Is it permissible to declare people to be open sinners?

The Shaykh : Now, I am going to the photographer whom you are declaring to be an open sinner. I am not in a hurry, so let me pause for a moment: Your ruling is a jurisprudential error. Why? Because it is not permissible for you to declare a Muslim man an open sinner who may fast and may pray, just because he is committing something you consider forbidden, while he may have taken a hundred specific fatwas in the last of time stating that this photography is permissible and lawful. How can you call him an open sinner?

The questioner : No, it is not just photography; there are other matters, such as not praying...
The audience: Okay, let us clarify this.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, who has the specific ruling for all photographers?
- And he laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) -
It is not permissible, my dear friend. This analogy is not permissible. You cannot compare Sha'ban to Ramadan; each has its own ruling and its own status. The point is, are you now obligated to expose people's hearts and know that this photographer is an open sinner? What is the weight of his sinfulness? What is the nature of his rank? Is he an open sinner because he lies in appointments? Is he an open sinner because he lies in speech? Yes, yes. What has Allah obligated you in this matter?
Are you now going to perform Hajj to the House of Allah the Sacred, and you are not allowed to do so unless you present them with a photo or two? You go to have your picture taken by this photographer, or not? I say: Here there is a dire necessity that is permitted. First, and second—and this is the most important point for me regarding this issue—the prohibition of images is not from the category of prohibiting the ultimate goal, but from the category of prohibiting the means. That is, out of fear that these images may one day become a tool for corrupting the creed, especially what concerns the worship of Allah and His oneness. So, the permissibility of these images, which are forbidden as a means and not as a goal, is something a Muslim may engage in under two conditions:
1- That there is a benefit for him in it.
2- That there is no harm that affects him.
Is this clear?

The questioner : Not very clear, I mean.

The Shaykh : Why is it not very clear? I am saying...

The questioner : The harm of this.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The amount of benefit that results from the travel...

The Shaykh : No, this is not a case of it being unclear! The speech is clear, but you want to ask a question based on the clear speech. There is no objection to asking, but because you have a question in your mind that you have not raised, and therefore have not received an answer for it, you say the speech is not clear? No, the previous speech is clear. For example: If someone asked whether eating carrion is forbidden or not? The answer was: Yes, my brother, this is forbidden by the evidence of the Noble Qur'an . Is the answer clear? No, it is not clear. Why? Because you have a question in your mind about the carrion of locusts, for example. You cannot say the answer is not clear! The answer is clear, but it is not clear in your view because you are imagining a question and do not know what the answer to that question is. Yes—bring the question, and the answer to this implied question will also become clear. I say: Is the previous speech clear or not clear?

The questioner : It is clear now.

The Shaykh : -He laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) and the audience-

The Shaykh : The question is understood from the answer itself, but it is not clear to you; you are excused. I gave you three examples: an obligatory act, a recommended act, and a permissible act. Do you remember this? Where does your question fit? What is the amount of benefit? The amount of benefit is enjoying what Allah has made permissible, do you see? Not what Allah has forbidden. Above that is 'Umrah, which is the recommended act. Above that is what is more and more obligatory, which is the obligatory act. What you want to ask, instead of your previous question which has no place in the grammar, is when you ask: What is the evidence for this speech? This is the embarrassing, valuable question. The evidence is that we see that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted the Lady Aisha to enjoy her play. You must know this, right? Yes, do you know this? Yes. Is it a recommended act? No, I am not saying it is a recommended act; it may be a recommended act. Is it permissible? It is certainly permissible, but a recommended act is a higher degree. So, when we see that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted her to play on one hand, and we see in the hadith of Rabi'ah bint Mu'awwad in Sahih Muslim that they used to fast their children on the fast of Ashura, and they used to amuse them with playthings made of wool and cotton, keeping them away from food and drink until the time of breaking the fast, if it is permissible to engage in such images as long as there is a benefit, even if this benefit is slight—meaning it is not necessary for it to be an obligatory act, do you see?—for this reason, I say that it is permissible to use the television when its use does not involve committing forbidden acts. Even if there are images in it, because the images that have a benefit for people have been permitted by the Wise Lawgiver. With this, my answer to the question ends. Now, the group who want to pray has not come.

The questioner : So, does that mean we call the images in religious lectures, or something about nature or animals, all permissible to see? Is it permissible to photograph them?

The Shaykh : No, no, because there must be a benefit in them that is not obtained except by them.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Except by the images, yes, yes...