographs of human or animal life are not permissible for the very same reasons that paintings of these are not permissible.

They state that the ruling on picture-making does not change by changing the tool with which the picture is produced. Whether an image is produced by painting it or using a camera, as long as it is an image of a human or animal, it will remain unlawful (haram).This is the position of Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani and most of my other teachers. It is, without doubt, the more precautious and arguably stronger opinion.

b) The second position on the issue, held by most Arab Scholars (from all four Madhabs) and some from the Indian Subcontinent, is that there is a difference between photos and the prohibited picture-making (taswir).

Shaykh Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti'i of Egypt, a 2oth Century scholar known for his knowledge and piety, wrote a whole treatise titled al-Jawab al-Shafi fi Ibahat Surat al-Photography in support of this view of permissibility.

His basic understanding is that the reason behind the prohibition of painting pictures (in the words of the Hadith) is challenging Allah in His Creating of living creatures. In camera photos, however, one does not produce an image through one's own imagination; hence one is not challenging the Creating of Allah as such. It is merely a reflection of a living being already created by Allah Most High.

These are the two positions of contemporary scholars on the issue. There are great scholars of knowledge, wisdom and piety on both sides of the fence; hence, it would be wrong to criticize anyone for following any one of these positions.

It is a matter of genuine and valid difference of opinion. It is not an issue where one may condemn another, and one must respect others' right to follow their conscience.

As you have asked about my personal stance, firstly I am by no means in a position of having a 'personal' opinion as such. I follow my teachers and learn from them. I have teachers in the UK and the Subcontinent who prohibit photos, but I also have teachers in the Arab world permitting them.

The position which I follow is that of my teachers who prohibit taking photos, for that is a more precautious and safe position. However, I have complete respect for the position (and practice) of those who permit taking photos.

As such, my practice is that I do not willingly pose for a photo unless there is a genuine need like for a passport or something similar. If I am asked, I politely refuse. At the same time, if someone is taking photos and I am also in attendance going about my own business, I do not go out of my way to prevent him taking my photo. Thus, if you did come across a photo of mine, it is probably because I may have been present in a place where photos were being taken. The recent photo of mine you have referred to was taken in the same context. I had knowledge that photos were being taken and that I may appear in one, but I did not willingly pose for a photo. I hope that makes sense!

3) Live Broadcasting

Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) and many other scholars have declared that live broadcastings of images do not fall within the ambit of picture-making (taswir). A picture is something that is permanent and static, whilst the image broadcasted live is not permanent hence cannot be termed a picture. A live broadcast is in reality a reflection of the actual image, similar to seeing an image in a mirror.

Therefore, if an image of a human or animal is broadcasted live, then this does not fall into the unlawful picture-making. It will be permitted to broadcast something live or view a live programme, provided the content of the programme is lawful (halal). (Taqrir Tirmidhi, 2/351)

4) Video Recording

According to Shaykh Taqi Usmani, that which is recorded in a videotape or DVD is also not considered a picture. In a videotape, the particles of an image are gathered and then re-opened in the same order to view the image. This is the reason why it is not possible to see the picture in the rail of the tape without playing it. (ibid)

Therefore, if a permitted and Halal event, such as a lecture of a scholar, is played and viewed on a videotape or DVD, it will be permitted, Insha Allah.

Note that the above discussion does not in any way relate to watching Television. Watching TV and keeping it at home is another matter altogether, for which a separate answer is needed. The many harms and evils of keeping a TV at home are known to all. This answer only relates to the permissibility of viewing a Halal image through a live broadcast or a videotape/DVD.

Shaykh Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) sums this up in one of his Fatawa:

"The images appearing on live programs or recorded programs on television are not the pictures in the strict sense envisaged in the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet (Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam) unless they are printed in a durable form on paper or on any other object. But the basic reason why Muslims are advised not to keep TV sets in their homes is that most of the programs broadcast on the TV channels contain impermissible elements." (Taken from the al-Balagh website, http://www.albalagh.net/qa/video_chips.shtml)

And Allah knows best

Sheikh Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

Source: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?ID=9334


In conclusion we must be tolerant to differences of opinions amongst the scholars and just because we may disagree with a scholarly position for whatever reason then that does not give us a right to mock that scholarly position.

The scholars of the past and present accepted differences of opinion then who are we to mock a certain position when we have know where near the adequate amount of knowledge to be able to do so?

The original article which was by the great late Hadhrat Sheikh Yunus Patel (Ra) who was responsible for spreading Islam throughout South Africa and it is because of him that Islam is still spreading throughout South Africa like wild fire.I posted a thread about his demise a while ago and i would urge anyone to read it and make dua for him:

The demise of the great Mawlana Yunus Patel

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic...na-yunus-patel-rahimahullah-south-africa.html


As the Sheikh in the fatwa i posted above summed up very well, both opinions are valid and it is wrong to criticise anyone who follows either opinion, but as always when there is a major difference of opinion it is piety to avoid it if one can, but if one chooses to follow either opinion then they are not blameworthy for that. That concludes this thread.

And Allah knows best in all matters