[Sunni786Soldier]

Television definition:
"(Electronics) the system or process of producing on a distant screen a series of transient visible images, usually with an accompanying sound signal. Electrical signals, converted from optical images by a camera tube, are transmitted by UHF or VHF radio waves or by cable and reconverted into optical images by means of a television tube inside a television set."

What does Islam say about images:

One should realise that the prohibition of picture making is EXTREMELY SEVERE, that it is counted among the enormities, and the threats against doing it are very emphatic. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim relate that a man came to Ibn Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him and his father) and said, “My livelihood comes solely from my hands, and I make these pictures. Can you give me a legal opinion about them” Ibn Abbas told him, “Come closer,’ and the man did. “Closer,” he said, and the man did, until he put his hand on the man’s head and said: “Shall I tell you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammed (Allah bless him and give him peace) I heard the Messenger of Allah say, “Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him to torment him in hell for each picture he made. So if you must, draw tress and things without animate life in them.” This was disallowed even though it was a mans livlihood so how can it be justified today?

And Imam Tirmidhi relates that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “On the Day of Judgment, part of the hell fire will come forth with two eyes with which to see, two ears with which to hear, and a tongue with which to speak, saying, ‘I have been ordered to deal with three: he who holds there is another god besides Allah, with every arrogant tyrant, and with makers of pictures.”

And Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and Imam Nasa’i relate the prophetic hadith form Ibn Abbas, “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.”

The reason for the unlawfulness of pictorial representation is that it imitates the creative act of Allah Most High, as is indicated by the hadith related by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim that A’isha (Allah be well pleased with her) said, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) returned from a trip, and I had draped a cloth with picture on it over a small closet. When he saw it, he ripped it down, his face colored, and he said, “A’isha, the people most severely tortured by Allah on the Day of Judgment will be those who try to imitate what Allah has created,”

The foregoing hadiths show that producing representation is unlawful under any circumstances, and just as making a picture is unlawful, so too is procuring one, because the threat that pertains to the users, for pictures are only made to be used.

The determining factor in the prohibition of procuring images is the purposes for which they are procured. For example, someone who buys cookies with the shape of animals is not doing wrong if his purpose is to eat, though the maker of them is doing wrong. And similarly with books containing pictures, if the buyer intends obtaining the text, then the presence of pictures is the fault of the printer, not the buyer. The same holds for photographs required for official documents: the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.

Does anyone have evidence, to support permissability of Islamic Channels under the law of Shariah? If not, why are we supporting Islamic Channels and posting clips on websites?

[qalam]

salam


another case of a woolworths fatwa - i.e. a pic n mix.

what about passports, books, journals all have images get real and think about the the problems in the 21st century mate!


Muslims are being slaughtered in their own countries, 3 countries have been invaded and 3 more are being planned and prepared for invasoin (iran syria pakistan) and you have the audacity to ask about whether pictures are allowed?


Do you the same pictures and images are used by drone satellites to pin point and spy on muslims - what are muslims supposed to use? an empty toilet roll cos they aint allowed to use images


get real



no wonder the ummah is in this state


dr aq

[JoeDacky]

Salaam,

What about bank notes? They have the Queens head on them. Majboori you may say. But then I ask what majboori do the fatwa issuing mullahs have when they accept the same picture clad bank notes as nazarana?

Passports used when going for hajj may be considered majboori, but theres no majboori to do tours of the Uk and Europe to collect funds, or promte thier organisations, etc

Its case of shurba haraam...boti halal..

[Know-the-Ledge]

Do the hadith not refer to those depictions which are made for purposes of idolatry?

[The-Mughal-Sister]

What about toys and dolls?

There was this case here in Birmingham, that a step-father strictly forbade to purchase dolls for his children, it being in an idol form, and on judgment day, the child will have to breathe life into the doll to make it alive, as some sort of punishment.

Is that a correct belief?

Also at school children are encouraged to draw pictures, should we warn the teachers drawing is against their religion?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Photographs and TV pictures are not made from someones hand as the Hadith implies but a projection of what already exists. Why would one be asked to breathe life into their own selves when we are already alive? The point is this hadith refers to drawing something especially humans; when out of nothing comes something.

I don't have any pictures in my house of people or any living thing simply because it can invalidate prayer and keep angels away. I have never really liked dolls but would not say one is forbidden to have them since the keeper is not the maker.

This post has been edited by Fatema-the-resplendent: 20 February 2012 - 05:26 PM

[Sunni786Soldier]

qalam, on 20 February 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

salam


another case of a woolworths fatwa - i.e. a pic n mix.

what about passports, books, journals all have images get real and think about the the problems in the 21st century mate!


Muslims are being slaughtered in their own countries, 3 countries have been invaded and 3 more are being planned and prepared for invasoin (iran syria pakistan) and you have the audacity to ask about whether pictures are allowed?


