Category Archives: Picture/Television/Digital Pictography


Television is simply an effective brainwashing and social engineering tool. One of the clearest and most blatant aims of what is delivered through television is the “abolition of the family” (by tearing away and destroying all its bonds).

Television is the most-effective means of delivery for that envisaged social engineering. But it is in its reality and in its interior a call to permissiveness, to decay and (to) factors of turmoil, and disintegration in societies, and to the splitting of the handholds of nations and to the destructive, subversive annihilation of the edifice of legal injunctions and noble characteristics (morals) and the corruption and destruction of civilization (culture)…

It is our hope that as a Muslim, you already recognize the television for what it is. TV Networks are under no obligation to tell the truth, because they are privately owned – and what you see through your television is decided by people whose values are more or less entirely in opposition to yours.

If you are a Muslim who has a television in your house, we advise you for the sake of Allaah Ta’ala that you get rid of your television, and that you do not give away your children to “television foster-care“ because all you are doing is destroying their lives, socially, morally and psychologically, whilst being deceived into thinking you are providing them “entertainment”. Very large numbers of well-informed, and conscientious non-Muslims are recognizing the corruption and sham that is television, its evil effects on themselves and their children and are getting rid of it from their houses.

Predictive Programming and Culture Creation

First a quick note on what is referred to as “predictive programming “: When you want to bring about social change, it is easier to familiarize the target audience with the desired change but in a non-direct way. This is done mainly through movies, sitcoms and music, in other words through the backdoor of “entertainment”.

Through entertainment you familiarize people with a certain social norm, or agenda, because it’s weaved into the plot, and because this is entertainment, you’ve already got the audience to subconsciously accept it. This is a very powerful technique. In this manner you can make anything a social norm, fornication, adultery, even incest, robbery, violence and so on, you can make them all justifiable simply by presenting it through a carefully crafted plot or story line, and by casting the right character(s).

If you think that you are receiving “entertainment” through the box, you are mistaken. You are receiving “social engineering” (the alteration of morals, attitudes, values) disguised as entertainment and its not as innocent as you may think it is – all the social evils and moral degradation don’t come out of thin air, they have reasons, causes and they have to be coming from somewhere.

As for “culture creation”

True culture always come from the ground up, it always starts with the people in the society, and then it grows and spreads and becomes the accepted custom and way, and it binds that society together for generations to come, if not hundreds or even thousands of years. In the modern age, all culture is created artificially. It is forced from top down, and it is a fake contrived culture.

In history, true culture (grass roots upwards) has bonded people and societies and kept them together. In the 20th century, the fake contrived culture which continues to be pushed through movies, music, novels is used to destroy societies and families. So this is what is meant by “culture creation”. You create a fake contrived culture and export it to the rest of the world, and through this fake culture achieve socialist goals.

You can tear apart the family bonds (husband-wife, parent-child relationships) and degrade all morals, you can promote cultures of violence, greed, selfish individuality and so on. So culture creation is extremely powerful and it is delivered through the television. So we ought to be aware of “predictive programming” and “culture creation” because it is all around us and its a false reality through which nations and societies at the family unit level are brainwashed and through which your children are given a culture, perception and way of thinking.

Brief Overview of the Role of Television in Destroying Children, the Family and Society

Instilling Hatred towards Parents or Total Independence from them

This is very prominent, and is a major aspect of the social engineering for which television is a delivery mechanism. What is put out by major movie production centers and through certain genres of music are replete with particular themes that disdain parents. The children that develop the best and are most stable are those who have regular contact with people of different ages, they are not cocooned and do not develop a warped and segmented picture of reality, and these children always tend to hold on to family values and the types of “bonding” that hold society together.

By breaking contact and “bonding” with parents, or older generations, let alone being brainwashed into resenting and hating them, the society loses its cohesion over a few generations and the young are out of touch with the old and so whatever morals the old had do not get passed down to the young. In all the famous and popular cartoons targeted to children (the Disney films) from the early 20th century onwards, you will see that generally they follow a formula. This is a scientific formula worked to perfection. In most of these cartoons the main character is always separated from his or her family, and is usually cast as an orphan. Thus, disassociation with the parents (or mainly the mother) is a prominent feature in many story lines. The mother may often be presented as evil, oppressive, or you may have the “evil stepmother”. Motherhood is made to be absent. They usually have a very tragic, extremely traumatic incident occurring at the beginning. Usually this is the loss of both parents or just one in a very brutal or unkind way. The scenes are deliberately made extremely intense and traumatic.

When kids watch this stuff it really does traumatize them. In that traumatized, emotionally disturbed state, it becomes easy to impart values and messages through whatever follows in the rest of the film or cartoon. The children identify with the main character and subconsciously impose themselves upon that character or within the character’s context. Then whatever the character experiences and goes through is soaked up by the subconscious of the (traumatized) child who is watching.

This really is a subject in itself, but let us say loud and clear that if you think these are just innocent cartoons for children, you are dead, dead wrong. These are cartoons based upon scientific formulas devised after much experimentation and research.

Adapted from: 6 Ways Television Destroys and Corrupts our Children and Society


By Hadhrat Moulana Abdul Hamid Is’haq Sahib (Damat Barakatuhum)

Picture-making of anything animate, in whichever form it is done in – whether with a pen, pencil, paint-brush, camera, cell-phone – is Haraam. …The warnings found in the Ahadith are very clear regarding picture-making or photography of animate objects. The same prohibition applies to sculpting. Artists use material such as wood, clay, metal, etc. to sculpt human figures and other animate objects.

Using a different instrument to make pictures, or changing its name does not change the prohibition. The prohibition is not based on the procedure or technique. The actual prohibition is on the end result. This is what is Haraam. A person may use a pencil to sketch someone or a camera to capture someone, but the picture is what is Haraam… not how it is made.

Digital photography is merely advanced imaging… like how we have the microwave, pressure-cooker, air-fryer, etc. which are advanced ways of cooking food. The same can be said about so much else: Transportation has evolved. Similarly, communication has evolved: Initially to write required ink and a reed pen, which progressed to the quill, thereafter the ballpoint pen, fountain pen and we now live in the age of digital and smart pens. Over many centuries, there was papyrus, parchment and paper used for hand-writing. Then came the eras of the typewriter, telegram, fax, email, sms, Whatsapp, etc. – all to communicate with others. The same work is achieved but through innovative and advanced means.

It is surprising that many focus on the process and procedure of digital photography and declare the end result as permissible. If one has to consider the means to the end, then previously, wine was not made with the same equipment or with the same levels of hygiene as is made in these times. It was also common for people to crush grapes with their feet, in order to make wine… something many wine-drinkers will not accept or tolerate today. Now, there is modern machinery used in wineries to do this work. However, despite the advanced means and high hygiene standards adopted, it will always remain Haraam.

Pigs are known for their dirt and filth. Nowadays, in the sector of pig-rearing, there are many conditions that have to be met (which are generally not met), which include hygienic pig management and breeding, cleaning, disinfection, and so forth. There is even, what is called, ‘pure free-range pig farming’ or ‘organic pork’ products. Even if pigs are kept in the cleanest conditions, the different pork products which are processed will not be Halaal. They will be categorically Haraam.

Similarly, photography is photography, no matter what tool or medium is used to record it. The end result is a photo. Moreover, like film-photography or traditional photography, digital photographs can be preserved and also printed.

Those in favour of digital photography, etc.  say that it is not a picture; rather a series of pixels or ‘dots’ whereas the experts and professionals in the field of photography, say that the end is a photograph. …It is thus strange that on a Shar’i level, the assertion is that it is not a photograph. The example of this is that of a criminal who admits his guilt while the prosecutor tries his utmost to prove his innocence.

Often, the same digital pictures are found in printed form – in newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, etc. What was the determining factor for the permissibility – that is, it is just dots – is then liquidated and obliterated, because it finds its way to print form. The possibility of Tasweer (image-making) is evident and indisputable.

May Allah Ta’ala guide us and protect us.

The Kufr of So-Called “Islamic Series”

[By Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim]

Very briefly, two issues will be touched upon in this article: 

⚫ Films or Series Depicting the Ambiyaa or Sahaabah 

⚫ Films or Series Depicting Islamic Figures

Films or Series Depicting the Ambiyaa or Sahaabah

Allah Ta`ala says in the Qur’aan Kareem:

“And if you ask them (the Munaafiqeen, regarding their mockery of the Deen), they will say: ‘We were only talking and joking (to pass time without intending any harm).’ Say: ‘Were you mocking Allaah, His Aayaat and His Rasool (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)? Do not make excuses. You have committed Kufr (by mocking the Deen) after (your claim to) having Imaan.” [Surah at-Tawbah, 9:65-66]

And Allah Ta`ala says:

“It has already been revealed to you in the Kitaab (the Qur’aan) that when you hear the Aayaat of Allaah being rejected and mocked at (by the Kuffaar), then do not sit with them until they engage in other talks (in some other conversation). Without doubt, in that case (if you continue to sit with them despite their mockery of the Deen) you will be like them (i.e. a Kaafir like them). Indeed, Allaah will gather the Munaafiqeen and the Kaafireen altogether in Jahannam.” [Surah an-Nisa, 4:140]

It is indeed glaring evidence that we are living in “the worst of times, with the worst of people” when there are so-called Muslims and – even worse – so-called “Ulama” who actively promote mockery of the Deen of Allah Ta`ala. This they do through their promotion of the vile, Haraam, Kufr films and series which have been made by Kuffaar (including those who claim to be Muslims) about Rasoolullaah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and Sahaabah-e-Kiraam, such as “The Message” and the “Omar Series”.

Such mal`oon (accursed) Kaafirs who claim to be “Ulama” and those who claim to be “Muslims”, stupidly and arrogantly ask: “What is wrong with it?”

Everything is wrong with it, from beginning to end. It is an act of kufr and irtidaad to make films depicting the Ambiyaa or Sahaabah, as to do so is istihzaa, and istihzaa (mockery) of the Deen in any way, shape or form, is irtidaad which takes a person out of the fold of Islam regardless of his “intentions”.

In the first place, tasweer (making pictures of animate beings) is in itself Haraam, as Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has stated in the Hadeeth:

“Those involved in picture-making will be subjected to the worst of `Adhaab on the Day of Qiyaamah.” [Narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari]

This hurmat is infinitely worse when the tasweer is about the Ambiyaa (Alayhimus Salaam) or about Sahaabah-e-Kiraam (Radhiyallahu Anhum). Not only did the Kuffaar mock Islaam by creating this so-called film about the life of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and Sahaabah, but they went as far as to have Kuffaar actors and actresses falsely and satanically “portraying” the lives of the Sahaabah: Anthony Quinn depicting Hadhrat Hamza (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the uncle of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam); Michael Ansara depicting Hadhrat Abu Sufyaan (Radhiyallahu Anhu); Johnny Sekka depicting Hadhrat Bilaal (Radhiyallahu Anhu); Garrick Hagon depicting Hadhrat `Ammaar ibn Yasir (Radhiyallahu Anhu); Michael Forest depicting Hadhrat Khalid ibn al-Waleed (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the Sword of Allah Ta`ala, and so on.

Kuffaar enemies of Allah depicting the Awliyaa of Allah? If a person is unable to see the blatant Kufr and Satanism of this, then he is devoid of Imaan.

Understand this well: all those involved in making films, series, games, cartoons, etc., depicting the Ambiyaa (Alayhim al-Salaam) and the Sahaabah ِ(Ridhwan Allahum Alayhim), are guilty of kufr and irtidaad. They may claim to be doing so to promote the Deen, but this Deen of Allah Ta`ala can never be promoted through kufr.

2. Films or Series Depicting Islamic Figures

It is unfortunate to note that there are many short-sighted “Molvi Sahebs” throughout the world who, despite being opposed to the films or series made which depict the Ambiyaa or Sahaabah, have no problem with films or series made which depict Islaamic figures. An example of this is the Turkish series, “Diriliş: Ertuğrul” which has had even so-called “Muftis” from India and Pakistan touting it as some great new form of “Da`wah” and “opportunity to learn the history of Islam”. Their jahaalat is staggering. Shaytaan has entirely taken over their minds, thus they are incapable of thinking. There are Muslims who dress up in the way they’ve seen in this series to proceed to the Eid Salaah, or get married dressed like that, etc., thinking that it is Islam.

There are so-called “Maulanas” and “Muftis” bringing out talks supposedly on the history of Islam and quoting what they’ve seen in such series as proofs.

Hereunder we shall briefly mention a few points as to why it is Haraam, because it appears that these “Ulama” have forgotten the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and forgotten the original `Aqaa’id and rulings of Islam:

1. Tasweer is Haraam in Islam. Tasweer is the act of making pictures or videos of beings possessing a Rooh (such as human beings and animals), and it is tasweer whether it is done by hand or electronically, or through any other means.

2. It is highly disrespectful and in fact a mockery to the Islamic figures being portrayed, such as this “Diriliş: Ertuğrul” which has a Faasiq actor portraying ibn `Arabi (Rahmatullahi Alayh).

Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Allaah Ta`ala said: ‘Whosoever displays enmity towards a Wali of mine, I declare war on him.” [Narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari.]

3. The Muhadditheen, when explaining this Hadeeth, have mentioned that this عادی “displaying enmity” can be in the form of openly displaying enmity, or harming a Wali of Allah, or mocking a Wali of Allah, or angering a Wali of Allah, and all of this can be either through a person’s action or through their words. By mocking any of the Awliyaa of Allah Ta`ala, the person is destroying his Dunya and his Aakhirah.

4. It contains free-mixing between men and women, which is Haraam.

5. It contains women, whereas it is Haraam for men to look at ghayr mahram women.

6. It contains music, which is Haraam.

7. Attempting to propagate the Deen through such a means turns the Deen into some object of “entertainment”. In the Qur’aan Kareem, Allaah Ta`ala condemns the Kuffaar of the past for having taken their Deen as a sport and an amusement.

8. Any person who thinks he can learn history through this is either a jaahil or is deceiving himself. More than 95% is fiction made up by the directors of the series; thus, for a Molvi to quote it as “proof” is the height of jahaalat. Such people should not have tried to become Ulama; they should have sold toilet rolls.

9. In the case of the films and series depicting the Ambiyaa and Sahaabah, people with no knowledge of the true history of Islam will have this Kaafir or Faasiq actor as his perception of that Sahaabi, and this person will think of that Sahaabi as having all of the faults which this actor possesses. This in itself is Kufr, because to mock any Sahaabi is an act of Kufr, and having these Kuffaar, Fussaaq and Fujjaar portray Sahaabah-e-Kiraam will result in people mocking the Sahaabah, which in turn will render these people Murtaddeen.

Much more could be said about this topic but the article would become lengthy, hence we will suffice with one last point:

It is mentioned in Sharh-ul-`Aqaa’id that if a person “jokingly” pretends to be an `Aalim, sits on an elevated place with people around him (as Asaatidhah used to do in the old days) and “answers Masaa’il” as a form of entertainment, to make people laugh, then he and all of them have become Kaafirs. [Sharh al-`Aqeedah an-Nasafiyyah, p.117]

If that is the case with regards to a person who “jokingly” pretends to be an `Aalim as a form of entertainment, then what about a person who pretends to be one of the Ambiyaa or the Sahaabah as a form of entertainment?

فإلى الله المشتكى وهو المستعان


Pictography & Videography of Living Beings or any other Unlawful & Sinful Ways for the Propagation of the Deen Are Not Permissible



Question (Number 166010)

What do the respected Mutiyaan say regarding those individuals who are involved in refuting the firqah baatilah (deviated sects, e.g. Qadiyaanis, Parwezis, Shakeelis, Raafzis, Ghair-Muqallids, etc.) by conveying their message to the people in the form of videos.

