Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "… and image-making …".
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And the correct view, as we said yesterday, is that image-making is general for both three-dimensional and colored images, based on the hadith of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, in which he said to Abu al-Hayyaj: "Shall I not send you with the same mission with which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any image without erasing it". The apparent meaning of this is that it refers to colored images and not three-dimensional ones, because if three-dimensional images were intended, he would have said "without tearing it apart" or "breaking it" or something similar.
So the correct view is that it is forbidden absolutely, and this is when it is done by hand, because the one who creates images by hand is one who rivals the creation of Allah and intends to make things as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made them. As for images made by modern methods and modern means, they fall into two categories.
One category is that which has no appearance, no scene, and no visual form, as was mentioned to me regarding image-making with video tapes. This has no ruling at all and does not enter into the prohibition absolutely. For this reason, the scholars who prohibit image-making with photographic devices on paper have permitted this, saying that there is nothing wrong with it. Indeed, a discussion took place regarding whether it is permissible to record the lectures delivered in mosques. Yes, the opinion was to refrain from doing so because it might disturb the worshippers, or the scene might be inappropriate, or something similar.
As for the second category, it is the fixed image on paper. And if this is by a photographic device, meaning instantaneous, it does not enter into the category of image-making, and a person cannot say that this man is cursed because he was not actually depicted, for "image-making" is derived from the verb "to depict" (yusawwir), which means to make a thing in a specific form, as Allah the Exalted said:[Ali 'Imran 3:6] and He said: [Ghafir 40:64]. The root form implies that there is an action in the image itself, because the form "fa'ila" in Arabic implies this. It is known that transferring an image by a device is not in this manner. And if it is not in this manner, we cannot include it in the curse and say that this man is cursed by the tongue of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), because just as we must be scrupulous in including what the apparent wording includes, we must also be scrupulous in excluding what has not been clarified to us as being included in the wording, because this is an affirmation and that is a negation. Just as we are scrupulous in affirmation, we are scrupulous in negation, and just as we are scrupulous in negation, we are scrupulous in affirmation, because the issue is not merely whether this is forbidden or not; a punishment will result from it. So do we testify that this is punished by the curse, severe punishment, and not being spoken to, or something similar? No. And it should be, yes, cursed or something similar. We cannot be certain except with something clear.
For this reason, a distinction is made between a man who takes my book that I drew by hand and puts it in the photographic device and operates the device, and the image is printed out. It is said that what came out on this paper is a drawing of whom? It is a drawing of the original, and it is said that this is his handwriting, and people testify to it. And between my taking your handwriting and imitating it by hand, drawing like its letters and words. In that case, I am indeed trying to imitate you and write as you wrote and depict as you depicted. But in the first case, there is no action from me at all. For this reason, it is possible to take a picture at night, and it is possible for a person to take a picture while his eyes are closed, and it is possible for a blind man to take a picture. So how do we say this is an image-maker? What I see is that this does not fall under the curse and does not fall under image-making based on the root from which "yusawwir" is derived. However, the consideration remains if a person intends to use this permissible image-making. As we have passed through many times, the five rulings apply to the permissible according to what? According to the intention. If it is intended for something forbidden, it is forbidden. If it is intended for something permissible, it is permissible. And if it is intended for something obligatory, it is obligatory. Image-making may sometimes be obligatory, especially moving images. If we see, for example, a person committing a crime that is a right of the servants, or rather a right of Allah, we might say that covering it up is better. But if we see a person committing a crime that concerns the right of a servant, such as an attempt to kill him or something similar, and we do not reach proof of it except by image-making, then image-making is obligatory at that time, especially in matters that fully control the case, because the means have the rulings of the ends. If we film this, yes.
So the correct view is that it is forbidden absolutely, and this is when it is done by hand, because the one who creates images by hand is one who rivals the creation of Allah and intends to make things as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made them. As for images made by modern methods and modern means, they fall into two categories.
One category is that which has no appearance, no scene, and no visual form, as was mentioned to me regarding image-making with video tapes. This has no ruling at all and does not enter into the prohibition absolutely. For this reason, the scholars who prohibit image-making with photographic devices on paper have permitted this, saying that there is nothing wrong with it. Indeed, a discussion took place regarding whether it is permissible to record the lectures delivered in mosques. Yes, the opinion was to refrain from doing so because it might disturb the worshippers, or the scene might be inappropriate, or something similar.
As for the second category, it is the fixed image on paper. And if this is by a photographic device, meaning instantaneous, it does not enter into the category of image-making, and a person cannot say that this man is cursed because he was not actually depicted, for "image-making" is derived from the verb "to depict" (yusawwir), which means to make a thing in a specific form, as Allah the Exalted said:
It is He who forms you in the wombs however He wills.
هو الذي يصوركم في الأرحام كيف يشاءformed you and perfected your forms
صوركم فأحسن صوركمFor this reason, a distinction is made between a man who takes my book that I drew by hand and puts it in the photographic device and operates the device, and the image is printed out. It is said that what came out on this paper is a drawing of whom? It is a drawing of the original, and it is said that this is his handwriting, and people testify to it. And between my taking your handwriting and imitating it by hand, drawing like its letters and words. In that case, I am indeed trying to imitate you and write as you wrote and depict as you depicted. But in the first case, there is no action from me at all. For this reason, it is possible to take a picture at night, and it is possible for a person to take a picture while his eyes are closed, and it is possible for a blind man to take a picture. So how do we say this is an image-maker? What I see is that this does not fall under the curse and does not fall under image-making based on the root from which "yusawwir" is derived. However, the consideration remains if a person intends to use this permissible image-making. As we have passed through many times, the five rulings apply to the permissible according to what? According to the intention. If it is intended for something forbidden, it is forbidden. If it is intended for something permissible, it is permissible. And if it is intended for something obligatory, it is obligatory. Image-making may sometimes be obligatory, especially moving images. If we see, for example, a person committing a crime that is a right of the servants, or rather a right of Allah, we might say that covering it up is better. But if we see a person committing a crime that concerns the right of a servant, such as an attempt to kill him or something similar, and we do not reach proof of it except by image-making, then image-making is obligatory at that time, especially in matters that fully control the case, because the means have the rulings of the ends. If we film this, yes.