Do we look only at the legal terms or also at the objectives? (such as manual photography or photography by camera)

The Shaykh : These people, without a doubt, their logic is the logic of those who belong to the school of the Zahiris, who do not look at the meanings and objectives of the legal terms, and especially the Prophetic hadiths. They look at the wording and that is it. As for the objectives beyond the wording, they do not look at that. So, as I say, regarding those who distinguish between manual photography, which is forbidden in their view, and photography—I will use the new term—and manual photography, they distinguish between manual photography and the other manual photography. So the first is forbidden, and the second, what is it, permissible? And they sit and philosophize it for you, saying to you, "My brother, this was not photographed." What a very strange stubbornness! If they did not take the device or the camera, what do they call it?

The questioner : The camera.

The Shaykh : If they did not take the camera and aim it at the target, would it photograph the target? It would not. If the button was not pressed, would the image appear? How can you come and philosophize the matter with formalities that Islam does not look at? Yes, you do this and that, and it may stay day and night until it perfects the image. This work is not that work. That one is a very brief summary, and without a doubt, because that device, from the day the first inventor invented it, the efforts of dozens and hundreds of innovators and inventors have been bent over this device until they reached the point that developing and film are necessary, and something with this stick makes the image appear as it is. All of this is manual work, but we do not distinguish between the manual work that took a specific person a long time, and the manual work that took people a long time, and a very long time, but they prepared a device for one person in one moment. They distinguish between this image and this image: this is forbidden and this is permissible. This is a detestable superficiality, a hateful superficiality, resembling the superficiality of the one who says that if one urinates in a vessel and there is water in it, the Lawgiver has forbidden it, because of the text of the hadith: But if one urinates in a vessel and then pours this urine from this vessel into the vessel that has water in it, this is permissible. Why? Because it is not true that he urinated in stagnant water. Yes, he urinated in the empty vessel, but what is the result? He took the urine from the empty vessel and poured it into the vessel full of water. All roads lead to the mill. It was found that the first image is the forbidden one meaning directly. But if one urinates in the empty vessel and then pours what is in the empty vessel into the vessel that has water in it, this is permissible. Why? Because he did not urinate in the vessel full of water. This is a very detestable, hateful superficiality. Now, in the present age, there are exactly these kinds of formalities, including the issue of the hour. He gave him a thousand dinars five years ago, less or more, and he wants it to be a thousand dinars. My brother, the thousand dinars today have no value. It is permissible for the Jordanian dinar to be like the Syrian currency. A year ago, we could buy one hundred and fifty Syrian pounds with one dinar. So the one who lent his brother a thousand Syrian pounds five or ten years ago, when the thousand Syrian pounds became equal to approximately ten dinars, he wants to pay it back as he received it at that time. This is stubbornness and denial of the truth, meaning like the sun at noon. It is injustice to the one who lent, due to the effects of this matter, especially in the unstable economic conditions, that good is held back from doing good to others because he wants to be hit by loss later. I want to give you a thousand dinars. It is permissible for the thousand dinars today to be five hundred dinars. The dinar will also go down, and the value of the thousand will become five hundred. I am better for the people because they are harming me and I am doing good to them. Islam is based on very clear principles and foundations, which are pure justice. So we must apply justice whether it is for us or against us, and

The questioner : If...

The Shaykh : Put the "if" at that star, does it remain?

The questioner : In debt and cursed, his Shaytan too, do we also want to burden him with debts beyond his capacity?

The Shaykh : No, this is a fallacy. The calamity did not befall everyone. No, because when he received the thousand dinars, there was no calamity.

The questioner : How was there no calamity?

The Shaykh : By Allah, there was not. I swear by Allah.

The questioner : He swore to you an oath by Allah. A specific calamity, not a general one.

The Shaykh : When he received the thousand dinars, there was no calamity. Now, the calamity has befallen this debtor and the others who have what? Dinars stored. But the thousand dinars that the debtor benefited from and profited from, there was no calamity there. So how do we measure and say the calamity encompassed everyone? It encompassed everyone now, but at that time, there was no calamity.

The questioner : ... meaning the one who has thirty thousand dinars lent a thousand dinars. If he had not lent it and it had remained with him, it would not have been in his pocket and he would have lost the same thing?

The Shaykh : Do you know what they say about us in Syria? "We planted, if it sprouts, I wish." What is the benefit of "if"? We want to address reality.

The questioner : ... based on this statement, the creditor has the right to demand that they be valued, for example, two thousand.

The Shaykh : He does not value them. It is the reality that values them. Yes.

The questioner : This observation is related to the matter of our dear brother. Meaning, in order to reward you because you lent to me, I must calculate the actual current value of the thousand dinars, link it to the past, and give you, so this would be in the category of me rewarding you?

The Shaykh : No, it is in the category of fulfilling what is upon you.

The questioner : Fulfilling what is upon me. At that time, if I want to add.

The Shaykh : Yes, you add.

The questioner : I cannot now pay the thousand dinars as a thousand for a thousand, except that I calculate it. What is upon me.

The Shaykh : What do you mean by the word "cannot"?

The questioner : What I understood from your answer to our dear brother.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : That it is not permissible to pay the thousand dinars with a thousand dinars with the drop in the dinar.

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner : So I said to myself, I will calculate the previous thousand dinars, and value them, for example, they came out to be one thousand and five hundred dinars. I give him the one thousand and five hundred dinars. At that time, I would have given him the equivalent of the thousand dinars.

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner : According to...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Now I said, if I gave him only the thousand dinars, would I be sinful in this matter?

The Shaykh : Or not? But you did not answer my question?

The questioner : Now the answer will come.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills.

The questioner : I said I want to give him more than a thousand dinars, and it is one thousand and five hundred dinars, more than them. So that would be the reward, so reward him.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : What did you want to say here?

The Shaykh : How did I say, if Allah wills, as a comment and not a verification—laughs—you said the word "if you cannot" and you said to me this word, you saw that you moved away from it. Now you have withdrawn it from it, or are you sticking to it?

The questioner : I withdrew it...

The Shaykh : Otherwise, please, not here.

The questioner : ... the two rak'ahs where...

The Shaykh : Do you mean by the two rak'ahs in the two-unit prayer? Meaning, the expression "two rak'ahs" is not precise. You mean in the two-unit prayer, because in the two rak'ahs... the two-unit prayer... yes or no?

The questioner : ... I will try...

The Shaykh : Please... you must have a sound recording device come out for you... this photography is permissible...