The following example of a Fatwa is fully derived from, based on, and in complete conformity with the absurd, incongruous, and illogical Fatwas on Tasweer (image/picture-making) issued by Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb and Hadhrat Mufti Rafi Saheb – henceforth referred to as the ‘venerable Muftiyayn’. It is NOT to be implemented regardless of the countless “Maulanas” and “Muftis” today who may have adopted a position similarly incongruous to this Fatwa. It is purely for illustration purposes:

Q. I have a couple of cushions, in my house, on which are a few innocent, decorative pictures of animals. Is this permissible? I have seen many people, even scholars, having photographs and paintings displayed in their house. Also, I have plastered every single wall of my house with plasma screens displaying live and recorded images of humans and animal wildlife. Is this permissible? Will the angels of mercy be able to enter my house?

A. According to authentic Ahadith, the authors of a few decorative pictures of animate beings on a cushion will be subjected to the most severe of torments reserved for the Musawwiroon. Those who make use of such pictures will face a similar fate. This ruling applies to ALL pictures regardless of the means or technology employed in the past, today, or in the future, to produce such pictures. Thus, photographs and photographers carry the exact same ruling. Your use of the word “innocent” for those innocent pictures is wholly erroneous. In the Shari’ah there is no such thing as an innocent picture of animate object. ALL pictures of animate objects are evil. This has been the authoritative position of the Fuqaha (jurists) of the Ummah for the first 1000 years of this Ummah, prior to its monumental decline. And, this is our position too.

We advise you strongly not to risk your fate in the Aakhirah, and to dispose of the cushions with extreme urgency. The severity and the gravity of the matter cannot be emphasized enough. Only Allah Ta’ala decrees what is Halaal and Haraam, and what is Evil and Good. The Deen is not a trivial matter to be treated lightly. Your regard or disregard for the sacred prohibitions of Allah will ultimately determine your eternal fate in the Aakhirah.

The many people and scholars you have come across who display pictures, photographs and paintings in the house – a fact which people tend to resort to as a Daleel to soothe their guilty consciences – is not a sign of the truth. On the contrary, in many authentic Ahadith it is stated that the true teachings of the Deen will eventually become Ghareeb (extremely lone, forlorn, strange), and that the scholars will Halaalize what Allah Ta’ala has made Haraam. More than 50 years ago, Hazrat Mufti Shafi’ (rahmatullah alayh), in his lament regarding the Halaalizers of photographs in his age, stated that this inevitable materialisation of such prophecies was well in motion in his age. Thus, with more than half a century of further degeneration and decay of this Ummah since that time, one can understand the lamentable state of the scholars of this era.

Therefore, do not pay any attention to the great numbers of people and even scholars who, according to the prophecies of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), will transgress more and more of Allah’s Sacred Shariah, as we inevitably approach closer to the end of times.  

As for all those images of humans and animals displayed on your plasma screens plastered to every single floor, wall, and ceiling of your house, they are permissible. They are, in actual fact, all fake, fraudulent, imaginary and hallucinatory Suwar (images/pictures). While the Divine Shari’ah has decreed that each and every type of Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects is a grave and fatal evil, regardless of  whether the Suwar (images/pictures) are created through paint, pens, cameras, or through any other means or technology invented by man, the Divine Shari’ah has failed to take into account explicitly these special type of fake, fraudulent, imaginary and hallucinatory Suwar which are vividly visible on your plasma screens.

Thus, since the Asl (original) ruling for all harmless things is permissibility according to only some Ulama, we have been helplessly compelled to declare such Fake Suwar as Halaal, because the quantity and quality of images/pictures of Shirk, Kufr, Faahishah (obscenities), and other abominations conveyed by this uniquely powerful form of fake and fraudulent Suwar into the furthest reaches of the world are not sufficient to render it into the harmful category – yet.

We are 100% certain that all those Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects displayed on your plasma screens are fake, fraudulent, and hallucinatory Suwar because it is only with 100% certitude that we could have had the audacity to risk our own Aakhirah, and of countless others, by opening the doors to a form of Fake Tasweer (image/picture-making) which has been infinitely more potent than even all the other real forms of Tasweer in causing the unprecedentedly rapid proliferation throughout the world of Fake Suwar (images/pictures) of Kufr, Shirk, Faahishah (obscenities), and every other conceivable “illat” that might have been the basis for the severe prohibition of a few simple Suwar on some curtains of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) during an age and society of such widespread piety and spiritual purity which precluded even the slightest chance of those simple Suwar on some curtains ever luring the most blessed of generations into Kufr, Shirk, and Faahishah.

