From The Official Website of His Eminence Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman Al-Jibreen, may Allah have mercy on him.
The Ruling of Islam Regarding Photography with Machines
It remains to be said: What is the ruling on this photography with machines, which are the instruments of what are called modern devices that capture images, such as cameras and the like? Our early scholars used to include such things within the general prohibition. Our Shaykh, Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim—may Allah have mercy on him—issued a fatwa stating that they are among the prohibited images and that they are not permissible. When his fatwa became well-known, an objector opposed him and responded to him in a booklet entitled “The Refutation of His Eminence, the Mufti Muhammad bin Ibrahim, Regarding His Prohibition of Photography.” Photography at that time required [several] processes, such as what is called developing and the like; so he mentioned about twelve processes involved in photography. Despite this, he [the objector] argued: It is the creation of Allah, and this photography is merely the act of Allah, not the act of human beings. Consequently, many scholars refuted him and invalidated his statement. Among those who rebuked him was Shaykh Muhammad Nasir ad-Din al-Albani. Subsequently, Shaykh Ibn Baz—may Allah have mercy on him—also wrote a treatise on photography titled: “The Beneficial Clarification Regarding the Ruling on Photography,” or a similar title—a printed, independent treatise that was also published alongside his [other] treatises. In it, he clearly stated that all types of image-making are impermissible. Shaykh Hamoud at-Tuwaijri—may Allah have mercy on him—also wrote an extensive treatise on the subject entitled “Proclaiming the Disapproval Against Those Infatuated with Photography.” All of them reached a consensus that the retention of images is not permissible.
Before them were the early scholars; Imam Muslim—may Allah have mercy on him—narrated the hadiths regarding image-making, some of which we have referenced. Imam an-Nawawi explained them in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, elaborating extensively on their explanation. He clarified that image-making is not permissible—neither on paper, nor on garments, nor on walls, nor in books, nor on anything else—and that the evidences are manifest regarding its prohibition. Many scholars addressed this in their authored works; when discussing the chapter on clothing, they mention that images might be found on certain garments: on turbans, shirts, trousers, cloaks, or the like; and they strongly denounce them. Furthermore, it appears that image-making at that time was manual drawing; they would draw by hand, whereby one takes a piece of paper, then takes ink and a pen or the like, and then draws the image of a human being or an animal, drawing its face or the like until the compilation or completion of this image is achieved. So these are the images that those scholars spoke about.
When our Shaykh, Ibn Baz—may Allah have mercy on him—spoke once after the Asr prayer in the central mosque about photography in the year [1375 AH], he was subsequently asked about many people carrying images on identification cards and passports, as they had become necessary. At that point, he excused them. He clarified his position the following day, stating: “Perhaps what occurs on these passports, personal identification cards, and the like is exempted.” It was as if he considered that to be among the exceptions due to need and necessity. In his book on photography—when he cited these hadiths and discussed them based on what he transmitted from the scholars—he cited a hadith found in some of the authentic compilations. It contains a story that one of the Companions narrated this hadith which states: {“Whoever makes an image will be tasked with breathing a soul into it”}. Then they visited him, and behold, he had spread a garment over one of the walls, and there was an image on that garment. One of those who had heard that hadith from him condemned this, to which another replied: “He had stated: {‘Except for a pattern on a garment’}.” This phrase, {“Except for a pattern on a garment”}, was thought by some to be an excuse, meaning that the image on the garment is permissible, implying that typically, it is not complete. If there is something on the garment that is treated with leniency, then that is among what is pardoned; customarily, it does not contain the completeness of the face and the like, nor the completeness of the sensory organs and similar features.
