Explanation of the author's statement and his saying: “... whoever claims to create like My creation, let him create a single grain, or let him create a seed, or let him create a barley grain.”

The Shaykh :“And His saying:

than those who try to create something like My creation

ممن ذهب يخلق كخلقي

Sahih al-Bukhari 7559

” is clear in that this image-maker intended to imitate Allah in creation and origination. Whoever claims to create like the creation of Allah, he intends to present himself as one who is capable of resembling Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) in His creation. For this reason, he creates like the creation of Allah. Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: The letter lam in His saying is the lam of command, and what is intended by it is a challenge and a threat. This is from the category of challenges in cosmic matters. And His saying: is from the category of challenges in legislative matters in the revelation. So this is from the category of challenges. The *dharrah* is the singular of *dharr*, which is the small ants. This is the known meaning in the language of the Qur'an, because that is what is intended by this term in the Arabic language, which is the language of the Qur'an. As for whoever tried to interpret the *dharrah* by what is known now, he has strayed far from the mark and erred, and he has attributed to the words of Allah a meaning other than what Allah intended. Because we know that Allah, by the term He revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), intended by this term what it indicates in the language of the people to whom it was revealed in their language, and they are the Arabs. Do the Arabs know the *dharrah* that makes up the atomic bomb? No, they do not know it at all. So it is not permissible to attribute this meaning to the words of Allah, because Allah addressed us in the language of the Arabs. The *dharrah* is one of the smallest of created things, and it is used as an example of smallness. Look at the saying of Allah the Exalted: This is an example of smallness. If a person did less than the *dharrah*, would he see it or not?
The student: He sees it.

The Shaykh : He sees it. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned the *dharrah* because it has a soul, and it is one of the smallest of animals that have a soul... This is for variation, not for doubt from the narrator, and not for choice, but for variation. It means he moved from the challenge in creating an animal with a soul to the challenge of creating a seed, which is the origin of the tree, for example, or the *dharrah*. Then he moved to Is the intended meaning of *sha'irah* the barley tree, and the first mentioned was the challenge by the origin of this tree, which is the seed? If the seed is planted, when it is placed in the ground, the rest of the barley comes out? Or is the intended meaning of *sha'irah* the seed of barley, and this is from the category of descending from the general to the specific? The general is the seed, which includes any seed, whether it is barley, wheat, or *dharrah*, any seed that it may be? Or is it a doubt from the narrator? Allah knows best. And whichever it is, Allah the Exalted challenged these people to create something from the animals, where He mentioned the smallest of animals, or to create something from the non-animals, the inanimate things, and He mentioned the seed, which may be smaller than the *dharrah*. The meaning is that these people who intended to rival the creation of Allah and make a creation like the creation of Allah, if they are truthful, let them create a *dharrah*. Can they or not?
The student: No, they cannot.

The Shaykh : They cannot. Listen. It is obligatory for us to listen, because who addressed us with this speech is our Lord (Mighty and Majestic). Although these people who are called upon by these callers are honored, and they consider that they possess what is beneficial and harmful, which warrants that they be called upon besides Allah. These people meaning, they gathered to create it and prepared everything they had. And for this reason, He did not say "if they gathered against it," because they do not want to fight the fly, but they want to make or create a fly, so they prepare for it. Add to that The scholars said: If a fly landed on... the idols and statues and sucked something of the fragrance that they put on them, they would not be able to retrieve it from the fly. So the fly would prevail over them, or not? It prevails over them. It takes from these objects of worship, and you cannot retrieve its right from the fly. And an object of worship that cannot retrieve its right from the fly, does it deserve worship?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, it does not deserve worship. But the punishment, and may Allah protect us, is foolish. Meaning, the fly and the one from whom it is taken, or the student, the worshipper, and the worshipped?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Both of them. Some scholars said, and the correct view is that it includes everyone. The important thing is that no one is able to create like the creation of Allah, and no one is able to change anything of the creation of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) at all. If a person wanted to turn a human into a monkey, can he? He cannot. If you say that they have now made a robot, they have made a robot, we say: If they were able to, let them blow the soul into it. Can they or not?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : They cannot. If their souls exit, they cannot return them. So how can they create souls for this?
So the result is that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) challenged the creation until the Day of Resurrection to create a *dharrah* or to create a seed. If you say we have American-made rice, yes, if a person sees it, he thinks it is real. So these Americans created rice, and what do we say? We say: Plant this rice. Plant it in the ground, and what will grow? Its bones or what?
The student: Nothing grows.

