Yasir Qadhi – Is Drawing & Displaying Pictures Prohibited in Islam? Ask Shaykh YQ #216

Yasir Qadhi
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the "brdery of images" that have been widely discussed, including the "brdery of images" that have been widely discussed, and emphasize the importance of following leaders and respecting their views. They also touch on the use of images in art and writing, political events, and creating distinction between creating an image and being recognized. The speakers emphasize the need for privacy in cryptocurrencies and emphasize the importance of creating a safe and secure way to live.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:01


00:00:03 --> 00:00:12

hour to sell me Kobe, deca Reja learn No Hey lay him first.

00:00:14 --> 00:00:15


00:00:24 --> 00:01:04

I said I want to LA he bought a couch well hamdulillah he thermal hamdulillah. We began by praising Allah subhanho wa Taala, the one and the unique, it is he alone that we worship, and it is His blessings that we seek. He is Lord of the oppressed and the answers that are of the week, today, shallow to Allah, we will be doing a question one question only, that I have been asked quite literally dozens of times in the last year or two that I've been doing this q&a and I have kept on delaying this. And because of the nature of the question, and because of the complexity, I will be dedicating the entire episode today to this one question. And therefore it will be a lengthy q&a.

00:01:05 --> 00:01:49

And the question I have just lumped them together from multiple people around the world is regarding the issue of images and of drawings, and what are the rulings pertaining to making images and drawings and possessing them and displaying them? Now, the question of images and of carvings and of drawings. This is one that has been discussed and debated since the very first generation of our oma. And in our times the issue has been compounded a layer of complexity has been added, because of the introduction of photography and of movies, and now of the proliferation of the internet. And therefore, there will be a very lengthy discussion, I will actually be having to summarize a topic

00:01:49 --> 00:02:28

that no exaggeration, we can spend four or five, six hour long sessions on, but inshallah I'll just summarize the main points over here. And as well, let me begin, as I typically do want to talk about these contentious or controversial issues. That, you know, my advice to all of you is that you should follow the scholars whom you trust, it's really quite simple, the Q and A's that I do, obviously, they're going to be over contentious issues, they're going to be over issues where there is a black and white or whether it's not to black and white, excuse me, there's a gray area, nobody's going to ask me how many times the Muslims pray, nobody's going to ask me, can I drink

00:02:28 --> 00:03:05

alcohol? These are things that are well known. Nobody's gonna ask me, can I go murder? These are things that are clear cut the questions that all you know, students and knowledge and scholars receive are generally speaking over issues that are gray areas. And therefore, if you ask a scholar, the same question about these gray areas, you asked 10 different scholars, you might get maybe even sometimes 10 responses, and maybe two and maybe three, generally speaking, you will not find one response. So what is to be done, when you're going to hear a position from me today that perhaps you know, the websites that you log on to or other groups of scholars, you have looked up toward the q&a

00:03:05 --> 00:03:44

websites that are online that you read, they go against this, my advice to you is very simple. Follow the group of scholars whom you trust, and don't worry about the rest. If you're going to ask me, then I will give you the position that I have reached after my research and I will quote you who holds this position. And if you ask other odema, then that is you know their position. And we must learn to respect and tolerate opinions that come from reputable scholars, one of the you know, the biggest issues that we have. And this is not meant to dismiss anyone view. But one of the points that this q&a has been attempting to highlight over and over again, is the fact that perhaps one

00:03:44 --> 00:04:26

opinion has dominated the airwaves, you know, for for quite a long time, to the point of eclipsing all other opinions to the point of the presumption that, hey, this is the only males have or the only school of law or the only position. That is correct, and everything else is bolted and wrong and bald and bullied. And that's simply false. We have had a diversity of thought from the very beginning of our oma over many issues of fic. And we've also had unanimous consensus over many issues of filk. So we should learn to respect and tolerate where our predecessors respected and tolerated. And I give this rather lengthy introduction, because I don't wish to you know, cause any

00:04:26 --> 00:04:59

consternation or bring about another series of reputations. That's not my goal. The positions I present are pretty standard, just because with utmost respect you haven't heard them doesn't mean that they're fringe views. These are mainstream views. And today as well, I'll be quoting respected or lemma from the past from the time of the Sahaba themselves all the way throughout our history that have held differing views, and I will then conclude with what I think is the strongest opinion and I have utmost respect for those who have researched the issue and have come to alternative viewpoints and hamdulillah good for

00:05:00 --> 00:05:38

them, let us not you know bicker and fight over who is evil or good. No, these are all acceptable views that have existed since the time of the set of themselves where I'll be presenting today. So we are obliged to respect and then follow the authority whom we trust the most. If you trust other groups of scholars, my advice to you stick with them, don't even worry about any other opinion. And if you feel that myself or others are qualified to present then that is your personal bond and ask Allah for forgiveness and set that until field. And I'll present you what I think is according to the position that I hold to be the stronger view Allah who to Adam in the end of the day now, with

00:05:38 --> 00:06:24

all of this said, Let us begin with an introduction about the topic of images about the topic of icons and statues. There's no question that the fundamental principle of our religion is the pure worship of Allah subhana wa Tada, and that Islam came in an idolatrous society where icons were venerated, and statues were worshiped, where there were false gods 300 Gods around the Kaaba, there was a lot of hobo and Russa around scattered across Arabia, but not all of them were over there. And one of the main goals in fact, the main goal of Islam was the elimination of idolatry and the roads that lead to idolatry. Therefore, not surprisingly, we have a lot of traditions, revolving the topic

00:06:24 --> 00:07:07

of icons of statues of images, because idolatry primarily involves icons and statues, not all the time. But generally speaking, where there are icons and statues where there's idolatry practice, there's got to be something that you direct that action to to other than Allah subhana wa Tada. And therefore, not surprisingly, again, our Prophet salallahu it he was said them once Islam had conquered Arabia himself participated in destroying icons and statues. And he commanded the Sahaba as well he told I didn't know because the rhodiola one do not find any gods or statue and other gods but the point is that he didn't use the word God he was, do not find any icon or any venerated

00:07:08 --> 00:07:56

object, except that you have destroyed it. Okay, so any type of Timothy, any type of structure that was venerated, you destroy it. So it's very clear on the conquest of Makkah, the day of the conquest of Makkah, with his own blessitt hands, our Prophet sallallahu Sallam toppled all of the idols around the Kaaba. And it is because of this, this this culture of the purity of worship, of not wanting to bring about any potential, you know, for the creation of statues, that historically speaking, the Muslim world, our Islamic culture, the world over from the Far East, all the way to underdose, that generally speaking, Muslim cultures did not embrace art of the way that the Western

00:07:56 --> 00:08:42

cultures did. The Muslim cultures by and large, did not busy themselves, with sculptures and with statues, and with paintings of beings, rather, they perfected other types of art and they excelled such that they continued to they continue to lead the world in geometric patterns and calligraphy and you know, very ornate designs. arabesque is what the term is given, you know, in some works of art. And this is very telling that the fact of the matter is Muslim cultures, generally speaking, I'm talking about his overall rule, they did not go the route of European cultures and statues and Pete paintings and pictures were not the norm in Islamic societies. Now, by the way, a historical

