Shaykh Saalih Al-Fowzaan Appears On TV, So Does He Believe Video Recordings Are Permissible?

In the Name of Allaah…

Some people have assumed that since Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, one of today’s leading Islamic scholars, appears on TV, then he must have changed his views on videography (recording video images) and even still photography as well.

The shaykh (may Allaah preserve him) has been approached and asked about this concern more than once. He was asked once:

What is the ruling on videography? And how should we respond to those who say you consider it permissible based on your appearances on TV and on the Majd Channel?

The shaykh replied:

Subhaan Allaah (Glorified be Allaah)! I have allowed this?! Regarding the (TV) appearances, then I have not sought to appear (on TV). Rather, they came out and attended the masjid. They recorded the lecture and the attendees. They are the ones who did that, without seeking permission or consultation. I have not allowed this, nor am I pleased with it for anyone.

They also recorded Ibn Baaz, may Allaah forgive (them), while he was not pleased with it and warned against it. They come to events and gatherings and record, and the images appear on TV. Does this mean that Shaykh Ibn Baaz allowed tasweer (recording images)? In no way whatsoever! He died on the position that images, in all of their various forms, are impermissible.

Source: This Arabic recording with English subtitles.

At another occasion, the shaykh was asked:

Is it true what is said about you – that you have changed your position on the impermissibility of tasweer (image making), based on your (apparent) approval of your recorded lectures appearing on Majd TV Channel and others?

The shaykh replied:

This is corrupt speech. Tasweer is impermissible, and its not for me or anyone else to say to you that it is permissible, since the texts establishing its prohibition are clear, with a clear threat of severe punishment for those who do it, and it is one of the major sins.

I am from those who forbid this tasweer and declare it impermissible, except in situations of necessity.  I have repeated this to you, that it is not permissible except in situations of necessity, like ID cards, drivers’ licenses, and passports. It is allowed in situations of necessity (only). In other circumstances, like for the sake of keeping memories, [an unclear word], trinkets, or decorations hung on the wall, it is impermissible (in these situations). In fact, this is even worse, when someone hangs up a picture, this is even more severely prohibited.

This is what I have said, and this is what I (continue to) say. Anybody who attributes other than this to me is a liar.

Regarding the Majd TV Channel, I have not gone out to them, I have not gone to their studios. Rather, they come to the masjid, they record at the masjid. They even record the prayer at al-Masjid al-Haraam (in Makkah) now, and at the Prophet’s Masjid (in Madeenah). They come to the masjid and record at al-Masjid al-Haraam, and the Prophet’s Masjid.

Source: This Arabic audio from the shaykh’s official website.

We can understand the following things from the shaykh’s words here:

  • He clearly does not allow tasweer, whether it be photography, videography, or any other way of producing images of things with souls.
  • He does not hold it to be allowed for himself or any other scholar to say that any form of tasweer is permissible, except in situations of necessity.
  • He has not willingly cooperated with those who record his lectures, Majd TV or anyone else.
  • He considers people who make unfounded assumptions about his positions without asking him to be liars with corrupt speech.
  • Shaykh Ibn Baaz held the same position, yet people still recorded images of him and spread them.
  • People, especially scholars, are not to be blamed for the sins of others, especially when they actively forbid the very sins being committed.

Are Videos of Islaamic Lectures a Necessity?

Some people assume that conveying Islaam to the people is a necessity that requires the use of video recordings. Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan was asked the following question:

Is the one who records Islaamic lectures and lessons considered someone mentioned in the hadeeth (forbidding tasweer)?

The shaykh (may Allaah preserve him) replied:

Yes, yes he is included. He is included in that. There is no need for tasweer. Islaamic lectures are recorded (audio), listened to, and transcribed. The goal is accomplished without tasweer.

Source: This recorded answer.

Live Saudi TV Programs

What might confuse some people in this issue is that Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan (may Allaah preserve him) appears on some live Saudi TV programs.

It is important to recognize that Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan and other scholars distinguish between recorded video images (tasweer) and live broadcasts which resemble the unrecorded images found in mirrors, which are permissible.

The shaykh was asked:

Is it allowed for preachers and students of knowledge to appear on television, as a situation of necessity?

He responded:

Television is a (live) transmission, a transmission, not a recording that is preserved and remains. Rather, it is just a transmission, like the (live) transmission of the prayer from al-Masjid al-Haraam, the (live) transmission of the prayer from the Prophet’s masjid, or the (live) transmission of the pilgrims on Arafat and other significant Hajj locations. This is a live transmission, they call it: live transmission.

The shaykh was then asked a follow-up question:

Many people use your appearances on TV as proof that you believe tasweer is permissible…

He responded:

I’ve written about this recently. I say: This is not tasweer, rather it is a transmission. It is a live transmission.

Source: This audio file (Arabic)

The shaykh was also asked about when people record those live broadcasts, and replied that the burden of that lies upon the one who makes the recording. This and other statements of the shaykh about tasweer, live broadcasts, and other related issues can be found in this thread (Arabic) on the Sahab Discussion Forum.

Further Elaboration on Videography

For more information and a more detailed discussion about the prohibition of tasweer, and why recorded video images are impermissible, listen to this (at the 25 minute mark).

And Allaah knows best.

Written by: Moosaa Richardson

73 thoughts on “Shaykh Saalih Al-Fowzaan Appears On TV, So Does He Believe Video Recordings Are Permissible?

  1. Sheikh Bin Baz and Sheikh Abdul-Razzaq `Afify [allegedly] said:

    “It is permissible to record the lectures and seminars on video tapes to broadcast them again for more benefit when necessary.”
    http://alifta.com/Fatawa/FatawaDetails.aspx?languagename=ar&View=Page&PageID=10347&PageNo=1&BookID=3

    Sheikh Bin Baz also [allegedly] said:

    “However, if what the questioner means is to explain how to wash the deceased in the manner prescribed by Allah on a video tape which is to be distributed and sold, then there is nothing wrong with that just as recordings may be made to teach people how to offer Salah (Prayer) and other things which people need but without taking photos”.

    If Sheikh Bin Baz was against recording videos, how would you reconcile that with what he said above? [question abridged by admin]

    • The first fatwa quoted has been misunderstood. It was likely very old before the word “video” became commonly used in Arabic. The question asks about a “device” called a ( الفيديو تيب ) “videotape” that is used to relay and record lectures. There is NO MENTION in the question that the device records images, rather it was understood to be a device used to record audio and broadcast it. This becomes crystal clear since both shaykhs (Ibn Baaz and ‘Afeefee) gave clear verdicts on the impermissibility of videography. Also, the end of the fatwaa mentions that the device has no ruling on it as a device, but only what it is used for. It is clear to me that they understood it was an audio recording device. And again, this was before the term video had become commonly used.

      The second fatwaa mentions clearly without tasweer, which was translated as “without taking photos” which is a bit confusing. The intended meaning is to use the video recorder without capturing images of people.

      Shaykh Ibn Baaz was not known to have ever allowed photography or videography (except in cases of dire necessity, like ID). And Allaah knows best.

  2. JazakAllaahu khayr for the beneficial article.

    Is it permissible to view and take benefit from the existing video recordings made by other people?

    As the Shaykh mentioned, the burden of sin lies on the one who made the recording.

    Is the one watching the recording also sinning?

  3. Salam Alaykum,

    I’m a little confused, the shaykh (May Allah preserve him) allows live broadcast, but from what I understand even the live broadcast can be saved and latter viewed, please clarify.

    • wa ‘alayk as-salaam wa rahmatullah. Perhaps you missed this in the last part of the article: “The shaykh was also asked about when people record those live broadcasts, and replied that the burden of that lies upon the one who makes the recording…”

  4. BaarakAllaahu feekum.

    I’ve just noticed that the Shaykh’s (may Allaah preserve him) official website has a link to a youtube channel containing recordings of live TV transmissions.
    Whoever is maintaining this youtube channel must be advised because the Shaykh neither approves nor is he pleased with these recordings.

  5. As-Salaamu alaykum,

    May Allah reward you for your efforts in maintaining this site and compiling these rulings.

    [1] I was wondering, if a person makes a photo of a living being, and they repent for it, will Allah forgive them?

    [2] What if one takes a photo, not knowing until they review it later that there was a person, and they immediately crop or delete the image? Is it blameworthy?

    [3] And lastly, and please forgive me if it’s too many questions, what if one takes a photo out of a sense of need of something (but maybe it is not as serious as necessity – I have had this happen to me, as strange as it may seem), and there is a person on the side, or enters the picture by mistake, etc.?

    May Allah reward you with the good of this life and of the hereafter, jazakallahu khayran.

    Was-Salaamu alaykum,
    -Michael

    • wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullah.

      [1] Allaah forgives all sins, including even shirk, the greatet of all sins, for those who repent earnestly. ( Verily Allaah forgives all sins ) [Meaning of Quran 39:53]

      [2] If a person was taking photos of landscape or something, and then he accidentally took a picture of a person, then we are excused from what we do unintentionally, so long as there was no negligence. Deleting the living beings from the picture afterwards is sufficient.

      [3] When a photo of a living being is taken out of necessity, then only the least number of pictures may be produced, only to fulfill the necessity, like mandatory ID, etc. I don’t know how an ID photo has people walking behind or around it and they get in the picture…! Anyway, if it they were mistakenly photographed, then remove them from the picture that you need. And Allaah knows best.

  6. Assalaamu alaikum,

    Is it then permissible to watch things on tv which have been pre-recorded for example highlights of football matches or documentaries?

    JazakAllah Khair

  7. open a store for sales islamic videos/ shaik ibn baaz gives fatwa

    ple correct opinion about recording islamic videos?
    who says haram recording videos? tell thier names ?

  8. Distinguish between fatwaas about appearing on TV and ones specifically allowing recorded video images, especially since many of the scholars allow live video broadcasting but do not allow recorded video. I think people get confused when they do not pay attention to this point. Many people delve into this issue and think that since they have seen a YouTube video of Shaykh So-and-So, he must have declared video recording permissible! This is spreading misinformation and confusion, and it is a clear example of why uneducated people are not to speak on matters of halaal and haraam.

    Listing the Names of Scholars, Research vs. Blind Following: While many scholars do/did not allow video recordings like Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad, Shaykh Al-Albaanee, Shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi’ee, Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, Shaykh Rabee’ al-Madkhalee, and many others, the issue is not about how many names of scholars we can mention. When there is differing over an issue among the scholars the obligation on someone capable of research is to return back to the relative evidences in the Book and the Sunnah. [See Quran 4:59] Someone unable to research or reach his own opinion takes the statement of a qualified scholar that he trusts. [See Quran 16:43] The latter is a blind follower who is not qualified to teach others about the correct position. And Allaah knows best.

    Remember the important principle in Islaam about staying away from the “grey areas” of controversial issues – Abandon the doubtful matters (that people differ about), and keep your honor and your Religion safe! [Review this important discussion.]

  9. As-Salaamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu,

    Jazakallahu khayran and may Allah be pleased with your efforts to inform and advise us in these matters.

    Tangentially related to this article, and something that has been perplexing me, is whether or not it is okay to buy and/or sell children’s books with either drawings or photos of people, animals, etc., or buy and/or sell dolls, figurines, etc. (with faces all). A common justification I hear for all of the above being permissible is that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is reported to have had a doll in the presence of Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him) while she was a child, and it was acceptable.

    Could you please clarify this important matter?
    Jazakallahu khayran.

    • wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. While the issue is one of differing, it seems that the majority of the scholars understood ‘Aa’ishah’s dolls, her horse with wings, and the dolls of the Companions that they made for their children for the days of Ramdhaan to have been actual images, but exempted from the prohibition. This was discussed in detail in a series of classes I gave in Toronto in 1428, in parts 3 and 4 of this lecture series: 30 Hadeeth on Raising Children. And Allaah knows best.

      • Jazakallahu khayran for beneficial advice and audios for raising children,
        Akhee the link for 30 hadeeth on raising children only contain 1st and 2nd lectures, the other lectures are not available. I had checked the troid store they arent available for sale also, so can you please contact with the brothers at troid to make the other parts of series available for download.
        May Allah reward you generously and but baraakah in your efforts,

      • سلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
        Just a reminder بارك الله فيك

        Of the post written below by our sister that these audios aren’t available can you assist us in acquiring these جزاكم الله خيرا

  10. Salaam alaikum,

    I understood the comparison that is made with a mirror, yet I’m still a bit confused because it seems to me that even live video is a way of making an image; the only difference is that it is not actually recorded. Like you’re making an image, but remove it right away. I realize that I don’t have enough knowledge about technology as well as the usool of fiqh, that’s why I was wondering if you could maybe give me more insight on this? The different aqwaal from the scholars..?

    • wa ‘alaykas-salaam wa rahmatullaah. Consider looking at an object through a mirror, then consider looking at the same object through a live feed. What you see is the same, and no image is being made, preserved, or captured. Once you begin recording, however, the images are being frozen or captured in frames, one-by-one. That is when it becomes tasweer. And Allaah knows best. As for gathering the statements of the scholars on this specific point, then this is something I may be able to do in the future, in shaa’ Allaah. And Allaah knows best.

  11. I had another question which I am struggling with; what is the ruling on looking at images? I live for example with a mother who is a disbeliever and when I want to sit with her in the living room she watches tv most of the time. The same with watching a video of the shayg. Is it okay for me to watch fataawaa alaa lhawaa? Because by watching it, it feels like I’m bringing images in my home.

  12. Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu.

    Jazaaka Allahu khayran, akhi Moosa.

    The question that this post addresses had been going around in my head lately, and the shaykh has explained it in a way I hadn’t thought about before – may Allah preserve him. Would it be fair to extend this ruling to using tools like video conferencing, video calling, skype, and other similar software that transmit images in real-time (as long as what they are being used for is permissible – like showing your baby to your parents who live far away – and aren’t being recorded)?

    ma`assalaam

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. I cannot speak on behalf of the shaykh. As for myself, I understand a purely live video feed to have the same ruling as a mirror, an image that is not recorded or preserved in any way. Once the image is delayed, then it is being preserved and reproduced, and it becomes tasweer. So when a person is sure that his video conference is live and not recorded, then it has the ruling of a mirror, its permissible, and Allaah knows best.

    • It is important to mention that if you know that someone will be doing screen-captures of the live stream, IF you know that will most likely happen, then using live video should be avoided. This is a common concern when showing babies on skype, and Allaah knows best.

  13. Assalamu alaykum. Akhi I wanted to listen to you’re lecture on the dolls of aisha, but its not available for some reason.
    A brother mentioned to me that shaykh albanee mentions that videography is permissible in cases such as when it brings benefit to the ummah and other cases. (He uses evidence of the hadiths of the dolls and Allahu a’lam) Due to my ability, I am unable to view this. So if you know anything, can you let me know. JazakAllahu khayran.

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullah. I recall the shaykh being unsure if it could be allowed, while he said it is NOT allowed to appear on (recorded) TV programs. I think that was in a footnote to Aadaab az-Zafaaf, I’ll try to locate it, in shaa’ Allaah.

      • Regarding two hadeeths describing the dolls the Companions’ children collected by Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, Al-Albaanee said: “These two hadeeths prove the permissibility of making images and keeping them when that includes an educational benefit which refines character, provides culture, and educates. Included within this would be every kind of image and image-making that benefits Islaam and the Muslims. What is not included in this remains upon the base ruling – impermissibility – like, images of the shaykhs, leaders, friends, etc. which have no benefit. Moreover, they include imitating the disbelieving idol-worshippers, and Allaah knows best.” [Aadaab az-Zafaaf, p.196, footnote, Ma’aarif printing, 1423]

        • NOTE: “Shaykhs not being allowed to appear on TV” was my understanding of his position on tasweer (image-making) of mashaayikh not being exempted from the prohibition. After review, he did not state that as specifically as I originally attributed to him (may Allaah have Mercy on him).

        • Assalaamu alaykum. This is an issue we take very seriously in our home to the extent that we keep unavoidable things like childrens’ books with pictures either in the house with the heads coloured out or stickered out, or keep them outside the house in a box. But reading this fatwa from the shaykh – rahimahu Allahu – it seems there is a difference in opinion between the ulamaa regarding pictures in educational material. So how do we (or more precisely more qualified people like yourself akhi Moosa, on our behalf, at least), decide which opinion is more correct? If this opinion is more correct, it would certainly make our lives a lot easier… Baaraka Allahu feek.

          • It’s ok akh, I think I found the answer. It’s a doubtful matter so best to keep away… hayyaka Allahu.

  14. If you were not aware of the prohibition before but you have destroyed all images you own, lakin friends of yours have images of yours, is it obligatory to ask them to delete these images or is it their sin? And if they would like to show your image to a female for the purpose of marriage (a suitors family member) then are they to be stopped from this?

    BarakAllahu feek.

    • Also, brother Moosa Richardson- may Allaah preserve- my mother just wont allow be to destroy my childhood photographs and Idid tell her my intentions ti which she said she would kill me if I did so. And I knw my mother she gets angry easily and she would threathen me to leave. What shall I do?

  15. as-salāmu ‘alaykoum waa Rahmatullāhi waa Barakātuh,

    Here is the transcription for the audio above:

    http://troid.ca/index.php/forum/audios-and-transcriptions/2284-moosaa-richardson-photography-and-videography

    Extract from the lecture:

    “Videography to this day with all of the advances and all of the new equipment it is still photography that moves the images one by one. Are you clear on that? Video contains frames no matter whether you say it’s digital video or it is an old fashioned video camera on film and all of that and every video has frames. Every one of those frames is an image, is a still image, captured that did not exist until the picture maker took it.”

    A must listen/read, it’s explained thoroughly, may Allāh have Mercy on you both and us all, Āmīn.

    BārakaAllāhu fīkoum

  16. Assalaamu alaykum,

    I understand taking videos is impermissible.

    Does this mean watching videos is haraam too? For example, crochet tutorials or recipe tutorials? And for children, especially homeschooled children, do we prevent them from watching recorded classes of maths and science?

  17. Assalamu alaykum,
    [1] How can you argue that watching live videos is Halal when in reality the light is still being converted into digital signals and transmitted. Surely the conversion is still taking place so it is Haram?
    [2] And also, what do you respond to the one who says their ikhtilaf since there are some knowledgeable people who argue that all it is is 1 and 0 as binary code and that it is instant etc and that it IsnT being worshipped like an idol and that a computer image isn’t a real image because it isn’t physical. It is just light.

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. [1] To keep the matter simple, live video feed (not video recording) simply resembles a mirror more than it resembles image-making, and Allaah knows best.

      [2] As for your second question, I would respond: Where is the proof to exempt images made of light (or digital codes) from the ruling on tasweer (image-making)? If someone claimed that images made with green paint are exempted from the prohibition, we would surely need a proof for this green paint. So the same applies for light, screen pixels, and digital codes. Images are images, and anyone who wishes to exempt a certain image (of something with a soul) because of what it is made of is required to establish this exception with proof from Allaah and His Messenger (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace). Without proof, he should not be shocked that the Muslims reject that from him. And Allaah knows best.

  18. Assalamu alaykum,
    You know that defacing an image means it is okay to keep? So what is seen as defacing it? I always thought it was removing the head due to the Hadith… [message abridged by admin].

    • Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. In the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him), he relayed from the Prophet (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace): (( الصورة الرأس، فإذا قطع الرأس، فلا صورة )) “The soorah (impermissible image) is the head, so when the head is cut off (i.e. detached, removed), no soorah (impermissible image) remains.” It was collected by al-Ismaa’eelee in his Mu’jam and others. It was authenticated by Al-Albaanee in Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (no.1921), and he added that drawing a line through the neck in pictures (as endorsed by some) is not enough, rather the entire head must be completely removed.

      This is a hadeeth from our Messenger (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace), along with a clarification from one of the top scholars in hadeeth about its proper application. Based on this, putting sunglasses on people (!) or simply blocking out their eyes is not sufficient. And Allaah knows best.

      • Assalaamu aleikoum warahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu ya Ustaadh!

        I had a question regarding your reply. I do understand taking images (with a head) is imperissible, so I do not do that. But because of the sentence “… rather the entire head must be completely removed.” I wanted to ask if it is okay to first take the picture and afterwards you remove the heads?

        Is this okay or should I continue not making images of the head like I used to do.

        Baarakkallaahou feek

        • Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. Making an image of something with a soul in the first place is an act of disobedience. Repentance includes destroying the picture by removing the head. And Allaah knows best.

          • Baarakallaahou feek. I have deleted all the pictures with a head.
            I had another question regarding this issue. I see a lot of sisters making pictures untill their lips. So you only see their lips (they do think photography is impermissible). So this is also not allowed?

            Jazaakallaahou khayran

  19. Assalamu alaykum,
    The other argument I have heard is that the photograph is not an imitation of a being. It is simply the actual situation… [comment abridged by admin]

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. Yes, this is a line of argument used by those who try to exempt photography from the prohibition of image making. It is a frail argument which does not stand up to criticism well at all. It is certainly not similar to a mirror, as a mirror is not frozen, but it is what exists right now. In photographers’ terms, the action of taking a picture is called tasweer, the photographer is called a musawwir, and the resulting picture is called a soorah. Their own terminology refutes their attempts to legitimize their actions. The “mirror” argument is false qiyaas, the “no hand involved” argument is baseless, and the “not imitating the creation” argument is self-contradictory. It can be said to them: If you are not imitating the creation, then stop making images of things with souls. And Allaah knows best. This is just a brief dismissal of the argument, not meant to be detailed.

        • Wa ‘alaykas-salaam. The response is that image-making has been forbidden. There is no basis to say that someone who perfects the act of making an image so that it is exactly like the original is now exempted from the prohibition. In fact, some photographers capture the scene poorly, and some artists can hand-draw a situation and make it look more realistic. No one would say if a painter can paint a perfect image (of something with a soul) that is exactly what took place that his image would then become permissible. Its absurd. So this line of argument goes absolutely nowhere. And Allaah knows best.

  20. Shaykh Muḥammad Nāṣiruddīn al-Albānī, may Allāh have mercy on him, said:

    “Some of them differentiate between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that the latter are not products of human effort, and that no more is involved than the mere capturing of the image. This is what they claim. The tremendous energy invested the one who invented this machine that can do in few seconds what otherwise could not be done in hours does not count as human effort, according to these people! Pointing the camera, focusing it, and taking the picture, preceded by installation of the film and followed by developing and whatever else that I may not know about… none of this is the result of human effort, according to them!

    Some of them explain how this photography is done, and summarise that no less than eleven different actions are involved in the making of a picture. In spite of all this, they say that this picture is not the result of human action! Can it be permissible to hang up a picture of a man, for example, if it is produced by photography, but not if it is drawn by hand?

    Those who say that photography is permitted have “frozen” the meaning of the word “taswīr,” restriciting it only to the meaning known at the time of the Prophet (may Allāh raise his ranks and grant him peace) and not adding the meaning of photography, which is “taswīr” or “picture-making” in every sense – linguistic, legal, and in its harmful effects, and as is clear from the definition mentioned above.

    Years ago, I said to one of them, by the same token, you could allow idols which have not been carved but have been made by pressing a button on some machine that turns out idols by the dozen. What do you say to that?”

    [Ādāb al-Zafāf by Shaykh Muḥammad Nāṣiruddīn al-Albānī, p. 38]

    • Shaykh Al-Albaanee (may Allaah have mercy on him) responded in an excellent manner, leaving no way to respond for those who wish to exempt photography from the prohibition, may Allaah have Mercy on him. Jazaak Allaahu khayran for sharing this.

  21. As’ salaaamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabaraktu .
    I know that you have written enormous amount of work regarding shiekh salih f awzaan on live transmissions.
    However I was told that those are old and this is his new fatwa. http://www.sahab.net/forums/?showtopic=125720
    I don’t read Arabic and I was wondering if you could translate it.
    Jazakallahukhayran brother

    • Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. Those are not new. They are the same ones I referenced in the article above. Whoever gave that to you, what exactly do they think is the “new” position which I have not covered above?

  22. Assalamu alaykum
    [One of the scholars] permitted the use of digital images in one of his fatawa claiming that it isn’t the same as physical photography on paper and that there is no ruling on these images therefore.
    Furthermore, if we take the ruling that it is Haram hese images, then what is the Haram act? Simply taking the image itself or displaying it? Because when you tke he image it is just signals but when you display it is physical.

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaam. The making of images of things with souls is strictly prohibited by the clear texts from the Prophet (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace). Both the process of making the image, as well as the keeping of such an image, are impermissible. Digital images are still images, and there is no proof to exempt them from the general rulings on images. And Allaah knows best.

  23. As-Salaamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu,

    I am hoping you might be able to clarify a point that I may be misunderstanding.

    Is image-making a form of shirk? or is it a lesser sin than shirk?

    I have mentally put photography in the gray areas associated with shirk and have avoided it due to the severe warning in the hadeeth. But recently, someone commented to me that if image-making were a form of shirk, how could the people of knowledge claim an exception for necessity? So I’m wondering if I have categorized image-making incorrectly, and it’s a sin lesser than shirk, and not a form of shirk?

    Please help me to correctly understand the severity of the sin.
    Jazakallahu khayran.

    • Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. The normal production of an image of something with a soul is a very serious major sin, but not shirk. The scholars mention that it is a pathway that leads to shirk, based on the story mentioned by Ibn ‘Abbaas, which includes that the first time someone besides Allaah was worshipped on earth was through statues constructed before the advent of Nooh (Noah). Furthermore, It could reach the level of shirk in some cases where a person attempts to rival Allaah’s status as the Creator. And Allaah knows best.

  24. Jazaaka-Allahu khairan! To add a small benefit, most of the pictures of the internet of Imam Ibn Baz, Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaikh Fawzan, and others come from videos that were recorded. So when a person permits people to video record himself or herself, he or she is giving people the opportunity to produce a still image or picture.

    • Well, a video recording is -in reality- just a series of still frames played in succession, tricking the eye into seeing a moving image. This is why those who claim there is a difference between photography and videography do not have a leg to stand on. And Allaah knows best.

      • Akhi Moosaa, you mentioned:
        “Well, a video rec rding is -in reality- just a series of still frames played in succession, tricking the eye into seeing a moving image. This is why those who claim there is a difference between photography and videography do not have a leg to stand on.”
        By the same token, can’t we say LIVE recordings are still in reality a series of still images in rapid succession tricking the eye into seeing a moving image as well? And thus we can say scholars who permit LIVE recordings also have no leg to stand on?

        • Absolutely. You used the word “live recordings” so you are talking about recorded images. Again, make the distinction between live broadcast (no recording made) and recorded video.

          My shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ ibn Haadee, expressed that he is not pleased with live video feed, and he does not allow it. However, the article above is about al-‘Allaamah al-Fowzaan’s position on the issue. And Allaah knows best.

          • Jazak Allahu khairan brother. I made a mistake using the term ‘live recording’ instead of ‘live broadcast’ But the point i was trying to make was, the ‘illah you used to say videos are not permissible is the fact that they are in reality many still images put together. The same ‘illah would apply to live broadcast, correct? Also, live broadcast is technically not live — there will always be a short delay in transmission, so does this have any effect?