Likewise, some of those who object to what is well-known these days argue that Aisha used to keep images to play with. Ibn Baz cited the hadiths regarding Aisha, which state that she used to have dolls, as she was a young child. It seems he did not decisively declare dolls to be strictly prohibited, but rather mentioned that they are disliked (makruh). When Shaykh Hamoud—may Allah have mercy on him—discussed this, he stated that they are not termed ‘images’; for children continuously make such forms. A little girl, for example, might take a stick representing an arm, place a cross stick in its middle and tie it with a thread, then bring a piece of cloth and wrap it around the top to resemble a head, and around the cross stick to resemble hands. She might also place two sticks at the bottom and wrap cloths around them to resemble legs, and play with it. This is not termed an image; it lacks the completeness of an image, having neither a face nor a back of the head, and lacking sensory features—no eyes, no nose, no lips, no ears, no face, no hair, nor anything else. For this reason, these are not considered among the images concerning which the prohibition was reported.
Furthermore, it is also said: these images present currently in the markets, which are called dolls or the like—we consider these dolls to be images, and it is not permissible to purchase them; rather, they must be destroyed. Those who manufacture them, it is known that they intend by this to attract money and take wealth from the Muslims. Thus, they import massive and abundant quantities of these images, manufactured in the lands of the disbelievers, taking money for them, while people scramble for them. They say: “They are merely toys and amusements we play with, and with which we keep our children occupied,” and the like. We respond: These fall under the prohibition because they are three-dimensional, complete figures. They even squeeze them so they cry out, emitting a sound like a child’s voice. They possess fingers, fingertips, nails, a head, hair on the head, eyes, eyelashes, eyebrows, nostrils—even if they are not deep—and lips; they redden the lips, and similarly the rest of the body. So we say: Such items fall within the prohibition of acquisition. The acquisition of such things has been explicitly prohibited. It is reported that the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—said: {“The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image.”} The term ‘image’ has been interpreted as that which has a physical mass and a bodily structure; this is based on a lenient interpretation.
As for the images that have proliferated in these times, becoming a widespread affliction to the extent that they have spread across all canned goods, on some tissues, boxes, cartons, and the like—the affliction has indeed become widespread. There are people who say: They do not fall under the prohibition. Some scholars granted a concession regarding this, among them Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen—may Allah have mercy on him—who stated: They are not among the prohibited images, because they are degraded (mumtahanah), are not three-dimensional, are incomplete, and are captured by this machine which snaps, captures, and imprints them, thus remaining upon the creation of Allah the Exalted. Furthermore, they have become among the necessities, to the point that no student is registered unless a photograph is taken of him, even in the primary stage. They are also affixed to academic qualifications, certificates, and the like, as well as on personal identification cards and similar documents. Therefore, they held the view that they are not prohibited. Even though by holding this view they contradicted the earlier scholars, such as Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim, Hamoud at-Tuwaijri, and others, who considered them included in the prohibition. However, they provided the excuse that they contain an underlying benefit (maslahah) and so forth.
Similarly, some scholars issued fatwas permitting the acquisition of newspapers and magazines that contain some of these images, with which some children might entertain themselves, keeping them occupied away from that which has no benefit or that which contains harm. Thus, they allowed the permissibility of acquiring these magazines, whose publishers and printers—such as the “Youth and Family” magazine and the like—intend to divert children away from what is harmful to them. Perhaps this can be treated with leniency due to the benefit involved, and based on committing the lesser of two harms to prevent the greater of them. This is how they ruled, and each has their own ijtihad (independent reasoning) and their own perspective.
In any case… some scholars permitted images on carpets/furnishings if they are subjected to degradation (mumtahanah), and among those who permitted this was Shaykh Ibn Baz—may Allah have mercy on him—if they are trampled upon by feet and sat upon. They deduced this from the incident when Aisha hung that curtain (qiram) over the alcove (sahwah)—meaning over the window—which contained an image. At that point, she removed it by the command of the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—and tore it up, making from it two discarded cushions. This indicates that if the image is degraded and cast aside, there is no harm in that, it does not enter under the prohibition, and there is latitude in the matter.