00:08:42 --> 00:09:05

note here is that, of course, I'm not denying that Muslim, prudent that Muslims never produced any types of paintings or sculptures or whatnot. No, of course, one finds plenty of examples of this. There are manuscripts, especially from the region of Persia in the last 500 years, there are many manuscripts that you know, they have been illustrated with images of angels of you know,

00:09:07 --> 00:09:48

allegedly you know, the the Imams and whatnot. So they have these icons with these are these images there. And yes, you also have, you know, across the Muslim world spotted here and their actual structures or statues carved out if you visit the palaces of under this the rulers that used to live in under the Grenada palace and whatnot, you find actual paintings on the walls that they had, you find statues of you know, horses and eagles and, and lions and whatnot, they would, they would carve it out, and they hide it there. This was in their royal palaces. I'm not saying it was right or wrong. I'm saying it was there, but it wasn't the norm. If you compare that with Europe, if you

00:09:48 --> 00:09:59

compare the Muslim cultures what was happening at the same timeframe in Europe, then there is really no comparison whatsoever. So one does find the exceptional drawings and carving

00:10:00 --> 00:10:44

And images. But these are exceptions and not the norm. And generally speaking, these exceptions that existed were not championed by scholars, people did them. And we have to understand that people in the past were not angels that there were people that did good and did bad. And so the actions of the past do not justify per se, and the laws of physics. My point, though, is that the norm of Muslim art of Islamic art, the norm of Islamic art, was to avoid pictures and figurines was to avoid statues and icons. And this is an undeniable reality. Yes, there are examples of this, but I'm talking about the norm. Also, by the way, I mean, again, this is just all FYI, that the debate over

00:10:44 --> 00:11:24

the reality of icons and statues is not something that only the Muslim Ummah has dealt with. In fact, the same controversy has occurred in Christianity multiple times. There have been a number of they're called the iconoclastic wars, a number of battles, I mean, intellectual battles on actual war that took place, a number of serious controversies, iconoclastic debates and controversies over the usage of religious icons of images. And the first time this occurred was when Islam entered the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century, and a lot of Bishops and church leaders, they absorbed some of these values of the Muslim Ummah, and they said, We should not have icons, we should not have

00:11:24 --> 00:12:02

these, these structures in our churches, and others opposed and so the Byzantine church itself was divided. And of course, they went back to the the biblical commandment, which is in the 10, the 10 commandments in Exodus, that thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven, above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. This is straight from Exodus from the Old Testament, that you're not going to make any carved image any graven image of any creature or beast, flying in the heavens, or walking on earth or in the ocean. So certain Christians took this literally, and and, you know, they said,

00:12:02 --> 00:12:44

we're not going to have any images, especially in our churches, and others oppose this as and they said they had the reasons to oppose it. And this intellectual battle raged for two 300 years, a long history is there, the Byzantine emperor Leo the third, took a public stand against the perceived worship of icons, he called a number of councils, etc, etc, we're not interested in that much, eventually, that strand of Christianity that opposed statues and icons lost and the group that supported it, one, and so it became the norm. And that is why To this day, especially in Catholic churches, one finds statues and icons that are, you know, very reminiscent, if you like, of that

00:12:44 --> 00:12:45

which is found in,

00:12:46 --> 00:13:23

in non Abrahamic faith traditions. By the way, the Protestant church generally speaking, frowns upon such such images. And therefore, if you go to a Protestant church, generally speaking, you don't find these types of images, and you go to the Catholic Church, one finds them their point is that all of these controversies are very detailed. And actually, there's a lot of discussion about the Muslim impact on Christianity, and maybe even the Christian debate on Islamic societies as well, because these were happening, contemporaneous, they're happening at the same timeframe. So who is influencing whom and what's going on? And that is a different, you know, level of discussion that,

00:13:23 --> 00:14:03

you know, we are not necessarily interested in right now. Anyway, my point is, with all of this introduction, is that this is a very, very deep topic. It deals with history, it deals with the Quran and Sunnah. It deals with theology, it deals with film, but of course, as usual, time is limited and we have to concentrate directly on the filk aspects. So how are we going to discuss this very multi faceted topic? Let us begin. Let's begin by mentioning the primary set of evidences that is used regarding this topic. The Quran does not have any explicit verse that prohibits image making. There's nothing that is used as an explicit evidence that prohibits any type of images.

00:14:03 --> 00:14:54

Actually, on the contrary, there is a verse that has generated some discussion on the other side, and that is perhaps the permissibility of making images. Because in Surah, Sabah, Allah subhanho wa Taala mentions Suleiman Allah His Salaam and the jinn under his control, and Allah says that Yama, Yama, Luna who Maya Shah Maha Riba, what am I thida what you finding because you are we will call Dora Rossi that the jinn would make for Suleiman all that he desired of sanctuaries and of statues. Timothy, the word Timothy is the political of himself and Tim Thal is an icon of a being or an animal. So Allah is saying that the gin would call for Sulaiman mahari, which is a place of worship,

00:14:54 --> 00:14:59

and also they would carve icon statues, and they would carve jiefang

00:15:00 --> 00:15:45

Which is large basins of water as large as reservoirs right? And they would carve cooking pots that were fixed into the ground. So the jinn would make massive structures for Sulaiman. And one of the things that would make for such a man is statues and icons. How could the jinn make something for the profits to lay man at the command of Solomon because Yama, Yama, Yama, Luna, loco, Maja Shah, so the man told them to do this, how could Solomon command them to make statues and icons, the great tabula alladia one of the students have a number of those habit of Allah Allah said that in their shadia it was allowed to have statues in their shed Yeah, it was allowed to have statues and this is

00:15:45 --> 00:16:25

very interesting, because while it is true that the shadows are varies from time to place, no shadow of any profit allowed shirk, no shady of any profit allowed schicke. So the fact that sulaimani at his salon was allowed to have Tim third, it is something that you should keep in mind and in fact, some rude ama have used this those that kind of were on the softer side of of images, they have used this to to try to make a point but in any case, the sharing of our profits, so demand alayhis salam is not binding on us if we have explicit Quran and Sunnah in this regard, and we do so it's simply a historical fact that we should know, we have plenty of texts that we have to deal with the talk

00:16:25 --> 00:17:07

about the subject of 10,000 of icons and of statues. But it is interesting to point out that had the mere possession of a statue in Schick then it would not have been possible for any profit to have done because no profit was ever allowed to commit shit nonetheless, what are some of the evidences or what are some of the texts that we have to be concerned with? Well, a partial list is as follows. One Hadith will mentioned which is one of the most famous Hadith I shall be a loved one has said that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam came back from a journey and I had covered up a section of the wall of the you know, so they had a bunch of shells. So I had covered that up with a cloth

00:17:07 --> 00:17:54

that had Timothy, Timothy this icons and images and according to another Hadith, it said, corn is another version it said with images of birds so there were birds on that on that curtain, if you like behind the curtain is the pantry behind the curtain is what you know, our mother Ayesha is putting in whatever needs to be put there. So when the prophets of the law of it he was setting them saw that he tore it down and his face became angry. And he said that our Isha the people who will be punished the most on the Day of Judgment are those who try to mimic the creation of a law. So I Aisha said so I cut it up. And I made out of it, I covered two blankets or I covered two pillows,

