What is the ruling on image-making and sculpting statues in all their forms and shapes?

Is the means prescribed, or is this means not prescribed? That is the issue... Be patient:
I am now bringing up four or five examples, to the extent that I was able to grasp from the first, second, third, and so on...
These phenomena that you affirm affect us; we do not disagree with you on them, especially since we are from the same country, and our whole country says, "The eye is a ladle; what is it?" That is the case. But this image should be permissible and not forbidden, falling under the general rule. So I said, at the very beginning, andThe Shaykh : I affirmed at the end, and we agreed, and we gave examples of identity cards and passports, and so on... You gave some examples, and may Allah reward you with good, attributing to me, for instance, the rituals of Hajj and the manner of the Prophet’s prayer. I say, if only there were a television that broadcasts to the people a scholar who performs the rituals of Hajj for them on television, because most of them come without knowing how to perform Hajj; most of them do not perform the prayer properly, and so on... I brought this example to show that television, or images in general, does not mean that every part of education is forbidden, but there are exceptions. When we want to make an exception here, the matter requires knowledge and mindfulness of Allah. And when you said, for example, in part of what you said, that it may lead to delusion, and the teacher may be led to delusion, your example was like the one who carries fruit to... why? Because I mentioned this, I mentioned the hadith: does it reach the hearts of people, and
The man mentioned this word itself, that he is a man, and therefore I said that this one who delivers the lessons is known for fitnah (trial, discord or temptation); that was my intention. But which of the two is more apparent for fitnah, more prominent for it, and stronger for it? I am now giving you a very simple example: the preacher, when he ascends the pulpit, is there not fitnah in this? Fine, but now look at the difference: the preacher who preaches on a pulpit like the Prophet’s, with three steps, and the one who nearly strikes the sky with his head, with ten steps—are they equal, for example? No. So we must consider these causes, which are appearances that may affect or may not affect. But as I say, our country is also further from evil, and we sing, and what does this mean? This is taken from his saying (peace be upon him), "Whoever encircles the sanctuary is likely to fall into it." This is it. May Allah bless you. The examples or parts that you mentioned first, second, and third, if they grant the permissibility of statues in general, and I do not think you say that, then we have agreed. And if they lead to the conclusion that it is permissible in certain forms, like the image mentioned by the honorableThe Shaykh : And like the image you quoted from me, this is not a point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is using television in general.

The questioner : Because of the importance of this issue, because our brother who mentioned the programs he presents, I think, contain benefit and contain this exception, as long as it is a debate. And then I mentioned an important point, which is the most important thing: that we must distinguish between image-making. This image-making is not established.

The Shaykh : This is what you need to respond to from the things I mentioned, Doctor, first, second, and third. I mean, these images that were filmed and stored, what are they called?

The questioner : What are they called? An image, only if it appears on television. But the tape, what is the benefit of such a tape? It is recorded on a cassette and placed there, with no benefit unless I use it. And if you put it on television, it is a passing thing with no permanence. The reverence is gone, and the fixed thing that I see in a fixed and stable image is gone.

The Shaykh : ... Stay with me. The distinction mentioned in the image has become hidden, and when you wish, you bring it out. This does not justify saying that this image is permissible and this one is permissible to film.

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : Regarding ...

The Shaykh : Do you allow me to complete my conversation with our Doctor?

The questioner : ....

The Shaykh : I do not mean immediately after the marriage.

The questioner : There is room, yes, the...

The Shaykh : For what? To get rid of the crowd we endured. I want to say, may Allah bless you, a person must not stop at formalities, because the Shari'ah has disciplined us and refined us and forbidden us from stopping at formalities. Now we are taking the first step. This one who filmed the image of his son, did he do right or wrong?

The questioner : An image of what, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : An image of his son.

The questioner : A fixed image of his son, meaning a fixed photographic image.

The Shaykh : Still, an image of his son, step by step. This one who filmed the image of his son, in that he filmed the image of his son, not to be recorded in an identity card or something similar, but just as a memento or something similar, did he do right or wrong?

The questioner : He did wrong, because there is no benefit.

The Shaykh : I am not asking you about the cause. The best speech is what is little and sufficient. He did wrong. He hid it in the box. Did he do right or wrong?

The questioner : No, he did wrong from the start.