Since the masses do not pay much attention to audio forms, the message which needs to be conveyed to the Ummah does not reach them. Therefore, they take the aid of such videos in which animate pictures appear.

Is it permissible to make videos (of living beings) for such purposes?


In the name of ALLAAH, The Most Merciful, The Ever Merciful

In Islam videography and pictography of humans or any living being are haraam (prohibited/impermissible), along with it being accursed (mal-oon). The Ahaadeeth are replete with severe warnings for pictography. For details please refer to the work of Mufti Shafee’ (rahmatullaahi ‘alaih) titled “Tasweer ke Shar’i Ahkaam”.

Accordingly, in the light of the Fataawaa and explanations of the Akaabir (Senior) ‘Ulamaa of Deoband, the ruling of digital pictures is the same as that of hand-drawn pictures i.e. The Nusoos of the Sharee’ah include both kind of pictures. The Ahlul-ilm (Ulama) are duty-bound to discharge the obligation of Tableegh of the Deen only within the confines and boundaries of the Sharee’ah, not beyond that. In other words for the Tableegh of the Deen the Ahlul-ilm (Ulama) are obliged to use only such methods and ways which are lawful and permissible. The Ahlul-ilm are in executing their obligation of Tableegh are not obliged to utilize any unlawful and sinful ways.

Moreover it is not at all permissible to propagate the Deen by means of unlawful and impermissible ways and methods because by transgressing (violating/breaking) the laws of the Deen it will be the propagation of something other than the Deen. (It will be the propagation of transgression and sin which will bring in its wake deviation thus inviting Divine Wrath – Translator). Likewise the ways of spreading Islam and the ways of spreading kufr (disbelief) and dhalaal (deviation) differ, hence the use of impermissible methods is in completely contradiction of the teachings, ethos and spirit of Islam. It is for this reason that every Jamaa’at (Group) of Ahlul-Haqq since the very first era (of Islam) abstained from using any impermissible (unlawful) ways for the Tableegh of the Deen.

Hence utilising the means of pictography and videography of humans or any living beings for the Tableegh of the Deen will not be permissible. And ALLAH Ta’aala knows best.

(Translated from Urdu)



Hazrat Mufti Taqi Saheb after penning the following incident, writes :

“These last advices of Hadhrat Binnor (Rahmatullah alayh) should be inscribed on the heart of every person involved in propagating and spreading Deen.”
A few days before his demise, Moulana Binnori (رحمة الله عليه) attended a meeting of the Islamic Advisory Council in Islamabad. On the second day of the meeting, some people approached Moulana, requesting him to deliver a bayaan (lecture) which would be broadcasted on television. Moulana politely excused himself and did not accede to their request.

A few days before his demise, Moulana Binnori (رحمة الله عليه) attended a meeting of the Islamic Advisory Council in Islamabad. On the second day of the meeting, some people approached Moulana, requesting him to deliver a bayaan (lecture) which would be broadcasted on television. Moulana politely excused himself and did not accede to their request.

This then led to the question of whether television, videos, etc. should be used for the sake of spreading and propagating Deen, if it is kept free from immodesty, shamelessness and other such elements which negatively affect people’s character. Although not on the agenda of the meeting, the topic was unofficially being discussed.

The crux of what Moulana Binnori said on this occasion is as follows:

“I would like to mention one important usool (principle) regarding the topic under discussion. Allaah Ta’ala has not made us mukallaf (duty-bound) to use any and every means possible, in order to bring people onto Deen. Yes, we have most definitely been made mukallaf (duty-bound) to use the various permissible means and methods of propagating at our disposal.

Together with commanding us to propagate and spread Deen, Islam has shown us the method and aadaab (etiquettes) of propagating Deen as well.
We are mukallaf (duty-bound) to propagate Deen, but within the confines of those methods and aadaab.

If we, by adopting the permissible methods and means of propagating Deen, achieve our goals and objectives, then well and good. But, suppose if we adopt the permissible means and methods, we do not achieve our goals, then we are not obliged and responsible to adopt such methods and means declared impermissible by Shari’ah for the sake of propagating the message of Deen and winning people over to our side.

If by adopting those methods and means which Shari’ah has permitted, together with the aadaab of propagation, only one person is brought on to the Deen, then too, our propagation efforts have been successful. (And even if not a single person heeds our call, we shall still be successful by Allah Ta’ala. – The Majlis)

On the other hand, if by adopting those methods and means which are declared impermissible by Shari’ah, even a hundred people are won over, then this “success achievement” holds no value in the sight of Allah Ta’ala, because that propagation which entails trampling on the laws of Deen, can never be the propagation of Deen, but rather it is a propagation of something else. (In fact, it is the propagation of satanism –The Majlis)

Videos and films are against the laws of Islam, therefore we have not been made mukallaf (commanded) of using these methods for the propagation of Deen.

We will extend our heart and soul for those who are prepared to listen to our Da’wah through the correct and permissible means, but as for those who are only prepared to listen to our Da’wah if it is done via such means and methods which are not permissible, like videos and films, then we are ma’zoor (excused) from conveying the message to such persons in such a manner.

If we do not adopt this stance (of the Shariah) which has been explained, then today, for the sake of the people, we will be using films to propagate Deen, tomorrow women without purdah /hijaab will be used for ‘spreading deen’, and we will try to bring people into the Deen through gatherings of music and dancing. (This is already transpiring. The haraam zina-kufr conference of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg is the latest example of such satanism – The Majlis). In this way, in the name of propagation Deen, we will be trampling upon and destroying the laws of Shari’ah, one by one.

(Ulama-e-Deoband ke Aakhree Lamahaat pg 170/171)


It is a great tragedy that Mufti Taqi has made a somersault by halaalizing videos, television and pictography on the exceptionally baseless grounds of digital pictures not being haraam pictures. His comment decades ago on the fatwa of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Binnuri (Rahmatullah alayh) is indeed a far cry from his lamentable haraam stance today on the issue of pictography. May Allah Ta’ala save us from the evil of our nafs and the snares of shaitaan.


Question: There is a Turkish drama, ‘Ar Tughrul’ being shown on television. The Muftis of Madrasah Jaamiatur Rasheed of Karachi have issued a fatwa of permissibility. The following is their fatwa.

Translation of the Fatwa

Among the contemporary Ulama-e-Kiraam there is difference of opinion pertaining to digital pictures. According to some, such pictures are permissible while others (other Ulama) say that it is not permissible. According to us, in the light of the dhuroorat (dire need) there is scope for making and viewing digital pictures. Hence, in our opinion there is scope for viewing and selling the Ar Tughrul drama because in this drama is shown the history and culture of Khilaafat-e-Uthmaaniyyah. In viewing it, there is the opportunity for the Muslim youth to become aware of Islamic history and culture which is a very important need of this age.

However, since in this drama the activities of some females are also shown, it is necessary to abstain from looking at these women. If it is difficult for any man to restrain his eyes from the women, then for him it will not be permissible to view this drama because it is a principle of Fiqh: Warding off harm has priority over deriving benefit. Therefore, if there is the fear of evil looking when viewing the drama, then it is incumbent to abstain from sin. In this instance it is not permissible to look at the drama. (End of the fatwa which is signed by three Muftis of the Madrasah).

Please comment in the light of the Shariah on this fatwa.

ANSWER AND COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The drivel (ghutha) which this fatwa contains is indeed surprising. It is surprising and lamentable that three Muftis from a well-known Islamic institution have acquitted themselves with such puerility and incompetency as illustrated in their fatwa. They have displayed lamentable ignorance regarding the application of the principles of Fiqh which they have referred to in their fatwa. Such incompetence is not expected of even students who have not as yet acquired qualification in the sphere of Iftaa’. Minus Taqwa, shaitaan exercises a strong influence of the muftis.

The objective of Fatwa is to bring Muslims closer to Allah Ta’ala, not to widen the chasm which transgressors have created with their fisq and fujoor.

In addition to portrayal of academic incompetence, the Muftis have displayed spiritual (Roohaani) bankruptcy. They appear to be bereft of Khauf-e-Ilaahi (Fear for Allah Ta’ala/Taqwa), hence they have so audaciously and stupidly legalized something (the drama/TV show) which consists of several major (Kabeerah) sins. To soothe their conscience and to display expertise, the Muftis have cited Fiqhi principles without having correctly understood the import and the incumbent conditions for the applicability of the Fiqhi principle.


Pictures of animate objects – people and animals – are haraam by the Consensus of the Sahaabah and all the Fuqaha of all the Math-habs from the era of Khairul Quroon. Regardless of the method of production, pictures of animate objects are Haraam. Whether the method is drawing by hand, painting, by pen, by camera or by any means whatsoever, such pictures remain haraam. A haraam picture does not become halaal if the method of production differs from the method which had existed during the age of the Sahaabah. Thus, the picture produced by the camera or by digital process or by any other method still to be developed by technology will be haraam.

Only morons who are bereft of fear for Allah Ta’ala stupidly claim that digital and TV pictures are permissible. To understand the prohibition of pictures, be such pictures digital, expertise in academic knowledge is not necessary. Even a layman will understand the reality of a digital picture provided he has sincerity and he does not seek justification for the purpose of gratifying carnal lust and perpetrating the sin. Only those whose brains are convoluted with shaitaaniyat and nafsaaniyat moronically deny the reality of the prohibition of pictures regardless if the method of production is the digital process or by the camera. Brains which are jarred by Satanism into imbalance shamelessly aver that a digital picture is not a picture. They have absolutely no logical argument for their stupid claim of a digital picture not being a picture. It is therefore absolutely satanic for muftis to claim that digital pictures are not pictures.

The claim that there is difference of opinion among the Ulama regarding the prohibition of digital pictures is stupid and false. Moronic difference has no validity in the Shariah. If some or most scholars today say that pork is now halaal in view of it not being the same type of diseased pork prohibited by Islam, then such satanism will remain satanism, and no amount of fatwas by a whole world full of muftis will be able to halaalize pork. Similarly, if the vast majority of scholars claim that Vodka is permissible because it is not the type of khamr (grape wine) prohibited by the Qur’aan, then obviously such a stupid difference will be rejected and understood to be Satanism.

The difference of the ‘ulama’ who legalize digital pictures is not valid in the Shariah. It has absolutely no status in the Shariah other than it being baseless and haraam. As far as the Ulama-e-Haqq are concerned, there is consensus on the prohibition of digital pictures and pictures made by any more technologically advanced method than the digital process. Now when the Shariah has explicitly prohibited pictures of animate objects, then regardless of even thousands of maajin muftis issuing fatwas to legalize this major sin, all their fatwas will be fit for the waste. Such fatwas as Jamiatur Rasheed has disgorged in its abortive attempt to halaalize the major sin, are the effluvium of the nafs. There is no difference of opinion regarding the prohibition of all kinds of pictures, including the prohibition of digital pictures.

Scope for permissibility

The ‘scope for permissibility’ averred by the three muftis is the hallucination of molvis gone astray. It is the baseless opinion of the ulama-e-soo’ (evil scholars). There is absolutely no scope for permissibility for an act which Allah Ta’ala and His Rasool (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have prohibited. In this regard, the Qur’aan states:

“It is not proper for a Mu’min nor for a Mu’minah to have any choice whatever in any of their affairs when Allah and His Rasool have decided it.”

The opinion of the three muftis is putrid, invalid and baseless. It is devoid of Shar’i substance. It is the product of intentional, self-imposed stupidity for the sake of gratification of the nafs and for soothing the nafsaani palates of the liberals and zindeeqs masquerading as Muslims.

Depiction of Islamic history

The depiction of Islamic history and a smattering or even an abundance of the history of the Khilaafat of the Ottoman Empire in no way whatsoever is a licence  for halaalizing one of the worst kabeerah sins. Acquisition of knowledge, and that too such knowledge which is not compulsory, may not be pursued via haraam avenues. Haraam methods are shaitaaniyat, and shaitaan has adorned and beautified haraam for the maajin muftis who have lost their Imaani and Deeni bearings. It is not possible for a man of even secular intelligence even if he is an atheist to utter the rubbish of a digital picture not being a picture. Only men on whose brains Iblees has urinated are capable of disgorging such nonsense.

If anyone is interested in Islamic history, mounds of books on this subject are available in all languages. The method of gaining knowledge of Islam’s history is not haraam media and methods.

The Youth

‘Youth’ is another western hallucination imposed on muftis and Muslims in general who suffer from inferiority complexes which are diseases which the western colonial masters have infused into the brains of their subjects. Thus, we find today all strata of Muslim society in every Muslim country insanely adopting western culture in every aspect and field of life. Even the molvis, muftis and shaikhs suffer from this satanic malady.

The profuse regurgitation of the word, ‘youth’ by stupid Muslims has rendered it stupidly monotonous. They mention the ‘youth’ as if it is some sort of idol/deity which should be worshipped and pandered to. The moron muftis lick the boots of modernity and westernism to appease the jaahil so-called ‘muslim’ intelligentsia. They lean over backwards in stupid exercises of bootlicking and truckling thereby piling compound humiliation on themselves. These fatwas are designed to show to the world of juhala that “we muftis” are ‘progressive’ in terms of the western ideology of atheistic life.

Stupid so-called ‘deeni’ personnel – molvis, sheikhs and maajin muftis – have developed the penchant of dangling in front of the Muslim Ummah the chimera of ‘youth’, as if it is some sacred determinant for deciding Deeni issues, for legalizing explicit haraam practices. Now these muftis of Jamiatur Rasheed are moronically and monotonously citing the incongruity of ‘youth’ as if it is some Shar’i daleel for the halaalization of major sins and haraam. What has constrained these muftis to introduce the laughable dimension of the ‘youth’? What relationship does this stupidity have with the hurmat of tasaaweer?

If the evil of pictures is halaal on the basis of it being digital productions, then what is the need to introduce other arguments to bolster the digital picture permissibility? Without the stupid ‘youth daleel’, it will suffice to say that the shaitaani drama is permissible since digital pictures are permissible. What is the need of constructing a meandering edifice consisting of a maze of labyrinthal ‘proofs’ to bolster the ludicrous claim of the permissibility of the haraam, immoral television picture-show? Since these muftis have opined the permissibility of haraam pictures, what need constrained them to bolster their corrupt fatwa with the ‘youth’, the principle of ‘dhuroorat’, etc.?

Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed: “In fact, man has insight over his nafs even though he presents excuses.” Since they are unable to convince even themselves regarding the hallucinated validity of their digitable mirage, they deem it expedient to present other flapdoodle figments of ‘proofs’ to accord some superficial credibility for their permissibility averment. But whatever they have produced by way of ‘daleel’ is devoid of Shar’i substance.

The youth cannot be educated by means of haraam. Indulgence in haraam only compounds the evil of the youth. They contaminate further their decomposed hearts by gratifying their nafs with the haraam fisq and fujoor displayed on the screen. They commit zina of the eyes and mind looking at the pictures of the females portrayed on the screen, and so to the females by viewing the pictures of men. What has happened to the Aql of these muftis of Jamiatur Rasheed? Only vermiculated brains are capable of purveying falsehood and baatil, and presenting it as laudable permissibility for the guidance of Muslims.

Aham Dhuroorat

The miscreant muftis boldly assert that because of the aham dhuroorat (dire and pressing need), the haraam drama show is permissible. Firstly, why hallucinate a ‘dire need’ when the satanic show is permissible in terms of their ludicrous digital argument? What is the need to fabricate permissibility on the basis of the principle of dhuroorat?

