A Benefit in Clarifying the Ruling on Image-Making in Its Various Types and Its Conditions.

The Shaykh : Here it is appropriate to speak about image-making and its ruling. Three-dimensional image-making, if it is of a human or a beast, is forbidden, and I believe there is consensus on this. It is forbidden, meaning it is not permissible for a person to depict a standing figure in the form of a human or a beast, and this is by consensus. Whether he depicts it with his hand or makes a hollow, engraved machine such that when dough or something similar is placed in it, it is imprinted to become an image, all of this is forbidden and not permissible. As for image-making by coloring, meaning it is not a body that can be touched but rather a color, the scholars differed on this, both in the past and in the present, even if it is done by hand. Some scholars permitted it and said that the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari regarding the prohibition of image-making states: The principle is that the exception is connected, so his statement: is an exception from the forbidden images, making image-making by coloring permissible. The discussion now is on image-making by hand; we have not yet reached image-making by machine, which would be permissible. Some scholars from the Salaf and the Khalaf held this view.
Some scholars said that the forbidden image-making is that which is intended to lead to, or there is fear of leading to, the worship of the image, and that of which there is no such fear is not problematic. They cited as evidence the story of the righteous men from the people of Noah, for whom images were made and then they were worshipped. However, the correct view is that this is undoubtedly a cause, but the hadith explicitly states: which indicates that whoever makes an image, whether for this purpose or another, that it is forbidden. So, what has a body is forbidden. What does not have a body is a matter of disagreement among scholars, but the majority are against it. They interpreted his statement: as a disconnected exception, and that the intended meaning of "design" in the cloth is what is not an image of a living being. Those who said this, who are the majority, cited as evidence the hadith which says: "An image" and in another wording: It is known that erasure usually applies to colored images, though it may apply to three-dimensional ones, such as placing clay or something similar on the face to erase its features. In any case, this is evidence. They also cited as evidence the hadith of the carpet when
This view, held by the majority, is the correct one: that images, even if they are designs, are forbidden and are among the major sins. Although the imitation of Allah’s creation is not complete, because Allah’s creation is three-dimensional and these are colored, lacking a protrusion for the nose or a protrusion for the eyebrow or the like. However, the apparent meaning of the texts is general, including what is done by coloring. We must now look at non-living things or parts of living beings, meaning if only a head, or only a hand, or only a leg is depicted, does it fall under the prohibition or not? We say it does not fall under the prohibition, because the hadith: and such parts do not have life breathed into them at all, nor are they bodies into which life can be breathed. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned in the story of the statue, when Jibril said to him: meaning that if its head is cut off, its limbs will remain until it is in the form of a tree. He did not say in the hadith that the head was broken, which indicates that a part into which life does not enter does not fall under the prohibition. For this reason, it came in the hadith, even if it contains it, he said: The meaning is that an image is not an image unless it has a head; if it is cut off, there is no image. It does not mean that the image is the head, i.e., that the head itself is an independent image. The evidence is the hadith of the statue: Then, the sin is multiplied if the great ones are depicted, such as kings, ministers, scholars, or worshippers. This is multiplied more for scholars and worshippers than for kings, ministers, and leaders. This is because people’s emotion for honoring scholars and worshippers is stronger than their emotion for honoring kings and leaders, because honoring kings and leaders is usually out of fear and awe, whereas honoring scholars and worshippers is out of reverence and respect in the soul. Therefore, the danger of images of scholars and worshippers is greater than images of kings and leaders. For this reason, if we see an image of a scholar that is depicted and circulated by people out of reverence for it, we must, to protect the aspect of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), tear it up. As for the images of scholars found in magazines or newspapers, they are not to be heeded. But there are images of some scholars that are depicted and embossed, which people pass around, and these are very dangerous. It is obligatory to tear them up, and it is not permissible to approve of them, no matter who the scholar is, because as I told you, people’s emotion regarding scholars and worshippers is strong, and it is feared that on the Day of Judgment, these people will be honored as the righteous men of the people of Noah were honored.
The matter of images also becomes greater if the image is of a beautiful woman. This is a trial, not in terms of worship, but in terms of character. A person may be captivated by this image so that he constantly looks at it morning and evening for pleasure and enjoyment. Whether the enjoyment is of desire, i.e., a natural desire, or enjoyment of a broad chest, or the like. Because, as you know, not all enjoyment is for desire. We enjoy seeing a beautiful car, a decorated pen, and a beautiful watch, but this is not enjoyment of desire. Some people may possess these images and enjoy them, and the sin in this is multiplied. The result is that images themselves are forbidden. If fear of trial is added to that, whether from worshipping them or from taking pleasure in seeing them or enjoying them, their sin increases. This is because sins increase according to the corruption associated with them.
What remains for us is the photographic image. This has become a subject of debate among people and contemporary scholars after this machine appeared. It has become a subject of debate and discussion. Some scholars prohibited it to block the means to harm and by taking the apparent generality of the texts. They said that the movement of a person with this machine, or his moving of this machine, is image-making. Some scholars permitted it and said that this is not image-making, and the person taking the photo does not feel that he is skilled or good. For this reason, the man who operates the camera until it takes a picture is not praised. It is not said, "How skilled he is" or "How good he is." But if a person draws an image to be like a painter, it is said, "How skilled he is" and "How great his skill is." So, it is not in reality like image-making, but it is capturing an image that Allah the Exalted has created. The principle, undoubtedly, is that it is the creation of Allah the Exalted. The second is the capturing of this image, just as it is in the mirror, except that the mirror does not fix it, and this fixes it due to the chemical substances in it.