The Shaykh : So does he take comfort in this error?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, and the ruling is the same for television. May Allah bless you. I tell you, your taking comfort in the fact that this image became thrown on the tape or something similar does not make the initial filming permissible. The original ruling is that it falls under prohibition, and what is built upon what is forbidden is forbidden. This is first. The image of the son, he hid it, but he is ready every moment to take it out, to take it and look at it and remember, especially if, what is it—Allah has taken His trust, and so on... Also, it comes out with memories and so on... Or it comes out of the box. These are means to divert Muslims from obeying the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his prohibition of image-making in general. So if the image was public at first and became hidden later, does it mean it became permissible? No. It was forbidden and remains forbidden. This is said for every image as long as it has not been erased. And these video images, if the expression is correct, are worse than photographic images, because the imitation in them is much more than the imitation in static photographic images, because you see a person moving, eating, drinking, and so on... Then you took one point in your previous discussion, which does not contain prohibition. When the scholars forbid image-making, they establish that the cause of image-making has two causes. The first is mentioned in the hadith, which is his saying (peace be upon him), "They imitate the creation of Allah." And the other cause is that it was, at some point, a cause for the worship of idols other than Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
So the fact that a person filmed an image and you exclude that there is reverence in it does not align with the ruling of the Shari'ah forbidding images from the perspective of blocking the means to harm. If image-making is forbidden in general, and then we find an image that does not come to mind as revering someone other than Allah, this does not mean it is permissible, because the Lawgiver forbids a thing not for its own sake, but because it may lead to other forbidden things. So may Allah bless you, Doctor, we must look at the issue from all its sides. We do not look at the image itself, whether it has reverence or not. The image that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) hung, which was embroidered in her curtain or in her sleeve or on her cushion, do you think Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was revering this image? Of course not. But he said (peace be upon him), "These image-makers are the most severely punished people on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, 'Bring to life what you created.'" Angels do not enter a house in which there is an image or a dog. These general statements must not be nullified or invalidated because we found that there are exceptions that the Shari'ah helped us to exclude, so we stopped at them and preserved the original ruling, which is that all image-making is forbidden. There is no difference between a hand-drawn image, a photographic image, or video images, as they say today... Please.

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : I mean, regarding what is said that photographic images or video images did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : This is the people's doubt.

The questioner : So they are judged by analogy with what existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : They are not judged by analogy. Complete your statement.

The questioner : This is what they say. In the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), there were two types of images: the image in a mirror or water, and images made by drawing and carving. Some people compared the mirror image to the actual creation that Allah created, arguing that it reflects on the mirror or polished surface without any imitation. Therefore, they are more inclined to compare it to the mirror image because it does not display human creativity, human effort, or human excellence. As you mentioned, the hadith refers to those who create like His creation, imitating the creation of Allah. So they said this image is more like the mirror image because it does not involve human effort that displays human skill, which would be imitating Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). Therefore, those who compare it to the image made by carving and drawing, yes.

The Shaykh : Finished.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : First, may Allah reward you. This issue does not involve any analogy, neither negative nor positive. The evidence for this is the one who takes a picture with the device, which is the photographic machine. What is this called in the language?

The questioner : A photographer.

The Shaykh : And what is the result of this device called in the language?

The questioner : An image.

The Shaykh : So he is a photographer and that is an image. Now, if we take his saying (peace be upon him), "Every photographer is in the Fire," do we understand that the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) include the photographer we are currently debating, or not?

The questioner : In the general wording?

The Shaykh : And "Every photographer is in the Fire."

The questioner : Shaykh, if you please, clarify this detail. He also says that the mirror image is called an image.

The Shaykh : No, is it called a photographer?

The questioner : The one who made it, meaning no one is holding it now.

The Shaykh : You answer me and spare yourself. The one who stood in front of the mirror, is he called a photographer?

The questioner : He is a photographed person, like the person who stood in front of the camera.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. The best speech is what is brief and effective. The one who stood in front of the mirror, is he called a photographer?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : The matter is over, I beg of you, because rushing matters leads us to being deprived of the benefit of the research. If you believe with me completely, as I think you do, that the one who stands in front of the mirror is not called a photographer, neither linguistically nor by custom, but I fear...

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : You are rushing me. If it were permissible for one of us to rush the other, it would be permissible for the Shaykh, andThe Shaykh : someone like you. But I say, as a matter of debate, if it were permissible for one to rush the other, it would be permissible for the Shaykh to rush. But I am not rushing you, and you are not rushing me; rather, we are trying to understand each other. I said earlier, if you believe with us that the one who stands in front of the mirror and sees his image is not a photographer, the case is closed from a certain aspect. But I fear what I fear, which is that you do not believe with me in this. Do you believe with me in this so that we can proceed?