Let it be known that something which is haraam becomes temporarily permissible on the basis of the Shar’i principle of dhuroorat (dire need). By introducing this principle, the muftis have contradicted themselves with their permissibility view. The principle of dhuroorat is not adopted to render a permissibility more permissible. Its action is to render a haraam act permissible in view of the dire need. But from the perspective of the muftis, the drama show is permissible from the very inception since they have opined the permissibility of the pictures portrayed in the satanic show. Thus, there is no need for arguing the case on the basis of dhuroorat, for it (i.e. dhuroorat) pre-supposes hurmat, i.e. the issue for which it (i.e. dhuroorat) has been introduced is haraam, and there is a dire need for upsetting or cancelling the hurmat ruling. The incongruity of the fatwa should therefore be quite evident.

Furthermore, it is quite clear that these muftis lack understanding of the principle of dhuroorat. They have failed to understand the Shar’i conception of dire need which legalize prohibitions. It will serve them beneficially to refer to the kutub to re-study the Shar’i meaning of dhuroorat. There is no such dire need to legalize the haraam drama stupidity. The shaitaani television show is not an Imaan-saver. If the hallucinated youth are hovering on the brink of kufr or if their Imaan has already been eliminated, the drama show designed to gratify the nafs will not save their Imaan.

A dire need halaalizes even pork and liquor. But the dhuroorat here is to stave off death due to starvation and non-availability of any halaal alternative. Starvation is a valid ground for the introduction of the Fiqhi principle.

Pictures of females

The Jamiatur Rasheed muftis acknowledge the display of haraam female images despite their digital argument. They are constrained to concede that looking at these female images is haraam. However, they seek to overcome this zina evil by stupidly advising the fussaaq and fujjaar to lower their gaze and not look at the females on the screen.  Even kuffaar will accept that the brains of these muftis are convoluted by some process of satanic vermiculation.

Whilst the Qur’aan Majeed commands: “Do not approach even near to zina”, these maajin muftis advise and encourage the fussaaq youth to enter into the den of zina, but to lower their gaze. Is this acceptable and feasible? Will any person whose Aql is not malfunctioning believe that the fussaaq youth viewing a nafsaani television show will turn away their gazes each time a female’s image turns up on the screen? These muftis appear to be village muftis. They should confine themselves to the affairs of rural villages which they may better understand. Just imagine the ludicrousness of the suggestion! The youth should sit watching a show in which pictures of women appear, but only divert their gaze.

Furthermore, the prohibition of staring at ghair mahrams is not confined to males. Females too have to observe the same command. They too may not look at ghair mahram males. The Qur’aan Majeed directs the command to both males and females. Is it intelligent to believe that the fussaaq and the faasiqaat viewing the drama show which has been designed to satanically titillate the nafs, will   divert their gazes throughout the show whenever the opposite sex appears? Perhaps baboons will believe in this hallucinatory proposition of the muftis.

Dafa’ madharrat…

This principle means that warding off harm has priority over gaining benefit. If one is confronted by harm and benefit – haraam and halaal, then in terms of this principle it is manifestly obvious to abandon the harmful and the haraam act. In the background of the dhuroorat principle mentioned earlier, and which the muftis had presented as a daleel for permissibility, it is superfluous to present this Dafa’ madharrat….issue. This principle recedes into oblivion when the rule of dhuroorat becomes permissible and applicable. Now when the muftis have argued the existence of dhuroorat, they contradict themselves with the Dafa’ madharrat rule. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They have to learn first to distinguish between right and left before they can qualify for the sacred post and function of Iftaa’.

Fear of evil gazes

The muftis aver that if there is fear of bad nazri (zina gazing), then in this case it will not be permissible to view the drama show. This is indeed a stupid acquittal unexpected of muftis. It is not an issue of a possibility of bad nazri. The bad nazri is a 100% certitude. How is it possible to avoid bad nazri when people bereft of Taqwa intentionally gaze at zina filth? Even Buzrugs are not safe from nafsaani and shaitaani depredations when they lower their guard of Imaani inhibition by flagrantly violating the Prohibition of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Are these muftis so stupid that they are unaware of the many cases of Buzrugs falling into the zina trap of Iblees because they had reposed trust on their nafs, lowered their guard by ignoring the safety measures commanded by Allah Ta’ala for our own protection?

Shaitaan had the fullest confidence in his own piety, hence he fell and was transformed into Iblees, Laeen and Mardood. Reposing confidence on one’s own supposed spiritual stamina and taqwa, is the way of Iblees, and it is this accursed way which the muftis of this baatil fatwa have advised.

We have thoroughly debunked the digital arguments of Mufti Taqi and of other deviated molvis and sheikhs. Several booklets have been published on this issue. These are on our website and also available in hard copies.

The fatwa issued by the muftis of Jamiatur Rasheed is baseless, devoid of Shar’i worth, and academically unsound. It opens the door to great fitnah in the same way as Mufti Taqi Uthmaani has opened the door of fisq and fujoor by proclaiming haraam pictures to be halaal. Do not be deceived with their stupid, donkey arguments by means of which they seek to convince the unwary and ignorant of their ridiculous and stupid claim that a digital picture is not a picture.

Refuting Maulana Ilyas Ghumman about the Halaalization of Digital Pictography

Digital Pictures and the Claptrap of a Deviate Molvi

By Mujlisul Ulama



The world today abounds with deviates who have set themselves up as ‘mujtahideen’ with the objective of casting the Shariah into the mould of modernity by way of baseless interpretation. Numerous molvi and sheikh deviates acting as agents of Iblees have been appointed by Shaitaan to execute the pernicious plot of undermining the Shariah which has reached us intact from the Sahaabah via authentic narration from generation to generation.

One such deviate whose baatil opinion is the subject of this refutation, is known as Molvi Ilyas Ghumman who presents himself as a defender of the Maslak of our Ulama of Deoband when in reality he is a wolf in sheep’s skin, there being no affinity between him and the Akaabir Ulama and Auliya of Deoband.

This deviate whose satanic mission is to misguide the ignorant and unwary Muslims has abortively laboured to justify the utilization of haraam pictography for propagating the Deen. Whilst he ostensibly concedes that pictures of animate objects are haraam, he is at pains to show that pictures produced by the digital process are not pictures, hence are halaal.

He further seeks to bolster his baatil opinion by invoking the Shar’i principle of Dhuroorah (Need) which legalizes forbidden things. 

In this refutation we have, Alhamdulillah, demolished all the hogwash which constitutes his ‘daleel’. He has failed to present even a single valid Shar’i daleel to substantiate his absolutely baatil idea of permissibility of haraam pictures for Tabligh and Da’wat. An opinion without Shar’i proof is devoid of Shar’i worth. The one and only argument he has for the attempt to legalize the kabeebrah sin of pictography is the act of present-day molvis, especially Tabligh Jamaat molvis who freely indulge in taking photos for passports and visas despite the fact that there is no Shar’i incumbency for such haraam indulgence. This is his only ‘daleel’. 

We have reproduced his entire speech which one of his fans had translated from Urdu and published. His statements in our refutation appear in red, followed by our refutation under the sub-headings: Our Comment. 

Lamenting the legalization of haraam pictography, Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh), the illustrious father of Molvi Taqi who has fallen in the trap of liberalism and modernism, said:

“In the authentic Ahadith it is reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

‘There will be people in my Ummat, who will change the name of wine (giving it some other fancy name) and consume it. And, at these drinking sessions music, singing and dancing will prevail. Allah Ta’ala will cause them to be swallowed into the earth, and others among them will be transformed into apes and swines.’

This practice (of changing the names of forbidden things with a view to legalise them) which our Nabi mentioned with regard to wine has today been employed by Muslims, not only for wine, but for many other forbidden practices. Practices which the Shariah has proscribed as Haraam (prohibited) have today been painted in the colours of modernity and their names have been changed so that people could indulge in these forbidden practices without any restraint. These people labour under the misconception that they have escaped the Divine Prosecution by employing this self-deceptive trick.

If they had any insight they would have realised that by the employment of this deception they are guilty of two crimes, i.e. (1) the commission of the sin, the name of which they have changed, and (2) being devoid of regret and shame for the crime thus perpetrated. These are such people who are forgetful of repentance…. picture-making has been named photography and has thus been declared as lawful…. interest has been named profit, and has thus been legalized.

My complaint is lodged with Allah Ta’ala. There is no strength and no power, but with Allah, the Great, the Majestic.”


A Fan of this mudhiel Molvi Ghumman says:

“Shaykh (Maulana) Ilyas Ghumman (HA) is well known for his defence of the Manhaj of Ulama of Deoband. In this short video, he makes some powerful logical arguments as to why he chooses to make videos.”

Our Comment
By Deoband is meant the Sunnah and the Shariah as these have reached us from the era of The Salafus Saaliheen. ‘Deoband’ in this context does not bring within its purview just any buffoon, deviate and mudhiel who happened to have done a study course at the Institution in the town of Deoband in India. Thus, this Ghumman character and the likes of Molvi Taqi are not Deobandis. They are deviates for having strayed far, very far from the Manhaaj of the Akaabir of Deoband.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“He is repeatedly referring to himself as a Scholar and a Shaykh (not out of pride) but for everyone listening to consider the principles behind his reasoning.”

Our Comment  
The self-reference testifies to the jahaalat and takabbur of this mudhiel character. Minus the Qur’aanic requisite of Khashiyat a molvi cannot be an Aalim, for Allah Azza Wa Jal states:

“Verily, it is only the Ulama from His servants who fear Allah.”

A character who refers to himself as a ‘scholar/shaykh’ is in reality a jaahil. Who can be a greater Aalim than the Nabi of the time? Yet, Allah Azza Wa Jal was not pleased when Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam) mentioned that he was the most learned ‘Scholar’. Despite the truth of this claim, Allah Ta’ala despatched him to acquire some knowledge from Hadhrat Khidhr (Alayhis salaam) who was most assuredly a far lesser Aalim than Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam).

The rodomontade claim of this mudhiel molvi coupled to his haraam video and pictography views and antics is conspicuous testification for his dhalaal (deviation).

START OF SPEECH (of the Mudhiel Ghumman)

The mudhiel, Ghumman says:

“I don’t talk about Sargodha or Punjab or even Pakistan, I speak about the world. We are the inheritors of a (global) prophet and the entire globe is our sphere of action. It is the Mercy of Allah Ta’ala that it has become easier to work globally when it was not so (previously). In this era of globalisation, Media has brought distant people, closer. It used to take months to travel to far away lands but today communication reaches those (distant lands) within seconds.”

Our Comment
The globe is also Shaitaan’s sphere of action. Media has also brought distant people extremely close to Jahannam with a myriad of mudhilleen, all agents of Iblees, in the forefront misguiding and leading the ignorant masses to Hell-Fire. The purport of this silly introduction is to strike a responsive chord in the brains of the ignorant for the haraam views on pictography which the mudhiel expectorates in his Zukhruful Qawl speech designed to render halaal a heinous practice which Allah Azza Wa Jal has decreed haraam with great emphasis. (Zukhruful Qawl is satanically adorned speech to beguile and mislead ignoramuses and stupid molvis who are unable to distinguish between right and left).

The mudhiel says:

“Therefore, we have used Media for our purpose and we have used it without paying attention to the detractors and the objectors.”

Our Comment
His objective is to mislead with haraam liberalism. This is the ploy of shaitaan who inspires molvis with his evil wasaawis to give practical effect to his plots of dhalaal. It is only logical for the mudhilleen to ignore the Naseehat of the Ulama-e-Haqq who are the upholders and guards of the Deen. Shaitaan did not pay attention to the admonition of Allah Azza Wa Jal. In consequence he became mal-oon and mardood. This mudhiel is following in the footsteps of Iblees in defiance of Allah’s warning:

“Do not follow in the footsteps of shaitaan. Verily, he instructs you in only (the commission of) evil and immorality.”

The rendition of haraam into ‘halaal’ by misinterpretation is among the worst acts of kufr which shaitaan subtly hoists in the Ummah with the assistance of his mudhilleen agents.

The mudhiel says:

“I brought the work of our (Maslak) on print and electronic media when our Ulama had not released the Fatwa upon (its usage). By the grace of Allah Ta’ala we propagated what we believed to be the truth and we realised the value of the Media (early on) and set about using it effectively.”

Our Comment
The mudhiel used the media effectively for the propagation of satanism under garb of it being “the work of our Maslak”. The rendition of haraam pictography into a ‘halaal’ deceptive mould, is never part of our Deobandi Maslak. It is beyond every vestige of doubt the maslak of Iblees. What this molvi believes is the truth is in reality falsehood.

The mudhiel says:

“Since I come from a small village some Ulama of (larger) cities had their reservations upon our work as to how this rural villager can take such a giant step (in using media)? I responded by saying that I don’t speak about my personal affairs but I speak of the affairs (associated) with my prophet by the conviction in the pathway of my elders and my predecessors and this can be done by a villager or someone from the city.”

Our Comment
This rural villager would have rendered himself the greatest favour if he had remained in the village to teach some Maktab children the Nooraani Qaaidah. He should have remained in the village leading a rusticated life thereby earning the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. But now, having abandoned his rustic life, he is displaying crude rustication in the dhalaalah which he adorns with religious hues. He labours in self-deception and he misleads others. If he had remained in the village, he would then have saved himself from the disaster of dhalaalat

In addition, he would have been on a better stage if he had spoken of his personal affairs instead of gate-crashing into a domain for which he clearly lacks the essential Qur’aanic requisites. It is this type of molvi about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressed great fear – greater fear than fear for even Dajjaal: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.” They are the characters who legalize the prohibitions of the Shariah, giving the haraam acts different names to mislead the juhala. Thus, the jaahil satanically legalizes haraam pictography by stupidly and deceptively manipulating the word, digital.

He grotesquely convolutes the ‘affairs of the Prophet” to dupe     the ignorant and the unwary, and the slaves of the nafs. Convoluting the ‘affairs’ of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Ghumman mudhiel, blatantly claims that pictography produced by the digital process is halaal whilst  Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The severest-punished on the Day of Qiyaamah will be the picture-makers.”   

Far from being in the pathway of the Akaabir of Deoband, this mudhiel is firmly plodding the pathway of Iblees in whose snare he is entrapped. 

The mudhiel says:

“When we started using the Media, many people had reservations but with time these reservations were been (literally) buried.”

Our Comment
The burial of the reservations is the consequence of the evil disease of desensitization. When a sin becomes universally accepted, even the people of piety become desensitized although they avoid indulgence. Desensitization invokes the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal just as indulgence.

Allah Ta’ala revealed to Nabi Yoosha’ (Alayhis salaam) that He would be destroying a city of 60,000 people. 40,000 were the fussaaq and fujjaar, and 20,000 were such pious persons whose practical deeds resembled the a’maal of the Ambiya. In surprise the Nabi queried the wisdom for the impending destruction of the 20,000 buzrugs. The Divine Response came that these buzroogs were so desensitized and so accustomed to the fisq and fujoor they observed daily, that the notoriety of the transgression was eliminated from their hearts. In consequence of this disease, they socialized and fraternized with the sinners just as the molvis of our era are doing. Thus, these 20,000 buzrugs were subjected to the same treatment and Athaab which overtook and utterly destroyed the city with all its inhabitants. 

Let the mudhiel not be fooled nor should he soothe his conscience by the ‘burial of the reservations’. Burial of reservations regarding the proclamation of the Haqq, is the curse with which the “Dumb Shayaateen” have been afflicted.