The Shaykh : Nothing grows. But the rice that Allah created naturally, does it grow or not? It grows. And this, Allah knows best, is the secret in His saying: He said: Because the seed is that which, when planted in the ground, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) splits it. But their rice, if they brought all the bags in the world and put in them the best fertilizer and the purest water for watering the crops, it would not grow. So it is like images, like dolls made from stones and woods and the like, and it does not contain a barley seed or the seed by which Allah challenged the creation. It is derived from this hadith, which is what the author cited for its sake, the prohibition of images, or not? The prohibition of images, because the image-maker claims to create like the creation of Allah.
And image-making has conditions:
The first condition: That a person creates something that has a shadow, as they say, meaning something that has a body, on the frame of a human, a camel, a lion, or the like. This is one type. And this is what the scholars, as far as I know, are in agreement on its prohibition, and that it is forbidden. If you say that if a person creates it not to rival the creation of Allah, but creates it in play, meaning he made something from clay or plaster or wood or stones in the image of an animal, and his intention was not to rival the creation of Allah, his intention was play, or for a child who stood up and cried, yes, he makes something of this to calm him down. Does it fall under the hadith? Yes, it falls under the hadith, because it is creation like the creation of Allah, creation like the creation of Allah. And because the intention is not a condition for rivalry. And this is the secret of the issue: the intention is not a condition for rivalry. When it occurs, its ruling is established. For this reason, if a person wears clothing that is specific to the disbelievers and then says, "I did not intend to imitate them," what do we say to him? We say: The imitation has occurred, whether you intended it or not. And if someone imitates a woman in his clothing or his hair or the like and says, "I did not intend to imitate," we say:
The student: The imitation has occurred.

The Shaykh : The imitation has occurred. So the intention is not a condition for rivalry. So this type of images is forbidden, whether the intention was to rival the creation of Allah or not. So this type of images is forbidden, whether the intention was to rival the creation of Allah or not. So if someone says, "Do you not say that what is forbidden from this type is what was created to commemorate righteous people or to worship them, as is the origin of shirk (associating partners with Allah) in the people of Noah?" What is the answer?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : We say: The hadith is general. The hadith is general; this intention was not mentioned in it. But if this intention is added to image-making, it becomes more severe. It becomes more severe in sin and punishment.
The second category: That a person creates an image that does not have a shadow, an image by coloring and drawing, such as drawing an image with his hand. Is that permissible or not? We say: The hadith is general. The person who draws with his hand, who shapes the image in a specific form, there is no doubt that he claims to create like the creation of Allah. And what indicates that this falls under the ruling is the hadith of the carpet, when And this is clear that images by coloring are like images by three-dimensional form. And for this reason, his saying in Sahih al-Bukhari: If this narration is correct, the exception means that *raqm* is what is permissible to create, or what is not permissible to create, of trees and the like.
The third category is when a photograph is taken without any action on the part of the person and without any work; rather, specific rays are directed at it, and the image is imprinted on a specific paper without any modification or improvement by him. This is a matter of disagreement among contemporary scholars because it has only recently emerged, so they differed on it. Some said that it is an image, and if it is an image, then the action of this doer is considered image-making, meaning that he created an image because he moved the machine and these rays were directed at this body and captured it. This is image-making because he moved the machine, and had he not moved it, the image would not have been imprinted. Thus, it falls under the general ruling. We agree that this is an image, but the disagreement is whether it is image-making or not. They say that this action is considered image-making and falls under the prohibition, so it falls under being among the most severe injustices and falls under the curse as well, as will come later. Others said that it is not image-making, because image-making is the act of the image-maker, and this man did not actually make the image; rather, he captured it with the machine. Image-making and design are the creation of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), not my creation. They said that the closest analogy to this is if you wrote a book and put it into a copying machine, then it came out of this machine; the drawing of the letters is from the operator of the machine, not from the original writer? It is from the original writer, as evidenced by the fact that this machine can be operated by an illiterate person who does not know how to write at all and does not know how to define it. This is the closest analogy, because this image-maker is not considered a creator or a designer. However, there remains another consideration: is this action permissible or not permissible? If it is for a forbidden purpose, it becomes
The student: A mahram.

The Shaykh : forbidden, because means have the rulings of their ends. If it is for a permissible purpose, it becomes permissible. Accordingly, if a person photographs a human being for what they call a memento, whether this memento is for the enjoyment of looking at it, for taking pleasure in it, or for the sake of affection and longing for it, then that is forbidden and not permissible because of the keeping of images. There is no doubt that this is an image; no one denies that this is an image. If it is for a permissible purpose, as exists in the context of following, dispensation, and permissibility, and the like, then this becomes permissible. So if the person who needs a dispensation goes to this image-maker from whom the image comes out instantly without any work from him, no developing or otherwise, and says, "Photograph me," and he photographs him, then we do not say that this image-maker falls under the hadith. But if he says, "Photograph me" for another purpose that is not permissible, it falls under the category of assisting in sin and transgression.
The fourth is that the image-making is for that which has no life. This is of two types. If it is something made by a human being, there is no harm in it by consensus, because if the original is permissible, the image is permissible. For example, if a person photographs a car; one saw a Mercedes, and its face is beautiful, yes, and also the headlights; he liked it, so he sat and looked at it and drew it with his hand. Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible? Why?
The student: It has no life.

The Shaykh : No, not because it has no life, but because the original, the making of the original, is permissible, so the image of the original is even more permissible. What about palaces? If one enters a palace and finds something in it that he likes, and he photographs it, is it permissible? This first type is permissible by consensus. The second type is that which is not made by a human being, but is from the creation of Allah, such as trees. Yes, trees. No, also what Allah makes and creates is of two types: a growing type and a non-growing type. We will call the adhan and complete the discussion after the adhan, if Allah wills.
A growing type and a non-growing type. The non-growing type is like mountains, valleys, seas, and rivers. There is no harm in photographing these by consensus. The second type is that which grows, such as trees. The scholars differed on this. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that photographing it is permissible, yes, for what will come in the hadiths. Some scholars from the Salaf and the Khalaf went to the prohibition of photographing it, and they argued that this is from the creation of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and the hadith is general: And that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) challenged these people to create a grain and create a barley grain. Does the grain and the barley grain have life or not?
The student: It does not have life.

The Shaykh : It does not have life, but it grows. There is no doubt that it is growing. Accordingly, it becomes forbidden. Mujahid (may Allah have mercy on him), the most knowledgeable of the Tabi'un in tafsir, went to this opinion and said that it is forbidden for a person to photograph trees. However, the majority of scholars are of the opinion that it is permissible. Let us look at the hadith with us: does it support whom? Does it support the opinion of the majority or the opinion of Mujahid and those who said like him?
The student: Mujahid.

The Shaykh : Yes, it supports the opinion of Mujahid and those who said like him. First, because of the generality of his saying:
And second, his saying: So the apparent meaning of this hadith is with Mujahid and those who hold his opinion. But the majority answered with what will be mentioned in the following hadiths that his saying: and his saying: indicates that the intended meaning is the animal. The discussion will come, if Allah wills, because the issue is not easy regarding trees, because the opinion of prohibition has a very strong aspect. Yes, and the discussion will come later, if Allah wills.