Do you the same pictures and images are used by drone satellites to pin point and spy on muslims - what are muslims supposed to use? an empty toilet roll cos they aint allowed to use images


get real



no wonder the ummah is in this state


dr aq

Maybe the reason the state the Ummah is in, is because we are busying ourself in rejecting shariah (laws of Allah azzwajal and Muhammad sallallahu Alaihi Wa Alihi Wa Sallam) and warnings. Clearly from above hadith its states the punishment is torment in hell - I am glad you find that to be a trivial issue; this clearly demonstrates your intelluct or lack of.

[Sunni786Soldier]

JoeDacky, on 20 February 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Salaam,

What about bank notes? They have the Queens head on them. Majboori you may say. But then I ask what majboori do the fatwa issuing mullahs have when they accept the same picture clad bank notes as nazarana?

Passports used when going for hajj may be considered majboori, but theres no majboori to do tours of the Uk and Europe to collect funds, or promte thier organisations, etc

Its case of shurba haraam...boti halal..

Without passport and bank notes you would not be able to exist in current society; I hardly think not watching televisions and taking pictures will provide you disadvantages in society; infact research has proven less TV has more benefits as society has become inactive due to it.

[Sunni786Soldier]

Know-The-Ledge, on 20 February 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Do the hadith not refer to those depictions which are made for purposes of idolatry?

No brother, the Ulema as a consensus have disapproved images and TV up until recently

[Sunni786Soldier]

The-Mughal-Sister, on 20 February 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

What about toys and dolls?

There was this case here in Birmingham, that a step-father strictly forbade to purchase dolls for his children, it being in an idol form, and on judgment day, the child will have to breathe life into the doll to make it alive, as some sort of punishment.

Is that a correct belief?

Also at school children are encouraged to draw pictures, should we warn the teachers drawing is against their religion?

Why not? unless you can find a hadith on contrary and ruling on the contrary? Why would one sell their Imaan so cheaply? surely, not buying dolls for your kids and not allowing your children to do art at school will not effect your childs intelluct and disable his progress or development.

[Sunni786Soldier]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 20 February 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Photographs and TV pictures are not made from someones hand as the Hadith implies but a projection of what already exists. Why would one be asked to breathe life into their own selves when we are already alive? The point is this hadith refers to drawing something especially humans; when out of nothing comes something.

I don't have any pictures in my house of people or any living thing simply because it can invalidate prayer and keep angels away. I have never really liked dolls but would not say one is forbidden to have them since the keeper is not the maker.

So we agree they invalidate prayers and prevent angels from entering your house; so surely it has a negative impact so why support it?

Your right sister, the keeper is not the maker but he is supporting something against shariah by purchasing it or supporting it?

As for breathing life in themselves; sister, that is a picture of you it is not you.

[YaNabi-Chemist]

Sunni786Soldier, on 20 February 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

No brother, the Ulema as a consensus have disapproved images and TV up until recently

The fact of the matter remains that there are Hundreds if not thousands of scholars from among the Muslim world that have no problem having their lectures filmed for education purposes at least. You can probably compile a list yourself within a few seconds of scholars that you yourself hold dear. For example:

Peer Sayed Abdul Qadir Jilani
Shaykh Yaquobi
Shaykh Hamzah Yousaf
Shaykh Bin Yahya an Ninowy
Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri

The list goes on and on and on.

If certain scholars have their own understanding then that's good for them. As for the rest of us, we are perfectly happy following the above scholars.

[Sunni786Soldier]

YaNabi-Chemist, on 20 February 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

The fact of the matter remains that there are Hundreds if not thousands of scholars from among the Muslim world that have no problem having their lectures filmed for education purposes at least. You can probably compile a list yourself within a few seconds of scholars that you yourself hold dear. For example:

Peer Sayed Abdul Qadir Jilani
Shaykh Yaquobi
Shaykh Hamzah Yousaf
Shaykh Bin Yahya an Ninowy
Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri

The list goes on and on and on.

If certain scholars have their own understanding then that's good for them. As for the rest of us, we are perfectly happy following the above scholars.

Brother, so would you suggest above hadith to be incorrect? The general consensus until this era was TV was inappropriate. Just because a whole load of Ulemas have started attending TVs does not mean it is correct. Have you got any hadith proof or Quran proof to contradict or refute the above hadith as having a different meaning? There are no other hadith which prove that above hadith mean only hand made images for idoltry purposes so the meaning must be taken general. Under Islamic Jurisprudence you cannot derive a different reasoning unless there is a conflicting hadith. Above hadith show it is inappropriate but there are no Quran and Hadith to argue otherwise. Just because a few Ulema attend TV is not sufficient to contradict the above hadith.

Ps: I respect above Ulema and by no means am I saying they are not Sunni but being Ulema does not give them a the certificate of being sinless or faultless or give us the certificate to follow them blindly. Sadly, that is our biggest concern in society today we are too busy in following people blindly because they have Ulema certificate (which means they can do NO WRONG).