The mudhiel says:

“We had a 5 day seminar of research on Mas’ail (issues pertaining to Islam) and I was also invited towards the conclusion. A student handed me a question enquiring as to why I participate in making (videos) when Ulama of Deoband have deemed it to be impermissible. My responses to him were as follows:

1. (Along) with all Ulama (I) consider and agree upon “Tasweer” (photos) to be impermissible.
2. (along) with all Ulama (I) consider and agree upon “Tasweer” (photos) to be permissible when (genuinely) needed.

The disagreement is upon the classification of “need”. This is derived from Ijtehaad (deduction) and Ulama disagree upon the classification of need. In matters of Ijtehaad there are no (severe disagreements) like in matters which are proven from clear text (of Qur’aan and Sunnah).”

Our Comment
The negation of severity of differences on Ijtihaadi issues is a display of jahaalat. The Ijtihaad of a genuine Mujtahid can be in direct contradiction to the Ijtihaad of another genuine Mujtahid. Surah Faatihah behind the Imaam is Fardh according to Imaam Shaafi’ (Rahmatullah alayh), but haraam according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh). There are innumerable such irreconcilable differences among the Mujtahideen. But ON THE ISSUE OF TASWEER THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES. THERE IS CONSENSUS ON THE PROHIBITION OF TASWEER.

Nafsaaniyat and opinions stemming from the attitudes of liberals and modernists are beyond the parameters of Dhuroorah. Just any hallucinated ‘need’ does not come within the purview of Shar’i Dhuroorah which occasions concession and lifting of the prohibition as long as the Dhuroorah remains. What the mudhiel Ghumman and even the Tablighis consider to be ‘need’ have no admission into the domain of Shar’i Dhuroorah, hence they have no right to avail themselves of the concession based on this Shar’i principle. To this day, not a single moron from among the myriad of moron molvis, has been able to validly present Dhuroorah as the licence for the concession of permissibility to employ the major sin of pictures for their tabligh and haraam facebook propagations.

The desire for the commission of meritorious acts, regardless of their lofty status, is precluded from the parameters of Dhuroorah. This principle may not be invoked to legalize haraam for the sake of executing acts of merit such as Nawaafil and Mustahabbaat. There is no Dhuroorah of Shar’i or Fiqhi import for legalizing prohibitions for the sake of indulgence in Nafl acts.

Performing Nafl Hajj or Umrah is not a Dhuroorah, hence it is not permissible to acquire photos for this purpose. Besides the issue of photos, travelling by plane, etc. is encumbered with a host of other sins such as total abandonment of Hijaab, intermingling of fussaaq and fujjaar with Muslim women, wholesale neglect of Fardh Salaat, waste of money, consuming haraam, mushtabah and filthy food, etc., etc.

The Maaliki Fuqaha in particular, are extremely strict in this prohibition. It is mentioned in At-Taaj Wal Ikleel:

“He who knows that he will become dizzy if he embarks on a sea voyage, which entails him missing Salaat in its time, then it is Mansoos (explicit ruling) that it is not permissible for him to go on the voyage neither for Hajj nor for Jihad.”

The following appears in Mawaahibul Jaleel:

“Our Ulama said:  When the Mukallaf is aware that if he leaves for Hajj he will miss even one (Fardh) Salaat, then the Hajj falls away (i.e. it will not be Fardh for him). Elsewhere it is mentioned: ‘When Hajj is possible only with Salaat in expired time, then it falls away.’

Al-Burzaliy narrating from Al-Maarzi said: ‘If he falls into neglect of Salaat so that its time expires………then verily, this journey is not permissible, and the Fardhiyyat of Hajj falls away.’

At-taadaliy narrating from Al-Maarzi (that a condition for) Istitaa’ah is…..the ability to establish the Faraaidh and to abstain from sinful acts. (In other words, if these cannot be achieved, Hajj will not be compulsory).

Ibnul Muneer said: ‘Know that his destruction of even one Salaat is a gigantic sin. The virtuous act of Hajj does not compensate for it (i.e. for even the one Salaat not performed in its valid time) because Salaat has greater importance……………..hence, Hajj becomes haraam for him…………

Imaam Maalik said: It is not permissible to go on a voyage for Hajj if it leads to neglect of Salaat.”

Now what conclusion should be drawn when indulging in the major sin of haraam photography for Nafl Umrah and Hajj? Even the Fardh Hajj falls away according to the Maaliki Math-hab. Most certainly, it will not be permissible to perpetrate a haraam act for the sake of a Nafl act. Therefore, it is not permissible to acquire photos for visas for the sake of Umrah, Nafl Hajj and Tabligh.

The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly states the type of Dhuroorah which renders consumption of a little pork permissible. Whilst the pork remains haraam, its consumption comes within the scope of the concession. The Dhuroorah in this case is life-threatening. The law is not relaxed for pleasure, merrymaking and meritorious deeds which these mudhiel buffoons are attempting to shove into the domain of Dhuroorah

The mudhiel says:

“I visited a Darul-uloom in Karachi and there was a gathering of (advanced students) in the faculty of Takhasus (Fatwa and research). They asked me questions about (my) videos. My response to them was to ask questions with enthusiasm but then listen to the answers with the same (enthusiasm and due diligence). What I meant is that sometimes questions are asked but the responses are ascribed to be (disrespectful) towards a particular personality (or an elder) by the one asking the question and the responses are (wrongly) taken contest to be refutation of a particular individual. When I am responding to a question, it should not be twisted, spun or taken out of context to be disrespectful or refutation of another Scholar (or an elder), it should be taken on face value as “my answer”.

Our Comment
There is no need to twist and spin the stupid and baseless arguments of the mudhiel whose views are crass unsubstantiated personal opinion stemming from nafsaaniyat and jahaalat. His responses are in fact taken at ‘face value’. His arguments are devoid of Shar’i substance. That students of some Takhassus course could not rationally demolish the ghutha (trash) which the mudhiel had disgorged in his abortive attempt to legalize the kabeerah sin of pictography, speaks volumes for the poor quality of Ilm imparted by the Darul Uloom.

The mudhiel says:

I made two points:

“1. The punishment of Tasweer (making photos) is connected with severe punishment. Severe punishment is only mentioned on the committing of acts which are (categorically) Haram, you will not see warning of severe punishments on acts which are Makruh (disliked). The punishment is clear cut in text of Hadeeth.”

Our Comment
This observation is incorrect. There are two types of Makrooh – Tanzihi and Tahrimi. The very same punishment stated for categorical Haraam acts, is applicable to Makrooh Tahrimi acts. Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh), and all the other Fuqaha have explicitly stated that the consequence of both Haraam and Makrooh Tahrimi is the Fire of Jahannam. Thus, the mudhiel is either egregiously stupid or is deliberately endeavouring to pull wool over the eyes of the juhala to bamboozle them by failing to   state the distinction between the two types of Karaahat.

The second point of the mudhiel is:

“2. But the definition of Tasweer (photo) and its application is not clear cut in the text of Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It is a matter of Ijtehaad (deduction).” 

Our Comment
This is a massive LIE. The claim is false. There is no ambiguity regarding the meaning of Tasweer. Just as the meaning of khinzeer (swine) mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed is obvious and as clear as daylight, so too is the meaning of tasweer. The prohibition of consuming pork is not the effect of ‘ijtihaad’. Similarly, is it with tasweer.   Every moron who has no kufr axe to grind, understands what a picture is. Every moron is able to distinguish between a picture and a reflection. Only moron molvis seem to lack the understanding which morons among the masses possess. It is indeed bizarre that despite being molvis they fail to understand the difference between a picture and a reflection.

Only a man on whose brains shaitaan has urinated will say that the meaning of night, day, the moon, the sun, etc., etc., is not clear-cut in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, hence the related ahkaam are the effects of Ijtihaad. Ijtihaad of the qualified Mujtahideen, not of morons such as the mudhiel, comes into operation on issues on which the Nusoos are silent.

The meaning of a picture is glaringly obvious. The Shariah did not proscribe any specific method of producing a picture. The proscription applies to the picture, not to the method of production. It is palpably stupid, in fact ineffably perfidious to seek to convey the idea that despite having decreed an act a major sin and its perpetrators the worst-punished on the Day of Qiyaamah, the Shariah has left the definition of the meaning of the sin to the wildly fluctuating nafsaani vagaries of liberal morons and mudhielleen. For 14 centuries there has existed unanimity on the prohibition of pictures – on all types of pictures regardless of the many different methods of producing pictures. However, today in this belated era so close to Qiyaamah, moron mudhielleen beguiled by their nafs, and pursuing worldly objectives in the name of Islam, have hallucinated the issue of method of production as the determinant for the prohibition of pictures when in fact Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) banned pictures per se.
The Qur’aan and Sunnah are conspicuously clear regarding the prohibition of pictures, and pictures are just what every child understands to be pictures, which all the kuffaar understand are pictures. Only those whose brains have been polluted with shaitaan’s urine portray ignorance regarding the meaning of pictures. Their stupidity or feigned stupidity on this issue is mind boggling. How can an intelligent person aver that the meaning of picture is ambiguous?

The mudhiel says:

“Those who consider digital (imagery) to be Tasweer (photos) deem it to be impermissible, thus the punishment applicable while others who consider digital (imagery) not to be Tasweer (photos) consider it permissible.

Our Comment
The silly notion of pictures produced by the digital process are not pictures is an insult to even brains on which the devil has urinated. This notion defies intelligence. Regardless of how a picture is made, it remains a picture. We have explained in detail in two booklets the production of television pictures and have shown that even in the so-called live depictions, actual pictures are produced. These books are available.

The morons should prove rationally that the process of digital production does not produce pictures. The arbitrary claim that such pictures are not pictures is dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

The mudhiel says:

“We believe that our Madhab is closest to the truth with the probability of error. Then why do we regard our opinion of digital (imagery) to be Tasweer (photos) to be “the absolute truth” with no probability of error? Have we not exceeded and exaggerated in the matter (of difference of opinion)? Have we not exceeded the limits and consider ourselves to be higher than the Imams of the Madhabs? The Imams of Madhabs (disagreed) but still accepted the probability of error.”

Our Comment
The view that the production of pictures by the digital process does produce pictures which are heavily proscribed by the Shariah, is the absolute truth. There is no probability of error. Even the inventors of the digital process will scoff and mock at the idea of the pictures produced by this process are not pictures. Only juhala led by Iblees can infer that pictures are not made by the digital process. They are either too stupid to understand this simple issue or they are deliberately peddling the fraud to justify their haraam objectives.

The mudhiel says:

“I went to Azad Kashmir on one of my tours and there was a team member from my team and by my team I don’t mean to say that an entire entourage travels alongside me but a few (or even one person) can be part of a team.” 

Our Comment
What is the purpose for mentioning this futile, stupid superfluity of travelling with a ‘team’? It is nothing but ujub.

The mudhiel says:

“The Imam of the Masjid requested that I should speak in the Mosque but not record the event. When I asked for the reason, I was told that a one year Tableeghi Jamaat was in the Mosque and they deemed making of (videos) to be impermissible. I asked the Imam that if I were to convince the members of the Jamaat, would he have any objections and he said that he (personally) had no objections. I asked the young (cameraman) to set up the equipment but to keep the equipment switched off. I sat down for the talk.”

Our Comment
The Imaam is a jaahil just as this mudhiel, hence he had no objection to the perpetration of kabeerah sins in the House of Allah. Furthermore, travelling with the burden of picture-making equipment for videoing his haraam shows and antics, testifies to the ujub and shaitaaniyat of Ghuman, the mudhiel. He is more interested to portray and advertise his snout by making haraam videos than with the propagation of the Deen. He is bereft of shame. A man who is supposed to be an Aalim of the Deen will shudder if he has to hover between halaal and haraam. Even if he is too stupid to understand the hurmat of digital pictures, he should have at least taken note of the stance of all the Akaabir Ulama and refrain from compromising his Aakhirat where the severest punishment will be meted out to the picture-makers according to the Hadith. But when haya is banished, the satanism of audacity and the perpetration of kabaa-ir flagrantly in public become the attributes of the jaahil. 

The mudhiel says:

“I asked the (Tableeghi Jamaat) about their program. They replied that they had been given instructions to go abroad but while waiting for their visas they were instructed to work (within Pakistan). I asked them if they had submitted their passports with pictures. They said that they had submitted many additional photographs. I enquired if they knew that Tasweer (photos) were impermissible to which they replied that they knew about the impermissibility. I asked as to why they had pictures taken and submitted them to the embassy? They replied that it was not possible to get visas without photographs. I asked so what? What is the harm in not getting visas?
They said that it was not possible to go abroad without visas.
I said so what is the problem with it? If Allah Ta’ala asks you on the day of judgement as to why you didn’t proceed beyond Pakistan then say that it was not possible due to indulgence in Haraam. We were not prepared to perform an impermissible action for the sake of propagating your religion.
They had no answer for this so I then asked them to consider my request.”

Our Comment
They had no answer for the mudhiel on account of their jahl. They simply follow blindly whatever effluvium is disgorged into their brains by molvis who are astray. They come within the scope of the Qur’aanic Aayat which castigates the people of Bani Israaeel who had taken their molvis and buzroogs as gods besides Allah Ta’ala. They accepted whatever haraam fatwas their molvis and buzroogs issued.

The act of taking photos for visas merely for travelling to places, be it for tableegh, Umrah or Nafl Hajj, is not permissible. There is no Shar’i incumbency to undertake a tableegh journey. That is, it is not Fardh or Waajib. Furthermore, leave alone incumbency, the journey becomes haraam when it is reliant on the commission of sin and transgression.

Allah Ta’ala is Pure. His Deen is Pure. It is the Haqq. The sustainment of the Haqq is never and was never dependent on haraam deeds and haraam methodologies. Allah Ta’ala does not accept contamination of His Deen with najaasat and haraam. Photos are haraam. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “O People! Allah is Tayyib (Pure/Wholesome). He does not accept anything except what is pure. Verily, Allah has commanded the Mu’mineen with what He has commanded the Mursaleen (Messengers).” An ibadat contaminated with haraam is rejected. 

Photos in this case are not forced on a person by any oppressive government such as photos for identity documents and the like. There is no Shar’i Dhuroorah  to constrain commission of haraam, and there is no dharar (harm) in abstention from taking haraam photos. Even the Ambiya (Alayhimus Salaam), including Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were not under obligation to traverse the confines of Tableegh with even 100% halaal methods. Hence, Allah Ta’ala, advising Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of the parameters of Tableegh and Da’wat, says:

“Verily, you are only a Warner. You (O Muhammad!) have not been appointed over them (the kuffaar) as a guard.” [Al-Ghaashiyah, Aayat 22]

“Say (to the kuffaar): I am not an overseer over you.” [Al-An’aam, Aaayat 66]

“Perhaps you (O Muhammad) may destroy yourself with grief by hankering after them (the kuffaar) because of their refusal to accept this Hadith (the account of the Revelation).” [Al-Kahaf, Aayat 6]

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is repeatedly cautioned in the Qur’aan Majeed by Allah Ta’ala to operate within the limits of his mandate. He should not allow undue concern for acceptance of Imaan by the kuffaar to grieve him. Even such grief is not required of the Muballigh. How can it then be permissible for him to employ dastardly haraam methods to propagate the Deen?

This mudhiel molvi and others of his ilk, while labouring under the extremely false notion of serving the Deen are in reality squandering their lives in hallucination and imagining themselves to be practising righteousness. Reprimanding the likes of such miscreants, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Say (O Muhammad)!: Should we inform you of the worst losers regarding deeds? They are those whose efforts are destroyed in this worldly life (with their haraam and corruption) whilst they labour under the impression that they are the practioners of virtuous deeds.”