          • I understand your point of concern. As mentioned earlier in the comments, to keep it simple: Live video feed just resembles a mirror more than it resembles image making. Applying the term “still images” to live recordings is still problematic, as it relates to terms. If you believe there are “still images” involved, that means it is impermissible image making. And Allaah knows best.

          • Assalamu alaykum. What of the view that Shaykh ######### took? [message truncated by admin]

          • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. Discussed previously in the comments. It can be observed that, Mohammed, you seem to be trying to make Islam very difficult for yourself (and others by posting certain comments publicly). The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) said:

            إِنَّ الدِّينَ يُسْرٌ، وَلَنْ يُشَادَّ الدِّينَ أَحَدٌ إِلَّا غَلَبَهُ
            “Verily the Deen is ease, and no one tries to make the Deen difficult (or overburdening) except that it overtakes him.”
            (Saheeh al-Bukhaaree)

  25. As-salaamu ‘alayka wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh, ustaadh.

    Is it permissible to build a snowman (with children)? Or should we build one without a head?

    Jazaakumallaahu khayraa.

  26. Assalamu alaikum,

    What is the difference between live telecast and recordings? Why only recordings are prohibited? [Message truncated by admin]

    • Wa ‘alaykas-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. Live telecasts, or live video broadcasts of any type, are similar to mirrors – the image you are seeing is happening right now, like you would see in a mirror. No image is being captured and stored. Recorded images are the opposite, forbidden tasweer (image creation). And Allaah knows best.

  27. what is the fathwa of shaikh Albani,ibn baz and salih ibn uthaimeen about live vedio? please rply me soon as possible

  28. Assalaamu’alaykum..

    Ustaadh, I got an interview call wherein I’m expected to be part of a video recording. It isn’t live. Questions will be posed to me and I will be facing the webcam answering them. I and what I say will be recorded. Can I take part in this video recording for the sake of getting a job? Please respond at the earliest.

    • Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. My advice: Set the pace early in all business relationships: I am a Muslim. I am worried about what pleases my Lord. This means I am religiously bound to be honest and committed. It also means there are certain things I may object to religiously and cannot be part of.

      In this case: so please understand my religious objection to the video-recorded interview, and I thank you for your respect for my religious beliefs. And Allaah knows best.

  29. Assalaamu’alaykum..

    Ustaadh, I just wanted to point something..in this thread, you have mentioned elsewhere,

    “..Wa ‘alayk as-salaamu wa rahmatullaah. In the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him), he relayed from the Prophet (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace): (( الصورة الرأس، فإذا قطع الرأس، فلا صورة )) “The soorah (impermissible image) is the head, so when the head is cut off (i.e. detached, removed), no soorah (impermissible image) remains.” It was collected by al-Ismaa’eelee in his Mu’jam and others. It was authenticated by Al-Albaanee in Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (no.1921), and he added that drawing a line through the neck in pictures (as endorsed by some) is not enough, rather the entire head must be completely removed.

    This is a hadeeth from our Messenger (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him peace), along with a clarification from one of the top scholars in hadeeth about its proper application. Based on this, putting sunglasses on people (!) or simply blocking out their eyes is not sufficient. And Allaah knows best.”

    So what I understood from what you have written is that the entire head must be completely removed. Please correct me if I’m wrong. However, in the twitter status https://mobile.twitter.com/1MMeducation/status/677132238341935104/photo/1,
    You didn’t remove Nouman Ali’s head completely. In fact, one of his ears (almost completely), his lips (almost completely) and his nose (partially) is visible. Have you changed your opinion that the head should be removed completely?

    • You are correct, the lower part of the head should have been removed as well, for the safest usage of that image, and Allaah knows best. Jazaak Allaahu khayran.

      • As salaamu alaykum what about watching videos. Like lectures that were recorded .or Videos of Arabic lessons on youtube that were recorded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.