On Yaumul Qiyamah, you will be able to make a special plea to the angels of punishment of Jahannum, that those Suwar (images/pictures) displayed on your plasma screens were not really Suwar (image/pictures), because Mufti Taqi Saheb and Mufti Rafi Saheb issued completely Daleel-barren Fatwas saying so, and droves of Muftis, who are all perfect manifestations of Rasulullah’s prophecies regarding the state of the Ulama near the end of times, also said so, all of them simply regurgitating each other’s Fatwas in order to rapidly multiply the numbers of Ulama upholding this extremely unique (Ghareeb) notion that the Suwar (images/pictures) which you clearly see on your plasma screens are not really Suwar at all – a notion so radically unique that it has even escaped the attention and grasp of even the Kuffaar experts who invented digital technology.

In regards to ensuring that the angels of mercy have free entry and access to your house, we advise you to get rid of your cushions with immediate effect, and then, insha-Allah, with 100% certitude we can assure you that the very same angels of mercy who were completely unable to enter the most blessed of households due to a few Suwar on some cushions or curtains, will suddenly be able to roam freely around your whole house. This is because the angels of mercy too, like us, will regard all those Suwar on your plasma screens as fake, fraudulent, imaginary and hallucinatory Suwar. Hopefully.

And Allah knows best.


Although it is manifestly clear to even a village rustic, an intellectually challenged retard, or even an intelligent toddler, that the second half of the Fatwa above regarding plasma screens is a grave Baatil (falsehood) which is Haraam to follow, we shall demonstrate – within a few short paragraphs – that the “Daleel” which the venerable Muftiyayn (Mufti Taqi Saheb and Mufti Rafi Saheb) employs to peddle the ridiculous notion that plasma-screen Suwar (images/pictures) are not really Suwar, is even more absurd than the Baatil in the Fatwa above, and collapses under the simplest and briefest of scrutiny.

First, let us make this clear for all those who are willing to risk their fate in the Aakhirah for the sake of the extremely short-lived and fleeting attractions (and addictions) of this ephemeral Dunya:

In light of the conspicuousness of the incongruity and nonsensical inconsistency of the Fatwa above, which is in full conformity with the Fatwas of the venerable Muftiyayn, and in light of the completely barren nature of the Fatwas of the venerable Muftiyayn in terms of proper Shari’ Daleel, it is not at all far-fetched to aver that on Yaum ul-Qiyamah, all those who follow such Fatwas Halaalizing Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects on their plasma screens, computer screens, phones, or any other man-made device and technology, will find out to their horror that their state is no different to those today who follow Fatwas Halaalizing digitally produced music.

Their category will be no different to those today who follow Fatwas Halaalizing alcoholic beverages, based on the fact that the alcohol is produced artificially in laboratories, instead of being fermented naturally.

Their category will be no different to those today who follow Fatwas Halaalizing Riba (interest) based on Riba transactions being camouflaged with Islamic terminology. 

Etc. etc. etc.

All those who follow such Fatwas whose spuriousness can be easily determined even by the simple layman, provided he is sincerely and genuinely seeking the truth and not what he desperately wishes the truth to be (i.e. his Nafs), will fall under the purview of the verse:

“They take their ahbaar (molvies) and ruhbaan (buzrugs) as gods besides Allah…”.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), explaining how the Bani Israeel, who were the Muslims of that time, took their Ruhbaan and Ahbaar (i.e. senior “Muftis”, “Maulanas”, “Shaykhs”, etc.) as gods besides Allah, stated:

“…when they (i.e. senior “Muftis” and “Shaykhs”) Halaalized  something for them, they (i.e. the Muslim masses) considered it Halaal…”

ALL of these legalizers of what Allah has made explicitly Haraam fall squarely under the purview of the numerous prophecies of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding the lamentable state of the Ulama near the end of times, including the following authentic Hadith related by the august father of the venerable Muftiyayn, Hadhrat Mufti Shafi (rahmatullahi alayh), in his lament regarding the Ahbaar and Ruhbaan of this Ummah – a lament which also applies directly to his two sons:

“In the Saheeh Hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘In my Ummah there will be people who will change the name of liquor and consume it. They will publicly engage in music and singing. Allah Ta’ala will cause the earth to swallow them. He will transform some of them into apes and swines.’ ”

Today the Ummah has not restricted this (changing of names to legalize prohibitions) to liquor, but they have extended it to other haraam acts as well. Prohibitions of the Shariah are painted in the hues of modernity, given other names and adopted without hesitation. They labour under the notion that by this stratagem they have escaped Divine apprehension. If these people reflect a bit, they will understand that instead of one sin, they have compounded it with another sin. One is the sin of committing the prohibited act, and the second sin is the elimination of all regret and abstention from repentance.