The questioner : May Allah reward you. I say...

The Shaykh : I ask Allah to guide you.

The questioner : No, but let me clarify.

The Shaykh : Clarify as you wish.

The questioner : This is what I wanted. I am sorry for the interruption; I did not want to interrupt you. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : No, it is not an interruption, because if I ask you, I hope your answer will be clear. Because at first you said, "No, this is not a justification," and now what do you say?

The questioner : I say no, with clarification.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : I say the mirror image is called an image, and the video image is called an image, and the one who does the filming in video is called a photographer. This is a fact.

The Shaykh : This is the previous statement.

The questioner : But regarding the mirror, there is the mirror image which is called an image, while the one who stood in front of it is called a photographed person, like the person who stood in front of [the camera] is called a photographed person. Here, the photographer does not exist. This is what I wanted to say a moment ago.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. You are done, you have finished. May Allah forgive you, my professor. You have brought us back to where we started, and then you took us to where we had not finished. Our research was about the solar photographic machine, so you brought us back to video, and then to where I asked you and you answered. First, is this person who stood in front of the mirror a photographer? You answered me first: No, he is not a photographer. Then you returned and said, "I say no, but with clarification." When you clarified, you linked the image to video and did not link it to the solar machine. This photographic machine, what do you call it?

The questioner : A camera.

The Shaykh : So let us stay with the camera now. We agreed that this person who stands in front of the mirror is not a photographer. I am not going far from you, so I say that this image in the mirror is an image, so I will not debate you on this. Therefore, we do not argue about a matter we agree on, because we agree, and praise be to Allah. But we discuss a matter where we may differ. And now it has become clear to us, and praise be to Allah, that we agree that the one who stands in front of the mirror and sees his image in it is not a photographer, and that the one who photographs people with the camera is called a photographer, and the result of his photography is called an image. Good. Now we leave the photographer we agreed is not a photographer, which is the one who stands in front of the mirror. Now we speak about this in terms of Arabic style. We agreed that he is a photographer, and we should agree that he falls under the generality of his saying (peace be upon him), "Every photographer is in the Fire," because it is a general text from which it is not permissible to depart.

The questioner : We agreed that the one standing in front of the mirror is a photographer.

The Shaykh : No, we agreed that he is not a photographer. As for the image, it is an image, so let us leave that side. Let us say now that the one who photographs with the camera is a photographer, without doubt, and that he falls under the generality of his saying (peace be upon him), "Every photographer is in the Fire." Similarly, he falls under the generality of his saying (peace be upon him), "Whoever makes an image is burdened with the task of breathing life into it on the Day of Resurrection, and he will not be able to do so." Up to here, the speech is in terms of Arabic style, is it clear? Now, what took this image out of these generalities? What took it out? Nothing. I say, what took it out? Two things. First, a factual reality, which is the trial of people with this photography by camera, until the camera became a means of amusement. Small children hang them on their shoulders and photograph whatever they wish, whether it is lawful or forbidden. People today, who claim to belong to knowledge, are overcome by the love of making things easy in matters where there is no ease in the Shari'ah, even at the expense of the Shari'ah texts. Therefore, they try to pass off this widespread violation today with various interpretations. So I believe that what led people to exclude images and photographers by camera from prohibition is that it is a general trial.
The second thing, and we read this in the time of the... Mufti of Egypt, and then its echo spread to many of the noble Muslim scholars. They said, "This does nothing except that he presses the button." This is a strange stubbornness in my opinion! They do not look at the people and the efforts of people over the years that gathered and cooperated until the matter reached what? A button press, and there is the image, clear and distinct, clearer than the hand-drawn image. Then you see, does the image appear as this photographer wants without him aiming the camera at the target he wants to photograph? Of course, the answer is no. Why do these people come and say, "He did nothing except press the button"? My brother, he cooperated with the disbeliever photographers from hundreds of years ago. When they first invented this device, the image came out unclear; it needed developing, and I don't know what, and after a day or two, etc. And now, a button press and the image comes out directly. They completely ignored all this cooperation and said, "This photographer did nothing except press the button." And those who photographed this machine and brought it into existence after it was non-existent, they are not given any credit. Finally, this man took the camera and photographed this person... his image comes out. So he is the one who photographs. Therefore, it is a general custom that no one can deny that the one who photographs with the camera is called a photographer, because he performed the action. The only difference between this photographer and the old photographer is that the old one took a pen or a brush and left the photographed person in front of him, and he scrutinized him and strained his eyes until the image came out as much as possible matching the reality of the photographed person. And as they say, if I forget, I do not forget how I was in elementary school. The art and math teacher had a hobby in photography.