Nevertheless, we state: The fundamental principle is the obliteration of images that are feared to be worshipped besides Allah and venerated—especially if they are three-dimensional, meaning they possess a shadow and physical mass—and the removal of three-dimensional images. As for children, they can be compensated for those dolls with images of non-animate objects: images of cars, weapons, airplanes, and similar manufactured items. In these, there is what suffices them and provides them with amusement, rather than bringing them those three-dimensional figures which are images of animate beings, whether humans, horses, birds, or the like. It is more befitting for a Muslim to distance himself and remove from his home anything that contains harm or corruption to his intellect, his religion, and his trustworthiness.
Regarding images captured via video film, the apparent view is also their permissibility. This is because they are not static, even if they are moving in the sense that they capture and record them on that film, then display them on this device which you look at behind this screen while they are moving. Therefore, if they are beneficial; meaning they contain benefits such as video recordings of lectures, or of wars occurring against Muslims involving acts of aggression and the like, or images of famines depicting what befalls some of those Muslims, which consequently softens the hearts towards them or the like; then perhaps this is among the matters treated with leniency.
We suffice with this, and we will answer the questions after the Adhan. And Allah knows best, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon Muhammad.
Questions
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
In reality, many questions have been received, but generally, they revolve around photography, which the Shaykh has already mentioned. However, there is a collection of questions we will present briefly.
Q: The first question says: Regarding images in newspapers or magazines inside the house—whether the image is on the cover or inside—is it obligatory to obliterate the image? And do they prevent the entry of angels?
We mentioned that some scholars granted a concession regarding these images on paper, which are captured by a machine or a camera and printed, stating: They do not fall under the prohibition. Given that they have multiplied and become entrenched in all mediums, we say: Perhaps they do not fall under the general prohibition. However, a person should try, as much as he is able, to remove what is visible of them. If they are inside the newspaper or magazine, perhaps that is pardoned due to them not being prominent. If they are on the cover and the like, then be diligent in obliterating the images; obliterating the face and the like.
Q: He asks: Is the well-known caricature drawing in newspapers permissible?
There is no doubt that these drawings are novel drawings that were not known previously. Ancient drawing was strictly done with a pen, by hand, and the like. As for these drawings using these devices and machines, they are something new, which neither the earlier scholars nor the classical jurists spoke about. Thus, it falls under drawing or photography with a camera and its like.
Q: He asks: Drawing or photographing a human figure, then eliminating the face, or whitening out the color; is that sufficient?
Perhaps it is sufficient if the head and face are obliterated, or the face is obliterated such that it becomes like the back of the head; perhaps that would be sufficient.
Q: He asks: Some people record wedding parties in the men’s section with a video camera; is that valid?
We hold the view that this is not permissible, because it involves the filming of women who might be unaware or uncovered, or the like. As for filming something that holds benefit, such as lectures, historical events, or permissible enactments; then perhaps that is permissible.
Q: He asks: Your praise—Eminent Shaykh—for the Taliban movement regarding its action; does it indicate an endorsement of their methodology?
I endorse them in what was correct; this act—which is the removal and destruction of these images—is something they are to be praised for, because it is the removal of polytheistic monuments, or means leading to polytheism.
Q: He asks: Regarding the issue of photography, given the difference of opinion on it, is it justified to condemn it?
It should be condemned if there is no benefit in it or if there is no necessity. However, if there is a necessity, such as photos for certificates, passports, or ID cards; these have seemingly become necessary. As for when it is unnecessary, unneeded, and devoid of benefit, we advise against it. This includes what are termed souvenir photos, where they photograph a child. They capture images of children and the like, and later say: “This is your photo when you were a child, this is your photo when you were ten,” and similar things. I view the acquisition of such as impermissible. Likewise, the photos of many deceased individuals are retained without need. If they are in need of keeping his identification document, there is no harm in keeping it while it contains his photo. However, if they have no need, they should destroy what they have.
Q: He asks: Is drawing a dividing line at the position of the neck sufficient? And also… also leaving a gap at the neck without connecting it, is that sufficient?
It is not sufficient. If the face is drawn—the face in its entirety—then the face must be obliterated. As for them severing it with this line or the like, we view that this is not sufficient.
Q: He asks: Is photographing/drawing the body without the head permissible or not?