Liquor is given fanciful names and legalized. Pictures are called photos and considered to be halaal. Ancient kinds of musical instruments are replaced by modern instruments which are said to be lawful. Riba is termed profit (dividend, etc.) and legalized. Bribery is described as a service charge and considered lawful.

“The complaint is lodged with Allah. There is no strength and no power but with Allah, The High, The Mighty.”


From all the major crimes and transgressions of Allah’s sacred Law (Shari’ah) such as murder, adultery, usury, etc.  for which Jahannum will show no mercy on the Day of Judgement, amongst the most terrible and prolonged torment will be reserved for the Musawwiroon – those who create pictures/images (Suwar) of animate objects.

Regarding the abominable evil of Musawwiroon and all man-made Suwar (pictures/images) of animate objects, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb, in his Fath-ul-Mulhim, narrates the clear-cut and unambiguous words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which he (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) directed at a few “innocent” decorative pictures drawn on some curtains, which highlights the impending terror that is set to haunt countless people in the life to come tomorrow, for recklessly and needlessly disregarding Allah’s Sacred Bounds:

“Verily, of the most grievously tormented people on the Day of Judgement are the Musawwiroon (those who create images of animate objects).” [Saheeh Bukhari]

In another authentic Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) declares that the authors of a few “innocent” decorative pictures found on some cushions, will be subjected to the terrible and enduring punishment of the Hereafter:

“The authors of these images (Suwar) will be punished on the Day of Qiyaamah and it will be said to them, ‘instil life into what you have created’. And he (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, “Indeed, the angels do not enter the house in which there are images (i.e. man-made images of animate objects).”” [Saheeh Bukhari]

Modernists who attempt to hinge the permissibility or impermissibility of pictures of animate objects on some “illat” (cause) fabricated purely by their intellects-cum-nafs should take note that these “innocent” decorative pictures on some cushions carried not even the slightest semblance of a risk of leading to Shirk or Faahishah (obscenity) in an age and society in which such evils had been obliterated to a level of non-existence that will never ever be witnessed by this Ummah again.

Contrast Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) declaration of the severe punishment of the Hereafter for a few pictures on some cushions that posed no actual threat to Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) blessed household, with the real, actual, and unprecedented damage wrought by Tasweer (image/picture-making) in this age in which pictures of animate objects, primarily of the DIGITAL kind, have been, and continues to be the most powerful impetus and means for the rapid propagation of images of Shirk, Kufr, Faahishah (obscenities), and every abomination conceivable throughout the Muslim world.

In fact, digital Suwar (images/pictures) holds the exclusive quality of being able to propagate and proliferate such abominable and life-like Suwar which no other paint, sculpture, photographs, or any another man-made means of Tasweer, has ever been close to matching. No form of Suwar (images/pictures) has ever been able to convey the quantity and quality of evil that digital Suwar (images/pictures) has been able to proliferate within the brief time-span of the existence of this uniquely potent form of Suwar. While a million perceived “benefits” derived from an abominable evil such as Tasweer, music, Riba, alcohol, etc. cannot transform it into Halaal, even a reasonable degree of harm associated with a Mustahab (commendable) act is sufficient grounds to declare the Mustahab act as Haraam.

Thus, each and every person’s divinely-bestowed Aql (intellect), provided it is unshackled even momentarily from the incessant behests of one’s Nafs (base desires), is able to understand that the abominably evil status which Allah Ta’ala has decreed for every form of Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects applies to an infinitely greater degree to an electronic form that has been able to convey the greatest amount of evil in the shortest possible time.

Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb continues in his Fath ul-Mulhim to narrate a grave curse of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which mentions the evil of the Musawwiroon in the very same breath as usury (riba), the lowest form of which, in other authentic Ahadith, has been likened to zina with one’s mother, and which is yet another evil that has been Halaalized today by modernist-influenced scholars, via the employment of deceptive terminology (e.g. digital transactions, “Islamic” banking, etc.):

“…[Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)] cursed the one who took or gave Riba (usury/interest), and the one who tattooed and was tattoed, and the Musawwiroon (one who creates pictures/images).”

