The Dangers of Taṣwīr: Why Image Making is Prohibited in Islam
Co-operating in Da’wah with those of Ahlus-Sunnah who see Taṣwīr to be permissible
Sheikh Muḥammad Ba Jammāl ḥafidhahullāh said:
“The issue of Taṣwīr is a serious matter and among the major sins; i.e. making images of living beings. The Prophet ﷺ informed that the image makers will be the most severely punished on the Day of Judgement. He also informed that every image maker will be in the Hellfire, and that Allāh has cursed the image maker. There is numerous evidence clarifying the severity of making images of living beings and the prohibition of that.
The ’Eid Khuṭbah, i.e. on ’Eid Al-Ḍh-ḥā was on this topic (the prohibition of making images of living beings).
Moreover, making images of living beings is Ḥarām in the absolute sense; whether that be by means of drawing, carving, sculpting, (embroidery) on a curtain, garment, head covering (’Imāmah), carpet, or even on a coin; all of that is prohibited.
In his famous book; Riyāḍh Aṣ-Ṣāliḥīn, the learned scholar, An-Nawawi raḥimahullāh gave this as the chapter heading; i.e. Taṣwīr being impermissible in all its forms and in all cases. This also includes embroidery, as well as contemporary gadgets such as cameras; whether the cameras are specifically designed to take pictures or cameras which are built-in to phones, or any other instrument used to make images that exist nowadays. All are included in the prohibition of making images of living beings.
And personally speaking, I don’t know anyone from the credible scholars who has a fixed opinion in this issue of cameras, whereby he holds it to be permissible (without any exception). I don’t know anyone! You may find some opinions from Sheikh ’Uthaymīn raḥimahullāh, but if you look (carefully) you will also find other statements (from him) contradicting that.
The fact of the matter is, anyone who looks into the opinions of contemporary scholars will find them issuing verdicts on the prohibition of taking pictures of living beings using these modern day gadgets. Rather, they only differed on whether or not it’s necessary to utilise them for lectures, lessons, etc., for the purpose of benefiting people globally; so some of them said it’s not permissible, while some held back, and others said it’s permissible out of necessity.
The bottom line is, it’s not befitting for a person to risk his Deen on an issue that hinges between ḥalāl and ḥarām, especially for one who is uncertain about this matter. As for us, then Al-ḥamdu lillāh we see it to be ḥarām.
Praise be to Allāh, the da’wah of Ahlus-Sunnah became evident and flourished without the use of Taṣwīr. Our Sheikh, Imām (Muqbil) Al-Wādi’ē raḥimahullāh never had a TV channel, he did not have any media outlets; not visual or audible, no newspapers or magazines, he didn’t have a ḥizb (party), nor a charity organisation or foundation, but despite that his da’wah reached the East and West, North and South. It went global. Rather, many of those who were in Yemen only came to know about Sheikh Muqbil’s Da‘wah while in America, Britain, France, Germany, and such countries. We need to realise that Barakah is from Allāh, and whoever adheres to the Sunnah and practices the Sunnah Allāh will aid him. So there’s no need for us to busy ourselves with Taṣwīr.
With that said, we are not aware Al-’Allāmah Al-’Uthaymīn having many lectures and lessons of his video recorded. Rather the available video recordings may be counted with the fingers. As a matter of fact, there’s an audio recording of when he gave a lecture in the Islamic University (of Madīnah); when he found cameras therein, he personally faced them away and said, ‘I don’t permit anyone to record me,’ or ‘I will not pardon anyone who records me.’
Likewise, I was informed by a brother who attended a gathering of Al-’Allāmah Al-Ghudayyān raḥimahullāh in Riyāḍh, that: there was someone teaching before the Sheikh and there were cameras setup, so when it was time for Al-’Allāmah Al-Ghudayyān’s lesson and the camera man came to setup the camera,
He instructed him to take his stuff. He didn’t want Taṣwīr taking place.
The point being, those from the people of knowledge who permitted Taṣwīr did so based on ijtihād; they saw it to be necessary and something beneficial. But in reality, the benefit is little, and people are unable to differentiate the upright scholar from the misguided scholar who leads people away from the straight path.
Whatever the case, if someone is a person of Sunnah and he holds this view, that is his choice. But for me to give a lecture at his place with the cameras recording, then no! Or I attend a lecture where Taṣwīr is taking place, then no! As for going out together for the sake of da’wah, giving lectures together without Taṣwīr, then there’s nothing wrong with this. However, if I know he has Taṣwīr taking place in his masjid, I don’t go to him, nor do I support him (in this affair). Because if people see me there, they will say we saw so-and-so with him, he must have taken part in the Taṣwīr. They won’t say he prevented them from Taṣwīr, or he warned against Taṣwīr, or he disapproved of Taṣwīr, and such excuses. Bearing in mind that we see this opinion (permissibility of Taṣwīr) to be wrong, because the evidence is clear in prohibiting Taṣwīr, with all its forms and means; since all of that is referred to as Taṣwīr.
If you go to any person, they’ll say: أصورك should I take a picture of you? Meanwhile the Prophet ﷺ says: “every image maker is in the Hellfire,” and, “Allāh has cursed the image maker.” So this person is considered a Muṣawwir (image maker) and he is included in that, regardless if people say it’s similar to the eye lense or it’s like looking in a mirror; this is just philosophising, otherwise the reality of the matter is that it is Taṣwīr. The act is referred to as Taṣwīr, the instrument/camera is referred to as an apparatus of Taṣwīr, the product is called Ṣūrah, and the one who engages in that is called a muṣawwir; so why are we avoiding these realities despite them being clear and evident?!
And those who hold this opinion should be advised and reminded of this evidence. It’s not that every issue where the scholars differ there is room for manoeuvre, where you can do as you wish. No! There are issues of differing such as covering the face in the case of women, someone comes along and says this is an issue of differing, that’s it, now they can all expose their faces. Someone marries a woman, but she exposes her face on the pretext that this is an issue of differing. Hence he ends up divorcing her. Why did he divorce her? He will say, she exposes her face. Come on now, it’s an issue of difference, just like Taṣwīr. Will he be satisfied with that? No!
So this argument should not be a reason to go overboard. He constantly repeats this: it’s an issue of differing, it’s an issue of differing. No! If the proofs are obvious and the evidences are clear, it’s wājib to adhere to that. Al-’Allāmah Al-Fawzān ḥafidhahullāh has clarified this in his explanation of ‘Uṣūl As-sittah’, he stated that differing between scholars does not mean you are allowed to differ and that you are not allowed to criticise. No! We criticise Taṣwīr, we criticise those who partake in Taṣwīr, and we criticise those who allow Taṣwīr – even if he happens to be from Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah. We criticise him for this. We are not pleased with giving talks at his place, attending his talks and adding to the numbers while Taṣwīr is taking place. If he is truly concerned about brotherhood, unity, and loving one another (for Allāh’s sake), he would abstain from Taṣwīr due to my love for him and for the sake of unity. He would not split from me and let in someone else based on this matter. This is not appropriate. We have to safeguard our ra’sul māl (capital) and not extend the matter, as this will lead to further extensions in this issue without any basis.