What is the ruling of the Shari'ah regarding television and video in terms of images? And what is your opinion on the treatise on image-making by Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khalq?

Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, the question is not the last one, but regarding your opinion...?

The Shaykh : Out of dire necessity.
Al-Halabi : Yes, out of necessity.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : We ask, what is the position on the issue of video and television in terms of images, and then your opinion on the treatise on image-making that was recently issued?The Shaykh : by 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khalq in Kuwait?

The Shaykh : My opinion regarding video is no different from my opinion on images, because it is based on images and image-making. The original ruling for all images, and let us say the original ruling for all video, is that it is not permissible to use them, invent them, make them, or disseminate them, except in cases where, first, there is no harm from them of any kind of harm, whether physical, creedal, or similar; I say first, and second, there is a benefit and public benefit for the Muslim community. In that case, there is no difference between a manual photographic or journalistic image and a video or the like. The important thing is to look at two things: that it is an image, and the original ruling for it is prohibition. It is an image, yes, but there is no harm from it, rather there is a benefit behind it. In that case, it is permissible to take its image and permissible to display it, whether by the method of displaying the image in the initial primitive ways, or by the method of what? Television and video. As for the treatise of our brother 'Abd al-Rahman 'Abd al-Khalq, I have actually not come across it as a treatise, but I had read an article or part of an article, a quick reading, in the magazine al-Furqan, which they have been publishing for several months. I read it very quickly. I cannot imagine, I mean, the approach he took to permit solar images. I cannot be certain of that, although what is in my mind is that he clings to modern philosophy, that there is no image-making but rather the trapping of a shadow and the like. It seems to me that I read this in the magazine, but the truth is, if any of you have read it, let him tell me: is this how he did it, or did he bring something else?
Al-Halabi : He expressed, a moment ago, our Shaykh, regarding the topic ofThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-Rahman

The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : He said he is as if repeating al-Qaradawi's arguments in *Al-Halal wa al-Haram* (The Lawful and the Prohibited).

The Shaykh : Ah, so there is nothing new. My opinion on that is known, and I say I do not know if the brother heard this on a tape or not. I say that distinguishing between manual images and photographic images, including video and their method of capture, distinguishing between these and those manual images which are forbidden, and photographic images, let us say mechanical to be more general, which are lawful. I say that this is a modern phenomenon, just as I say about the Tablighi Jama'ah that they are modern Sufis, meaning there is some development, but the truth is that it is the old Sufism. Likewise, regarding the distinction between manual images, which are forbidden, and photographic or mechanical images, which are lawful. This is a modern literalism, because we used to think that clinging to the apparent meaning, or rather the correct phrase is to say exaggeration in clinging to the apparent meaning, was a thing that had passed and ended, until we were surprised by a modern literalism like this issue: a manual image of one of the Shaykhs. This image is forbidden, but thisThe Shaykh : was taken with the machine, and this is lawful. Why? The means changed, what? The means. My brother, the causes are many and death is one, the calamity is one. If we hang this image on the wall and it is manual, it is exactly like the photographic image hung on the wall, so the calamity is one. It is not that this was drawn by hand and this was taken by machine. I ask: who made the machine, the hand or the man? I do not say the man, of course; the hand made it, rather the hands of those who dedicated their lives for a long time to invent this device, just a press and out comes what? The image. This is far greater than imitating the creation of Allah, which they deny regarding the machine, what? The photographic one. And as they say, one thing reminds me of another, if I forget I will not forget Sa'id Ramadan. Do you know him? He was one of the disciples of Hasan al-Banna (may Allah have mercy on him). When he came to Damascus and stayed at the Muslim Brotherhood center, I met him in a room. We discussed the da'wah and what relates to it. The conversation came around to images, so he is one of those people who were influenced by the fatwa ofThe Shaykh : Bakhit al-Masri. Did you hear his fatwa? He was the first to establish this bad practice, distinguishing between manual image-making and photographic image-making, so he permitted photographic image-making and the people did not believe it. Have you not heard a fatwa from one of the Shaykhs in Egypt permitting what they call? Savings boxes

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Ah, the eager people did not believe...

Another questioner : They know with certainty that it is forbidden.

The Shaykh : Ah, they did not believe when they heard this fatwa. Likewise, in that time, they did not believe when they heard fromThe Shaykh : Bakhit that this photographic image is permissible, and they philosophize it, saying this is manual and this is photographic. We say, my brother, these photographic images did not exist with this machine except after long and prolonged efforts and from inventive men until what? The image is produced by just a press. Even so, how do they say put this machine until the Day of Resurrection, it is not going to take a picture, but press a button and it takes a picture. Even so, press the button without you directing it toward the target, it is not going to take a picture of the target. So how do they say this is photographic and this is manual? Your hand is the one working, regardless of the previous hands and so on. The point is, I discussed this with Sa'id Ramadan when we met at the Muslim Brotherhood center in Damascus. He kept arguing with this strange, odd logic that this is a machine. I said to him, what is your opinion? You know that there are very large factories, millions of dirhams and dinars were spent on them to create them, after minds almost invented them, a press of a button from here, and it produces hundreds of idols in one minute. Idols, I do not say plastic, copper, iron, perhaps other known metals and so on. Is this forbidden or lawful? The Muslims had no choice but to say what? Forbidden. We said to him, just this was not made by hand, it was made by a button press, it must be lawful. The man was stunned. So the point is, clinging to the idea that this image is manual and this is by machine, this is modern literalism. We say it is the literalism of Ibn Hazm... and what bothers you about him being your neighbor there, because Islam is all about neighborliness with each other, is that he is rigid in his understanding of the texts... and from his wretched rigidity he comes to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah he said, "If he urinated in a vessel and then poured it into stagnant water, it would be permissible." Urinating in the empty vessel is correct, but O Imam, O Abu Muhammad, what is the difference between one who urinates directly into stagnant water and one who made a canal? Do you know what a canal is?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : It means a long pipe, a kilometer or so, and there is a hole there without any blame, and the urine flowed until it reached the container holding stagnant water. What is the difference? This is not in the stagnant water, but all roads lead to the mill, do you know this proverb? All roads, all paths lead to the mill, whether from here or from there, the result is the same. So, this rigidity is a form of clinging to the apparent text without looking deeply into the intent of the Lawgiver. What did the Messenger intend when he forbade urinating in stagnant water? Undoubtedly, it is to preserve the water, either its purity or at least its cleanliness. The purity is gone, or at least the cleanliness, whether by the first method or the second, the result is the same; all roads lead to the mill. Why did the Wise Lawgiver forbid images and keeping them, and the entry of angels, and so on, because of the doctrinal and moral harms they contain? There is no difference, if you look at these legislative rulings, between a photographic image and a hand-drawn image, is there? There is no difference, the result is the same. Therefore, I say that distinguishing between this image and that one is a modern superficiality that leads people to this rigidity and clinging to this apparent text, saying that this is what the Messenger forbade, but this device did not exist in the time of the Messenger, yet the result is the same. An airplane did not exist, a car did not exist. One person cannot ride a mount but can ride a car or an airplane. Is Hajj obligatory for him or not? Of course, it is obligatory. Why? Because he was able to find a way to it, meaning the means existed, even if the means did not exist in the time of the Messenger, just as the camera did not exist in the time of the Messenger, but it produces for you the image that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade. The proof is that these people who strain themselves to distinguish between an image drawn by hand and an image taken by a machine, what do they call both photographers? A photographer. The matter is settled. And the Messenger said: So, nullifying these general implications because the means is a later invention is the modern rigidity that we call modern superficiality. And this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.