It could be said: The body is akin to a tree. Therefore, when Ibn Abbas was asked, he issued a fatwa saying: “You must [only] draw this tree and that which has no soul,” if you must do so and this is your trade. Thus, if one draws a hand, for instance, or a chest, or draws the internal anatomy of a human, including the lungs, heart, intestines, and the like, for the purpose of deriving benefit from that, there is no prohibition against this.
Q: He asks: Regarding images on clothes, whether it is an image of a human, a drawn figure, or an animal image; are they considered degraded? And how should one handle them while keeping the garment?
First: We advise those who import them; they will find alternatives that can replace them.
Second: We advise those who purchase them; we say: Distance yourselves from them, and you will find alternatives that can replace them.
Third: If it happens that they were purchased, the primary obligation upon a person—in this case—is to strive to obliterate what he can of them. He should erase the face or the like with a remover or something similar, or he makes it concealed; meaning, he places it on the garment that is directly against the body, so that it is not visible. Perhaps that suffices in achieving degradation.
Q: He asks: Photographing youth trips while they are wearing sports clothes and the like. Do you support it?
There is no need for that. On these trips, for example, they take a picture while playing, and a picture while stripped of their normal clothing and wearing playwear and the like. I do not support this.
Q: He asks: Photography with a photographic camera… for the sake of education; is that justified or not?
If it is among the means of education; the means carry the rulings of the objectives. One looks at that specific knowledge: is it contingent upon that drawing? If so, it is said: there is no harm in it. However, if it is not contingent upon it, and rather education is possible without this drawing, then we view that it is impermissible.
Q: He asks: Some charities and schools wish to photograph or use video cameras to document activities, because an image accomplishes what words cannot. Is that justified for them?
That may be permissible in certain cases where, if people see that image, their hearts soften; whether moving images via video camera or static images via other means. Undoubtedly—in this context—they move the hearts. There are, for instance, those who film famines in certain countries, documenting them on these tapes—video tapes. Likewise, they film grinding wars involving Muslims; involving them with their enemies. In this, too, is that which moves the hearts to their rescue and aid, and informs Muslims of their conditions. Thus, if there is a benefit in it, there is no prohibition against it.
Q: He asks: Some brothers rebuke the supervisors of summer centers regarding the issue of small photos, arguing that there is no need for them. How is the rebuke, and what is the answer?
We need to know first… what the reason for the rebuke is. If there is no need for them as he says, and no necessity for them, then the rebuke is correct. If there is a motive, then perhaps that justifies it. There are—for example—those who justify it in examinations, that a person might enter under someone else’s name, and write the exam under the name of the absent person who is academically weak, leading to confusion. Because of this, they saw a benefit in everyone being known, affixing his photo on his certificate or at his seat. They have viewed this as necessary, even if not absolutely mandatory.
Q: He asks: Retaining photographic images, not for veneration but for memory’s sake, is it permissible?
No. I view that there is no need for it if it is merely for memory’s sake, such as retaining the memory of the deceased for decades through his photo or the like. There is no need for that; thus, I view it as disliked.
Q: He asks: Is the presence of an image for the purpose of softening people’s emotions permissible?
We mentioned that it is permissible to soften people’s emotions. We have—for example—famines occurring in many countries, so they film the state they are in. Hearts soften when these are displayed, as well as other beneficial images.
Q: Well, O Shaykh, is it permissible to photograph a woman for the purpose of softening emotions?
We view that it is not permissible. However, if the women in those lands are uncovered, as if there is no difference between them and the men, as is the case in some countries—even if they call themselves Islamic—and they take photos that subsequently include images of women—meaning incidentally—as occurred during the wars of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, and others. Many films were recorded for them, and many images of women appeared in them during those battles and in those locations. The display of these generated a sense of tenderness in people’s hearts and had an impact. If it is incidental, there is no harm. However, doing so independently, intentionally seeking to photograph women, is not permissible.
Q: He asks: A worshiper entering the mosque with photos in his pocket, is it permissible or not?