The concern of the genuine Muballigh is primarily the observation of the Shariah. He may not cross the boundary into haraam. He has to operate fully within the limits of the Shariah. Transgressing these limits is haraam.

“These are the limits of Allah. Whoever, transgresses the limits of Allah, verily he has oppressed himself.”

The Qur’aan Majeed repeatedly reminds such miscreants to beware of trespassing into the domain of haraam, be it for the sake of the Deen. Transgression is intolerable and impermissible. In our era these Qur’aanic warnings are directed specifically to  miscreant, liberal molvis enamoured by western technology and overwhelmed by nafsaaniyat, and also to the Tabligh Jamaat who notoriously suffer from the disease of ghulu’ (haraam extremism) which has rendered their specific methodology the primary objective – the Maqsood – regardless of the conflict with the Shariah. And, the conflict is on many issues.

These pseudo-muballighs, dwelling in jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), are adept in the art of blithering ghutha arguments stemming from the nafs, and which they proffer as daleel for their trash opinions which are bereft of Shar’i substance. In their misdirected nafsaani enthusiasm which they seek to project in Deeni hues, they are completely unmindful of the fact, that the mission of Nubuwwat and its substitute established by Allah Ta’ala for the perpetuation of Da’wat and Tabligh, is not focussed on numbers which is the primary emphasis of the Tabligh Jamaat and the likes of the Ghumman mudhiel, hence he is so rodomontade about his imaginary 125,000 subscribers whom he believes is the ultimate goal of Tabligh regardless of the gross violation of the ahkaam of the Shariah which in reality is the primary focus of the Ambiyaa (Alayhimus salaam), all of whom were raised by Allah Ta’ala to only convey the Message of Haqq whilst the prerogative of administering Hidaayat remains the preserve exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Declaring this reality without the slightest ambiguity, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“If We had so willed, We would have granted every person his hidaayat (guidance), but (on the contrary) the decree has been established by ME (Allah Azza Wa Jal) that, most assuredly, I shall fill Jahannam with Jinn and Men-  all of them.” [As-Sajdah, Aayat 13]

This is the Divine Prerogative subject to Divine Wisdom which is inexplicable to us mortals with our created minds, the limits of their understanding severely curtailed by the attribute of finitude which is a necessary corollary of every aspect of creation. It is totally and humanly impossible to fathom the mysteries and Wisdom of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

It suffices at this juncture to say, that the aim of Tabligh is not numbers – how many converts the muballigh can rope in. The Maqsood is Ridha Ilaahi (the Pleasure of Allah) which is attainable only by following the ahkaam of His Shariah. His Pleasure cannot be acquired by submission to jahl which spawns bid’ah, fisq and fujoor, and conflict with the commands of Allah Ta’ala. 

Even a method which is not a declared aberration or a transgression, but which is the effect of intellectual judgment based on sincerity and the desire to spread the Deen for Allah’s Pleasure, is proscribed by Allah Ta’ala if such method is the effect of an error in judgment. Thus, when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was somewhat annoyed when the blind Sahaabi intruded in a gathering of the chiefs of the Quraish where Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was engaging in Da’wat, Allah Ta’ala in ten Qur’aanic Aayat, reprimanded our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for his error of judgment despite the fact that nothing haraam was committed. In the following Aayaat Allah’s Reprimand is stated:

“He (i.e. Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) frowned and turned away because the blind man (Hadhrat Ibn Ummi Maktoom) came to him. What will apprize you? Perhaps he (the Sahaabi) will be (morally) purified. Or he may heed, thus benefiting from the naseehat (advice). However, regarding him (referring to the mushrik chief) who is indifferent (to the Da’wat), you are attentive whereas there is no blame on you if he is not purified (from his kufr). However, regarding the one (the Sahaabi) who comes running to you whilst he fears (Allah), you display indifference to him (by ignoring him). Never should it be so. Verily it (the Qur’aan) is a Reminder. Therefore, whoever desires should take heed.” [Abasa, Aayaat 1 to 12]

Here in a dozen verses Allah Ta’ala chides Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for having adopted a permissible method of Da’wat, albeit by error of judgment. It was not his function to ensure that the mushrikeen accept Imaan. Rasulullah’s obligation was to only call them and deliver the Message. However, in his enthusiasm and concern for the mushrikeen to embrace Islam, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted a method which he had understood would be beneficial for the Deen. However, Allah Ta’ala disapproved of the method, and sharply reprimanded our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Yet, a haraam act was not committed.

Now what conclusion should be drawn when a kabeerah sin is used flagrantly for Da’wat and Tabligh? The aggravating feature is that the perpetrators of haraam methods do not even believe that their misdeed is haraam. By the adoption of haraam methods on the flimsy or baseless pretext of ‘need’, these muballigheen are implying that they have the requisite entitlement to supersede Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the field of Da’wat and Tableegh, hence for them it is permissible to employ haraam methods whilst this was never permissible for the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). The Haqq has to be proclaimed only in ways which are permitted by the Shariah. Haraam methodology is the inspiration of Iblees. By employing haraam methods, the muballigheen become agents of Iblees.

Since the Tablighi clique with whom Ghumman had an encounter, was indulging in haraam, they had no answer for the moron who sought to legalize haraam photography with baseless arguments lacking in entirety in Shar’i substance. The inability of the Tablighi group to adequately respond to the khuraafaat (stupid nonsensical ‘daleel’) of the mudhiel, should not be understood as a validation for his own stupid view pertaining to the utilization of haraam pictography for propagating the Deen.

The mudhiel says: “O people of Tableegh! You also indulge in photography (for Islam) and so do I.

Our Comment 
Both the Tablighi clique and Ghumman, the mudhiel are perpetrators of haraam. The two haraams never produce the quotient of halaal. Regardless of who or which entity perpetrates haraam, it will remain haraam and may not be justified by personal opinion which is bereft of Shar’i substance such as the baseless opinions of the Tabligh Jamaat and moron molvis of the ilk of Ghumman and Molvi Taqi who have opened up wide avenues for free indulgence in haraam with their stupid nafsaani fatwas of dhalaalah.

The mudhiel, in justification of his flagitiously haraam opinion, said to the Tablighi group:

“But there are some subtle differences between your actions and mine. Your photographs are printed (therefore static) while mine are digital. Printed (static) photography is impermissible by consensus while there are differences upon digital photography.”

Our Comment
There are no ‘subtle differences’ between pictures produced by the camera and by the digital process. Both methods produce pictures which are haraam. The swift destruction of pictures which creates the non-static illusion, does not negate the definition of pictures and pictography. If a picture drawn on a surface is immediately and swiftly destroyed as soon as it has been drawn, such swift destruction does not cancel the fact that it was a picture that was destroyed. The extremely swift destruction of thousands of pictures produced by the television and digital processes does not in any way whatsoever negate the fact that all such images are pictures. They are not mirror reflections which are 100% dependent on the objects for their existence.

The destruction of a digital picture is the same as the destruction of a printed picture. The only difference in the destruction is the swiftness of the act in the television and digital process. Thus, the so-called ‘live’ television show is NOT live in the true sense of the term.   The portrayal on the screen is the picture which has been produced and transmitted. 

The mudhiel says:

“Isn’t the agreed upon matter a bigger Haram? Your (static) photographs stay at the consulate while you (physically) visit England, America etc while I personally stay at Sargodha but my (digital) images go to England, America etc. You use photography and I use photography. The difference is your photograph rests while you take the pain (of travelling) while I rest but my (digital images) take the pain of travelling! You (physically) go to get your pictures taken while my WhatsApp service serves over 80,000 subscribers, over 125,000 subscribers get it from our Facebook and then it gets shared by people. You meet a few people (physically) by indulging in photography while my images get to millions. How come you are a Da’ee (inviter to Allah) and I am a mischief maker? Please explain to me the difference? It is not my habit to crack jokes but make me get the difference between yourself and me. I am not trying to crack jokes! You are all Ulama (scholars) so let’s have an honest discussion and put an end to tale carrying and gossiping.”

Our Comment
This cocktail of spurious arguments is baatil. All these stupidities are devoid of Shar’i substance. The belief of the Tablighi group regarding permissibility of pictures for their Tabligh activity does not render their act halaal, nor is it a basis for halaalizing the act of the mudhiel. The indulgence in haraam by a Tablighi group or by even the greatest Allaamah on earth never constitutes a daleel for permissibility.

In the attempt to legalize his haraam pictography, the mudhiel has abortively attempted to present as his grounds for permissibility the action of the Tabligh Jamaat. In terms of this convoluted logic, his pictography is halaal on the basis of the Tabligh Jamaat’s photography being halaal. However, both premises are flawed and baseless. For the acquisition of a Shar’i Hukm, a Shar’i daleel is the fundamental requisite. The very first premiss in the syllogism has to be a valid Shar’i ground. The action of the Tablighi Jamaat is not such a premiss on which an act could be based for the obtainal of a Hukm. The Tabligh Jamaat’s act itself is in need of a Shar’i Hukm. Thus the qiyaas of Ghumman is glaringly baseless and stupid. Both deeds are in need of a Shar’i ruling, and the fatwa is that it is haraam for the Tabligh Jamaat to have photos taken for the sake of passports and visas merely for travelling to other countries for Tabligh. Likewise it is haraam for the mudhiel and those of his ilk to indulge in videos and the like for propagating the Deen. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. He guides whomever He wills. The obligation of Muslims is to only deliver the Deen, and the delivery has to be incumbently in a halaal method. Abortion is not permissible.

The 125,000 subscribers of which the mudhiel is so proud, are irrelevant. It does not constitute a factor for permissibility of haraam. Facebook is pure Rijs. It is haraam to use this impure and immoral medium for propagating the Pure Deen of Allah Ta’ala. If Allah Ta’ala had so desired, He would have created the treasure of Imaan in every human being. But His Wisdom demanded creation of a group for Jannat and a group for Jahannam. His Wisdom dictated the creation of Shaitaan and the evil nafs.

The Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) had no authority to force the kuffaar to embrace Islam and accept Imaan. Hadhrat Nooh (Alayhis salaam) in his more than 9 century term, succeeded in convincing only about 80 persons. He did not fail in his mission of Nubuwwat. It was Allah Ta’ala Who had ordained Imaan for only the 80, and kufr for the myriad of others who were doomed and created for Jahannam. Both the miscreant mudhiel and the Tabligh Jamaat are enamoured by numbers. They measure success in terms of numbers. The greater the number, the greater the success according to their baatil opinions. Regarding the misconception of numerical abundance and superiority, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Verily, We have brought the Haqq to you, But most of you are averse to the Haqq.”

“If you had to follow the majority, you too will become among the mushrikeen.”

Facebook and similar other media are immoral filth. Only brains to which rijs is acceptable are sufficiently desensitized to employ FILTH for Tabligh. About such soiled and corrupt brains, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“He (Allah) casts rijs (filth/najaasat) on the (brains of) those who lack aql.”

What is the imperative need for people in America and Europe to see the snout of the mudhiel? Why is it incumbent for the picture of the daa-ee to accompany the message he propagates? Which tenet of the Shariah requires the snout to accompany the message? When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent letters of Da’wat to the various kings, did he have pictures of himself drawn for sending along with his letters? Why can these miscreant daa-ees and muballigheen not adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? What constrains them to follow like drunken fools in the footsteps of the western kuffaar to whom pictures are an indispensable component of human life in this shaitaani technological era in which the advancement of atheism and immorality is the primary goal of life.

The mudhiel has not presented a single Shar’i daleel to bolster his haraam action structured on his fallacious opinion. He prides himself for having silenced moron molvis and Tablighi Jamaat characters who lack valid Ilm of the Deen. But having silenced such molvis with his opinions, he has not succeeded to prove on Shar’i grounds the validity and permissibility of his haraam practise of photography and videoing. The inability of the molvis is not a Shar’i daleel. It does not follow as an axiomatic truth from their silence and inability that videos and digital pictography are halaal. The only gain in his spurious argumentation is that both are equal in the sin of perpetrating haraam pictography.

The mudhiel says:

“I was in Hong Kong and my speech was being recorded. There was a Khaleefa of Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) before me who strongly disagreed with making (of) videos and his Mureed also discussed the matter with me. I  spent 40 days at the Khanqah of Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) and he had also given me Khilafah. The Mureed told me that (his) Shaykh strongly disagreed with making of videos while I indulge in it. I asked him why he had become bay’t to his Shaykh? He replied that Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) had granted his Shaykh Khilafah and it is the reason for his Bay’t. I asked him if he knew that Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) had also given me Khilafah and he knew about it. I asked him if his Shaykh was a scholar to which he replied in the negative.

I said we are both Khaleefahs but one is a Scholar and the other isn’t so shouldn’t you be given my opinion to him rather than the other way around? He had no answer. I further explained that I am not asking for him to follow my opinion or to become bay’t to me. However, I wish for conversations to be contextualised and principled.

Thus, we have decided to make videos and use digital (photography).”

Our Comment:
Firstly, it is necessary to say that the translation into English is absolutely putrid and confusing.

Regardless of the mudhiel’s relationship with Hakeem Akhtar (Rahmatullah alayh), and regardless of the khilaafat acquired from Hakeem Sahib, these are not Shar’i dalaa-il. There is absolutely no justification in these issues for legalizing haraam pictures. The mudhiel’s discussion with the mureed has not presented a single Shar’i ground for the mudhiel’s legalization of haraam pictures. His decision to make videos and employ the digital pictures is thus haraam. He has miserably failed to present a single Shar’i daleel to justify his haraam stance. All the claptrap stupidities he has disgorged are pure bunkum.

One Mr. Muadh Khan, a fan of the mudhiel Ghumman, in support of the haraam opinion, presents the following argument:

• National ID Card (if forced by the Government) is a NEED.
• Coins (with images) is a NEED because you won’t be able to feed your family etc. How is Passport or VISA a need? Based on what?…”

Our Comment
A passport is not a Shar’i Dhuroorah (need) nor is a visa necessary in terms of the Shariah, hence there is no basis for claiming hillat (permissibility) for passport and visa photos merely because one has the urge to participate in tabligh in the style of the Tabligh Jamaat. The mudhiel’s argument will hold water for the Tabligh Jamaat since they too indulge in haraam pictography which they justify.   But, in reality there is no valid Shar’i basis for taking photos for passports and visas for Tabligh purposes.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“If you say that National ID Card is a need in Pakistan (due to Government Law) but not in UK so the Hukum (injunction) with regards to photographs differ then don’t you agree that the matter is an issue of Ijtehaad?

Our Comment:
The claim of ‘ijtihaad’ in this context is misleading and silly. If in Napakistan the government compels ID cards, then due to dhurrorah it will not be sinful to commit the haraam act. On the contrary, if these cards are not compelled by the UK government, the question of dhuroorah does not develop. Hence, it is not a case of ijtihaad as the Fan of the mudhiel attempts to peddle. It is purely the operation of principles of the Shariah which the Mujtahid Imaam of the Math-hab had formulated.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“Every year we have a large number of Scholars who hold this opinion come to Britain after getting their pictures taken (for VISA etc.) and printed (in hard form) which is unanimously Haram. I suspect that these Scholars (somehow) consider it genuine Islamic need to come to Britain, thus permissible to indulge in (absolute Haram act of photography).”

