What's the difference between drawing and taking pictures?

[Snowflake]

I came across the following fatwas on drawing and taking pictures, which led me to the conclusion that both are prohibited. But if you read the paragraphs below, the second one tell you photography is permissable. I find it impossible to agree with that. I may be missing something, therefore I'd appreciate your views on this plz.


Fatwa 1

You may not draw a creature of any kind unless you do so without drawing the head, since any creature without a head cannot be considered a full image.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Gabriel came to me and said: I had nothing to prevent me from visiting you yesterday but the images I have seen on your door. There was a curtain with images thereon, and there was a dog in the house. Order someone to cut the head of the image then it will be the same as a tree. Then tear off the curtain and use it as cover for two pillows, which will be used on the floor, with no respect. Order someone to remove the dog outside.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) did as Gabriel commanded him. [Musnad Ahmad (8032), Sunan al-Tirmidhî (2806) and Sunan Abî Dâwûd (4158)]


The paragraph below refers to photographs/prints (which are also used on posters/upholstry/clothing/books... everywhere,not forgetting in avtars & signatures etc).

Fatwa 2 - According to some scholars:

There are, however, significant differences between drawing a picture and taking a photograph. Drawing a picture is a fully creative process on the part of the artist. Photography is capturing a reflected image on film or in digital memory. The creative contribution of the photographer is therefore quite different than the creative contribution of a portrait maker. For this reason many scholars, including Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî, consider photography to be lawful.


The first paragraph prohibits any living being displayed in it's complete likeness e.g all parts included as in image on curtian mentioned. However in the second paragraph some scholars agree that photography is not the same as making images by hand, therefore is not prohibited. Yet photographs include complete images. Now adays fabrics with animal/human images are printed by machines, so that too is not a fully creative process on the part of the creator. So if one is prohibited from using, displaying, pics of living beings in their complete likeness, then what is the difference whether they were created technically or hand-made? The end result amounts to the same thing.

The angel Gabriel did not enter the Prophets (saw) home because the curtain displayed animal images. I don't see any difference in how those images are created, technically or by hand, they are still prohibited. So how does that make photography permissable, when it includes the full image. Nobody's going to take photos with the head missing, or only the head with no body. Am I missing something here? Because the way I see it is, if something is prohibited then it doesnt matter how it has been created. To me the prohibition still applies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I just can't see the difference.

 

[Prawned]

I don't really see how exposing light to film can be against the laws of Islam because that would mean the laws of Islam are at odds with the Laws of Physics. But still, Islam and Allah may be greater than physics itself. Does this also make so-called "moving pictures", for example television or movies unlawful? Because sometimes I see this guy named Al on CNN, I think his full name is Al Jazeera and he makes these video tapes of people wearing hoods and pointing assault rifles at people. So does Al Jazero (I'll just call him A.J. from now on) violate the laws of Islam when he makes these videos?

 

[Malaikah]

well sis, think about it this way. when you are drawing something, YOU are recreating it, you start by making an outline then putting in the detail yourself. but when you take a photo, its totally different, becuase all you are doing it capturing the light being reflected from a person (for example), and this light then creates an image.

if that doesnt help, you can think of a mirror. as far as i know, they are not haram. yet they show us an image of ourselves. a moving image too, one that involves the reflection of light off the person, then from the mirror to create the image. you can think of photography as taking it a step further, it captures the image just as a mirror would, expect this image can last and is still, unlike in the mirror where the image is ever changing.

i hope that helps!

 

[Snowflake]

No sis, how can it be the same? A mirror does not capture an image but reflects it, so does water. What I am trying to say is that, if something is prohibited, then it's prohibited. So if displaying living things is haram, then even a photo of a living being is haraam. That brings me back to the conclusion that photographing and displaying such photos is haram too. Ermm.. does anyone get my point?

 

[Halima]

May I add some?


This is what I had found that is beneficial/relevant to this topic inshallah.

• Please understand that photography did not exist at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, scholars have to compare photography to matters that Islam has ruled about. The ruling, therefore, is not based on an explicit text but on juristic discretion (ijtihâd).

• Some scholars have compared photography to hand-drawn pictures. Drawing pictures by hand of people and animals is unlawful by clear and unambiguous textual evidence. Ibn `Abbâs relates from the Prophet (peace be upon him): “Whoever makes an image in this world, he will be requested to breathe life into it on the Day of Resurrection, but he will not be able to do it.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahih Mulsim]

• Ibn Mas`ûd also relates that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: “The severest penalty on the Day of Resurrection will be given to image makers.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahih Mulsim]

• Photography resembles drawing pictures in that it is a human effort that results in a fixed image of a person or an animal on a flat surface. Therefore, some scholars ruled that photographing people and animals is unlawful, because it falls under the prohibited act of image-making

.