At this juncture, it is appropriate to produce Allah Ta’ala’s answer to the question of the true “illat” – the cause and reason – behind the severely evil status assigned to the act of Riba (usury), since the very same answer and “illat” (cause for prohibition) applies to the act of creating images/pictures of animate objects, and also to all the other transgressions of Allah’s sacred bounds to which we have become utterly desensitized due to their widespread prevalence in these worst of times, in close proximity to the Final Hour.

In reply to those who are unable to fathom the severe evil of Riba, and who are unable to observe much difference between Riba and Halaal business transactions, Allah Ta’ala issues the following categorical, simple and comprehensive response:

“But, Allah has made trade Halaal, and He has made Riba Haraam.”

This is the Divine Response that suffices for all true Submitters (Muslims) to Allah Ta’ala, in regards to ALL the sacred prohibitions defined by Allah Ta’ala’s Shar’iah. This is the primary illat. Allah Ta’ala decides what is evil and what is good. All other illats defined by the Fuqaha are secondary and do not affect the primary illat. Halaal and Haraam do not hinge on man’s chaotically varying capacities to appreciate the evil or goodness of an act.

And, even assuming for a moment that an illat is fabricated or conjectured, and promoted as the primary illat for the prohibition of simple, decorative pictures on some cushions – a prohibition which has been upheld by the Fuqaha (jurists) for over a millennium – such an illat will apply to an infinitely greater degree to digital Suwar which has been, by far, the most potent and powerful means of propagating the very worst of obscenities throughout the world.

Even assuming for a moment, for example, that the primary illat for the prohibition of a few “innocent” pictures on some cushions was due to the possibility that it may lead eventually, through the passage of time, to the production of images of Shirk, Kufr, and Faashishah (obscenities), then we can say with 100% certitude that digital Tasweer has already in the few decades of its existence, presently, and will continue to proliferate images of Shirk, Kufr, and Faahishah to a degree, and at a rate, which NO other form of Suwar has ever been able to come close to matching in the past 1400 years.

Assuming for a moment that the primary illat of prohibition for a few pictures on cushions is Mudaahat lil Khalq – imitating Allah’s exclusive quality of creating – which the Fuqaha for over a millennium have made clear is inherent in the very act of producing pictures, regardless of the intention of the painter or drawer or photographer or sculptor, then such an illat applies to an infinitely greater degree to the most advanced and complex man-made technology ever invented to proliferate the most real and life-like Suwar (images/pictures) conceivable.

And, assuming for a moment that the primary illat is angelic abhorrence, then Hazrat Jibril (alayhis salaam)’s statement, “Verily, we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a picture or a dog.” applies just as much, if not more so, to the countless pictures displayed on television screens, computer screens, and mobile gadgets, which today pollute the sanctity of virtually every house, even the Houses of Allah all over the world, and even the Haramayn Shareef. 

The severely evil status assigned by Allah’s Shari’ah to the Musawwiroon and Suwar (pictures/images) of animate objects is not exclusively restricted to painters and photographers, but extends also to all those who make use such of such evil Suwar. This is similar to how the sin incurred from other major crimes such as drinking alcohol, committing zina, taking interest, etc. is not only restricted to those who are the direct perpetrators, but also applies to those who participate, in any capacity, in such evil crimes.

Allamah Ibn Hajar explains this simple concept here:

 “In the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), “Verily the makers of these images (i.e. “innocent” decorative pictures on cushions) [will be punished on Yaum ul-Qiyaamah…]” is a special warning to those who use images because since the severe warning addresses the maker, it will apply (also) to the user, because it is not made except to be used. Thus, while the maker is the means, the user is the actual objective, hence the user is MORE DESERVING of this warning.”

Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb includes photographs and photographers within the ambit of evil Suwar (pictures/images) and evil Musawwiroon who will all be subjected to the most horrific of torments referred to in the aforementioned Ahadith:

“The reality is that distinguishing between drawn pictures and photography is not justified on a strong basis.”

In substantiation of this self-evident reality, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb simply affirms the Ijma’ of all the real authorities of the Ummah, that the Shari’ah does not (and Jahannum will most definitely not) differentiate between the various methods or instruments man may invent in order to commit the evil of creating images/pictures of animate objects (Tasweer):

“Something that is agreed upon in the Shari‘ah is that which was prohibited or illegal in its origin, its ruling does not change by changing the instrument. Hence, intoxicants are prohibited whether they intoxicate manually or by use of modern mechanisms, and killing is prohibited whether the man [i.e. the murderer] comes into contact with him [i.e. the victim] using a knife or by shooting a bullet, and similarly, the Lawgiver forbade making images and procuring them, so there is no distinction between what was made an image, and made use of, by the brush of the picture-maker or by cameras.”