The questioner : Your school was in Syria?

The Shaykh : In Syria, not in Albania, because I left Albania when I was nine years old and I didn't know anything. The important thing is that when we came to Syria, I entered primary school. The art and math teacher had a hobby of drawing. When the students went out for recess, he would sit in front of the board, which is called a blackboard in some countries, and take the chalk. He would see a boy whose appearance and features he liked, call him over, and have him sit in front of him. He would take the chalk, and in moments, there would be a picture. Look at this boy; this is the boy. This skill is not like the skill of another person who does not have this hobby and does not have this mastery. Do you think there is a difference between these two photographers in manual photography? They both fall under the prohibition because one drew quickly and the other drew slowly. I do not think this is a point of disagreement at all. The rule is...
Here we pause for a moment regarding the imitation (mudaha'ah) that these people deny, who say that photography with a camera does not involve imitation. Where is the imitation in this person I described to you? He took the chalk, did this, and whitened the board, and there is the boy on the board. Where is the imitation in this? In other words, is this imitation internal or external?

The questioner : External.

The Shaykh : External. Let us leave the picture and take the sculptor who carves the idol and the statue, continuing for long nights and days until the idol comes out exactly as he wishes. I do not know if some of the attendees remember that Italian sculptor who carved an idol. When he was pleased with his carving and said that it only needed for the soul to be blown into it and for it to speak, he said to it, "Speak." It did not speak. So what did he do with it? He smashed it. This is an example of a statue. What is the imitation of Allah the Exalted in this statue that he spent days and nights carving until he was pleased with its carving? The imitation is in the form. Is there blood in it? Are there intestines? Is there a heart? There is nothing inside at all. So the imitation is formal and external, and it is known whether it is drawing, embroidery, drawing on paper, embroidery on cloth, or carving in stone or similar. All this imitation is external and not real. Therefore, I am very sorry that there are some scholars for whom I read an article a long time ago, when the Al-Azhar magazine was called Nur al-Islam, and Al-Dujayl and others were writing in it.The Shaykh : One of them wrote an article, unfortunately, in which he goes to the permissibility of carving idols, not just the permissibility of drawing on paper. No, he mentioned two opinions and then chose the one furthest from the Sunnah. He said that the scholars differed on forbidden images: are they all forbidden, or only the three-dimensional ones that have a face? He mentioned that the Maliki school permits images on paper or on clothes and restricts the prohibition to statues and idols. What did this jurist say, unfortunately? After adopting this opinion and not referring to the hadiths of the tearing of the Qur'an by Lady Aisha and the like, or the story of Jibril refusing to enter the house and ordering the image to be changed until it became like a tree, even though it was not a statue or idol but was on the cloth, he turned away from all these hadiths. Why? Because he wants to make room for the poor artists who are living with a complex.
of prohibition... Let them say that idols are forbidden unanimously, but there is disagreement about these images. So if there is disagreement in this matter, we leave it. But what is the solution to getting out of the opinion that statues are forbidden? This mufti said that the artist, as he calls it, is permitted to make the statue exactly as he wishes, then dig a hole in the top of its head until it reaches the place of the brain, and there is nothing of that at all; it is only a dumb stone. Therefore, there is no imitation because this creation does not live in this form. But without a doubt, he feels, like every person, that this statue has fallen from the eyes of the artists because it has become defective. The director said it is easy; he will come and take a wig and break it on the head... And, by Allah's will, what an idol it is, in its most beautiful state. All of this is proof of the truthfulness of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in many hadiths, including: "You will follow the ways of those before you, handspan by handspan and cubit by cubit, until if they entered into the hole of a scorpion, you would enter it." They said, "Who?" He said, "The Jews and the Christians." He said, "Who among the people?"
May Allah reward you, Abu Layla. By Allah's will, this is a new garment. You wore something new, lived wisely, and died a martyr. The point, may Allah reward him, is that all of this is a deception of the Sharia rulings. We are getting out of the problem. Every image, whether manual, by camera, by video, by carving, or similar, is all forbidden except what is necessitated by dire necessity or pressing need. Finally, I must draw attention to the fact that pressing the button reminds me of another button. As you know, the Europeans invented huge machines and foundries where they pour iron or copper or anything else and press a button from here... What comes out there is an idol. This idol in this way did not exist in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and this image in this way did not exist in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). But what is the difference, my brothers? The difference is as that poet said: "The causes varied, but the death is one." And you know two hadiths, and with them I conclude this speech.