[YaNabi-Chemist]

Sunni786Soldier, on 20 February 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Brother, so would you suggest above hadith to be incorrect? The general consensus until this era was TV was inappropriate. Just because a whole load of Ulemas have started attending TVs does not mean it is correct. Have you got any hadith proof or Quran proof to contradict or refute the above hadith as having a different meaning? There are no other hadith which prove that above hadith mean only hand made images for idoltry purposes so the meaning must be taken general. Under Islamic Jurisprudence you cannot derive a different reasoning unless there is a conflicting hadith. Above hadith show it is inappropriate but there are no Quran and Hadith to argue otherwise. Just because a few Ulema attend TV is not sufficient to contradict the above hadith.

Ps: I respect above Ulema and by no means am I saying they are not Sunni but being Ulema does not give them a the certificate of being sinless or faultless or give us the certificate to follow them blindly. Sadly, that is our biggest concern in society today we are too busy in following people blindly because they have Ulema certificate (which means they can do NO WRONG).

As expected.

The above scholars are too stupid to know what they are doing and this internet soldier knows better than all of them combined.

I tell you what, stop your hypocrisy and STOP going on the internet...it has some pictures on it. There is almost nothing on the internet that you HAVE TO DO so it's not out of majboori either.

This post has been edited by YaNabi-Chemist: 20 February 2012 - 09:01 PM

[Mudassar-Rana]

br soldier - mashallah great question. really great question.

Wahabbism is a literalist school of thought. It does not believe in taqlid i.e go to the hadith books urself. instead of the jurists.

Now even in the hadith you quote a man goes to a sahabi for a legal opinion.

So find out what those who are authorized to extract opinion from the sources of law say on the issue. Because your interpretation of the said hadith's could be described as primitive at best. As Sis FTR pointed out rightly television actually isnt what you state. It is a reflection of an image, unless ofcourse you would say looking into the mirror is haram?

[Know-the-Ledge]

Who wrote this fatwa?

[Know-the-Ledge]

Sunni786Soldier, on 20 February 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

No brother, the Ulema as a consensus have disapproved images and TV up until recently

There is a serious inconsistency between what I asked and what you answered; placing that to one side, which ulema? And what consensus?

[JoeDacky]

Sunni786Soldier, on 20 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Without passport and bank notes you would not be able to exist in current society; I hardly think not watching televisions and taking pictures will provide you disadvantages in society; infact research has proven less TV has more benefits as society has become inactive due to it.

Salaam,

Why the defeatist attitude..? I am not saying you must stay away from bank notes and passports...you are saying we should stay away from photos..and remember there are pictures (hand drawn, not captured) on bank notes..OK accept your wages in bank notes as you have earned them..fair enough..pay your food bills in bank notes as other means may not be acceptable...But why accept nazaranas? Is accepting a piece of paper symbolising idolatry a MUST? No of course not. Are we able to "exist in todays" society without nazaranas? Yes of course we are. So my dear brother, what I am asking you, do these same fatawa firers speak against accepting nazaranas based on the fact that they contain pictures? No of course not. You and I both know it. There should be consistency across the spectrum. If a man truly believes his Prophet (saaw) is against the use of pictures, then he should show it upon himself first in a fully fledged manner and not, as Qalam mentions above, pic and mix.

The munafiqeen at the time of the Messenger (saaw), used to hide thier idols on their person whilst standing in prayer in jamaat. Dont the fatwa issuing authority do the same, ie have their bank notes in the wallets or inside their kameez etc? If pictures are a representation of idolatry, then why do we follow the sunnah of idolaters by concealing our idols in our pockets and wallets during salah?

[Mudassar-Rana]

Know-The-Ledge, on 20 February 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

There is a serious inconsistency between what I asked and what you answered; placing that to one side, which ulema? And what consensus?

bro ktl - he already answered your question - consensus of opinion amongst ulema. And mori and Gallop have agreed upon the consensus with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

Shariah, and Islam is about what is haraam. Im sure you have heard of the opinion that everything is haram unless evidence exists for it being halal!!

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Sunni786Soldier, on 20 February 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

So we agree they invalidate prayers and prevent angels from entering your house; so surely it has a negative impact so why support it?

Your right sister, the keeper is not the maker but he is supporting something against shariah by purchasing it or supporting it?

As for breathing life in themselves; sister, that is a picture of you it is not you.

Having photographs or filming oneself is not what is referenced in the Hadith, and that importantly it is about making a picture of something which has found creation from ones own hands. This is an important distinction.

I personally do not like to say others prayers are not accepted or that Angels won't enter their homes because there is a varied opinion on the matter. BUT are you saying coming on TV is haram? taking pictures is haram? I'm not sure what your stance actually is.