• There are, however, significant differences between drawing a picture and taking a photograph. Drawing a picture is a fully creative process on the part of the artist. Photography is capturing a reflected image on film or in digital memory. The creative contribution of the photographer is therefore quite different than the creative contribution of a portrait maker. For this reason many scholars, including Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî, consider photography to be lawful.
  
• And Allah knows best.

source:www.islamtoday.com

 

[Snowflake]

May I add some?

Of course my dear sis. And tnx too. I've read that before and that is why I disagree with photographic images being allowed. I was hoping to see if others brothers and sisters see my point of view/ agree/disagree.. but I guess it's a boring topic compared to what else is on the forum currently :happy:


Ok, let's look at hand-made drawings. These are permissable as long as they don't depict a complete life-like image. It's clear from this that the prohibiton lies in the creating & displaying of living images, whether that be on a wall, fabric, ornament, or anywhere for visual display.

Human effort is involved in everything, even if the scholars disagree. Cameras can't get up and operate by themselves by. So, I don't know where they got that idea from in the first place. It still mounts to the same thing, as in driving an automatic car or a manually controlled one. Both do the same thing & require human effort, only one more than the other.

The emphasis on impermissability is about displaying living images, as the curtain in the Prophets (saw). Now if that curtain had the same images printed onto it with a machine, it would still bear the same image. Just for the record, (before someone brings human effort into it ) that process requires human effort too. Therefore, whether they are hand-made or technically created, that fact remains that they are still impermissable. Basically, if we can't display living images then it doesnt matter what tool was used to create them. We still cannot display them.

Hello??? Come on ppl does anyone agree/disagree with me or not. I really want to know what you guys think. It isn't that boring or futile is it? :rollseyes

 

[Malaikah]

sorry sis but i have to disagree with you on this one. why should reflecting an image and capturing an image be any different? you argue that humans have to put effort in to taking the picture, well dont they also have to out effort in to making a mirror?

The difference between drawing and taking a picture, as far as i know, is that you actually recreate it when you draw it yourself. you add your personal touch, its not perfect. with taking a photo, you are just capturing the light reflecting of the human who god created.. i dont see why you are against capturing light? :-/ the light and the image already exist, you didnt make it exist as you would be if you were painting or drawing something.

sorry im not a very clear speaker, but i hope that helps.

 

[M H Kahn]

A useful debate. Allah swt knows the best. Let's do neither art nor photography unless dire necessity compels us to.

 

[Malaikah]

A useful debate. Allah swt knows the best. Let's do neither art nor photography unless dire necessity compels us to.

Thats not really required though is it brother? not if scholars have concluded on the issue already, it is up to the person to decide which opinion to follow, and if you believe that it is halal, then do it. isnt that how it works? :?

 

[Snowflake]

Thanks Khan bro. I forgot to include the permissability for lawful purposes. This goes as follows:

Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required for identity documents, or for identifying or pursuing criminals [e.g. "wanted" posters and the like - translator's note], or for educational purposes which cannot be achieved otherwise. The principle in Shari'ah is that we should not exaggerate about what is necessary.

Cheese sis,

Hehe don't worry about ur speaking, it's perfectly clear. How do I explain this. I feel like I'm only going to repeat myself. Look my dear sis. Yes a mirror is made by humans as all surfaces that have reflecting qualities are. Before mirrors were made ppl used to look at their reflections in water. As there is nothing in Islam to say that seeing ur relfection is haram, therefore this does not apply to mirrors, and also mirrors do not capture images, only reflect them.

Now you say that a camera captures an image. True, you are right. Capturing images on film itself is not haram. We are allowed to draw pictures of landscapes, flowers etc etc. Therefore it doesnt matter what tool is used for the purpose, the main this is it's permissable. In the same way, if drawing anything that possesses a soul is impermissable, then it's prohibited regardless of how it was created.

Drawing pictures of living things = haram regardless what tools are used (unless for educational and legal reasons) for creating them

Drawing pictures of anything that possesses a soul is haram - regardless of the tool used for creating them.

So that includes photography too. As we are prohibited from displaying such images, it doesnt matter how they are created, the prohibition still remains.

 

[Takumi]

What is your basis of disagreeing to the fatwas saying that photography is permissible?

Did you read the ahadeeth or Quranic verses in their truest form?

A hadeeth might be saheeh but also khabar ahad, that means that only some of the sahabah had narrated it. The level mutawaatir takes precedence over all ahadeeth used to extrapolate fatwas. [after the Quran, of course]

I'd prefer that you read all the texts involved and then decide for yourself.

 

[Snowflake]

Loq. Takumi bro I think I'm not good at explaining what I'm trying to point out. In my last post I explained that photography of living things is impermissable. Say I photograph a cat, dog, human anything... and put that picture on a wall, have it printed on a fabric or just display it anywhere.. I would be still be displaying it right? That is forbidden as it's clear from this hadeeth:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Gabriel came to me and said: I had nothing to prevent me from visiting you yesterday but the images I have seen on your door. There was a curtain with images thereon, and there was a dog in the house. Order someone to cut the head of the image then it will be the same as a tree. Then tear off the curtain and use it as cover for two pillows, which will be used on the floor, with no respect. Order someone to remove the dog outside.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) did as Gabriel commanded him. [Musnad Ahmad (8032), Sunan al-Tirmidhî (2806) and Sunan Abî Dâwûd (4158)]

From there I gather that photography/drawings of humans/animals is forbidden. To say photography is not forbidden in this situation means that it's ok to display these pictures too then? I think not.

If you could provide me with some valuable links regarding this matter, I'd be grateful to you. And I do want someone to prove that I am wrong.

 

[M H Kahn]

Loq. Takumi bro I think I'm not good at explaining what I'm trying to point out. In my last post I explained that photography of living things is impermissable. Say I photograph a cat, dog, human anything... and put that picture on a wall, have it printed on a fabric or just display it anywhere.. I would be still be displaying it right? That is forbidden as it's clear from this hadeeth:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Gabriel came to me and said: I had nothing to prevent me from visiting you yesterday but the images I have seen on your door. There was a curtain with images thereon, and there was a dog in the house. Order someone to cut the head of the image then it will be the same as a tree. Then tear off the curtain and use it as cover for two pillows, which will be used on the floor, with no respect. Order someone to remove the dog outside.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) did as Gabriel commanded him. [Musnad Ahmad (8032), Sunan al-Tirmidhî (2806) and Sunan Abî Dâwûd (4158)]

From there I gather that photography/drawings of humans/animals is forbidden. To say photography is not forbidden in this situation means that it's ok to display these pictures too then? I think not.

If you could provide me with some valuable links regarding this matter, I'd be grateful to you. And I do want someone to prove that I am wrong.

Well-explained ! Let the discuusion continue if there is still a different opinion of greater reliability.

 

[Snowflake]

Thank you bro, I tried : ) But not everyone agrees, so I hope the discussion continues.

 

[Malaikah]

Well, there are differences in opinion amongst the scholars themselves, so i see that as us having the right to choose which opinion makes most sense to us personally. I find that the opinion about photography being allowed is very reasonable, i can personally see the difference between and and actually drawing very clearly.

Maybe its because i am a casual drawer/painter and i aslo love my camera that i can see the difference plainly, because i have experience with both. And possibly because of my love of both physics and chemistry that helps me understand the processes involved in photograph that further highlights the differences.

A friend of mine used the analogy of recording ones voice to taking a photo, that helped me unhderstand the situation better.

in the end, no one can force any opinion on to any one else. I think this discussion would benefit from some one providing the detailed arguments used by scholars for and against photography. I personally couldnt find any.

take care,

p.s. i personally disagree with the explaination you provided sis Nadia.. SORRY!!

 

[M H Kahn]

I think, in view of the Hadith put forward by sister Nadia Waheed, neither photography nor drawing is prohibited insofar as humans and animals are not made subject of these pursuits.

“Gabriel came to me and said: I had nothing to prevent me from visiting you yesterday but the images I have seen on your door. There was a curtain with images thereon, and there was a dog in the house. Order someone to cut the head of the image then it will be the same as a tree. Then tear off the curtain and use it as cover for two pillows, which will be used on the floor, with no respect. Order someone to remove the dog outside.”

When displaying of anything is prohibited, the creation of the same must have the same fate in the ye of God.

 

[Snowflake]

Absolutely bro! I'm glad you agree.

 

[M H Kahn]

It is very obvious that you shall not make images resembling humans and lower animals just for pleasure. If so, you will be acting against the message of the prophet(pbuh) conveyed in the Hadith which was quoted by Nadia Waheed.

 

[abdul Majid]

I Wanted To Say From What I Know It Will Be Said To The People Who Draw These Pictures, On The Day Of Reserection, To Bring Them To Life..and You Already Know They Cannot....

 

[E'jaazi]

There is no difference! The explanation goes all the way back to the Bible (I don't like to use this as a reference, but this is when the prohibition first appears) where it states: "Thou shall not make unto the thee any graven images or ANY LIKENESS of any living thing......" That statement is very clear and leaves no room for any arguement. A picture taken with a camera is a likeness of what it takes a picture of. Modern technology does not abrogate the prohibition.