The first hadith is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "May Allah curse the Jews. The fats were forbidden to them, so they melted them and then sold them and ate their price. And indeed, when Allah forbids the eating of something, He forbids its price." "Melted" is known to mean they melted them. Why did the Jews consider the melted fat permissible? Because in their opinion, they did not eat the fat. Allah forbade them the fat, specifically the fat that becomes curled, especially in days of severe cold, taking a certain shape. But when they put it in the large pots and lit the fire underneath, it melted and took a new shape. Did changing this shape make the forbidden thing permissible for them? The answer is no. The fat remains fat with all its properties. Also, this image is an image, and the one who made it is a photographer, whether on paper with a pencil, with ink, with paint, etc., or the image he embroidered or carved in stone or iron, etc. All these things fall under the name of images. Finally, to make it clear to you that these are formalities from which Islam disowns, the evidence is this hadith. And the second hadith, but I am keeping this one hidden until I give you an example that occurred to me once on my journey. I was returning from Aleppo to Damascus after I had gone out for da'wah. A young man rode with me and raised the topic of photographic images with me. We discussed it on the road from Aleppo to Damascus for four hours. I finally said to him, "They claimed, and I mean what I say because it is a fictional story that came from my mind, that a noble and distinguished Shaykh visited a diligent student of his at his home. When he sat in the head of the place, he raised his eyes and saw a picture of himself hanging on the wall. He called him and said, 'O Abu So-and-so, you are a good and righteous student, and by Allah's will, you have heard in my lessons that images are forbidden and that angels do not enter a house that has an image. What do you think about placing my picture and hanging it in the place?' He said to him, 'O His Eminence...'"The Shaykh : "For the sake of remembering you and imitating your character, etc." He said, "No, this is absolutely not permissible for you." So the obedient, dutiful student quickly took down the picture. In the Syrian expression, days passed and days came, and the story became a forgotten memory. And he returned...The Shaykh : and visited his student again. He sat in the same place and saw the picture again in its place. He said, "What is the matter, So-and-so? I remember that you responded to my call and took down my picture. How did you bring it back?" He said, "May Allah reward you. We understood from you the distinction between the manual image and the photographic image. That was a manual image, but this is a photographic image." What do you think of this external aspect? Does the fitnah (trial) not occur with this one as well as that one? May Allah help us.
As for the second hadith, which is the last one, it is his saying (peace be upon him): “May Allah curse the one who facilitates and the one for whom it is facilitated.” Even though, as some of the schools of jurisprudence say to us today, this is a valid marriage, why? Because the conditions of marriage were present: the consent of the guardian, the consent of the wife, the presence of upright witnesses, and so on. But the intent behind it was to make permissible what Allah has forbidden. So, seeking a way around what Allah has forbidden by any means is forbidden. Remember, we are still with the camera. The Jews’ trick in melting fats. And please, if you have anything to say?

The questioner : By Allah, we have benefited greatly, O honorable one.The Shaykh : But we want to leave with a benefit we have gained now, which is that since photography is permitted for necessity, it is allowed for the ID card and the national identity, and likewise for the camera. There are also religious benefits from television, such as exposing or removing things that are forbidden by paying them back or returning them. This means that photography for necessities is blameless, provided one holds the belief that it is forbidden.

The Shaykh : This is a repetition of what we agreed upon previously, but I want to insist on another point that we must observe. Starting with passports or personal IDs, I believe that if it is possible to do without photographic images for personal IDs or official passports in the desired Islamic state, then we do without them. But if there is no alternative to them, then we say that necessities permit the prohibited.

The questioner : We are finished, praise be to Allah. May Allah reward you with good. We are very happy. May Allah gather us with you in all good.

The Shaykh : May Allah make you happy and bless your life.