Regarding the Ijma’ cited above, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb’s elder brother, Hadhrat Mufti Rafi Saheb, also upholds this Ijma’ in his own Fatwa on this issue, and in doing so, refers to their august father, Hadhrat Mufti Shafi (rahmatullahi alayh) who had thoroughly refuted the fallacious “Daleels” of the modernists of his age who were labouring to legalize the evil of photographic Suwar (images/pictures) with the exact, same type of Daleel-less Fatwas with which his own two sons today are labouring to legalize the evil of the most powerful and potent form of Tasweer (image/picture-making) ever invented:

“The great luminary scholar, the former grand Mufti of Pakistan, honorable teacher, Mufti Mohammed Shafi (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) has written a unique paper in Urdu by the name of “Tasweer Ke Sharee Ahkaam” meaning “The Religious Verdicts of Picture Taking’. He has clarified in this compilation; religious evidences, that the picture, whether it be by the means of a photography camera or by hand would be regarded as a picture in accordance to the Islamic legislation (Shariah). The difference in the means of acquiring the picture or its devices would not demand a variation in the ruling. The only thing that would be considered is the fact that it is a picture as it is the essence of the matter, even though the medium varies.”

Modernists who thoroughly expose their shaytaniyaat by selectively honing onto isolated and weak narrations or positions which co-incidentally conform with their nafs (base desires), in preference to the dozens of authentically mass-transmitted narrations that affirm vehemently the absolute prohibition of ALL forms of Suwar of animate objects, should take note that all of the mere handful of such isolated narrations and positions have been adequately explained and reconciled with the Fatwa of prohibition, which has been THE authoritative position of the Ummah for over a thousand years. Such narrations either occurred prior to the revelation of the Divine Prohibition, or involved pictures or objects (e.g. faceless, limbless “dolls”) which more resembled inanimate objects, or were classed as Mawdoo’ (fabricated), Dhaeef (weak) or Shadh (a discarded anomaly) in the face of the indisputable, unambiguous, authentic Fatwa of prohibition mass-transmitted from Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahabah  (radhiyallahu anhum) and the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

Since the venerable Muftiyayn fully affirm and agree with the Fatwa of absolute prohibition, there is no need here to expound on isolated narrations and positions which can actually be scavenged for and excavated in every issue, and which are, in reality, divinely-decreed baits through which Allah Ta’ala draws out the Shayateen from the woodwork, and separates the true Ulama whose sole interest and purpose in life is absolute submission to the Haqq, from the Human Shayateen who Halaalize what Allah has made Haraam, and who drag with them countless people, including reckless, careless, and silent Ulama, into the depths of Jahannum.


Now that the severe and tremendous evil of Suwar of animate objects has been clarified through the words of Hadhratayn, both of whom also uphold the Ijma’ that whatever new means or technology are employed to produce Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects, they will still carry the very same ruling, let us demonstrate that the “Daleel” on which the two Muftiyayn have based the preposterous contention that digital Suwar are fake Suwar, is a non-existent Daleel that collapses and vanishes into thin air, under a scrutiny that does not last more than few paragraphs.

The primary “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn, both of them, is the fact that digital Tasweer do not have the quality of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability).

Mufti Taqi Saheb states in this regard, in his manifestly ridiculous assertion that digital Suwar resemble a shadow more than they resemble non-digital Suwar (images/pictures):

“As for pictures which do not have durability [thabat] and stability [istiqraar] and are not drawn on something with lasting quality, they resemble more a shadow than they do pictures.”

And, Mufti Rafi Saheb states in his Fatwa:

 “As for it not being a picture; because a picture in its true meaning, comes into existence when it is carved, drawn, or formed onto something with the quality of istiqraar (stability) and thabat (durability) in its existence. ..It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have istiqraar or thabat, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘surah’ in actuality.”