If they are hidden, like the images on currency, civil ID cards, or the like—if they are hidden, they are excused in carrying them, as this is among the necessities.
Q: He asks: A person photographed people while they were displeased with him doing so. Is it obligatory upon him to tear them up, or refrain from showing them to people?
They must demand that he allow them to tear them up if they do not want that. It is not permissible for him to photograph them when they do not want it, nor to display their photos when they did not desire it.
Q: He asks: Placing an image of a human on the wall, is it permissible?
It is not permissible, because it is considered an explicitly visible image.
Q: He asks: A young man is an expatriate, away from his family and homeland, and his parents want him to send a picture so they can be reassured about him, but the young man is perplexed about the permissibility of this.
Perhaps that is permissible; for him to send them a picture of his personal ID or passport. They might be in dire need to see him to be reassured of his health, and perhaps this picture will reassure them. It is preferable that it be a video recording or the like.
Q: He asks: O Shaykh, recently there has been an abundant emergence of what are known as dubbed cartoon films. What is the ruling on purchasing them for children?
We view them as disliked. However, if children will inevitably either sit in front of screens showing naked images and the resulting indecent films, thereby falling into temptation, or occupy themselves with these so-called cartoon films, then some evils are lesser than others. If it is unavoidable to occupy them with one of the two matters, the lesser one is chosen.
Q: Is it permissible to watch sports matches on television, provided one does not look at the awrah?
We hold that there is no need for these matches, whether attending them and watching the players as they play, or viewing them on screens and television. What does the viewer gain from them, whether a part of their awrah appears—such as the knee or thigh—or does not appear, as in the case where their clothing covers the knee and what is below it?! What is the benefit for those who look at that?! They reap no benefit from it, whether this team wins or that team is defeated. What is the benefit behind that?! The victory is for or against them, and no one else benefits from this.
Q: He asks: Some youth—may Allah guide them—place a picture of a singer in their car. What should I do, and how should I advise him?
There is no doubt that in this is an encouragement for those singers, musicians, artists, and their like. In it is also the spreading of their reputation, an enticement for people, and an advertisement of their names. You must advise whoever you see rejoicing in that, publishing their pictures, encouraging them, praising them, mentioning their supposed merits, or citing their poetry or songs. All of this constitutes assistance in this evil.
Q: He asks: Is drawing an image in its true form, but without the head or facial features like the eye and nose, not considered an image, deducing from the hadith: {“Indeed, the image is the head”}?
The foundational element of an image is the face, because it is through it that one is distinguished. You cannot distinguish a person unless you see their face, although a footprint might distinguish a trail and the like. As for the hand, chest, back, and the like, distinction is not achieved through them. Therefore, many scholars have stated: The image is the actual face; thus, if there is no face, then perhaps it is not called a true image.
Q: He asks: Regarding drawing in schools—the subject of art/drawing—if it includes drawing a human being, is it justified for the student to draw it?
If this is a school subject, he must strive not to draw the face: the eyes, the nostrils, the lips, the eyebrows, the ears, and the overall form of the face. If he draws something from the interior of the body or its exterior, such as the fingers and fingertips, or from the internal cavity, and the like, then this is among what is treated with leniency.
Q: Many students hesitate to bring an English textbook into the mosque, arguing that these images are unintentional. What is the ruling on that?
We advise them not to enter with these images—whether in a subject material, English books, or otherwise—they should not enter the mosques with them out of respect for the sanctity of the mosques. If they need to do so, they should obliterate their faces.
Q: He asks—the final question—is appearing on television permissible or not?
There is no doubt that television and its like—as well as video tapes—are novel inventions, and that photography within them is merely the capturing of these images, followed by their distribution and broadcast in these devices that capture and receive them. There is no doubt that both good and evil occur through it. If it is unavoidable, and given that many people encounter it and receive it in their homes and consider it indispensable; then having it occupied with something of the truth is better than it being entirely falsehood.
[Taken from the official website of His Eminence Shaykh Abdullah bin Jibreen (Rahimahullah).Translated into English by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.]
Saheehus-Seerah 