This issue is contested between two principles: the principle of permissibility, which dictates that we do not prohibit people from anything unless we are certain it is forbidden or it is preponderantly likely to be forbidden; and the principle of prohibition, which is based on the general prohibition of image-making. However, if you reflect deeply, it becomes clear that a person is not considered an image-maker when he captures images with a machine. Therefore, he is not called an image-maker. This is why a blind person can capture images, or a person can capture them in the dark and they appear as they are. If it were image-making by the person himself, the ruling would differ between the skilled and the unskilled, the blind and the sighted, and so on. However, one who abstains from it out of scrupulousness should not be described as being overly strict, or as delving too deep, or as being excessive, or the like. Praise be to Allah, this is a matter where independent legal reasoning is permissible. If a person’s independent legal reasoning leads him to prohibition, he is not to be blamed. If his independent legal reasoning leads him to permissibility, and he says that the original ruling is permissibility until it becomes clear that it falls under prohibition, he is not to be blamed. If we do not blame the one who says that eating camel meat does not break the ablution, and he stands to pray in front of us while we believe, based on our conviction, that his prayer is invalid, we do not blame him because he is exercising independent legal reasoning. Therefore, we should not blame the one who holds that photographic image-making is not forbidden, because a prayer without ablution is greater than image-making. Prayer is a pillar of Islam. This man who ate the meat, and we see that it breaks the ablution, is he committing a forbidden act or not? He is certainly committing a forbidden act, which is greater than image-making. But since these are matters of independent legal reasoning, I hold that we should not be overly severe in criticizing those who differ with us on issues that do not relate to creed, but are merely matters of independent legal reasoning. The strongest evidence I have seen for those who say it is permissible is that they ask: Are you not the one who, when you take Sahih al-Bukhari and put it into the machine that captures images and the image comes out of the machine, would be said to have written this book? No? Then you are not an image-maker of it, for you did not write it. This is clear to anyone who reflects on it. However, we hold that regarding the possession of images, the original ruling is prohibition, because the angels do not enter a house in which there is an image. And this is an image, without doubt. Even if you stand in front of a mirror and see your face, this is an image, without doubt.
We must know that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) distinguished between image-making and the possession of images, and most people do not know this distinction. But the scholars distinguished between them. In the text of al-Zad al-Mustaqna', which is an abridgment from books of Islamic jurisprudence, it is said: "Image-making and its use are forbidden". Thus, they distinguished between image-making and its use. They said that it is permissible to use images or pictures in things that are trampled upon, such as carpets, cushions, and the like. The disagreement on this is also well-known. Some scholars say it is not permissible even in things that are trampled upon, and rather, the head must be cut off so that it is without a head.
So, in summary, image-making of things that have a body is forbidden, and there is no doubt about this for us. It is a point of agreement, as far as we know.
Second: Image-making by hand is also forbidden. Why? Because the image-maker intends to rival the creation of Allah in the form of the image. Even if image-making by number is not a reality like the creation of Allah, the image of the face, the eyes, the lips, the nose, and the like is like the creation of Allah. This is also forbidden.
Its prohibition increases if it is of most of the kings, scholars, or worshippers. And its prohibition increases if it is for the sake of enjoying the image, whether enjoyment with desire or enjoyment without desire. As for if it is by machine, you have known the disagreement on this. But what we wish is that this not be the main preoccupation of students of knowledge. Rather, we say that this is a matter where disagreement is permissible, and the scholars differ on it. Including it in the category of prohibition, while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , there is a consideration in including it in the prohibition. In fact, I hold that it does not fall under the prohibition. If the matter involves some degree of independent legal reasoning, we should not be severe in it. Yes, we are severe in saying that it is not permissible for one to possess an image of a scholar, or an image of a king, or an image of a minister, or an image of a worshipper for the sake of exalting it. This is the original reason for prohibiting image-making.
Is it permissible to image things that have no life, such as: palm trees, pomegranates, oranges? Yes, the majority of scholars hold that it is permissible. Mujahid, who is an imam of the imams of the Tabi'un, said that it is not permissible to image trees and the like, because Allah said in the Holy Hadith: . And it is known that growing trees are the exclusive domain of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); He is the one who created them. So whoever images them has imaged as Allah imaged, and created as Allah creates. But the correct view is that it is permissible, and this is the view of the majority, and it is what Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) guided the image-maker to when he saw him imaging humans. He forbade him and said, "If you are going to do it, then image trees and the like."
Is it permissible to image cars, tractors, airplanes, and palaces, or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : Why? Because this is the work of humans; humans are the ones who make it with their hands. If the original is permissible, the branch is permissible. Now, what about imaging rivers? If a person wanted to image by hand a continent, and image its rivers and mountains, is it permissible or not? It is permissible, because they are not growing. And it is permissible for a person to dig a channel in the earth in which water flows, and it is not said that you have created a river. This is like the Suez Canal. Originally, there was no canal; originally, Asia was connected to Africa with no barrier between them. On dry land, people would travel on camels from Asia, from the west of the peninsula, to Egypt, and there was no water. But they cut the canal, and it became a sea, connecting the White Sea to the Red Sea. And there is no harm in this, and no problem with it.