Take note of the distinctly conspicuous absence of even the slightest semblance of a Shari’ Daleel to substantiate the wholly arbitrary and fanciful claim that the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) determines the Suwar-status of a Suwar (images/pictures). This fact, in itself, renders the Fatwa completely null and void. Any Fatwa that attempts to make an exception out of a particular form of Tasweer, or a particular form of music, or a particular form of alcohol, or a particular form of any other abominable evil, without proper Shari’ Daleel, renders the followers of such a Fatwa as those who “take gods besides Allah.”
In any case, let us play along with this Daleel-less claim of the venerable Muftiyayn and demonstrate that even their fanciful theory linking the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) with the definition of a picture, falls apart completely and evaporates away into non-existence, when placed under the slightest scrutiny.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a newly-invented machine that paints the picture of an animate object on a slate, and then wipes the slate clean after 10 minutes. Would such a picture fall under the category of Tasweer, despite the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) only being 10 minutes?

According to the position of the venerable Muftiyayn as borne out by their Fatwas, they are bound to categorically declare as Haraam all such pictures (images) produced by this contraption.

Now we ask the ruling if we were to lower the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” to a measly one minute. Would the images produced under the new setting carry the same ruling as those produced in the first scenario?

Again, the venerable Muftiyayn are bound to issue the same ruling of Hurmat (prohibition).

Now, let us further reduce the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) of the paintings produced by this machine to the exact same level as what Mufti Rafi Saheb claims is the reason why digital Suwar (images/pictures) cease to become Suwar (images/pictures) here:  

“It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have stability nor durability, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘soorah’ in actuality.”

Thus, let us adjust the setting of our newly-invented contraption to paint a life-like picture and wipe the slate clean every 1/60th of a second. That is, 60 paintings are painted and displayed in one second, by our unique, man-made contraption.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn, what is the ruling of each one of the 60 paintings that are painted and wiped away?

If the venerable Muftiyayn are hesitant in answering, or issues a Halaal Fatwa for all those 60 life-like paintings that are clearly visible to the passer-by, we then ask: Why the hesitancy? Or, to what level do we need to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back again, so that the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal dissolves away, and the previous Fatwa of Hurmat can be affirmed again as vehemently as in the first two scenarios? Perhaps if we were to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back to, let’s say, 1 painting per minute, or 2 paintings per minutes, or 3 paintings per hour, etc. the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal will suddenly transform back to Haraam. The Muftiyayn will not be able to offer a clear and definitive answer to this question, nor will they be able to produce any Shari’ Daleel for any specific amount of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) which would instantly transform a fake Soorah (image/picture) into a real Soorah.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a special paint that only lasts for a limited time, before fading away. Again, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” does the painted picture need to have to be classed as real painted picture? And, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” causes the painted to cease to be a painted picture? And, what is the Shari’ basis for averring that painted pictures cease to be painted pictures in an issue which has been declared amongst the greatest of evils by the Shariah? Again, the venerable Muftiyayn will have no proper and consistent answers for any of the questions above.

The baselessness of the fanciful and wholly arbitrary theory of the venerable Muftiyayn is thus manifestly clear. In reality, the venerable Muftiyayn have absolutely no Shari’ Daleel for their contention that it is the level of “istiqraar” (stability) or “thabat” (durability) that determines the Suwar-status of Suwar. They have no Shari’ Daleel for deriving a specific number of hours, minutes, or seconds of “istiqraar” or “thabat” which renders a picture, whatever the means of its creation, into a fake, fraudulent, and imposter picture.

Rather, it is manifestly clear that the “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn is a fake, fraudulent and hallucinatory Daleel, unlike the Suwar-status of digital Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects which is the most real, life-like, potent, and damaging form of Suwar ever to have been invented by man.

Falsehood spawns more falsehood. One absurdity leads to multiple absurdities. Hence, Mufti Rafi Saheb, in his Fatwa, is constrained to make the following absurd and false claim:

“Looking at the above mentioned difference between the actual picture and the figure that appears on the screen, the experts of this field have specified the difference in terminology also; where they have termed the figure captured by the photography camera as “Soorah” and the visible figure on a screen as an “Aks”.

The Arabic word in the original Fatwa of Mufti Rafi Saheb is “Aks” which has been erroneously translated by the translator as “image”. “Aks” means “reflection”. No expert in the world, not even a so-called one, ever calls the Suwar (images/pictures) on television screens, computer screens, phone screens, etc. “reflections”. Rather, BOTH the words “pictures” and “images” are employed interchangeably and liberally as borne out by even a perfunctory reading of the writings of experts on digital pictography. Something is truly amiss with a Fatwa that makes such a ridiculously false claim as the one above, and something is even more amiss with the droves of Muftis and Maulanas who simply regurgitate such absurdities as if they are the gospel truth, simply because such Fatwas conform to their base desires.

