What is the ruling on television?

The questioner : A question regarding television. It is well known that it is one of the most harmful media devices to belief, morals, and the Islamic call. The scholars' reactions to it have differed; some declared it forbidden from the outset and considered it a form of forbidden image-making. Others approved of it as a useful device, provided it is utilized properly, but they refrained from dealing with it due to the prevalence of evil in it. A third group believes it is obligatory to tackle this device and attempt to influence through it in ways that serve the Islamic call. What is your comment, especially since some committed Muslims have become bold enough to buy a television and bring it into their homes, citing the useful programs and constructive investigations now available, particularly in some Gulf states?

The Shaykh : Yes, what I see, and what I have said repeatedly, is that television is like the radio and the tape recorder, although it differs from them in one aspect, which is that it contains images. The radio and the tape recorder use only sound. These two means, the radio and the tape recorder, can be used for good and can be used for evil. Therefore, one cannot say absolutely that it is permissible or absolutely that it is not permissible. I am speaking now about the radio and the tape recorder; one cannot say absolutely permissible or absolutely not permissible for either. Rather, permissibility and impermissibility are tied to the method of use. If each is used for what is beneficial, it is good, recommended, and a fine means. If it is used for evil, it is evil. If it is used for what is permissible, it is permissible. This is their ruling, exactly like this tongue. A person can use the tongue to remember Allah, to speak permissible words, or to speak forbidden words. The tongue is a creation of Allah, a blessing, but this blessing can turn into a curse due to bad usage. So it is with the two devices mentioned earlier. After this introduction and preamble, we return to television. In my view, the ruling on using television is like the ruling on using the two devices mentioned before, with the noted difference that it contains images. However, I find in the Sunnah the consensus on the prohibition of image-making first, and the prohibition of using images second. And these forbidden images With this, I say that television or the TV is permissible to use if its use is regulated. Since television is related to the state and not to individuals, and no individual can direct it in the way he wants; therefore, ah, and before this, I say, based on this, if the state's methods are not restricted by a Shari'ah ruling that permits broadcasting what is obligatory, recommended, or permissible on television, and if there is no such restriction in the state, which would not naturally be the case unless there is a committee that studies the programs coming from all over the world and distinguishes the good from the bad, broadcasting what is good and discarding what is not, and since the matter is not so, I see that it is not permissible for a Muslim to bring this television into his home because the predominant aspect of it is evil, and the predominant aspect of it is corrupting the family, especially the young and small children. Especially since the situation in television has developed to the point of adopting these images, I do not know what they call them, cartoonish,

The questioner : Cartoon films

The Shaykh : Cartoon films. These films actually compel me to look into the issue of image-making in the modern era. There is a great deal of disagreement among Muslims, or among the callers to Islam or writers, many of whom say that photographic image-making is permissible. This, in my belief, as I have said repeatedly, is a modern superficiality that one should not adhere to, nor should one use it to justify image-making by its means. Because Islam does not distinguish between one means and another if the result is the same. So this image is handmade, it is forbidden because it is by hand, and this photographic image is lawful because it is by machine? The point is that some people today have become entangled and said that photographic images are permissible, but what do they do now with these cartoon images, as some said earlier? These are images; in truth, I am almost bursting with anger at these people who draw a human being with jaws larger than his head, as if they are not pleased with Allah's creation. So they present to children strange images that do not exist in Allah's creation,

The questioner : Imaginary

The Shaykh : Purely imaginary. This is forbidden even according to those who say that photographic image-making is permissible, because part of their argument, in addition to what we mentioned earlier, is that this photographic machine does not add or bring anything to the image beyond what Allah created it to be, meaning it does not create something new. So what do you do with these cartoon images that a believer is disgusted by when he encounters this creation they have invented, compared to Allah's creation, about which our Lord said: Therefore, I do not see it permissible for a Muslim to bring this device into his home except on a day, which Allah knows when it will be, when there is an Islamic state that adopts an Islamic system one hundred percent. It is fine if there are ijtihad opinions, and opinions may differ, even among some scholars. But the important thing is that the opinion comes from a committee of scholars. And based on the advice of this committee, news and scenes and the like are broadcast on television. There is no doubt that it would be one of the best means to influence people, to guide them, and to teach them. And I often say on such an occasion of clarification: I wish there were an Islamic television that shows a Shaykh circumambulating the Ka'bah, teaching pilgrims before they go to Hajj, when they do not know how to perform Hajj. And when they return, someone says to them, or their jurist says, "You did not perform Hajj, but the camels performed Hajj." Meaning, today it is the Hajj of cars, why? Because they do not know how to perform Hajj properly. I wish there were a television that actually shows us a knowledgeable man speaking and acting, explaining to people how to start the tawaf, how to kiss the Black Stone, when not to kiss it. All these things that happen today, he would demonstrate them clearly and distinctly, and so on for all the rituals of Hajj, so that a person would have performed Hajj theoretically and then apply it practically. We find absolutely nothing of this. Why? Because those in charge of these devices today are not, first, committed to Islam, then they are not people of knowledge, and finally, unfortunately, the head of the state does not task these employees, who are his employees, with taking the opinion of scholars regarding what they broadcast. And you all know the criticisms directed at some radio stations in some Islamic countries, where indecency is broadcast, where tabarruj (display of adornment) is broadcast, and so on. But as the poet said:
The Shaykh : "And if I called, I would hear a living soul, *** But there is no life for the one you call,
The Shaykh : And if I blew on a fire, it would light up, *** But you are blowing on ashes." This is my opinion on television.

The questioner : Okay, the position of the callers and scholars

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : Some see tackling this device to influence through its lawful aspects, and some reject that... ?

The Shaykh : I understood the answer, may Allah bless you. Understand the answer when I say it is not permissible to bring this device into the Muslim's home.

The questioner : I am speaking to the callers who say we will invade them to influence through it those who have this device. The device is present in homes, undoubtedly with many people. So he says, since it is all evil, I will enter and make an Islamic magazine and include hadiths in it of good, so that it becomes a neighbor to the bad neighbor. And some say no, so that the righteous do not buy this device on the pretext that it has useful things. So what is this issue?

The Shaykh : I understood you. It seems you want to say, for example, a noble scholar, does he expose himself, or if he is asked to give a lecture, for example, and his lecture is broadcast on television to a large audience, does he do that or not? Approximately like that?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, I say that if the harm of television were less than its benefit, I would agree with this action. However, since its harm is greater than its benefit, the opinion I mentioned is the one that applies here. That is, there would be a broadcast encouraging people to bring television into their homes. Then it would become the case that a certain house does not have a television, but when one of the scholars, preachers, or guides informs him that he has special sessions on a day or two of the week, he is motivated to buy a television. And once the television enters his home, the one who goes to use it will use it for other purposes, and corruption will occur. At that point, the scholarly principle applies: "Removing harm takes precedence over seeking benefit." Furthermore, I see that this call we mentioned earlier, or the scenario I presented, leads me to ask: What is the benefit of my responding to the responsible television committee by delivering a structured lesson via television? What do the people gain other than seeing my image? But they can hear my voice without the method of television. Is that clear? The expected and effective benefit is not my appearance in my form, but my appearance in my voice. Therefore, there is no major benefit behind justifying this action to benefit other people; let it be done through radio broadcasting, not television.

The questioner : Shaykh, regarding image-making, the Shaykh says that among their doubts, and one of their strongest doubts, is that it is like a mirror. Also, there is the hadith . So what is the response to this doubt?

The Shaykh : Yes, that is sufficient, and I think you are quoting them correctly when you say they claim it is like a mirror. If so, it is not a mirror.

The questioner : Correct, they made an analogy.

The Shaykh : Yes, they made an analogy, saying it is like a mirror. But if it is said, "Zayd is a lion," it means he resembles the lion, but he is not a lion. So if a person sees himself in a mirror, it is not called an image because it is transient, whereas an image is a fixed image. As for the hadith "except a drawing on a garment," this is actually something that requires research and is beneficial to investigate. "Except a drawing on a garment" is not an exception to the prohibition of creating forbidden images, but rather an exception to the use of an image. I do not say now that it is forbidden, but I think the difference between the two matters has become clear to you. In other words, we have the act of image-making, which is creating an image that did not exist before, and the second matter is the use of that image. So his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): is not an exception to the first matter (creation), but to the use. Is that clear up to here? Another point: Is this exception for the forbidden image, or for the image whose features have disappeared and it has become a skeleton or something else? I lean toward the latter, and I mentioned this in *Adab al-Zafaf* (Etiquette of the Wedding), if I remember correctly. But the important thing now is that your question concerns image-making, not the use of the image, because the question was that those who permit image-making argue that it is not the use of the image but the creation of the image, and they cite this hadith as evidence. They assume the exception is from the act of creating the image, not from the use of the image. The proof of that is: . It was asked of the narrator, "Did he not say 'except a drawing on a garment'?" So the issue is related to the use of the image, not its creation. Is that clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?