00:17:54 --> 00:18:38

not blankets, so so she used that, that sheet and she cut it and she put it on two pillows. So a pillow here is not just what you lie down on, we saw that it's also they would sit on it or a cushion. You can also say So in those cases a multipurpose furniture item. So you can use it as a pillow. You can use it as a cushion, you can use it you know to sit on all of this was there an issue the last one is that I used that, that piece of cloth and I used it to make one or two cover one or two. We sat there or pillows and in cyber hottie our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that those who make images shall be punished on the Day of Judgment. And Allah will say to them,

00:18:38 --> 00:19:26

bring to life that which you have created bring to life that which you have created and inside a Muslim narrated by sadness relief for the Allahu I'm the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, the whole Mullah equal to beta and fee he saw in Rockman fee so that the angels do not enter a house that has a surah. Now again, right now will translate surah as image, of course, the whole controversy, what does a surah entail? So the angels do not enter the house that has a surah unless it be a rock command fee thobe unless it's B now what does a document fee Tell me again, all of this is a point of, you know, interpretation and controversy. The predominant interpretation here, unless

00:19:26 --> 00:20:00

it's be something that has been stitched onto a garment, okay, but optimind feito, but that which you have designed or put onto a garment, so in those days, if you had a cloth, even in our times, you couldn't you can sew a design or a pattern that looks like the shape that looks like a image or something. So this is one interpretation. That unless it is something that is sewn onto a cloth, then it's not a problem. Now this again phrase is going to come back multiple times in our lecture a few times but in the books of filter and Hadith and whatnot. This is a key phrase and also the the point

00:20:00 --> 00:20:41

Via show the loved one, using the same cloth to make two pillows from them. These are key points that later them are going to come. And they're going to interpret in different manners. How does one understand, you know, all of these, all of these narrations, and we have a hadith in Sahih Muslim as well, that a man came to have an Ibis with your loved one. And he said, that I love to draw images. So tell me a factoid in this, I love to draw images, you know, a lot of creative people differently. And some people they are, you know, artsy by nature. You know, some people they like this, it's in their fifth round, and some people and I'm not one of them, by the way I have. I have never, I'm not

00:20:41 --> 00:21:17

an artist, I am definitely more engineering and logical. That's the way I've always was. And that's what went into engineering. I could never do I was never good in art. It's not something in my fifth that are unlike creative people, you know, differently. Some people love mathematics, some people can stand it. So so this is a man he is an artist. And this is very interesting point. Allah created people differently. Some people have a natural desire to utilize their voice, some have a natural desire to paint, some have a natural desire to become strong, whatnot. This is illustrated as differently. Here's a man coming. He's saying given a bus, I am inclined to draw images, what is the

00:21:17 --> 00:22:02

verdict? What should I do? So even a bus had come close to me. So the man came close, even a bus that I heard the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam said, say, KU Lumo. So we're in for now that every single person who makes a surah shall be in a fire of *. And Allah azza wa jal will ask him to create life, and then hear out of what he has done. And then a bit Abbas said, if you have no option, except to paint, then go ahead and paint the trees. And that which has no role that which has no soul in it, okay, and another version, paint the mountains and the rivers. So he is saying, if you want to paint or if you want to do some type of art, then go ahead and do it from those

00:22:02 --> 00:22:41

things that do not have any role in the now there are other traditions as well. But I've given you enough to get an idea that in all of these traditions, we get the motif that something is how long and then we get, but there's also something behind it, like well actually uses that cloth. Well, the problem is that in the documentary film, well, it's been our buses, okay, if you have to do it do there. So there are, you know, exceptions, if you like, and so that's where the whole controversy becomes scholars different over these traditions, how do we understand them? What is the cause of the prohibition? Is the cause idolatry? Only? that anything that is meant to be an idol? That is

00:22:41 --> 00:23:24

what has been, you know, considered to be prohibited? Or is there simply no specific cause? And any image whatsoever comes under these traditions? What type of images do they apply to, and of course, our scholars pointed out the phrase, a shut do not see either been yo multi ama, the most severe of people punished on the Day of Judgment, or almost so we're on our scholars, some of them pointed out if you go back to the books of Hadith, they point out, I mean, what you're saying here, if you say that this hadith is an categorically or unconditionally applied to every single image, that an artist who paints an image of a human is going to be punished worse than a mass murderer, or a

00:23:24 --> 00:24:07

* or a killer or something of this nature, a shut do not see either happen. So is the sin of drawing an any image, the worst sin of all of mankind? Or is the reference here to shit? Because then everything would make sense. The one who's punished the worst on the Day of Judgment is the one who's making the idols, the one who is trying to replicate the creation of a law and have been hijacked, he gives a nice shadow, he gives an indication to this and others as well, that one version of the head he says that the man wants to imitate the creation of a law, that he wants you law, he, he's trying to do something, you know, that is divine. So this is not the same necessarily

00:24:08 --> 00:24:48

for somebody who's replicating somebody who's drawing an image. So this is somebody who's making a statue that perhaps is right, you're going to be worshipped falsely or what not point is that these a hadith? How does one understand them, you have an entire spectrum of interpretation. And a number of scholars have differing Some say every single image without exception, and some say no, this is for those who are attempting to make idols or they're trying to sell idols, or they're trying to imitate the creation of Allah by assuming a type of divinity, themselves. And they point out one group of scholars points out that the notion of imitating the creation clearly cannot be at face

00:24:48 --> 00:24:59

value, because Allah created the sun and Allah created the moon and Allah created the, the trees and the and the mountains. And clearly if somebody even makes a model

00:25:00 --> 00:25:39

of the Sun makes a model of the moon and copies every single valley of the moon accurately in that model, that that person is not sinful, yet he is imitating what Allah has created. So clearly the Hadeeth, Utah he owner are imitating my creation has to have exceptions to it. And even admin abass understood this, because the phrase that that which has no role in it, it is not found from the words of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam, it is something even Abbas understood that not every image is going to be held on. And so he gives an example of something that is not held on, can that be extrapolated to others or not. And again, that's the whole issue over here that we're going

00:25:39 --> 00:26:23

to be going back and forth. And so the these are some of the evidences that are the bases of the discussion, right. So this is some of the ID that is used, that talked about this, this issue of images. And obviously, when we talk about images, when you're talking about when we talk about icons, when you talk about drawings, we are not talking about that which has no soul in it we're talking with so anybody, as I've been abus said, who draws trees, or natural images, who does paintings of sceneries of the galaxies and stars. Clearly, that is something that is not problematic whatsoever. And there is no you know, major controversy over this point. None of the four schools of

00:26:23 --> 00:26:41

Sunday law, none of the reputable scholars with the oma ever considered drawing the natural creation that doesn't have an animal. So what does it mean? rule is that which deep the soul of an animal or a person, as for plants, and as for

00:26:42 --> 00:27:26

the rivers and the streams and whatnot, these don't have rules the way that animals do. And therefore, there is no controversy that those are permissible to draw. And, of course, if you can draw, and if you can replicate that which Allah has created, but doesn't have a role, then obviously, if you are an engineer or an architect, and you're making models of what humans make, obviously, that too, is not problematic whatsoever. So the whole issue, the whole discussion is about images, and statues and icons that deal with an entity that has a soul. So we're talking about a human being, or we're talking about an animal like a lion, or a tiger or horse. And also,

00:27:26 --> 00:28:07

generally speaking, we're going to skip over all of the details. But generally speaking, when we talk about these types of images and icons, we mean an image or an icon of an animal or a human that is full, or at least that has the full face, by and large. Anything that is a part of a body, like for example, the hand by itself. Generally speaking, I'm going to skip over the finer detail controversy, but one can say the default position is that that is permissible. So to make an image of a hand to sculpt even the hand, just by itself, or just to have the fingers, or, for example, to draw the silhouette of the back, you know, of the body. Generally speaking, we're gonna skip over

00:28:07 --> 00:28:48

all of the details of the controversy. But the default position is that it is permissible, the controversy or the debate is over a face of the of the animal, or if you like more than the face, like the body that has like the chest and whatnot. So the main issue is the face and there is a heavy thing, the Muslim, that our Prophet sallallahu, I sent him said, in normal surah, to fill with sheep that the surah is concentrated in the face area, the point of the surah of not imitating the creation of Allah is primarily when it comes to the face. So we're going to, as I said, consider this to be the default controversy and skip over the rest. Because there is no serious controversy

00:28:48 --> 00:29:29

over having a body part. Of course, the vulgar issues, we're going to understandably, they are held on any way to have a vulgar picture or a vulgar painting of a private part of the body. Obviously, that would not be allowed on the city's for educational purposes. In the book of biology, we're not talking about that type of stuff. But any type of image which is not of the face, as we said the The classic example given is a hand somebody draws a very good image of their hand, somebody sculpts the hand, then this is permissible by the vast majority of scholars. So with this lengthy second introduction, now let's get to the points of controversy one by one, and I reiterate, this is a very

00:29:29 --> 00:29:45

lengthy topic, and I'll try my best to be covering the key points, but please understand that the topic at hand is really one that we can spend quite a number of lectures on. So let us begin with the first major contentious issue and that is

00:29:46 --> 00:29:59

the ruling on carving or sculpting a three dimensional human or animal Okay, so we're now talking about taking some clay or whatever the the

00:30:00 --> 00:30:43

The the iron or metal, whatever it might be, and making a three dimensional, you know, in the books of the technical term is that which casts a shadow motherhood will. And they mean here three dimensional, we're not talking about a drawing that's two dimensional. Right now we're talking about an icon, a statue, we're talking about carving, something that will be three dimensional. Generally speaking, by and large, the four schools of law considered this to be impermissible. If again, the the icon is a human or an animal we're not talking about, somebody does it for the the mountains, for example. So generally speaking, the Hadeeth that we just mentioned, our scholars consider this

00:30:43 --> 00:31:28

to be under that realm. And they said that it is impermissible, that is how long to carve or sculpt anything that is three dimensional. Now there's small dissenting voices, we can ignore them, the default position of the four schools of law, and of the vast majority of scholars is that it is a major sin, to carve or to sculpt anything that resembles the face of a human being, or an animal. And of course, we said, if it's not of the face, if it's just of the hand, or something than that would be permissible. So that's the first issue, it is impermissible to do that. three dimensional, the second issue, which is where a lot more debate occurs, can one draw or otherwise create a two

00:31:28 --> 00:32:10

dimensional representation of a human or an animal? So we're talking about now carving, we're talking about painting, we're talking about drawing, or any type of, you know, modern equivalent on the computer, you know, can you take your mouse or whatever it might be, and draw or use your mouse to create an image of a living object, once again, we're talking about the facial features, once again, if it is not of the face, if it is simply a part of the hand, or if it's a part of the foot, no problem there, we're going to ignore that controversy and say that it is permissible to do that. But the facial expressions or the frontal of the face of a lion, let's say for example, if you have

00:32:10 --> 00:32:53

a lion that is turned away, and it's a silhouette, no problem, but again, the face of the lion, okay, or you have the face of the human being, what is the ruling on this? When it comes to drawing an image of this nature, the majority position is that it is also impermissible. And this is the position of three of the four main hubs that there is never an excuse to draw an image of a human or an animal. And this is the default position of the Hanafi school and of the Shafi school and of the Hamburg school. So these three schools they considered that it is impermissible for a Muslim to draw a living being to draw anything that replicates a living being now one school is left and that is

00:32:53 --> 00:33:40

the Maliki school. And this is now we begin our contentions and controversies eema mitoq Rahim Allah tada was quite explicit on this point, as was his school after him. The Maliki school by and large, felt that all of the Hadith that we have quoted that they apply the land and the and the, the adab and whatnot, that it applies to 3d images to it applies to 3d images and icons, and not to pictures or images that were hand drawn. So this is the Maliki interpretation. And again, for the purposes of my q&a, I really don't have the luxury or the time to go into a higher level of why did they say this? I'm simply now narrating to generally speaking, who is saying what, so in general, the Maliki

00:33:40 --> 00:34:23

school did not consider it to be how long at max? Many of them said it is mcru. It is discouraged, it's disliked, it's not sinful to to draw two dimensional images to do that. So that is their position there. Now, this is the fetch, what are the verdict on drawing a two dimensional on carving on a stone on painting on a piece of paper or parchment? The three months have said how long and the Maliki madhhab generally speaking, did not say how long and they said at max, they said mcru and actually, many of them said if there's any reason to do it might even be mobile has not even mcru and also there are many other caveats they gave that you know, if the, if you just separate you

00:34:23 --> 00:34:59

know, the head from the body, it might even be completely, you know, permissible, but generally speaking, they did not use the verdict, how to arm on two dimensional images. So this is the creation of those images. Okay. Now, we get to the next issue, and this is where a lot of people get confused. The creation of a two dimensional image, yes, the majority position is that it is not allowed any mathematics position in his school is that generally speaking, it is not sinful to do so. However, that is not the same verdict as owning a picture of two dimension that has been created by somebody else we're going to skip

00:35:00 --> 00:35:39

Over owning a three dimensional because that is again generally speaking, the default position is that it is not allowed making a three dimensional and owning a three dimensional. So you have a figurine at home, you should not have it, you have a statue, you know of a human being at home, you should not have it, it's not something that really the bulk of the oma has consider this to be a sinful. However, creating a two dimensional one might have allowed it did not consider sinful owning a two dimensional owning a carving, sorry, not a carving, while carving on a piece of paper or carving on a rock, let's say. So not a three dimensional carving a painting, owning a painting that

00:35:39 --> 00:36:30

is two dimensional here is where we actually get to quite a significant controversy within the oma, a large group of scholars said that owning a picture possessing a picture is not the same as creating it. And that it was permissible with some basic conditions, the primary one being that the picture is not placed on a on a place of veneration, that the picture is there in the background. It's on a it's on a carpet, it's on a blanket, it's on a cushion that you're using. So clearly, there's no danger of it being venerated. So this is a position that some odema have said, is the majority position of the oma. Now, this has been claimed in reality, it's very difficult claim to

00:36:30 --> 00:37:15

verify majority of minority but there is no question that a large group of scholars from within the four main hubs, each of the four main hubs, you have dissenting voices. And as well, in particular, in the humblebee school and whatnot, you do find a number of senior voices that say that we distinguish between creating an image and between possessing one and the same goes for the shaft raise as well. A number of senior voices dissented from the position of owning versus creating. Even hedger mentions the famous and mutuality scholar, remember moto Li from the shaft theories that he said that it is permissible to have pictures and engravings on the floor, if you're walking on them,

00:37:15 --> 00:37:22

it's not something that is being venerated. And in the in the famous encyclopedia and most

00:37:24 --> 00:38:07

modern book that was done by a group of Roma in Kuwait, the phrase there is that you had Habu that the majority of scholars went to or held the position that just because it is how long to make a picture, it does not mean that it is how long to own a picture or use a picture. This is straight from this famous modern encyclopedia that is considered to be modern reference. And it is something that has compiled the positions of many of the earlier scholars. Now their main evidence, there's a number of evidences for this. Their main evidence is the highlight of Ayesha herself. rhodiola Juana were the same images that were on the curtain, she did not throw the curtain away. Rather, she said,

00:38:07 --> 00:38:49

she used it to make one or two, you know, pillows, or cushions. And there is no explicit mention that she made a point of destroying every single image now, generally speaking, and here's the point, the fact that there are no details mentioned means that these details were not necessary for us to know. Generally speaking, when you have a curtain like this, you have, you know, multiple images of the same icon or item over there. And our mother, I should know the long line her simply, you know, cut it up and put it on a on a mattress, put it on a rug, if you like or put it on a pillow, there is no evidence that she made sure that every single picture of a bird was cut up such

00:38:49 --> 00:39:12

that the bird is unrecognizable. The fact that she did not have a problem. And the profitsystem did not have a problem of having that sheet used to make the pillowcases, according to this position is the reason is that there's a big difference between putting it up and venerating versus putting it on the floor or not having it in a position of veneration. And

00:39:13 --> 00:40:00

as well a number of scholars point out another interesting phenomenon. And that is that while the Prophet sallallahu it sent him is saying all of these a hadith about icons and about images and Allah's cursing that is on the image maker. And you know, the angels do not enter houses that have images, right? These are all data we're aware of. Right? Okay. during that timeframe, every single companion, and in fact the Prophet system himself dealt with and at times owned coins. What does God do with anything? The coins that the Arabs used were Byzantine gold dinars and sassanid. Persian did hums. So the gold was from Rome, the silver was from Persia. And in fact, I actually

00:40:00 --> 00:40:39

I own myself I'm a numismatist I own a lot of early coins. I own a number of coins that were in circulation at the time of the Sahaba. And I have them in my possession in my you know, special, you know, place that I keep them in I have hundreds of these old ancient coins, and it's well known you can look this up, these coins have the images of the Emperor's on them. The coinage has carvings of the Emperor's. So you have Emperor Constantine, you know, Emperor theosis, Emperor, this and that Emperor heraclius. You have the images, and then this acid inside you have the various Cyrus and you have so and so you have all of these emperors carved over there is the George is carved over there.

00:40:39 --> 00:41:17

Now, think about it. Did any Sahabi come to the prophecies of Seattle Sula. You said the angels do not enter a house that has surah. But I have a coin in my house. Did anybody even ask did the question even cross their minds? Nothing of this is narrated. And we know for a fact that our Prophet system himself dealt with silver and gold coins. He picked them up. He showed them to the people. He had some in his house until the day he passed away. Then he gave seven away he goes, how am I going to be to law if I have these coins, and he gave them in South Africa, the fact that they're in his house, and he's the one saying the angels do not enter a house that has a surah we

00:41:17 --> 00:42:02

have to think about this Hadith, in light of the lived reality of the companions. And by the way, the very first time that a Muslim halifa made a coin of the American mattawan the first coin that was ever crafted, ever minted. minted is the term by the oma Yes, it was done by Abdul Malik Cuban but one and the Sahaba were still alive. Some of them were still alive when the first coinage was minted. And after many kibin mattawan minted the first coin with his image on it. It's called the standing keylock gold coin, there is an actual image carved out of added medical marijuana holding a staff and holding a sword. And you have a picture of a bearded turban, you know bearded guy with the

00:42:02 --> 00:42:42

turban and holding the staff in the sword, you have an image of Abdul Malik given by one the first Khalifa who minted a coin minted it with his image on it. Think about that, think about that. Now, truth be told the next coins, remove the image and the kalama was added La Ilaha Muhammad Rasulullah. And by the way, if anybody has one of these gold coins, if you want to sell it to me, I'm more than happy and not that I can afford. If you sell that at market price, it's a very, very expensive coin. It's a very rare coin as well. And anybody who owns a copy, or another copy owns the original of this knows it is worth a large fortune. So if you want to gift her, you know, sell it to

00:42:42 --> 00:43:01

me for reasonable prices, I'll be more than happy. It's a considered a collector's item. There's only, I don't know a few dozen or so available and generally they're displayed in museums and whatnot. Every once in a while this coin is put on the market and is sold for an exorbitant sum. But it's there you can see it I have seen it myself. And I think the London museum I'm not sure which one I saw it myself the golden

00:43:02 --> 00:43:41

the standing Caleb gold coin, an image of of the making of one now this is to me very interesting. The fact that when the Sahaba are alive, senior scholars around you have great Runa Ma, and the first coin that is minted has the image of the halifa on it, and it was in circulation, and it remained in circulation, even when the next coin came out that coin is still remained in circulation. This is food for for thought here. That's all that we are saying the point being that the usage of an image is not the same as making an image and everybody used coins at the time of the Prophet sallallahu. You sit up now, to add to this distinction, this is a very interesting point.

00:43:41 --> 00:44:23

There are many explicit narrations from the Sahaba and tab your own explicit where they distinguish between creating an image and between owning an image and I'll give you some of them. And in fact, there are many more in this regard. It'd be it'd be shaved with a famous author of the muslin deaf, he has a narration from or whatever zubaid back to her old with an image zubaid that he would lean on pillows that have images of birds and men on it that are old or whatever it is zubayr This is the son of Zubaydah one, right and his the brother of Abdullah Zubaydah, so Ernest Zubaydah, the nephew of I should have the other one had the main narrator of it the greatest scholar or one of the

00:44:23 --> 00:44:59

greatest scholars of the tab your own that he owned pillows that have images of birds and men on it. And we learned that Mr. Wagner Hussain, the Sahabi, he had a coin he had a he had a ring that he would sign his you know that they had a ring that they would stamp with that that ring was the image of a man that was unsheathing his sword. And we have a number of Sahaba whose ring coins had images on it of human beings. And we also have an interview shaker reported that even out entered upon a possibly bin Mohammed in a bucket

00:45:00 --> 00:45:44

This is the grandson of a rocket a severe. This is the nephew of Russia. And he lived in the city of Mecca he entered into his house. And he said, I saw in his house a curtain that had images of exotic animals and a phoenix flying around birds and Phoenix flying around. And they've been hijacked comments and he goes and of course, we've been Mohammed was of the famous seven scholars of the tub. You're one of the people the fuqaha had in Medina, and he was the one who narrated Hadith from his entourage Isha and he was the most pious people of his time. Now the grandson of walkers to do for the loved one living in the city of Makkah. When the Sahaba are still alive, He is narrating from

00:45:44 --> 00:46:31

Isla de la Juana in his own house. According to the Messiah from lamb shaver, there is a curtain or there is a covering that has images of animals and of birds flying around and salad even Abdullah have neuroma the grandson of OpenTable Hello, the Ola Juan was once leaning on a pillow and one of his students saw that the pillow had images on it. So his student asked him how can you have these images listen to what solid been Abdullah said in your crop ohada lemon Yon Cebu wassenaar who the grandson of formidable hopper the loved one the son of Abdullah ibn aroma right aroma is Sahabi Abdullah Managua. Sahabi sodimm is one of the greatest scholars of his generation of the tub your

00:46:31 --> 00:47:14

own. He is not a hobby but he is of the tabular and he is the son of a hobby and the grandson of a Sahabi sodimm rhodiola one who said it is not allowed or it is despised or it is disliked. For the one who puts it and venerates it for the one who makes it and for the one who puts it up. So in Namah ukara who pada lemon Yon Cebu This is despised for the one who puts it up like a variation where you're snarl who and the one who makes it. Now this is so explicit. We have one of the greatest set of themselves saying we're distinguishing between owning and between making and venerating and what is not allowed is to make it what is not allowed is to venerate it as for having

00:47:14 --> 00:48:02

it in the house having a curtain or something it is something that is not problematic. And we have Muhammad ibn CD and one of the greatest scholars, the students of Boko Haram, who said that I have been reported that it has been reported to me from hitbox even Abdullah that a man came to the city and he called out and he said that the commandment has come that everybody should destroy what is in their house of images on curtains right? Anybody that has a sit at a sitar anybody that has a curtain that has images should be should destroy it. So had Vaughn said that I did not like that uh, disobey the commander of the image meaning and so I stood in my house and I put it down on the

00:48:02 --> 00:48:41

ground and I used it basically on a rug. I used it on the ground, Mohammed bin CD and said listen to this, Mohammed Messina by the Who is he he is one of the greatest scholars of Hadith and the narrator's scholars of the Tabby rune of Hadith not just some random person in the fourth generation, he studied with the Sahaba he is of the greatest scholars of the first century of the hedgerow Mohammed they've been sitting said they would not consider images that people walked on to be problematic, they considered images that were placed up and looked and venerated, to be problematic Subhanallah we have so many narrations, another one and again, this is just a summary of

00:48:41 --> 00:49:24

some of them that I found and again, much more can be said but time is always limited here. Erie crema, crema, the student even Abbas said, Can we Accra hoonah Manu sybrina Timothy de noseband wala your own son Bhima water tilaka Damn, they would dislike they would not like images that are placed on up on a place to be venerated, right? So no super NASA means to, to to basically put on the on on us on a plate or put on a wall and then have it as a center of attention, they would not like this, and they did not have a problem with that which feet are walking around or over. So the rug is down there or some some type of pillow is there. They did not mind this. Now, I have just quoted you six

00:49:24 --> 00:49:59

or seven arthel from the set of themselves. without being too explicit. There are groups here who claimed to follow the setup and yet when the seller for quoted to them, they find every reach out of and they say oh we're following the Koran and sooner if Allah Subhana Allah I quoted you the students of the Sahaba, the sons of the Sahaba and even some of the Sahaba and who are you going to follow them? They understood the Quran and soon they're better than me and you they understood the A Heidi some of them narrated the very audio recording me. And so you're telling me to follow the set of I'm quoting you the setup, then you say no, no, we don't have to follow them. Because the

00:50:00 --> 00:50:36

Office systems and something else. And my response to No, he didn't say something else. That is your interpretation of what he said that his interpretation of a group of scholars, we respect them, we love them, I have studied with some of them, but they're not the final authority, they are one authority, one group, and there are plenty of others out there. And this is in fact, as I said, perhaps, perhaps as the number of books say, the majority opinion is that there is a distinguishment between creating the image and venerating it, which is definitely not allowed, versus owning it. Now, by the way, what then do we do have the Hadith about the angels not entering, and this is,

00:50:36 --> 00:51:14

again, we have a number of so those scholars, those scholars and Tabby rune and self who own images, right, they're the ones, some of them narrating the Hadeeth. So it's not as if they didn't know the Hadith, they're well aware of it, but they understand it in a different manner. And again, there's a number of interpretations. Regarding this, the most obvious one is that they understood from the actions of I should have the law of wine, that what is not allowed is to place the icon or the image in a place that is center attention, as for having it in the house, as for having it on the floor. As for having an under pillow, this is not something that is problematic, but putting it in a place

00:51:14 --> 00:51:31

where there's a potential reality of its being, you know, given more attention that is due, that is where the angels Do Not Enter. And of course, that is one opinion. Others I mean, the famous scholar of heavy inhibin, inhibin was one of the icons of the scholars of Hadith. And he wrote an entire book of Hadith, the, the,

00:51:33 --> 00:52:12

the psi haven't been hit done, died in the 300, something hit, you know, it would have been actually commented on this, and it goes, this was for the level and special for the Prophet salallahu. It he was saying, That's his opinion, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm simply quoting you on authority and an item that even had been said, that was something that applied to the Prophet system only, that's the angels do not come, you know, to him when he has when he has icons in the vicinity. And other than that, it would not be problematic. And of course, that's his opinion, and you can take it or leave it. And a number of other scholars took from these a Hadith, that having images on

00:52:12 --> 00:52:52

walls is something that is mcru, but not how long. And they said, there is no Hadith that curses, the one who owns images, there is no Hadith that the one who owns images are going to go to jahannam. The marks that one has, is that if an image is being venerated, or at least should say, if the image is in a position, or placed in a way that it could be assumed that it's a veneration, that the angels do not come to it. And this is something that is definitely not good, but it is not to the level of a shed do nasty adabas or Allah's nyna. Or they're going to go to jahannam. On the contrary, there's a big distinction between the one who makes versus the one who is owning, and the

00:52:52 --> 00:53:20

max that can be set, according to this group is that it is makrooh to place an image in an open center, and it is not makrooh at all too habit in the background or on the floor, or in a place that is not going to be venerated. So this is the default position of many roula that there is a distinguishment there is a chair, there's a difference between making, and between venerating versus between owning a painting or an image. Now,

00:53:21 --> 00:53:55

by the way, of course, there is a controversy and a number a number of Roma and you mama know is perhaps at the forefront of them said that there should be no distinction and that all images are always held on even to own and that's fine. That's a very, very valid opinion out there. And they have plenty of evidence. My reason for quoting the other side so much with my utmost respect. When you log on to average, you know, q&a websites about Islam, when you log into your average lectures that are popular on satellite TVs, you only hear one narrative, you only hear the same groups of evidences. And when these people find out there's 1015, Sahaba and taboo in the room who hold other

00:53:55 --> 00:54:35

views, the actual self literally said, there is a difference between owning and between creating when they find this out, they're shocked like what where do you get this from, and this is straight from the books of our own tradition. So point being there is a vast majority not a vast but I should say there is a majority opinion there is a large group of scholars I wanted to say, who distinguish between creating and between owning and they say if you own and not venerate, then all of these ideas do not apply. And they have a number of evidences. And I think the most obvious one, frankly, is coinage, the coins had icons, actual images on them. And the fact that the Sahaba didn't even

00:54:35 --> 00:54:59

think that this might be problematic, not even a whiff of a problem clearly indicates that we need to be a little bit more, you know, understanding of what is the wisdom behind prohibiting images and that is primarily to be a gateway to idolatry and shit. Now, by the way, next point, photography and movies, all that has preceded about images and icons and whatnot has to do

00:55:00 --> 00:55:49

With a painting drawn by hand art, as for photography, and asked for digital images, and as for movies, these are a completely different topic altogether. Why? Because photography is not the same as drawing an image. In a photograph, you capture the light, it requires no skill, I should say very little skill. I mean, especially with modern day iPhones and whatnot, you literally just have to take the images and just press the button, there is no actual art or effort, there is no imitation that you are doing, you are not imitating anything, you're simply capturing the rays of light. And by unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam, the rays that are being reflected from a mirror

00:55:49 --> 00:56:25

from a stream of water are completely valid back then they didn't have cameras, if you were to capture those rays, and you preserve them, as modern photography does, then the question arises, why would it be how long Nonetheless, the issue of photography, and the issue of movies is a modern one, understandably, you're not going to find a photo, we've been agile about photography. So when photography was introduced, in the last 150 years or so, obviously, we have a number of fatawa. And a number of controversies. And generally speaking, you know, you have a number of strands of the Muslim world such as the Salafi movement, and the Deobandi movement, generally speaking, they

00:56:25 --> 00:57:06

consider photographs to be the same as the images that are forbidden. And so therefore, to us, as you log on to the websites are very clear that they find it to be in the same genre of how long matters. However, other scholars and in particular, the sad as * University, and especially in North Africa, and what not, generally speaking, those scholars hold the view that and this is the position of chef Holloway, even before ratio the dude on others that images that are forbidden in the in the sooner or those that a man draws with his hand, and attempts to replicate and hangs on the wall. As for photographs, all slin all of this genre of photographs and movies do not come under

00:57:06 --> 00:57:43

the Hadith in the first place. There is nothing to prohibit capturing the light and then preserving the light. And so according to this group of scholars, and this is my position for the longest time that there is nothing wrong with photography as long as the subject and the and the you know, the the photograph is of course decent and morally upright. Obviously, we're not talking about evil and lewd and vicious and, and whatnot, we're not talking about that, but just you know, your babies pictures or images of the family or images of you know, you know, people in a park in a crowd that you're just taking pictures of all slendy and you from the get go, all of the images don't even

00:57:43 --> 00:58:26

apply to this genre of products. Because these are not trying to replicate these around. There's no art involved, you're simply preserving the the light that comes from these objects. And it is a modern contraption. It's a modern device. Therefore, based on this, the issue of then hanging photographs and displaying pictures based on your paradigm of you know, the first two or three issues. Now we come to you know, the other issue, can I hang pictures of my children, you know, on the walls? Well, again, it depends on how you understand the prohibition of 2d images, right? What is the law, what is the cause of it is prohibition. If it's, you know, if you feel that, like many

00:58:26 --> 00:59:05

of the scholars felt that owning a picture that is not venerated is permissible, then our priori mobiola, you're owning owning a photograph of your children will be completely permissible, then the issue comes up displaying it on the wall. And this issue then goes back to do you consider a photograph to be the type of surah that is mentioned in the Hadith. And once again, it goes back to your understanding of what is forbidden. And generally speaking, once again, the same group of scholars generally the Salafi movement and the day when the movement and others of that nature, generally speaking, they consider these types of products to come under the ahaadeeth. And they say

00:59:05 --> 00:59:44

that it should be avoided because the angels will not come in and another group of scholars, the Maliki position is very clear on this, by the way, the modern magic keys, but even more so, scholars that are you know, even in the modern Shafi school, for example, she has her shadow with a great scholar of the last, you know, in the 90s, at every every out of nowship shout all we and our time shift called while we as well, the deadlift of Egypt, if the Jordan of North Africa, the footwear councils of these countries, by and large, they have all given the photo that photographs do not come at all under the prohibition of these a hadith because it's a different different category

00:59:44 --> 00:59:59

altogether. And therefore, it is permissible to display photographs, according to them to be pedantic or to be precise. So she'll call Huawei and the Egyptian Council and I want to say the North Africa number, don't quote me on that one right now. They said it is

01:00:00 --> 01:00:36

Completely permissible. The double if the of Jordan, the scholars of Jordan when they issued their first Well, I personally liked this one and I personally followed this sweatshop that they said that even the photographs don't come under the prohibition still, it is best to avoid hanging. And the least that can be said as mcru. But if somebody wishes to hang, then their pictures of their children or whatnot, then they should not be you know, chastised or rebuked it is something that is within the realm of permissibility. And so they should not be chastised so that they said, basically, you should really avoid it. But if somebody is doing it, then Don't make a fuss over it.

01:00:36 --> 01:01:15

And frankly, this is the position that I very much sympathize with. And by the way, for the record, I don't view for the cryptography auslin to be coming under, you know, the, the prohibitions in the ID because you're capturing the images. But just to be on the safe side, about, you know, trying to remove icons from the house and whatnot, that we should not be putting it in a place of veneration, or in a place of prominence on the wall is just mcru to do this. And it's best to if you're going to have photographs, you know, have them in your books and have them in your albums and whatnot. And of course, as for storing digital photographs, online, digital on your computer, even some of the more

01:01:15 --> 01:01:49

conservative scholars allowed this because they said you're not printing it out. Our own teacher even asked me to learn how he would allow digital photographs, he would say, as long as they're stored on the computer, and they're just lightwaves. Right? So you take them, it's a Lightwave, you put it on your computer, it's lightweight, it's allowed, but he personally I'll let him know that was his position. He said, If you print it out, and it becomes a physical object, then he goes, the surah applies. That's his opinion, I respect and admire him immensely. I politely disagree. And I say that auslin as I said, from the get go, photographs do not come under the whole genre of

01:01:49 --> 01:02:27

prohibitions. And Allah subhana wa Taala knows best. The next issue and I know time is almost narrated, but again, we have so much to do, and I have to wrap up here. The next issue is children's toys, and educational purposes. And again, when it comes to this issue, as we're probably all aware, the famous hadith of Isla de la vida that she had, you know, a doll that she would play with and whatnot, you know, so from this, many of our modern scholars say that there's more leeway for children, when it comes to, you know, even having a statue for example, or, you know, adult or something, there is leeway in this regard. I would simply add here, yes, I think there is leeway,

01:02:27 --> 01:03:03

but we should try to find, you know, dolls that are not obscene. Unfortunately, some of these modern dolls are a little bit louder, a little bit too explicit and graphic. And we should find dolls that are generic, and you know, decent. And you understand what I'm saying over here. And as well, when it comes to educational purposes, or ID or licenses, even district scholars who say how long, how long, how long everything. When it comes to IDs, they have to say, you know what, this is the rule. That's an exception. So obviously, educational purposes, you know, medical students, they have to study the human anatomy, you know, anybody who's going into a discipline that involves the human

01:03:03 --> 01:03:39

body, understandably, they have to have diagrams and images. So obviously, for them educational purposes, generally speaking, you know, there's much more leeway when it comes to that issue. The next issue very quickly Drew, is how about children drawing art in their schools, that involves human beings and whatnot. And again, this goes back to the controversy between the Maliki method and the other three schools. The Maliki method, generally speaking, would allow this, maybe some would say mcru. But they would not say how long because it's not being venerated, and the other three schools would definitely frown and consider this to be sinful. And my sympathies here are with the

01:03:39 --> 01:04:12

majority that really we should try our best that our children do not themselves draw, I distinguish between drawing and between owning and our children should not be taught and as much as we can know if they're pressured, if they're forced, if you're going through a school system where you know there is no alternative for them, you know, may Allah and you forgive you can take the Maliki position because the situation is tight. But it shall explain to children that we don't you know, we don't do this in especially their children. The law is not as strict upon them anyway until they become bothered. So we try our best to teach them good luck and morals and try your best to get them

01:04:12 --> 01:04:51

out of just drawing human beings they can draw everything else or they can draw the silhouette of a human being try your best if they cannot and they are forced to realize that you know it's there's there's plenty of legitimate stuff in this issue and you know, may Allah make it easy you know for for for you in this regard. The final filty point before we conclude and that is praying with an image and again I've tried to compact all of this together and again one find so much misunderstanding Dear brothers dear sisters, especially Dear brothers, your little silhouette of you know the the the alligator or any type of polo shirt or whatnot. Nobody ever says that this is going

01:04:51 --> 01:04:59

to be held on that's the silhouette, that's not an issue. What we're talking about is praying with a shirt, a T shirt that has the picture

01:05:00 --> 01:05:40

You know, the drawing we're talking about of a human being or of a tiger of a lion. And you see the face clearly, generally speaking, when you have those images on you or around you, generally speaking, the muda Hib frowned upon this, some say how long and some say mcru. Generally speaking, they did not say the prayer is invalid. Rather, they said, this should be avoided the vast majority, the default position is that it is mcru. That's the default position that you really should avoid it, that your prayer is acceptable, but what you have done is something that should be avoided. And we have an authentic hadith as well. Another one that I did not go over that once our Prophet system

01:05:40 --> 01:06:17

prayed, and there was an image close by, and when he finished, he commanded that would be taken down, and he goes, it distracted me from my Salah, the fact that he prayed, and there is that image. And then he says, It distracted me, it shows that it is mcru, okay, should be avoided, it should not be done. And by the way, that's another evidence that some people use that, you know, the image is held on when it is used to be venerated, and if it's just there. So anyway, all of this, we have gone over that controversy. In any case, I have tried to cram in quite a lot in this in this one lecture. And I want to conclude by stating that this is an area where theory and practice really

01:06:17 --> 01:07:03

need to be looked at from two separate angles. With my utmost respect, you can speak theoretically as much as you want. Practically speaking in the world that we live in. We are bombarded with images, like never before in human history, magazines, books, the television, the internet, I mean, Everywhere you look, it's pictures. And our children are always watching images and pictures. And those who come and say everything is held on with my utmost love and respect, their own children cannot live up to their own standards of footwork. So there's something in film called rumor mill belova, there's something a field called that which everybody is just forced to do because of the

01:07:03 --> 01:07:42

circumstance. And there's no question that photography and images has now become something that is all mobile belova. And the rules of fic slightly change and modify for those issues that might damage billable work. And this is every student of knowledge knows this a reefer P and a rule sort of track student knows this, there is no question in my mind that the issue of images needs to also be looked at under the principle of mobile malware. And we need to rethink through simply because now we have, you know, here we are. And again, I'm not trying to be harsh on your brothers and sisters, we're debating pictures of our babies and our children. And the reality is we should be

01:07:42 --> 01:08:21

talking about * and evil images. Those are the pictures that we need to all band together and prohibit our children from watching the evil, indecent lewd types of movies out there, we cannot stop the onslaught of images altogether. So if families are coming together and taking a picture and preserving their memory Subhanallah we're getting angry at that. And the reality is, every single children show in every single, you know, program that our teenagers are watching, our auto bailout is full of indecency. Those are the images that we need to be working on, and making sure that we block as much as we can, and work even with other faith groups and what not, and ask for the images

01:08:21 --> 01:08:49

of you know, all of us together as a crowd, and we take a picture and whatnot, I mean, Subhanallah I think we're losing the forest for the trees here, you know, these are not inshallah, coming under the traditions of the processor in the first place, even if you want to consider it that we already mentioned that the majority of scholars differentiated between carving and drawing, and between owning and so if you own a picture, you know that you know, of your children or whatnot, inshallah, there's nothing, you know, problematic in this regard. So to conclude your brothers and sisters,

01:08:50 --> 01:09:30

there is no question in my mind that carving a statue is completely wrong. And owning an icon and owning a statue is something that is not befitting of a practicing Muslim. And to draw an image with one's hand is something that is forbidden, but to own an image that is drawn is not the same. And if you have books that have paintings in them, and if you have something of this nature in your house that is not being venerated or put in on a platform, inshallah that is permissible. And as for photographs and videos, then there is no question in my mind, if you ask me that that entire genre of images does not come under the images that the Prophet system is referring to, because those are

01:09:30 --> 01:09:59

simply capturing light, even if they're printed out. These are not things that are done by people that are trying to imitate or whatnot, and especially when they're done for families and whatnot, what really needs to be forbidden beyond the question of a doubt is the onslaught of indecency and a *. Those are the harem images, let's come together to ban those and talk about those and ask for you know, the rest of what we are, you know, saturated with Subhan Allah, Allah still talk to me fear Allah azza wa jal as much

01:10:00 --> 01:10:37

We can add one final point. And I know I've gone very long. But again, this is very important, dear Muslims, we have to be point out a very, very frank reality, all of us are at different levels of practicing Islam. And the majority of the oma is struggling with things that are far more basic, like the five prayers, the majority of the oma might even be involved in blatant how long major sins with respect to such Muslims, and perhaps some of us are in that category. And all of us know, family and friends that are in that category. With regards to those Muslims. Surely we understand that if we visit their house, and they're not even praying five times a day, or you know, they're

01:10:37 --> 01:11:13

not even, you know, or they're involved in a major sin, that if we antagonize them over an issue that is a gray area, oh, how can we have a picture of your son, you know, on the living room Subhanallah The goal is not that they kick you out of their lives, the goal is that you influence them positively. And if they're not even praying, or they're involved in major sins, for you to be in their life and to be a positive influence is far more important than to raise a controversy over an issue. Were actually actually the majority of scholars of our times might not even be considering it to be a sin in the first place. But just because you have heard of one scholar or one photo, and

01:11:13 --> 01:11:49

you think it is correct, one, you know, there are other opinions out there. So in the end of the day, dear brothers and sisters, this has been a summary that I believe inshallah tada was, I hope it is useful inshallah, to Allah. And as I said, if you want to follow another group of scholars, that's fine. But just understand that there are opinions out there and frankly, sometimes those opinions make a lot more sense and they're the ones in line with not just the Quran and Sunnah, not just with the actual set of another group who claim to follow the set of but actual setup that Aquila recorded, but also these fatawa are in sync in harmony with lived lives of mankind that Islam

01:11:49 --> 01:12:17

is not meant to make life impossible. And the way that we use photography and videos to record the memories of our children. It's not something that goes against the Quran and Sunnah it is completely permissible in sha Allah to Allah if you understand all of this, then it shall lead to other life will be something that is easier for all of you may Allah subhana wa tada guide me and you to that which he loves me Eliza bless all of us and forgive our sins. And until next time, Zack malachite was set on wanting to lie he will catch on

01:12:25 --> 01:12:25


01:12:40 --> 01:12:41

he can

Share Page

Related Episodes