Regarding such Daleel-less Fatwas of misguidance whose absurdity, incongruity, and falsity is manifest, and which are identical in status to Daleel-less Fatwas today that claim that music produced electronically is no longer the music prohibited in the Ahadith, or that alcohol produced chemically is no longer alcohol, or that perceived “benefits” or widespread prevalence of an abominable evil can transform it into Halaal, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whosoever has issued a Fatwa which was not substantiated correctly, then the burden of sin will be upon the one who issued the Fatwa.”

Prior to these worst of eras in which the Halaalizers of Haraam started abounding aplenty, the sanctity of the prohibition of pictures of all animate objects was deeply entrenched and a strongly embedded belief in the hearts of the Muslim masses in general.

For the grave evil of Halaalizing what Allah has made Haraam, and for the hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom this deeply embedded sanctity of prohibition would have been a normally insurmountable stumbling block for Shaytaan to lure them eventually into addiction to pornography, into addiction to social media zina, into addiction to films and television, into addiction to Kuffaar sports idolatry, into addiction to video games, and into addiction to countless other evils which are EXCLUSIVELY available through the means of the digital form of Suwar (images/pictures) only, a terrible and unimaginably weighty burden of sins will have to be borne by ALL those who have contributed, whether actively or in silent condonation, towards the propagation and implementation of such Baatil, Daleel-less Fatwas that Halaalize the abominable evil of Tasweer in its most potent form.

“And upon us is only to convey (the Haqq)” (Qur’an)


  1. Mohammad Luqman

    I dont know who has written the above article but the way the views are expressed about the great Akaabir of this Ummah is disgraceful. The way the compiler is praising and glorifying the Ulama he believes to be Ahle haqq, in the same or even higher manner there are masses who believe that Hazrat Mufti e Azam Mufti Mohammad Rafi Usmani and Sheikhul Islam Hazrat Mufti Taqi Usmani are great assets and treasure for this Ummah. Therefore he must respect that. The most someone can say is that this masalah is ijtihadi and we have Ulama on both sides , therefore , it is up to the follower who he wants to follow. The language used is very disrespectful and is mocking the great Akaabir of our Ummah. The writer is so self believing as if he has been informed by Wahy about his opinion to be the only right opinion. The most you can say is that I dont think that Hazrat Mufti Rafi sahib or Hazrat Mufti Taqi sahib has got this masalah right in which there is no harm. You are entitled to your opinion but do not make it out to look has if you have been notified by Hazrat Jibreel. I am sorry to say but the way you express your views is not the way Hazrat Nabi Muhammad (SAW) taught us to do tabligh. If you or your Buzurgs dont have masses following them and Hazrat Aqdas Mufti Rafi sahib and Sheikhul Islam Hazrat Aqdas Mufti Taqi sahib have masses following them then why show anger on this?. This is such a status and acceptance that Allah Ta aala has granted them. There must be very good and strong reasons that majority of the Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Europe and America trust them in Islamic verdicts. Assuming that these our great elders have not got 1 or 2 fatwaas 100% right then is this how you are going to treat them?

    Mohammad Luqman
    Abu Bakr Trust, Walsall, UK

  2. 'abdur-Raheem

    we all including the writer of the above article love Hadhrat Mufti Taqi & Mufti Rafi’ dearly but its for the sake of ALLAAH Ta’aalaa. They are, no doubt amongst our Akaabireen.

    The problem this sinner understands is there’s no care left for Deen anymore.

    Here below is an extract from the Kitaab, “Photography & Modern Challenges” published by Madrasah Taa’leemuddeen, South Africa.
    Which differences are accommodated in Deen?

    The general misconception amongst the masses is that Deeni differences among the Ulama on any matter creates leniency and concessions in Deen. Therefore, one is free to practice on any view one is inclined to. In support of this, the differences which existed among the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and the four mazhabs of Fiqh are cited as glaring examples to illustrate the vast accommodation Deen provides for differences of opinion in Deeni matters. Perhaps the statement of Umar ibnu Abdul Aziz رحمة الله عليه would also be quoted:

    اختلاف أصحاب محمد رحمة للأمة

    ‘The differences among the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) were a source of mercy for the ummah’.

    However, it must be clearly understood that any and every difference does not create leniency or is acceptable. If a new sect appears with the idea that usury and interest is totally Halaal or that only three Salaah are compulsory instead of five or instead of discharging two and half percent Zakaat one should discharge only one percent, such differences will be rejected. Hence, we understand that the Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) should be understood in the correct context. The difference which will be accommodated in Deen is that difference which is governed by Deen and based on Fiqhi (juristic) principles. The differences among the four mazhabs all stem from the Qur’aan and Hadith. Every Imaam has sufficient substantiation for his view. This was also the nature of the difference amongst the Sahaabah and Taabi‘een.