Our Comment 
All these scholars are in grievous error. Most of them, if not all, are scholars for dollars. They come to Britain for monetary objectives. There is absolutely no need for them to travel to Britain, hence whatever is absolutely haraam in the Shariah remains haraam for them. These scholars are signs of Qiyaamah. In a Hadith it is mentioned:

“They will search for the dunya with a’maal of the Aakhirat.”

They are the materialization of a prediction of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“The same Scholars (above) however disagree with other Scholars who use Youtube as a medium to defend Islam. The Ulama who engage in (digital photography) also consider it a genuine Islamic need and engage in digital photography which they consider to be permissible.

Our Comment
In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of these scholars for dollars use the Rijs of Facebook, Youtube, etc. The ‘scholars’ who utilize these evil and immoral media are shaitaan’s scholars and agents. There is no daleel in the misdeeds of these miscreant scholars for legalizing the absolutely haraam pictures. Both groups are plodding the path of baatil with their haraam opinions. There is simply no Shar’i need, and both groups are unable to present Shar’i evidence for their heinous misdeed of legalizing absolutely haraam pictography.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“We (laymen) could understand and appreciate the perspective if those agreeing with the Fatwa were consistent in their approach and more importantly its application.

Our Comment
The confusion of the Fan is one effect of the villainy of these scholars for dollars who acquit themselves with nifaaq. They convolute the Haqq and plunder the Deen with their nafsaaniyat. While commission of sin is understandable – no person besides the Ambiya –  is ma’soom (sinless), justifying one’s haraam activities and sins with a convoluted opinion in which the ahkaam of the Shariah are mutilated, is unacceptable. It is tantamount to kufr. 

Even if a molvi takes photos for a passport and for visas to satisfy his nafs, he should not compromise his Imaan by presenting justification with a cocktail of corrupt arguments disguised in Islamic hues. He should concede his weakness and repent for his sins. The rotten state of the Ummah is primarily the consequence of the rotten condition of the Ulama whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said would become “the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky, and from who will emerge fitnah.” This truth is today being conspicuously manifested by the deluge of corrupt molvis and sheikhs who are the scholars for dollars. They trade the Deen for the miserable crumbs of the dunya.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

My complaints to the group are: 1) Don’t be Nasty
2) Be consist, coming to UK is not an Islamic need for you or your teachers to override this prohibition.”

Our Comment
We have not understood the purport of not being “nasty”. We agree with the second objection of the Fan. There is no need for these molvis to come to the UK. They have absolutely no licence to override the prohibition. Nevertheless, it should be understood that the overriding of the prohibition by the dubious molvi characters does not justify the videos of the other camp of mudhielleen.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“Ulama (who rule) that photography (in all forms) is impermissible BUT:
They come to London to see their Grandchildren or to collect Chanda or to make Aitekaaf during Ramadhan (or otherwise). Since this is an Ijethaadi matter they (self) classify these as Islamic needs.

Our Comment
It is not an ‘ijthaadi’ matter. The Shariah does not permit such corrupt, baseless ‘ijtihaad’ for overriding Allah’s Laws. Their classification is baatil.

The Fan of the mudhiel says:

“Maulana (ilyas) Ghumman (HA) makes videos on youtube to defend the Eemaan of Muslims and attacks on Islam but that is not classed as an Islamic need to have the prohibition (temporarily) overturned.”

Our Comment
Most certainly it is not an Islamic need in the Fiqhi category of Dhuroorah, hence there is no scope for even a temporary legalization of an evil which Allah Ta’ala has decreed absolutely haraam. The Mushrikeen of Makkah and the kuffaar in every age have attacked Islam, and the Ulama had always defended the Deen. But never did they deem it valid to override the prohibitions of Allah Azza Wa jal in the process. They did not cast urine in water.

“Verily, you (O Muhammad!) cannot guide who you love, But Allah guides whomever He wills, and He knows best Who are to be guided.”

This should be sufficient to clinch this dispute. It is not our obligation to ensure hidaayat. Our duty is only to proclaim the Haqq within the parameters of the Shariah. The mudhiel and others of his ilk who have assumed upon themselves the obligation of hidaayat, seek to usurp a function which is the Divine Prerogative. They are grossly transgressing the limits prescribed by Allah Ta’ala.

When the halaal methodology of numerous Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) did not succeed to convince the vast majorities of their respective nations, they did not resort to haraam ways. They did not fail in their missions. It was Allah’s Will to withhold hidaayat from them. This should set the mudhiel and the Tabligh Jamaat to ponder. They should remain within the confines of the Shariah. When even halaal methods do not succeed, it is preposterously stupid to believe that their haraam methods will have the desired effect of hidaayat.


Ijmaa’ — Consensus of Opinion — of the Jurists of Islam on the Prohibition of Pictures of Animate Objects

The verdicts and the opinions of the Fuqaha on this question are indeed sufficient proof for the sincere Muslim. The interpretations given to the Ahadith of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by the great authorities of Islam are sufficient to act as guidance for the seeker after the Truth. The unanimous verdict of the great and true learned men of Islam will belie the false theories and baseless interpretations of the followers of desire. Now read on and realise the truth from the statements of the true Representatives of Rasulullah viz., the Fuqaha.

Imam Nawawi (Rahmatullah  alayhi) states:
“Our Ulama as well as others among the Ulama said that the portrayal of pictures of living creatures is Haraam – an absolute prohibition. And, it is among the great sins. It (picture-making) is a practice against which severe warnings of punishments have been issued in the Ahadith mentioned…. Therefore, the making of pictures is Haraam (forbidden) in every manner because in it is the imitation of Allah Ta’ala’s creation… This is the summary of our Mazhab (i.e. the Shafi Mazhab).

And, the overwhelming majority of the Ulama among the Sahaabah, the Taa-bi-een and those after them has opined likewise. This is also the Mazhab of Imam Thauri, Abu Hanifah and others.

Imam Zuhri has said that the prohibition of pictures is general (i.e. without any conditions qualifying the prohibition). The same applies to the use of items having pictures on them, and entry into homes having pictures in them… This (says Imam Nawawi) is the strong (i.e. well substantiated) opinion.

The Ulama have said that the reason for the prohibition of pictures is because these are open and evil sin, and, in them is the imitation of Allah Ta’ala’s creation (i.e. Attribute of Creative Power); and, some among these are worshipped besides Allah. And, these Ahadith are categoric in the prohibition of pictures of living creatures. And, verily, it is a very stringent prohibition. He who does not intend the worship of the pictures, nor imitating Allah Ta’ala’s creation is, nevertheless, a Faasiq (an open and rebellious sinner); he is the perpetrator of a great sin…”

“Ibn Hajar Makki Haitami (Rahmatullah alayhi) says in his Kitaab, Azzawaajir aniktiraafil kabaa-ir: The making of pictures of living objects on anything whatsoever is a kabira (great) sin. The authentic Ahadith state so clearly.
The making of pictures of living objects is Haraam without any conditions stipulated to it.

Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi (rahmatullah alayhi) states:
“The abhorrence of the Angels for pictures is necessary because in pictures the meaning of idols has been established, and it is a fact that from the realms above descend wrath and curses upon idols and their worshippers. When mankind is resurrected on the Day of Qiyamah the pictures of the picture-maker will be given life. His pictures will assume the forms he had in mind at the time he made these. This will be so because it is most appropriate for him because he (the picture-maker) endeavours to the best of his ability to represent his imagination in the form of these pictures. Thus, these will assume the forms of hardship, i.e. he will be required to instil life in the pictures, and he will not be able to do so.” (HUJJATUL-LAHIL BAALIGHAH)

“The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that it is not permissible for me or a Prophet to enter a house decorated with pictures.
Since the making of pictures and the wearing of clothing having pictures on them are forbidden, it follows that homes adorned with pictures should be shunned.” (HUJJATUL-LAHIL BAALIGHAH)

“The Shariah has declared picture-making as being absolutely forbidden (Haraam Qat’i), and the use of pictures forbidden as well.” (Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Grand Mufti of Pakistan)

It is not permissible to make pictures of animate objects as well as of such inanimate objects which are worshipped, like the cross. The Ahadith have severely denigrated the picture-maker.” (FATAAWA RAHIMIYA)

Shaikh Mustufaa Hamaami (Rahmatullah alayhi) of Egypt writes:
“Shaikh Nawawi’s (Rahmatullah alayhi) statements clearly indicate that Ijma’ (Consensus of Opinion of the Jurists) is recorded on the prohibition of pictures of living creatures. There exists no difference of opinion on this score among the Ulama of Islam…
Shaikh Ibn Arabi (Rahmatullah alayhi) said that the prohibition extends over all pictures. Imam Aini (Rahmatullah alayhi) states in Sharhul Bukhari:
‘It is recorded in Taudheeh that our Ulama as well as other Ulama have said that the making of pictures of living objects is Haraam, and this practice is a Kabira (great) sin, because in this practice is the imitation of Allah’s creation. Pictures of animate objects, whether these are on cloth, carpets, coins, utensils, walls, are all Haraam….  Imaam Malik, Imaam Thauri, Imaam Abu Hanifah and other groups of Jurists as well hold the same view.’”

Shaikh Hamaami (Rahmatullah alayhi) further adds:
“Imaam Aini (Rahmatullah alayhi) has accepted the Ijma’ on this prohibition recorded by Imaam Nawawi (Rahmatullah alayhi). Imaam Aini is one of the Hanafi Jurists…
Imaam Zuhri (Rahmatullah alayhi) says that the prohibition of picture-making is general (not qualified with any conditions). Similarly the use of an object which has pictures on it is forbidden. And, it is not permissible to enter a house which contains pictures. This Mazhab (of Imaam Zuhri) is the strong Mazhab (i.e. well substantiated with proofs).
I take an oath by Allah (says Shaikh Hamaami) that I incline towards the view of Imaam Zuhri (Rahmatullah alayhi). By the grace of Allah I have probed and established this matter thoroughly. When picture-making is forbidden, the logical conclusion is that use of pictures is likewise forbidden.”

“Shaikh Makki (Rahmatullah alayhi) states in Hidayah:
‘I cannot recall that a single Alim has said that pictures are lawful’.”

“Shaikh Abu Hayyaan (Rahmatullah alayhi) says that Ijma’ exists on the prohibition of pictures. He has stated emphatically that those who have said that pictures are permissible are not among the Ulama.”

It should be borne in mind that this prohibition is evidenced by Shar’i evidence of absolute certitude (Qat’iyyat). While indulgence in this major sin with the understanding and acceptance of its prohibition, is fisq, denial of its prohibition is kufr.

The disputation of these mudhielleen of the ilk of Molvi Ghumman and Molvi Taqi is baatil and comes within the Qur’aanic castigation stated in the following Aayat:

“Those who (baselessly) dispute about Allah (about His Ahkaam), after its acceptance (by the Ummah), their disputation is baseless (baatil and haraam) by their Rabb, and upon them is (Allah’s) Wrath, and for them there is a severe punishment.” [As-Shuraa, Aayat 16]

In fact, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that for these picture-makers will be the “severest punishment”. Their stupid kufr interpretations to justify pictures will not avail them in Qiyaamah. Their haraam interpretation is a monstrous misapplication of the intellect. Thus the consequence is making halaal that which Allah Ta’ala has made haraam.

The Prohibitions of Allah Azza Wa Jal are not the subject of mismanipulation of the Ahaadith which distances man from Allah Ta’ala. Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed: 

“Run (make haste) towards Allah. Verily, I (Muhammad) am for you a Clear Warner from Him.” [Ath-Thaariyaat, Aayat 50]

Instead of running towards Allah Ta’ala with Taa-at (Obedience), these moron molvis who legalize Allah’s Prohibitions, flee from Allah Ta’ala – from the Haq – from His Shariah – like wild donkeys as is mentioned in the Qur’aan:

“What is the matter with them (these morons) that they turn away from admonition as if they are wild donkeys fleeing from a lion?” [Al-Muddath-thir, Aayats 49-51]

The Haq is like a lion for these juhala who react like wild donkeys. About them, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear most for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.”

They are the molvis, sheikhs and buzrugs who misguide the ignorant masses, leading them to Jahannam. They flee from the Haqq as if they are wild donkeys. While Allah Ta’ala orders them to run towards Him by means of total Obedience, they flee towards Shaitaan with their satanic misinterpretations thereby opening wide avenues for immorality and perversion – fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr.

May Allah Ta’ala guide them back to Siraatul Mustaqeem.


The abhorrence for pictures is on account of images being the root cause of shirk. There is no crime as monstrous and repugnant to Allah Azza Wa Jal as idolatry. The Qur’aan emphatically states the negation of forgiveness for those who perish in the state of shirk. There is no forgiveness for shirk. If the idolater dies without having repented and accepting Imaan, he is doomed for eternal perdition in Jahannam.

While idolatry was uprooted and eliminated by the Sahaabah, it will again return into this Ummah towards the approach of Qiyaamah. In this regard, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The Hour (Qiyamah) will not come to pass until such time that some tribes of my Ummah join ranks with the Mushrikeen (polytheists), and until such time that some tribes of my Ummat worship idols (authaan).” [ABU DAWOOD and TIRMIZI]

“The Hour will not come to pass until such time that the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Dous move around zul-khalasah.”
“And, zul-khalasah is the name of the idol which the tribe of Dous worshipped during the Times of Ignorance.” [BUKHARI and MUSLIM]

“Night and day will not cease (i.e. Qiyamah will not occur) until such time that Laat and Uzza are worshipped…” [MUSLIM]

Laat is the name of the idol-god of the tribe of Thakeef, and Uzza that of Ghatfaan.

Thus, until the Day of Qiyaamah the prohibition will remain in force and intact just as it was during the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and down the long corridor of Islam’s 14 century history.


The argument of the mudhiel consists of only considerable claptrap of trash ‘daleels’. Not a single valid Shar’i daleel has been presented for legalizing the kabeerah sin of pictures. He has abortively attempted to spin the stupid view of the Tablighi molvis and similar other miscreants into a ‘daleel’ to bamboozle people of shallow thinking. 

The action of Tablighi molvis and of the mercenary molvis who converge on the Muslim community in Britain to fleece them of money, is not Shar’i grounds for claiming pictures halaal, or for invoking the principle of Dhuroorah

The Curse of Allah Azza Wa Jal settles on picture-makers.

“Aon Ibn Juhaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates on the authority of his father: ‘Verily, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed the devourer of interest, the giver of interest, the one who tattoos, the one who desires to be tattooed and the picture-maker.”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“On the Day of Qiyaamah, a neck (a bodiless beast) will emerge with two eyes, two ears and a tongue. The neck will exclaim: ‘I have been appointed over three types of people: every rebellious aggressor, everyone who committed shirk with Allah, and the picture-makers.”

“Whoever makes a picture, will be punished by Allah Ta’ala. He will be commanded to create life in the picture, but never will he be able to do so.”

“The severest punished on the Day of Qiyaamah will be a person who killed a Nabi or was killed by a Nabi, the person who killed any one of his parents, the picture-makers, and an Aalim who did not derive benefit from his knowledge.”

While all these Warnings in these Ahaadith apply to the mudhiel Molvi Ghumman and Molvi Taqi, their spiritual corrosion and intellectual paralysis have rendered them ineffably oblivious of the calamitous fate which awaits the picture-makers in Qiyaamah. Qiyaamah appears to be a big joke or a fairy tale for these deviates who have opened the widest avenue for the deluge of immorality churned out by the minute, 24 hours daily for 365 days of the year by the plethora of internet shaitaani media. The Ummah is already sinking in an abyss of fisq and fujoor. These deviate molvis have given greater impetus to the ruin of the Ummah down the slippery path into the dregs of degradation and humiliation. The Ummah is drowning in fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. Now come these devilish molvis with their stupid haraam fatwas of permissibility for one of the most heinous kabeerah sins, to knock the final nail into the Ummah’s coffin of destruction – ruin and destruction in this dunya and in the Aakhirah, as Allah Azza Wa Jal states in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“They are losers in this dunya and the Aakhirah. Indeed it is a terrible loss.”

The villainy of these mudhielleen is most abhorrent. They are likened in the Hadith to murderers of Ambiya and murderers of parents. Yet, these severe warnings are meaningless for them. A Muslim whose brains operate within the confines of Imaan, will never embark on something in which there is even the possibility of the invocation of Allah’s La’nat. If two glasses of water are served to these miscreant jaahil molvis with the caveat that one of the glasses contains a lethal poison, but it is not known which of the two has the poison, there will be absolute certitude that these molvis will never venture to drink from any of the two glasses. That is because they understand the value of preserving their lives in this material dunya. But, regarding the Aakhirah, they demonstrate reckless disdain and flagrant disregard for the ahkaam of the Shariah.

Among the ahkaam of the Shariah is abstention from Mushtabah (Doubtful things). Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Shun that which is doubtful for that which is not doubtful.”

“He who abstains from the doubtful things, verily he has saved his Deen and his honour.”

What has happened to the brains of these molvis? Do they not understand that the very minimum danger regarding pictures from their point of view, i.e. if they have sincerely erred in their understanding, is that pictures regardless of method of production are in the domain of Mushtabah because there exists the 14 century Ijma’ on the prohibition, and there is anavalanche of Fataawa of the senior Ulama on the prohibition of pictures. But, these mudhiellen are not concerned. They stupidly and satanically peddle their haraam theme of digital pictures not being pictures thereby making a mockery of their brains.

They display scorn for the threat of Allah’s La’nat, the special beastly Neck on the Day of Qiyaamah to devour the picture-makers, and that they will be the worst punished on the Day of Qiyaamah. How is it possible for a man of Imaan to gamble away his Imaan and his Najaat in the Aakhirah in the face of such severe Divine Threats of Destruction? 

The deluge of immoral fitnah via digital pictures is not hidden from any moron. Even if we should stupidly assume for a moment that digital pictures are not pictures, then too, never will it be permissible to open the avenue of this fitnah by proclaiming such pictures halaal. But, it is too debasing for the Aql of a Mu’min to accept that a picture is not a picture simply because it is made by a process which had not existed during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

We have explained in some detail the production of television pictures in several booklets. Molvi Taqi’s absolutely baatil view has also been refuted and demolished in an article.

The very first being who made pictures was Iblees who planted the seeds of shirk with his pictures. These mudhielleen molvis of our age are following in the footsteps of Iblees. They have become the agents of Shaitaan who has taught them the lesson of digital pictures not being pictures. Undoubtedly, he has urinated on their brains. 

Hadhrat Shah Waliyullah (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Indulgence in picture-making opens the door to the worship of idols. In most communities idolatry began with picture-making.” 

Shaikh Mustafa Humaami  (Rahmatullah alayh) of Egypt wrote: “The photographers of our  time regard picture-making as a  great skill and as a branch of the ‘fine-arts’… this means that these people regard picture-making as lawful without any qualms. Now, what does the Law state regarding a person who regards a forbidden practice as lawful, and this too, when he has knowledge of its prohibition? We seek Allah’s protection….Alas! Muslims today have been encircled by this great evil (of photography) to such an extent that there hardly remains a Muslim home without being full with photos. Ponder! Should Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) make an appearance today and observe this evil, what will be his attitude? The great misfortune of the situation is that this fitnah (the evil of photography) prevails in those cities where the inhabitants regard themselves to excel in knowledge.”

Shaikh Mustafa Humaami, also said:
“I have no hesitation in supporting Shaikh Abu Hayyaan on this score. I am astonished and amazed when even an ordinary Muslim (i.e. non-Alim) says that pictures are lawful despite the fact that many authentic Ahadith of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have branded this practice of pictures as a Kabira sin.”

“Those who are so audacious in this practice of pictures should heed well the warnings in the Ahadith that on the Day of Qiyamah in Hell, life will be created in all the animate pictures produced. These will then torture the picture-makers. What greater chastisement could there be?”

Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“The second main constituent of their (Muslim) Culture is the creed of Monotheism. Belief in the Oneness of God is manifest in all their activities from spiritual conviction to practical conduct and from worship to festivals and ceremonies. Their homes and studios are expected to be free from every trace of idolatry and polytheism – photographs, statues, images having been prohibited to them by their religion. The same principle has to be followed even while making or buying toys for their children… Wherever Muslims will be honest in their loyalty to Islamic civilisation, they will remain strictly removed from such practices.”

“It (Islam) frowns severely upon certain forms of self-indulgence and sensuality to which the West has given the imposing label of ‘Fine Arts’. Some of these are dancing, painting and photography (of living beings) and sculpture.”

About Photos of the Akaabireen Elders

By: Lawharwi, Mufti Umar Faruq damat barakatuhum (Shaikhul Hadeeth Darul Uloom London)

Translated by: Nawhami, Muhammad Saifur Rahman

Amongst the issues deemed forbidden in the Islamic Shari’ah is the taking of pictures as well as the keeping of pictures. To take a picture of an animate object is Haraam without qualification; be it a large picture or small, be it made by hand or new technology such as a camera etc. The ruling relating to making pictures is that if there is an extreme need such as [images in] passport and the like, it permitted due to necessity or else it is banned and prohibited [regardless] if the picture is large or small but the parts visible. Thereafter, if in keeping the picture there is a semblance of adoration the prohibition becomes even more  intensified. 

Nowadays the desire and impetus is growing day on day to collect and hold, for barakat and adoration, the pictures attributed to the elders of Deoband such as Hakim al-Ummat Thanwi, Shaykh al-Islam Hussain Ahmad Madani, Mufti A’zam Mufti Kifayat Allah Sahib, Amir Shari’at Sayyid Ata Allah Shah Bukhari, Mawlana  Yusuf Sahib (Hadrat Jii of the Tablighi Jamat), and Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyyah – قدس اسرارهم.

Let alone the unqualified, the qualified are even becoming indulged in this disease. They assume that if such photos were prohibited, these Akabir (elders) would have never allowed their photos to be made and it would not have reached us. They assume, “We were prohibited from making pictures so that gradually a culture of shirk does not start, and since we are not going to indulge in shirk it is permitted for us”. Hence, [I] felt the need to suggest a few points on the matter. It is possible that some slave of Allah will read these words, realise their error and become repentant.

و ما ذلك علي الله بعزيز وحو ولي التو فيق و لا حو ل و لا قوة الا به

Note! Here there are a few matters worthy of consideration and thought:

Firstly, if amongst the elders some, without an islamically valid acute need, had photos, such an action of theirs cannot be used as evidence of permissibility. The Shar’i edicts are proven through the adillah araba’a and this is not evidence at all.

Secondly, the attribution of some of these pictures to the elders is dubious. As such, the ascription of images to these senior [scholars] will be a slander.

Thirdly, it is possible that some of our elders, at the time when the camera was invented, differentiated between taking photos and drawing pictures by hand; holding that hand drawn picture as prohibited and picture via camera as permitted. However, the reality is that it is not based on any strong basis. It is an established [rule] in shari’ah that that which is haraam or non-prescribed in shari’ah in principle, its ruling does not change if the apparatus changes. Khamr (wine) is haraam; be it made by hand or the new machines. Similarly, murder is haraam; be it with a knife or a bullet. In the same way, the shari’ah has forbidden the making and keeping of pictures. So this is regardless if it was made with the brush of an artist or prepared with a photographic device.

2) Hadrat Mawlana Abd al-Haq Madani, the principle of Shahi Murad Abad writes, “I had the opportunity of a lengthy company with Mufti Kifayat Allah – this was an accompanying journey to Egypt to participate in an Islamic conference in Cairo. On returning a sizable number of leading ulama of Egypt arrived to give farewell. As per the custom of Egypt, they wanted to take a picture of the group. Hadrat Mufti Sahib declined. Some of the ulama of Egypt held photos to be permissible. They started debating. The debate was short but very interesting. As far as my  memory goes I still remember the words of the questions and answers. The words are as follows:

Egyptian scholars:

التصوير الممنوع إنما هو الذي يكون بصنع الإنسان و معالجة الاء يدي، و هذا ليس كذلك، إنما هو عكس  السورة
Forbidden picture are those that are made with people’s engineering and manufacture of the hands. (Photo) is not like that, it is a reflection (of a form)

Mufti Sahib:

كيف ينتقل هذا العكس من الز جاجة الي الورق
How does the reflection transfer from the (camera) lens to the paper?

Egyptian scholars:

بعد عمل كثير
After a lot of action (it transfers to the paper)

Mufti Sahib:

ائ فرق بين معالجة الايدي و صنع اﻻنسان و العمل الكثير؟
What is the difference between manufacture of the hands, people’s engineering and a lot of  action?

Egyptian scholars:

نعم! هو شيئ واحد
Yes! (There is no difference), they are one.

Mufti Sahib:
إذا حكمها واحد
Then the ruling for all is the same.

The scholars of Egypt were astounded by Mufti Sahib’s sharp responses and were silenced such that they found no response.

3)  Hadrat Mawlana  Ahmad Bijnori Sahib (نور الله مد ثده), the author of Anwar al-Bari, writes regarding this matter: I asked (Hadrat Allamah Anwar Shah  Kashmiri) regarding photos that the Egyptian ulama differentiate between photos and pictures; they consider the first allowed according to shari’a and the second prohibited. He responded, the mas’ala here is wrong. The ruling of photos and pictures are one. The exception made for necessity is another matter. 
(Similarly, Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Sahib Usmani also said the same).

4) The point being, there is no difference between drawing a picture and taking a photograph. Like it is prohibited to make pictures equally it is prohibited to take pictures with cameras.

Fourthly, those of our elders who at that time might have been of [the opinion of] permissibility, it is possible that they have rescinded from it. Hence, Allamah Qadi Muhammad Zahid al-Hussayni writes in a letter to his closest khalifah, Muhaqqiq al-Asr Abd al-Qayyum Haqqani (قدس صره):

As has always been the practice of the rightful ulama, as soon as they became aware of their error, immediately they made a retraction. They did not consider it an embarrassment or flippancy for themselves. Rather, they focused on protecting themselves culpability in both worlds. So these two seniors (Hadrat Mawlana Abu al-Kalam Azad and Hadrat Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi) at first gave fatwa for permitting photos. However, with the grace of Allah, they made retractions. In 1919, Hadrat Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi wrote an article permitting pictures but in January 1943, with the strength of choosing the truth, published an announcement making a retraction of his position of the subject at hand. Also consider the brave statement of Mawlana Abu al-Kalam Azad (Tazkirat Abu al-Kalam Azad): To have pictures taken, kept and published is not  permissible. This was a grave mistake of mine that I had my picture taken and published ‘al-Hilal’ with images. I have repented from that mistake. My past mistakes should be hidden rather than publicised anew.” Fifthly, [It is incorrect] to assume that due to a picture being published of an Alim or elder that it is done with their consent or that they believe that (camera) photos are permitted. This does not prove  that. Hence, in the periodical published from the Indian Madrasahs entitled, ‘Badr al-Islam’, after clarifying the position of the prohibition of photos taken of Mufti A’zam Hadrat Mawlana Kifayat Allah Sahib and the past leader of Jamiat al-Ulama Hadrat Mawlana Sa’id Sahib Dihlawi, they write:

أما اشاعة بعض الجراءد تمثال فوتوغراف بصورنا، فنحن لا ندري من أخذها وأىن أخذها و متي أخذها، و لا يقفي أن أحذ رسم الفوتو غراف لا يحتاج إلي علم صاحب الصورة فان الأحد يتمكن من أخذها مع غفلة صاحب الصورة و كذلك اخذ مثالنا من أخذها

Some magazines that have published our photo, we do not know who took the photos, where it was taken, and when it was taken. It is clear that it is not necessary that a person will know when a photo is taken. It is possible to take a picture without their knowledge. Whoever took our photos, also took it without our knowledge.

6) He also writes in an answer to another question like this: To assume when an individual’s picture is published that it was taken with their knowledge and consent, that picture is permitted according to them is the result of naivety or bias.

Sixthly, it is possible that these elders agreed on the prohibition of pictures without acute necessity. Thereafter, due to an Islamically valid severe necessity they had their picture taken which then fell in the hands of another.

Seventhly, the elders whose photos are thought to be honourable (which in reality is reprehensible) to keep and gather, they themselves through statement and action have reported it being prohibited and dishonourable. They have declared their distance from it. Hence, the writing of Mufti Kifayat Allah has passed your eyes, “The Ahadith (which he has written proves that) taking picture, keeping pictures … all are established as haraam.

Shaykh al-Islam Hadrat Madani (قدس صره) writes in a letter to Mawlana Ahmad Hussayn Lahorpuri, “[I] received your letter with the cutting of the photo. I thank you for remembering me. I have never knowingly or intentionally had my pictures taken. This happens without my knowledge and I do not consider it permitted. Those who do it they are responsible for it.”

The famous Muhaddith Hadrat Mawlana Habib al-Rahman A’zami Sahib (نور الله مرقده) writes, “The youth tried to take photos of the stage (upon which Hadrat Madani and ulama were present). Hadrat (Madani) in a very loud voice scolded them and did not allow them to take photos.”

Eighthly, one should think that if they are supposedly collecting the pictures due to respect and love, if those elders were alive and they were to know of our action, so would they have been happy with our action which is manifestly against the shari’ah? [Would they] have considered it their respect? It is clear, they absolutely would not have been happy and would have thought it against their love. Our elders used to be happy with adherence to the shari’ah and the disobedience to Shari’ah used to be a source of heartfelt hurt. That which is a source of hurt has become something of pride that we have the picture of so and so elder! The sound and wise would cry.

Ninthly, some people consider the keeping and gathering of the elder’s photos as a source of barkat (blessing) whereas it is the source of rejection as it comes in some Sahih Ahadith that it restricts the coming of angels.

Tenthly, the prohibition of making and keeping pictures in the shari’ah is not restricted to a particular time rather it is until the day of judgement (acute necessities are an exception as has passed). This prohibition is for both the lay and learned. Some learned assume that the prohibition of animate pictures in so that shirk does not start and since we are not going to do that the prohibition for collecting the pictures of elders does not apply to us. The fact is that is notion is corrupt.

First, we have no guarantee or pledge of remaining protected against shirk; “الايمان بين الخوف والرجاه”  – keep that in mind at all time.

Second, we may become the cause of [others] becoming involved in shirk; ‘الدال علي الشرك فاعله’

Third, this is assumed to be the only cause of prohibition whereas there are many causes (cf. Ahkam al-Quran of Hadhrat Thanwi, v. 7 p. 517) such as the angels of mercy disliking it; a cause which is still found. So how can our action not come under prohibition? In other words it can be said:  – ع سخن شناس نہ دلربا! خطا ایں جاست.

Professionally speaking, not as a fan; this is wrong. The aforementioned lines establish clearly that the holding and collecting of the photos of the elders for love and respect is not permitted. So if those who are repentant want to discover what should be done to the pictures which are in our possession? The pronouncement in al-Ifadat al-Yawmiyyah (v. 7 #447) is quoted below for them which will give an easy solution to their query. A person mentioned (to Hakim al-Ummat Thanwi) that, ‘A man has a nominal picture of the prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم), what is the ruling? What should be done  with it?’ (Hadrat Hakim al-Ummat) said, ‘This occurred in the time of Hadrat Mawlana (Shah Isma’il) Shahid Sahib (رحمة الله عليه) and Shah Abd al-Aziz Sahib (رحمة الله عليه). A man came and asked Hadrat Shahid, ‘I have a picture of the prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) which is a nominal representation, what shall I do with it?’ He responded, ‘What should happen! The ruling of shari’ah does not change even if it is a nominal representation of the prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) Thereafter this person went to Shah Abdul Aziz Sahib and said the same. Hadrat Shah sahib asked, ‘Is it with or without life?’ [The man] responded, ‘without life’. He said, ‘When he who has been drawn passed what was done’. He said, ‘He was bathed, shrouded and buried’. He responded, ‘You do the same. Wash it with fragrance and rose [water], cover it with very expensive cloth and bury it in a place where no one’s feet falls’. The point is the same that remove it; just the subject matter is different. The second is more palatable, then gradually the first will become acceptable. After hearing this, the questioner told (Hadrat Hakim al-Ummat) that the man who has that picture says, ‘I will come to hadrat and give him the picture. He may do with it what he please.’ He responded, ‘[He] is very clever, he wants to remain respectful according to him. No problem! I will do with it what is commanded by shari’ah. On the one side is  هذا’ تمثل رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم’

just see who is ahead? And there is judgment which is even better that if this was presented in front of the prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) what would the prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) have done? It is apparent that he would not have said even that which Hadrat Shah sahib had said rather his fatwa and action would have been that Mawlana Shahid’. Then (Hakim al-Ummat) said, ‘the difference between the solutions of Hadrat Mawlana Shahid and Hadrat Shah Sahib is that one is a general benefit whilst another is a complete benefit’. The solution of Hadrat Shah Sahib has general benefit and Hadrat Shahid Sahib has complete benefit. It is clear that complete benefit is superior even if general benefit is easier. Consider the meaning of another pronouncement, Hadrat Hakim al-Ummat (رحمة الله عليه) once in Khatoli (Muzaffarnagar, India) was asked about respecting the nominal pictures of the prophet of Allah (صلي الله عليه وسلم) and some Sahabah (رضي الله عنهم) – which had come from Haydrabad. So, Hadrat Thanwi (رحمة الله عليه) replied that these [pictures] are not worthy of respect. The evidence is that of the pictures that were removed from the Ka’ba was that of Hadrat Ibrahim and Isma’il from the Ka’bah which were handled in the same manner like the other pictures – (they were destroyed). However, the self wants to respect but the self should not interfere or take precedence over the order of Shari’ah; following the hukm (command) is respect.

والله الموفق للصواب


By Mujilisul Ulama

A Concerned Brother from Stanger (Natal) writes:

“Assalamu Alykum – I was visiting some family members in Stanger also known as kwaDukuza. I was performing my Salaah with Jamaat in the Musjid. After the Salaah an announcement was made that a program will be taking place after the sunnats about inheritance and how important it was.

Moulana Abdullah Khan of Jamiat KZN who used to live in Stanger, made the announcement and delivered the talk. Before the talk started, I saw a big DAJJAL’S EYE TV SCREEN being set up and A PROJECTOR. I couldn’t believe my eyes that this tv gadget of iblees was being set up right inside the Musjid.

Then Mr Khan sitting in a nice cosy chair prepared specially for him told everyone that while a certain brother (perhaps a human shaitan) was setting up this tv screen and projector, he noticed that some people were surprised at what they were seeing (referring to DAJJAL’S EYE and projector). He continued by saying that before people would just listen and remember. Now that’s no more the case. Rather people nowadays look and remember. He was justifying his nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat.

Also a rather lamentable sewerage utterance of his was that he’s made it in a classroom and that’s what they do in Darul Ulooms. Ulema were sitting there so many, but none stopped this Mr Khan and his cohorts from their haraam activity. 

Now here comes the big question marks. Let’s say for argument their Shaytaniyat and Bidah under the guise of Deen is Okay and permissible, then won’t this be opening a door of Fitna!!!!!!!!

Why a fitna you may ask? From teaching Deen they can then go further in sin. Like Radio Shaytan from where it was to where it’s now. I presume you know of the pitiful state of the Ummah in Burma, Iraq, Syria etc. How can I put it?

Some Molvi trying to encourage people could play on the tv clips from BBC or maybe CNN the plight of the Syrians. Maybe block out the music and later on justify music after a while with some nonsense. Please comment as I am very confused. Is this okay or what?”  (End of letter)


Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon shall there dawn an age when……..the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their ulama. From them will percolate fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

We are in that age predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The worst fitnah-mongers and fitnah-breeders today are the molvis and sheikhs who belong to the fraternity of ulama-e-soo’. The Jamiat KZN has joined this shaitaani fraternity consisting of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg, the MJC and the Bid’ati Qabar Puja jamiats. That is why Mr.Khan has so flagrantly exposed his fisq and fujoor right inside the Musjid. He has no Islamic skin on his face, hence the shameless display of Kabeerah sins right inside the Musjid. 

This type of molvi is in fact worse than Dajjaal – the Dajjaal-in-Chief who still has to appear. Many small Dajjaals will appear to prepare the stage for their Chief Dajjaal mentioned in the Hadith. Mr. Khan and the fraternity of vile molvis and sheikhs are all Dajjaal’s agents. They are busy preparing the stage for their Chief, hence Mr. Khan has introduced Dajjal’s Eye in the Musjid. 

The evil which he has spoken to assuage the hurt feelings of those musallis who have some vestige of Deeni understanding, is the type of satanically adorned talk described in the Qur’aan Majeed as“Zukhruful Qawl”. The explanation which Mr.Khan presented in a bid to justify to the musallis that Dajjaal’s Eye is permissible and beneficial even in the Musjid, has been urinated into his brains by Shaitaan. About the ilk of Mr. Khan and the NNB molvis, MJC sheikhs and other bogus ‘scholars’ for dollars of Bogus uucsa, the following appears in the Hadith:

Abu Zarr (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “One day while I was walking hand-in-hand with Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he said: ‘I fear more than Dajjaal for my Ummah.” I said: What can be more fearful on your Ummah than Dajjaal?” Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The aimmah mudhilleen.”

The greatest CURSE and PUNISHMENT on this disobedient Ummah of this age are the molvis and sheikhs who are mudhilleen – those who mislead. They lead astray the stupid masses with their zukhruful qawl satanic inspirations – the type of deceptive talk disgorged by Mr. Khan, Reverend Bham and the balance of this vile mob, to justify haraam television inside the Musjid. 

In the latest issue of The Majlis appears a detailed article of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Binnuri (Rahmatullah alayh) in which he explains the  villainy of using haraam methods and haraam media, in particular television, for ‘propagating’ the Deen. In reality only satanism is propagated via haraam methods. Furthermore, using haraam television for a Deeni program, justifying it and sullying the sanctity of the Musjid with Dajjaal’s Eye are tantamount to kufr. Mr. Khan must do some introspection to examine the state of his Imaan. May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the villainy of these evil characters who are worse than Dajjaal.



Recently in the Musjid in the town of Stanger (Natal), some Deeni lessons on the subject of Inheritance were imparted by using a ‘huge’ screen and a projector. The Majlis published an article criticizing this method of teaching inside the Musjid. Some persons defending the program said that:

A projector screen and a projector were used. Animate objects were not displayed. 

Thus, according to them there is no basis for saying that the program was haraam.  

Those defending the display in the Musjid are floundering in confusion because they have not understood the status of a Musjid. It is therefore best to first explain what exactly a Musjid is. Without understanding the status of a Musjid, the arguments presented to justify in the Musjid an activity which may be normally permissible will be superficial and baseless.

According to the Hadith the most beloved places on earth to Allah Ta’ala are the Musaajid whilst the most detested places are the market-places. On the Day of Qiyaamah, all plots of land on which Musaajid were built will be annexed to the land in Jannat.

The primary purpose of the Musjid is IbaadatSalaat, I’tikaaf and silent Thikrullaah in general. The Musjid is described as the House of Allah. It is not permissible to enter the Musjid in the state of janaabat, in fact not even without wudhu. It is not permissible to conduct even a lawful trade transaction in the Musjid, even selling a Qur’aan. Leave alone selling a Qur’aan, it is not permissible to recite the Qur’aan Majeed aloud inside the Musjid when there are Musallis present.

The sanctity of the Musjid is such that in terms of the Hanafi Musjid even Janaazah Salaat may not be performed inside the Musjid proper. The Musjid is the abode for I’tikaaf for which niyyat is essential. Thus a Nafl I’tikaaf is enacted with a niyyat at all times of entry into the Musjid. It is not permissible for those not observing I’tikaaf to eat inside the Musjid.

It is not permissible to take inside the Musjid anything which has an offensive odour. For example, halaal fish which is a wonderful ni’mat of Allah Ta’ala, may not be taken into the Musjid. Similarly, one who has consumed raw garlic and onions, may not immediately enter the Musjid.

A paid Ustaadh may not teach even the Qur’aan Majeed inside the Musjid. It is Allah’s House, hence everything of the dunya is prohibited inside the Musjid regardless of the merit, value, benefit and goodness of the worldly acts and activities. The Musjid is not the venue which befits worldly activities.

It is HARAAM to engage in worldly conversation inside the Musjid. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Speaking in the Musjid consumes good deeds just as cattle consume (and deplete) grass.”

Once when Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) saw some persons engaging in conversation inside the Musjid, he struck them with his shawl and expelled them from the Musjid.

Once when Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) saw two strangers speaking inside the Musjid, he warned them and said that if they had been residents of Madinah, he would have whipped them. But since they were strangers, he sufficed with a verbal warning.

It is not permissible to make announcements about lost items in the Musjid. It is not permissible to sit in the Musjid with legs outstretched towards the Qiblah. In fact this should be avoided even outside the Musjid. It is not permissible to unnecessarily – without valid reason – lean against the Musjid’s walls or while away the time staring at the ceiling. It is not permissible to hang frames or pictures of even Qur’aanic Aayaat or Allah’s Beautiful Names on the walls of the Musjid, the Mihraab wall in particular. Only Bid’atis perpetrate such acts.

From this brief description of the extremely lofty status of the Musjid, it will be clear to sincere and unbiased Muslims that the Musjid is not an ordinary building which may be treated like a hall or a maktab.

What had transpired in the Stanger Musjid has defiled the sanctity of the Musjid in the following ways:

1) The screen and the projector bestowed a cinema atmosphere to the House of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The screen was placed right in front of the Musjid. The Musjid is not the venue for such displays and antics which pillage the sacred atmosphere of the Musjid. The resemblance was with a cinema.

2) There is no difference between the projector and the tv screen. The resemblance is the same.

3) In addition to pictures, there were videos regardless of the fact that animate objects were at this initial stage not displayed. That stage will still come after shaitaan has succeeded in desensitizing Imaani inhibitions and acclimatizing the people to haraam pictography. In this regard, the condition of senior Ulama such as Mufti Taqi and Maulana Rafi Usmani is lamentable. They have drifted so far from Siraatul Mustaqeem that they now deem television and digital pictures of animate objects to be permissible,

This is the scheme of shaitaan. He erodes Imaani inhibition to evil by imperceptible degrees. The fate of shaitaaniyat prevailing at Al-Azhar and all other Arab Madaaris was not an overnight affliction. Shaitaan operates his cunning schemes subtly by degrees.

Displaying even pictures of inanimate objects in the Musjid is haraam. The Musjid is not a secular school classroom. It is not permissible to transform the Musjid atmosphere into an atmosphere which prevails at a school.

4) People were behaving with disrespect in the Musjid. They forgot where they were. The screen and the projector caused their minds to drift perhaps to the cinema or some school building or hall, hence people were talking, making a noise, talking nonsense and leaning against the walls. This information has been passed to us by several musallis who had witnessed the defilement of the Musjid.

5) The subject of Meeraath (Inheritance) is as old as the Qur’aan Majeed. It was taught from the age of the Sahaabah. This Ilm has to be imparted in the Sunnah methodology which has come down to us – down the long corridor of more than 14 centuries. The screen and the projector for teaching Ilm-e-Wahi are haraam Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. It is bereft of barkat.

On the issue of teaching the Deen by means of a screen and projector, the followers of Hadhrat Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (Rahmatullah alayh) will be interested to know what his view was. You will not find it in Fataawa Mahmoodiyyah. He said about the use of the projector to teach Maktab children the Arabic alphabet and reciting Qur’aan: “It totally destroys the mental ability of the child.” Hadhrat Mufti Sahib had made this statement in the house of this writer in the presence of  about 20 persons among them were two NNB jamiat molvis who had brought Hadhrat to Port Elizabeth with an ulterior motive. At that time the NNB jamiat did not exist. It was Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal. We might as well digress and explain the background of Hadhrat’s statement.

This was some decades ago when the Benoni Muslim Jamaat had introduced projectors in their maktabs. We had criticized this departure from the tareeqah of the Akaabireen and Salafus Saaliheen. At the discussion on this issue in Port Elizabeth, the two NNB jamiat molvis were at pains to extract a jawaaz (permissibility) fatwa from Hadhrat Mufti Sahib. They failed, and that was when he made the aforementioned statement. Those who usually cite Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan Sahib to bolster their bid’ah and haraam activities by misinterpreting his statements should  know that he was  against projectors even in Maktabs, leave alone Musaajid.

It is not a matter of only pictures of animate objects not being used. The entire program was highly unbefitting for a Musjid. It was tantamount to sacrilege – defiling the holy atmosphere and sanctity of the Musjid. There is no barkat whatsoever in these kuffaar methods to teach Ilm-e-Wahi. The mubaarak tareeqah of the Salafus Saaliheen is of imperative importance, full of noor and barkat.

A brother mentioned: “In our Musjid we also have two screens at the back that display the salaat times and other relevant information that would be beneficial for our Musallees from a computer.”

These two computer screens at the back of the Musjid, most probably in the Sehn area, are not a basis for justifying the inconsiderate program which was conducted inside the Musjid proper with the big screen right in front at the Qiblah wall.

Firstly, the two computer screens are not a valid Shar’i ma’khath (basis for extracting and basing a ruling). These two small screens themselves are in need of a Shar’i ruling for deciding their status and fate. It is not a daleel for justifying what had transpired inside the Musjid. In fact, it is best to get rid of the two small screens at the back of the Musjid. Even these screens contaminate the Musjid atmosphere.

Besides this, the several other factors explained above contribute to the impermissibility of the big screen and the method of imparting the ta’leem inside the Musjid.





Question #153344 (India)

What do the ‘Ulamaa-e-Deen & Muftiyaan say regarding the following matter,

How is it in the view of the Sharee’ah to video record a Deeni program in a masjid & to upload it on the youtube..?

Published on: Aug 3, 2017

Answer #153344


In the name of ALLAAH, the all Merciful, the ever Merciful

Since video recording comprises of picture-making (photography) & this (photography or picture-making of living beings) being haraam is self-evident (i.e. It’s prohibition is established by nass qat’i (undeniable/absolute proofs) in Sharee’ah).

The abomination of the sin committed inside a Musjid is of an aggravated nature.

Then to upload & transfer it (i.e. video recording of  a Deeni program) onto youtube is also a sin. To keep the Masjid clean & pure from such type of abhorred things (such as photography, videography of living things, etc.) is Waajib.

And only ALLAAH Ta’aalaa knows…

Daarul Iftaa,

Daarul ‘Uloom Deoband