What is the ruling on image-making through carving, hand-drawing, camera, and video? Is there a difference between them?

The questioner : Regarding the first question about images: there are carved images where a person carves with a chisel and hammer, then there are drawn images where a person draws with a pen and brush, then there are camera images where a person takes a picture once, and the last question is about video images, where a person might be completely isolated from them, being automatic. In my view, there is no doubt that there is a difference between the photographer who has a broad artistic imagination and the ability to imitate, and the other difference is that he has no cause in forming the image; because the formation of the image happens through lenses and through different lights. So there is no doubt there is a difference between the photographer who draws with his hand or carves with his chisel, and the photographer who takes pictures, whether with a photographic camera or a video camera. We ask for clarification?

The Shaykh : When you say "difference," are you talking about the legal difference or the manufacturing difference?

The questioner : The manufacturing difference.

The Shaykh : And what concerns us? Now, you know that artists or sculptors claimed that one of them would stay up nights or whole days until the idol came out in the form that pleased him, with the hammer and chisel. Perhaps you remember that Italian who continued to sculpt an idol for him, and then when he was pleased with it, he smashed it. What was his name? Do you know?

The questioner : I don't know.

Another questioner : Michelangelo.

The Shaykh : Yes, the point is. Today, like the camera, a button press and directing it to the target, and the image comes out in an instant, right?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is not effort. I remember the drawing teacher in the primary school I was in; the students would go out to the break to run and play and so on. He would sit in a corner, call one of the students who was sitting next to the board, "So-and-so, come here," he would hold this chalk and make an image of the boy exactly as he was, quickly. But the camera is much faster. So the means have completely changed from before.
Now you know that in Europe, idols come out of marble, or copper, and they may be of silver or gold depending on the taste. This was not carved with a chisel, and the one who brought it out in this form that truly pleases the artists did so only with a button press, you understand this? Good. But this huge machine that is mounted on several machines and gears and so on, and connected to electricity, with a button press repeats for you dozens of idols, whether of iron or copper or silver and so on. What concerns us is that this image differs from the image in terms of manufacturing, is not the result the same? Is this not an idol?

The questioner : Yes, but the intention in the heart is the intention of imitation...

The Shaykh : Let me, we are now talking in terms of manufacturing, whether a person took a picture with a pencil, or with ink, or with yellow or green feathers or shape or or, and so on, finally with the camera, the result is the same, this is an image and this is an image. And we mention on this occasion, and perhaps this will help in refuting modern superficial rigidity. I used to go monthly from Damascus to the north to Aleppo in the path of da'wah and to meet the brothers there. I returned in my old car, and a young man rode with me. There was a resemblance between you and him in that his beard was thick and black. So we wanted to traverse this road, of course, with conversation, not as other people traverse it, but with beneficial conversation. This specific topic of images was opened. He heard, as you hear, that there is a difference between hand-made images, which are forbidden, and photographic or solar images, in which there is permissibility. Allah the Exalted inspired me at that moment to speak the following hadith. So I said to my companion: They claimed that a noble Shaykh visited one of his students in his home. When he sat, his gaze fell on his picture, a pictureThe Shaykh : in the front of the place. He said to his student: "I, my son, did I not teach you that keeping images is forbidden, and that they prevent the entry of angels, and you are one of my smartest and most righteous students," and so on. He said: "My master,The Shaykh : I hung it to remember your morals and your perfection," and so on. He said: "No, it is not permissible." So the student hurried and took down the picture. Days passed and days came, so heThe Shaykh : returned to visit his student again, and he saw the picture in its place. He said to him: "What is this, my son? Did I not forbid it to you in the previous visit?" He said: "Yes, my master, but I understood from you the distinction between the hand-made image and the solar image. That was a hand-made image, but this is a solar image." He said to him: "May Allah bless you, you have become a jurist."
This is a loathsome superficiality. It is not befitting for a Muslim to stop at such things, because it resembles old superficiality. Some of the noble scholars say this, but unfortunately, legal rigidity overcame them. And there are many examples of this. For example: The one in ihram is not allowed to shave his head hair; if he does, he has to pay a fidyah. He said: "But if he removed the hair with a treatment or medicine, and did it like this with his hand, then he did not shave, so this is permissible."
And another: A sound hadith said: "So if he urinated in a vessel and then poured what was in the vessel into the water, it is permissible." Why? Because the wording of the hadith does not apply to it. This is permissible. Why? Because it does not apply to it that he urinated in stagnant water. But with a little fiqh and reflection, a person understands that the intended meaning of the Prophet's prohibition of urinating in stagnant water is to preserve the water. It may not become ritually impure because it is a lot of water, for example, and the urine is little relative to the large amount of water, but at least it will be contaminated. So he wanted to preserve the purity of the water. And usually, all people, when they want to urinate, urinate in the water; they do not come and intend this imaginary scenario that this superficialist mentioned. He said: "So if he urinated in an empty vessel and then poured this urine from this vessel into the stagnant water, it is permissible." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not address this scenario because it is not practical, but purely imaginary. But the goal of his explicit prohibition in the hadith is to preserve the water, in terms of purity or cleanliness. Did this goal happen by the other method? The answer is: No.

The questioner : Another question.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.