    As far as digital photography is concerned, there are no substantial grounds to prove its permissibility, neither from the Qur’aan and Hadith nor from the four Imaams of Fiqh. Instead, the general Ahaadith, mazhabs of Sahaabah, Taabi’een and the four Imaams are general in regard to all picture making being haraam. Hence, this type of difference is not one of leniency and concession as compared to the differences that existed between the four mazhabs.

    Merit of argument

    Differences of opinion among the Ulama and learned scholars existed in every era of Islamic history. Whenever a difference arose in regard to any mas’alah (issue), each scholar debated it on the merit of the argument and endeavoured to establish the reality. The conflicting views on the issue were weighed on the scale of the Sunnah. The basis of preferring a specific viewpoint always revolved around “the merit of the argument” and not “the merit of the scholar”. Hence, we find that despite knowing the verdicts of great scholars such as Imaam Shaafi‘ee, Imaam Ahmad and Imaam Maalik رحمة الله عليهم, a Hanafi scholar still gives preference to the verdict of Imaam Abu Hanifah رحمة الله عليه due to him regarding it closer to the Sunnah. The same applies to the scholars of each mazhab in relation to their Imaam. Hence, we understand that establishing the Haq was always based on “the merit of the argument” and not “the merit of the scholar”. The criteria for acceptance in the court of Allah Ta’ala is the Sunnah. The one who firmly latches on to the Sunnah is rightly guided. In the past, there were many glaring examples of learned scholars having erred in a few issues or of an oversight occurring in their judgement. It is for this very reason that Hadhrat Mu‘aaz (Radiyallahu Anhu) cautioned the ummah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) about the errors of the learned people. He once addressed the people thus:

    فإياكم وما ابتدع فإن ما ابتدع ضلالة وأحذركم زيغة الحكيم فإن الشيطان قد يقول كلمة الضلالة على لسان الحكيم وقد يقول المنافق كلمة الحق. قال قلت لمعاذ ما يدرينى رحمك الله أن الحكيم قد يقول كلمة الضلالة وأن المنافق قد يقول كلمة الحق قال بلى اجتنب من كلام الحكيم المشتهرات التي يقال لها ما هذه ولا يثنينك ذلك عنه فإنه لعله أن يراجع وتلق الحق إذا سمعته فإن على الحق نورا (سنن أبي داود 2/632)

    “Beware of such people who bring about innovations in Deen. Innovations in Deen are clear misguidance. I further warn you against the error of a wise man (righteous guided Aalim). For indeed, Shaitaan at times causes a wise person (righteous guided Aalim) to utter a word of misguidance and a hypocrite can utter a word of truth.” (Yazeed says that) I then asked Mu‘aaz (Radiyallahu Anhu), “How will I be able to distinguish the misguidance uttered by a wise person (righteous guided Aalim) and the truth spoken by a hypocrite?” Mu‘aaz (Radiyallahu Anhu) replied, “Yes undoubtedly, refrain from (following) such statements of the wise person (righteous guided Aalim) which when it is circulated among the people it becomes a target of objection (among the learned scholars). However, this should not divert you from him (righteous guided Aalim) for it is possible that he will retract. Furthermore, accept the truth whenever you hear it for indeed the truth is accompanied with noor (Divine light).” (Abu Dawood 2/632)
    We can just understand the seriousness concerning “halaalizing digital pictures” from the above. We all so easily take things for granted in matters of Deen just by labelling something as ‘ijjtihaadi’ or ‘difference of opinion’ thus maintaining our emotionalized relationships by undermining Deen. Its not about a single fatwaa or a mas-alah but it’s about distortion & transmogrifying haraam into halaal. And its about Ummah going astray.

    We hope & expect with conviction that whatever that has been written in the above article by the brother is solely out of sheer concern & love for Deen in which there was no intention whatsoever to mock, disgrace or belittle anyone in anyway.

    Lastly we are humans prone to errors, for which we beg ALLAAH Ta’aalaa’s forgiveness & ask HIM to grant us the ability to love or hate something or someone solely for HIS pleasure…aameen

  3. Sulayman

    Very beneficial article. I haven’t seen the evil of pictures especially digital pictures be made clearer than here.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *