DIGITAL PICTOGRAPHY AND ARGUMENTS OF A DEVIATE MOLVI

MUJLISUL ULAMA OF S.A. P.O. Box 3393 Port Elizabeth 6056, South Africa DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 2 “THE WORST PUNISHED PERSON ON THE DAY OF QIYAAMAH WILL BE THE PICTURE-MAKER” (Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 3 DIGITAL PICTOGRAPHY AND THE CLAPTRAP TRASH ARGUMENTS OF THE DEVIATE MOLVI ILYAS GHUMMAN The world today abounds with deviates who have set themselves up as ‘mujtahideen’ with the objective of casting the Shariah into the mould of modernity by way of baseless interpretation. Numerous molvi and sheikh deviates acting as agents of Iblees have been appointed by Shaitaan to execute the pernicious plot of undermining the Shariah which has reached us intact from the Sahaabah via authentic narration from generation to generation. One such deviate whose baatil opinion is the subject of this refutation, is known as Molvi Ilyas Ghumman who presents himself as a defender of the Maslak of our Ulama of Deoband when in reality he is a wolf in sheep’s skin, there being no affinity between him and the Akaabir Ulama and Auliya of Deoband. This deviate whose satanic mission is to misguide the ignorant and unwary Muslims has abortively laboured to justify the utilization of haraam pictography for propagating the Deen. Whilst he ostensibly concedes that pictures of animate objects are haraam, he is at DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 4 pains to show that pictures produced by the digital process are not pictures, hence are halaal. He further seeks to bolster his baatil opinion by invoking the Shar’i principle of Dhuroorah (Need) which legalizes forbidden things. In this refutation we have, Alhamdulillah, demolished all the hogwash which constitutes his ‘daleel’. He has failed to present even a single valid Shar’i daleel to substantiate his absolutely baatil idea of permissibility of haraam pictures for Tabligh and Da’wat. An opinion without Shar’i proof is devoid of Shar’i worth. The one and only argument he has for the attempt to legalize the kabeebrah sin of pictography is the act of present- day molvis, especially Tabligh Jamaat molvis who freely indulge in taking photos for passports and visas despite the fact that there is no Shar’i incumbency for such haraam indulgence. This is his only ‘daleel’. His argument, in a nut shell, is: If these Ulama believe that it is permissible to take photos for their Tabligh and other visits to countries, then on the same basis it is permissible to use videos, facebook and the like to display his snout whilst delivering his talks. We have, Alhamdulillah, negated and demolished this stupid argument in the ensuing pages. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 5 We have reproduced his entire speech which one of his fans had translated from Urdu and published. His statements in our refutation appear in italics, followed by our refutation under the sub-headings: Our Comment. Lamenting the legalization of haraam pictography, Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh), the illustrious father of Molvi Taqi who has fallen in the trap of liberalism and modernism, said: “In the authentic Ahadith it is reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘There will be people in my Ummat, who will change the name of wine (giving it some other fancy name) and consume it. And, at these drinking sessions music, singing and dancing will prevail. Allah Ta’ala will cause them to be swallowed into the earth, and others among them will be transformed into apes and swines.’ This practice (of changing the names of forbidden things with a view to legalise them) which our Nabi mentioned with regard to wine has today been employed by Muslims, not only for wine, but for many other forbidden practices. Practices which the Shariah DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 6 has proscribed as Haraam (prohibited) have today been painted in the colours of modernity and their names have been changed so that people could indulge in these forbidden practices without any restraint. These people labour under the misconception that they have escaped the Divine Prosecution by employing this self- deceptive trick. If they had any insight they would have realised that by the employment of this deception they are guilty of two crimes, i.e. (1) the commission of the sin, the name of which they have changed, and (2) being devoid of regret and shame for the crime thus perpetrated. These are such people who are forgetful of repentance. ... picture-making has been named photography and has thus been declared as lawful. ... interest has been named profit, and has thus been legalized. My complaint is lodged with Allah Ta’ala. There is no strength and no power, but with Allah, the Great, the Majestic.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 7 THE DEVIATES SPEECH AND OUR COMMENTS A Fan of this mudhiel Molvi Ghumman says: “Shaykh (Maulana) Ilyas Ghumman (HA) is well known for his defence of the Manhaj of Ulama of Deoband. In this short video, he makes some powerful logical arguments as to why he chooses to make videos.” Our Comment By Deoband is meant the Sunnah and the Shariah as these have reached us from the era of The Salafus Saaliheen. ‘Deoband’ in this context does not bring within its purview just any buffoon, deviate and mudhiel who happened to have done a study course at the Institution in the town of Deoband in India. Thus, this Ghumman character and the likes of Molvi Taqi are not Deobandis. They are deviates for having strayed far, very far from the Manhaaj of the Akaabir of Deoband. The Fan of the mudhiel says: “He is repeatedly referring to himself as a Scholar and a Shaykh (not out of pride) but for everyone listening to consider the principles behind his reasoning.” Our Comment DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 8 The self-reference testifies to the jahaalat and takabbur of this mudhiel character. Minus the Qur’aanic requisite of Khashiyat a molvi cannot be an Aalim, for Allah Azza Wa Jal states: “Verily, it is only the Ulama from His servants who fear Allah.” A character who refers to himself as a ‘scholar/shaykh’ is in reality a jaahil. Who can be a greater Aalim than the Nabi of the time? Yet, Allah Azza Wa Jal was not pleased when Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam) mentioned that he was the most learned ‘Scholar’. Despite the truth of this claim, Allah Ta’ala despatched him to acquire some knowledge from Hadhrat Khidhr (Alayhis salaam) who was most assuredly a far lesser Aalim than Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam). The rodomontade claim of this mudhiel molvi coupled to his haraam video and pictography views and antics is conspicuous testification for his dhalaal (deviation). START OF SPEECH (of the Mudhiel Ghumman) The mudhiel, Ghumman says: “I don’t talk about Sargodha or Punjab or even Pakistan, I speak about the world. We are the inheritors of a (global) prophet and the entire globe is our sphere of action. It is the Mercy of Allah Ta’ala that it has DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 9 become easier to work globally when it was not so (previously). In this era of globalisation, Media has brought distant people, closer. It used to take months to travel to faraway lands but today communication reaches those (distant lands) within seconds.” Our Comment The globe is also Shaitaan’s sphere of action. Media has also brought distant people extremely close to Jahannam with a myriad of mudhilleen, all agents of Iblees, in the forefront misguiding and leading the ignorant masses to Hell-Fire. The purport of this silly introduction is to strike a responsive chord in the brains of the ignorant for the haraam views on pictography which the mudhiel expectorates in his Zukhruful Qawl speech designed to render halaal a heinous practice which Allah Azza Wa Jal has decreed haraam with great emphasis. (Zukhruful Qawl is satanically adorned speech to beguile and mislead ignoramuses and stupid molvis who are unable to distinguish between right and left). The mudhiel says: “Therefore, we have used Media for our purpose and we have used it without paying attention to the detractors and the objectors.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 10 Our Comment His objective is to mislead with haraam liberalism. This is the ploy of shaitaan who inspires molvis with his evil wasaawis to give practical effect to his plots of dhalaal. It is only logical for the mudhilleen to ignore the Naseehat of the Ulama-e-Haqq who are the upholders and guards of the Deen. Shaitaan did not pay attention to the admonition of Allah Azza Wa Jal. In consequence he became mal-oon and mardood. This mudhiel is following in the footsteps of Iblees in defiance of Allah’s warning: “Do not follow in the footsteps of shaitaan. Verily, he instructs you in only (the commission of) evil and immorality.” The rendition of haraam into ‘halaal’ by misinterpretation is among the worst acts of kufr which shaitaan subtly hoists in the Ummah with the assistance of his mudhilleen agents. The mudhiel says: “I brought the work of our (Maslak) on print and electronic media when our Ulama had not released the Fatwa upon (its usage). By the grace of Allah Ta’ala we propagated what we believed to be the truth and we realised the value of the Media (early on) and set about using it effectively.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 11 Our Comment The mudhiel used the media effectively for the propagation of satanism under garb of it being “the work of our Maslak”. The rendition of haraam pictography into a ‘halaal’ deceptive mould, is never part of our Deobandi Maslak. It is beyond every vestige of doubt the maslak of Iblees. What this molvi believes is the truth is in reality falsehood. The mudhiel says: “Since I come from a small village some Ulama of (larger) cities had their reservations upon our work as to how this rural villager can take such a giant step (in using media)? I responded by saying that I don’t speak about my personal affairs but I speak of the affairs (associated) with my prophet by the conviction in the pathway of my elders and my predecessors and this can be done by a villager or someone from the city.” Our Comment This rural villager would have rendered himself the greatest favour if he had remained in the village to teach some Maktab children the Nooraani Qaaidah. He should have remained in the village leading a rusticated life thereby earning the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. But now, having abandoned his rustic life, he is displaying DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 12 crude rustication in the dhalaalah which he adorns with religious hues. He labours in self-deception and he misleads others. If he had remained in the village, he would then have saved himself from the disaster of dhalaalat. In addition, he would have been on a better stage if he had spoken of his personal affairs instead of gate- crashing into a domain for which he clearly lacks the essential Qur’aanic requisites. It is this type of molvi about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressed great fear – greater fear than fear for even Dajjaal: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.” They are the characters who legalize the prohibitions of the Shariah, giving the haraam acts different names to mislead the juhala. Thus, the jaahil satanically legalizes haraam pictography by stupidly and deceptively manipulating the word, digital. He grotesquely convolutes the ‘affairs of the Prophet” to dupe the ignorant and the unwary, and the slaves of the nafs. Convoluting the ‘affairs’ of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Ghumman mudhiel, blatantly claims that pictography produced by the digital process is halaal whilst Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The severest-punished on the Day of Qiyaamah will be the picture-makers.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 13 Far from being in the pathway of the Akaabir of Deoband, this mudhiel is firmly plodding the pathway of Iblees in whose snare he is entrapped. The mudhiel says: “When we started using the Media, many people had reservations but with time these reservations were been (literally) buried.” Our Comment The burial of the reservations is the consequence of the evil disease of desensitization. When a sin becomes universally accepted, even the people of piety become desensitized although they avoid indulgence. Desensitization invokes the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal just as indulgence. Allah Ta’ala revealed to Nabi Yoosha’ (Alayhis salaam) that He would be destroying a city of 60,000 people. 40,000 were the fussaaq and fujjaar, and 20,000 were such pious persons whose practical deeds resembled the a’maal of the Ambiya. In surprise the Nabi queried the wisdom for the impending destruction of the 20,000 buzrugs. The Divine Response came that these buzroogs were so desensitized and so accustomed to the fisq and fujoor they observed daily, that the DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 14 notoriety of the transgression was eliminated from their hearts. In consequence of this disease, they socialized and fraternized with the sinners just as the molvis of our era are doing. Thus, these 20,000 buzrugs were subjected to the same treatment and Athaab which overtook and utterly destroyed the city with all its inhabitants. Let the mudhiel not be fooled nor should he soothe his conscience by the ‘burial of the reservations’. Burial of reservations regarding the proclamation of the Haqq, is the curse with which the “Dumb Shayaateen” have been afflicted. The mudhiel says: “We had a 5 day seminar of research on Mas’ail (issues pertaining to Islam) and I was also invited towards the conclusion. A student handed me a question enquiring as to why I participate in making (videos) when Ulama of Deoband have deemed it to be impermissible. My responses to him were as follows: 1. (Along) with all Ulama (I) consider and agree upon “Tasweer” (photos) to be impermissible. 2. (along) with all Ulama (I) consider and agree upon “Tasweer” (photos) to be permissible when (genuinely) needed. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 15 The disagreement is upon the classification of “need”. This is derived from Ijtehaad (deduction) and Ulama disagree upon the classification of need. In matters of Ijtehaad there are no (severe disagreements) like in matters which are proven from clear text (of Qur’aan and Sunnah).” Our Comment The negation of severity of differences on Ijtihaadi issues is a display of jahaalat. The Ijtihaad of a genuine Mujtahid can be in direct contradiction to the Ijtihaad of another genuine Mujtahid. Surah Faatihah behind the Imaam is Fardh according to Imaam Shaafi’ (Rahmatullah alayh), but haraam according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh). There are innumerable such irreconcilable differences among the Mujtahideen. But ON THE ISSUE OF TASWEER THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES. THERE IS CONSENSUS ON THE PROHIBITION OF TASWEER. Nafsaaniyat and opinions stemming from the attitudes of liberals and modernists are beyond the parameters of Dhuroorah. Just any hallucinated ‘need’ does not come within the purview of Shar’i Dhuroorah which occasions concession and lifting of the prohibition as long as the Dhuroorah remains. What the mudhiel Ghumman and even the Tablighis consider to be ‘need’ DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 16 have no admission into the domain of Shar’i Dhuroorah, hence they have no right to avail themselves of the concession based on this Shar’i principle. To this day, not a single moron from among the myriad of moron molvis, has been able to validly present Dhuroorah as the licence for the concession of permissibility to employ the major sin of pictures for their tabligh and haraam facebook propagations. The desire for the commission of meritorious acts, regardless of their lofty status, is precluded from the parameters of Dhuroorah. This principle may not be invoked to legalize haraam for the sake of executing acts of merit such as Nawaafil and Mustahabbaat. There is no Dhuroorah of Shar’i or Fiqhi import for legalizing prohibitions for the sake of indulgence in Nafl acts. Performing Nafl Hajj or Umrah is not a Dhuroorah, hence it is not permissible to acquire photos for this purpose. Besides the issue of photos, travelling by plane, etc. is encumbered with a host of other sins such as total abandonment of Hijaab, intermingling of fussaaq and fujjaar with Muslim women, wholesale neglect of Fardh Salaat, waste of money, consuming haraam, mushtabah and filthy food, etc., etc. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 17 The Maaliki Fuqaha in particular, are extremely strict in this prohibition. It is mentioned in At-Taaj Wal Ikleel: “He who knows that he will become dizzy if he embarks on a sea voyage, which entails him missing Salaat in its time, then it is Mansoos (explicit ruling) that it is not permissible for him to go on the voyage neither for Hajj nor for Jihad.” The following appears in Mawaahibul Jaleel: “Our Ulama said: ‘When the Mukallaf is aware that if he leaves for Hajj he will miss even one (Fardh) Salaat, then the Hajj falls away (i.e. it will not be Fardh for him). Elsewhere it is mentioned: ‘When Hajj is possible only with Salaat in expired time, then it falls away.’ Al-Burzaliy narrating from Al-Maarzi said: ‘If he falls into neglect of Salaat so that its time expires.........then verily, this journey is not permissible, and the Fardhiyyat of Hajj falls away.’ At-taadaliy narrating from Al-Maarzi (that a condition for) Istitaa’ah is .....the ability to establish the Faraaidh and to abstain from sinful acts. (In other words, if these cannot be achieved, Hajj will not be compulsory). DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 18 Ibnul Muneer said: ‘Know that his destruction of even one Salaat is a gigantic sin. The virtuous act of Hajj does not compensate for it (i.e. for even the one Salaat not performed in its valid time) because Salaat has greater importance.................hence, Hajj becomes haraam for him. ........... Imaam Maalik said: It is not permissible to go on a voyage for Hajj if it leads to neglect of Salaat.” Now what conclusion should be drawn when indulging in the major sin of haraam photography for Nafl Umrah and Hajj? Even the Fardh Hajj falls away according to the Maaliki Math-hab. Most certainly, it will not be permissible to perpetrate a haraam act for the sake of a Nafl act. Therefore, it is not permissible to acquire photos for visas for the sake of Umrah, Nafl Hajj and Tabligh. The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly states the type of Dhuroorah which renders consumption of a little pork permissible. Whilst the pork remains haraam, its consumption comes within the scope of the concession. The Dhuroorah in this case is life- threatening. The law is not relaxed for pleasure, merrymaking and meritorious deeds which these mudhiel buffoons are attempting to shove into the domain of Dhuroorah. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 19 The mudhiel says: “I visited a Darul-uloom in Karachi and there was a gathering of (advanced students) in the faculty of Takhasus (Fatwa and research). They asked me questions about (my) videos. My response to them was to ask questions with enthusiasm but then listen to the answers with the same (enthusiasm and due diligence). What I meant is that sometimes questions are asked but the responses are ascribed to be (disrespectful) towards a particular personality (or an elder) by the one asking the question and the responses are (wrongly) taken contest to be refutation of a particular individual. When I am responding to a question, it should not be twisted, spun or taken out of context to be disrespectful or refutation of another Scholar (or an elder), it should be taken on face value as “my answer”. Our Comment There is no need to twist and spin the stupid and baseless arguments of the mudhiel whose views are crass unsubstantiated personal opinion stemming from nafsaaniyat and jahaalat. His responses are in fact taken at ‘face value’. His arguments are devoid of Shar’i substance. That students of some Takhassus course could not rationally demolish the ghutha (trash) which the mudhiel had disgorged in his abortive attempt to DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 20 legalize the kabeerah sin of pictography, speaks volumes for the poor quality of Ilm imparted by the Darul Uloom. The mudhiel says: I made two points: “1. The punishment of Tasweer (making photos) is connected with severe punishment. Severe punishment is only mentioned on the committing of acts which are (categorically) Haram, you will not see warning of severe punishments on acts which are Makruh (disliked). The punishment is clear cut in text of Hadeeth.” Our Comment This observation is incorrect. There are two types of Makrooh – Tanzihi and Tahrimi. The very same punishment stated for categorical Haraam acts, is applicable to Makrooh Tahrimi acts. Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh), and all the other Fuqaha have explicitly stated that the consequence of both Haraam and Makrooh Tahrimi is the Fire of Jahannam. Thus, the mudhiel is either egregiously stupid or is deliberately endeavouring to pull wool over the eyes of the juhala to bamboozle them by failing to state the distinction between the two types of Karaahat. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 21 The second point of the mudhiel is: “2. But the definition of Tasweer (photo) and its application is not clear cut in the text of Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It is a matter of Ijtehaad (deduction).” Our Comment This is a massive LIE. The claim is false. There is no ambiguity regarding the meaning of Tasweer. Just as the meaning of khinzeer (swine) mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed is obvious and as clear as daylight, so too is the meaning of tasweer. The prohibition of consuming pork is not the effect of ‘ijtihaad’. Similarly, is it with tasweer. Every moron who has no kufr axe to grind, understands what a picture is. Every moron is able to distinguish between a picture and a reflection. Only moron molvis seem to lack the understanding which morons among the masses possess. It is indeed bizarre that despite being molvis they fail to understand the difference between a picture and a reflection. Only a man on whose brains shaitaan has urinated will say that the meaning of night, day, the moon, the sun, etc., etc., is not clearcut in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, hence the related ahkaam are the effects of Ijtihaad. Ijtihaad of the qualified Mujtahideen, not of morons DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 22 such as the mudhiel, comes into operation on issues on which the Nusoos are silent. The meaning of a picture is glaringly obvious. The Shariah did not proscribe any specific method of producing a picture. The proscription applies to the picture, not to the method of production. It is palpably stupid, in fact ineffably perfidious to seek to convey the idea that despite having decreed an act a major sin and its perpetrators the worst-punished on the Day of Qiyaamah, the Shariah has left the definition of the meaning of the sin to the wildly fluctuating nafsaani vagaries of liberal morons and mudhielleen. For 14 centuries there has existed unanimity on the prohibition of pictures – on all types of pictures regardless of the many different methods of producing pictures. However, today in this belated era so close to Qiyaamah, moron mudhielleen beguiled by their nafs, and pursuing worldly objectives in the name of Islam, have hallucinated the issue of method of production as the determinant for the prohibition of pictures when in fact Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) banned pictures per se. The Qur’aan and Sunnah are conspicuously clear regarding the prohibition of pictures, and pictures are just what every child understands to be pictures, which DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 23 all the kuffaar understand are pictures. Only those whose brains have been polluted with shaitaan’s urine portray ignorance regarding the meaning of pictures. Their stupidity or feigned stupidity on this issue is mind boggling. How can an intelligent person aver that the meaning of picture is ambiguous? The mudhiel says: “Those who consider digital (imagery) to be Tasweer (photos) deem it to be impermissible, thus the punishment applicable while others who consider digital (imagery) not to be Tasweer (photos) consider it permissible. Our Comment The silly notion of pictures produced by the digital process are not pictures is an insult to even brains on which the devil has urinated. This notion defies intelligence. Regardless of how a picture is made, it remains a picture. We have explained in detail in two booklets the production of television pictures and have shown that even in the so-called live depictions, actual pictures are produced. These books are available. The morons should prove rationally that the process of digital production does not produce pictures. The DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 24 arbitrary claim that such pictures are not pictures is dismissed with the contempt it deserves. The mudhiel says: “We believe that our Madhab is closest to the truth with the probability of error. Then why do we regard our opinion of digital (imagery) to be Tasweer (photos) to be “the absolute truth” with no probability of error? Have we not exceeded and exaggerated in the matter (of difference of opinion)? Have we not exceeded the limits and consider ourselves to be higher than the Imams of the Madhabs? The Imams of Madhabs (disagreed) but still accepted the probability of error.” Our Comment The view that the production of pictures by the digital process does produce pictures which are heavily proscribed by the Shariah, is the absolute truth. There is no probability of error. Even the inventors of the digital process will scoff and mock at the idea of the pictures produced by this process are not pictures. Only juhala led by Iblees can infer that pictures are not made by the digital process. They are either too stupid to understand this simple issue or they are deliberately peddling the fraud to justify their haraam objectives. The mudhiel says: DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 25 “I went to Azad Kashmir on one of my tours and there was a team member from my team and by my team I don’t mean to say that an entire entourage travels alongside me but a few (or even one person) can be part of a team.” Our Comment What is the purpose for mentioning this futile, stupid superfluity of travelling with a ‘team’? It is nothing but ujub. The mudhiel says: “The Imam of the Masjid requested that I should speak in the Mosque but not record the event. When I asked for the reason, I was told that a one year Tableeghi Jamaat was in the Mosque and they deemed making of (videos) to be impermissible. I asked the Imam that if I were to convince the members of the Jamaat, would he have any objections and he said that he (personally) had no objections. I asked the young (cameraman) to set up the equipment but to keep the equipment switched off. I sat down for the talk.” Our Comment The Imaam is a jaahil just as this mudhiel, hence he had no objection to the perpetration of kabeerah sins in the House of Allah. Furthermore, travelling with the burden DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 26 of picture-making equipment for videoing his haraam shows and antics, testifies to the ujub and shaitaaniyat of Ghuman, the mudhiel. He is more interested to portray and advertise his snout by making haraam videos than with the propagation of the Deen. He is bereft of shame. A man who is supposed to be an Aalim of the Deen will shudder if he has to hover between halaal and haraam. Even if he is too stupid to understand the hurmat of digital pictures, he should have at least taken note of the stance of all the Akaabir Ulama and refrain from compromising his Aakhirat where the severest punishment will be meted out to the picture-makers according to the Hadith. But when haya is banished, the satanism of audacity and the perpetration of kabaa-ir flagrantly in public become the attributes of the jaahil. The mudhiel says: “I asked the (Tableeghi Jamaat) about their program. They replied that they had been given instructions to go abroad but while waiting for their visas they were instructed to work (within Pakistan). I asked them if they had submitted their passports with pictures. They said that they had submitted many additional photographs. I enquired if they knew that Tasweer (photos) were impermissible to which they replied that they knew about the impermissibility. I asked as to why DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 27 they had pictures taken and submitted them to the embassy? They replied that it was not possible to get visas without photographs. I asked so what? What is the harm in not getting visas? They said that it was not possible to go abroad without visas. I said so what is the problem with it? If Allah Ta’ala asks you on the day of judgement as to why you didn’t proceed beyond Pakistan then say that it was not possible due to indulgence in Haram. We were not prepared to perform an impermissible action for the sake of propagating your religion. They had no answer for this so I then asked them to consider my request.” Our Comment They had no answer for the mudhiel on account of their jahl. They simply follow blindly whatever effluvium is disgorged into their brains by molvis who are astray. They come within the scope of the Qur’aanic Aayat which castigates the people of Bani Israaeel who had taken their molvis and buzroogs as gods besides Allah Ta’ala. They accepted whatever haraam fatwas their molvis and buzroogs issued. The act of taking photos for visas merely for travelling to places, be it for tableegh, Umrah or Nafl Hajj, is not DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 28 permissible. There is no Shar’i incumbency to undertake a tableegh journey. That is, it is not Fardh or Waajib. Furthermore, leave alone incumbency, the journey becomes haraam when it is reliant on the commission of sin and transgression. Allah Ta’ala is Pure. His Deen is Pure. It is the Haqq. The sustainment of the Haqq is never and was never dependent on haraam deeds and haraam methodologies. Allah Ta’ala does not accept contamination of His Deen with najaasat and haraam. Photos are haraam. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “O People! Allah is Tayyib (Pure/Wholesome). He does not accept anything except what is pure. Verily, Allah has commanded the Mu’mineen with what He has commanded the Mursaleen (Messengers).” An ibadat contaminated with haraam is rejected. Photos in this case are not forced on a person by any oppressive government such as photos for identity documents and the like. There is no Shar’i Dhuroorah to constrain commission of haraam, and there is no dharar (harm) in abstention from taking haraam photos. Even the Ambiya (Alayhimus Salaam), including Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were not under obligation to traverse the confines of Tableegh with DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 29 even 100% halaal methods. Hence, Allah Ta’ala, advising Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of the parameters of Tableegh and Da’wat, says: “Verily, you are only a Warner. You (O Muhammad!) have not been appointed over them (the kuffaar) as a guard.” (Al-Ghaashiyah, Aayat 22) “Say (to the kuffaar): I am not an overseer over you.” (Al-An’aam, Aaayat 66) “Perhaps you (O Muhammad) may destroy yourself with grief by hankering after them (the kuffaar) because of their refusal to accept this Hadith (the account of the Revelation).” (Al-Kahaf, Aayat 6) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is repeatedly cautioned in the Qur’aan Majeed by Allah Ta’ala to operate within the limits of his mandate. He should not allow undue concern for acceptance of Imaan by the kuffaar to grieve him. Even such grief is not required of the Muballigh. How can it then be permissible for him to employ dastardly haraam methods to propagate the Deen? DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 30 This mudhiel molvi and others of his ilk, while labouring under the extremely false notion of serving the Deen are in reality squandering their lives in hallucination and imagining themselves to be practising righteousness. Reprimanding the likes of such miscreants, the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Say (O Muhammad)!: Should we inform you of the worst losers regarding deeds? They are those whose efforts are destroyed in this worldly life (with their haraam and corruption) whilst they labour under the impression that they are the practioners of virtuous deeds.” (Al-Kahaf, Aayats 103 and 104) The concern of the genuine Muballigh is primarily the observation of the Shariah. He may not cross the boundary into haraam. He has to operate fully within the limits of the Shariah. Transgressing these limits is haraam. “These are the limits of Allah. Whoever, transgresses the limits of Allah, verily he has oppressed himself.” The Qur’aan Majeed repeatedly reminds such miscreants to beware of trespassing into the domain of haraam, be it for the sake of the Deen. Transgression is DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 31 intolerable and impermissible. In our era these Qur’aanic warnings are directed specifically to miscreant, liberal molvis enamoured by western technology and overwhelmed by nafsaaniyat, and also to the Tabligh Jamaat who notoriously suffer from the disease of ghulu’ (haraam extremism) which has rendered their specific methodology the primary objective – the Maqsood – regardless of the conflict with the Shariah. And, the conflict is on many issues. These pseudo-muballighs, dwelling in jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), are adept in the art of blithering ghutha arguments stemming from the nafs, and which they proffer as daleel for their trash opinions which are bereft of Shar’i substance. In their misdirected nafsaani enthusiasm which they seek to project in Deeni hues, they are completely unmindful of the fact, that the mission of Nubuwwat and its substitute established by Allah Ta’ala for the perpetuation of Da’wat and Tabligh, is not focussed on numbers which is the primary emphasis of the Tabligh Jamaat and the likes of the Ghumman mudhiel, hence he is so rodomontade about his imaginary 125,000 subscribers whom he believes is the ultimate goal of Tabligh regardless of the gross violation of the ahkaam of the Shariah which in reality is the primary focus of the Ambiyaa (Alayhimus salaam), all of whom were DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 32 raised by Allah Ta’ala to only convey the Message of Haqq whilst the prerogative of administering Hidaayat remains the preserve exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Declaring this reality without the slightest ambiguity, the Qur’aan Majeed states: “If We had so willed, We would have granted every person his hidaayat (guidance), but (on the contrary) the decree has been established by ME (Allah Azza Wa Jal) that, most assuredly, I shall fill Jahannam with Jinn and Men- all of them.” (As-Sajdah, Aayat 13) This is the Divine Prerogative subject to Divine Wisdom which is inexplicable to us mortals with our created minds, the limits of their understanding severely curtailed by the attribute of finitude which is a necessary corollary of every aspect of creation. It is totally and humanly impossible to fathom the mysteries and Wisdom of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It suffices at this juncture to say, that the aim of Tabligh is not numbers – how many converts the muballigh can rope in. The Maqsood is Ridha Ilaahi (the Pleasure of Allah) which is attainable only by following the ahkaam of His Shariah. His Pleasure cannot be acquired by DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 33 submission to jahl which spawns bid’ah, fisq and fujoor, and conflict with the commands of Allah Ta’ala. Even a method which is not a declared aberration or a transgression, but which is the effect of intellectual judgment based on sincerity and the desire to spread the Deen for Allah’s Pleasure, is proscribed by Allah Ta’ala if such method is the effect of an error in judgment. Thus, when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was somewhat annoyed when the blind Sahaabi intruded in a gathering of the chiefs of the Quraish where Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was engaging in Da’wat, Allah Ta’ala in ten Qur’aanic Aayat, reprimanded our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for his error of judgment despite the fact that nothing haraam was committed. In the following Aayaat Allah’s Reprimand is stated: “He (i.e. Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) frowned and turned away because the blind man (Hadhrat Ibn Ummi Maktoom) came to him. What will apprize you? Perhaps he (the Sahaabi) will be (morally) purified. Or he may heed, thus benefiting from the naseehat (advice). However, regarding him (referring to the mushrik chief) who is indifferent (to the Da’wat), you are attentive whereas there is no blame on you if he is not purified (from his kufr). However, regarding DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 34 the one (the Sahaabi) who comes running to you whilst he fears (Allah), you display indifference to him (by ignoring him). Never should it be so. Verily it (the Qur’aan) is a Reminder. Therefore, whoever desires should take heed.” (Abasa, Aayaat 1 to 12) Here in a dozen verses Allah Ta’ala chides Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for having adopted a permissible method of Da’wat, albeit by error of judgment. It was not his function to ensure that the mushrikeen accept Imaan. Rasulullah’s obligation was to only call them and deliver the Message. However, in his enthusiasm and concern for the mushrikeen to embrace Islam, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted a method which he had understood would be beneficial for the Deen. However, Allah Ta’ala disapproved of the method, and sharply reprimanded our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Yet, a haraam act was not committed. Now what conclusion should be drawn when a kabeerah sin is used flagrantly for Da’wat and Tabligh? The aggravating feature is that the perpetrators of haraam methods do not even believe that their misdeed is haraam. By the adoption of haraam methods on the flimsy or baseless pretext of ‘need’, DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 35 these muballigheen are implying that they have the requisite entitlement to supersede Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the field of Da’wat and Tableegh, hence for them it is permissible to employ haraam methods whilst this was never permissible for the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). The Haqq has to be proclaimed only in ways which are permitted by the Shariah. Haraam methodology is the inspiration of Iblees. By employing haraam methods, the muballigheen become agents of Iblees. Since the Tablighi clique with whom Ghumman had an encounter, was indulging in haraam, they had no answer for the moron who sought to legalize haraam photography with baseless arguments lacking in entirety in Shar’i substance. The inability of the Tablighi group to adequately respond to the khuraafaat (stupid nonsensical ‘daleel’) of the mudhiel, should not be understood as a validation for his own stupid view pertaining to the utilization of haraam pictography for propagating the Deen. The mudhiel says: “O people of Tableegh! You also indulge in photography (for Islam) and so do I. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 36 Our Comment Both the Tablighi clique and Ghumman, the mudhiel are perpetrators of haraam. The two haraams never produce the quotient of halaal. Regardless of who or which entity perpetrates haraam, it will remain haraam and may not be justified by personal opinion which is bereft of Shar’i substance such as the baseless opinions of the Tabligh Jamaat and moron molvis of the ilk of Ghumman and Molvi Taqi who have opened up wide avenues for free indulgence in haraam with their stupid nafsaani fatwas of dhalaalah. The mudhiel, in justification of his flagitiously haraam opinion, said to the Tablighi group: “But there are some subtle differences between your actions and mine. Your photographs are printed (therefore static) while mine are digital. Printed (static) photography is impermissible by consensus while there are differences upon digital photography.” Our Comment There are no ‘subtle differences’ between pictures produced by the camera and by the digital process. Both methods produce pictures which are haraam. The swift destruction of pictures which creates the non- DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 37 static illusion, does not negate the definition of pictures and pictography. If a picture drawn on a surface is immediately and swiftly destroyed as soon as it has been drawn, such swift destruction does not cancel the fact that it was a picture that was destroyed. The extremely swift destruction of thousands of pictures produced by the television and digital processes does not in any way whatsoever negate the fact that all such images are pictures. They are not mirror reflections which are 100% dependent on the objects for their existence. The destruction of a digital picture is the same as the destruction of a printed picture. The only difference in the destruction is the swiftness of the act in the television and digital process. Thus, the so-called ‘live’ television show is NOT live in the true sense of the term. The portrayal on the screen is the picture which has been produced and transmitted. The mudhiel says: “Isn’t the agreed upon matter a bigger Haram? Your (static) photographs stay at the consulate while you (physically) visit England, America etc while I personally stay at Sargodha but my (digital) images go to England, America etc. You use photography and I use photography. The difference is your photograph rests DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 38 while you take the pain (of travelling) while I rest but my (digital images) take the pain of travelling! You (physically) go to get your pictures taken while my WhatsApp service serves over 80,000 subscribers, over 125,000 subscribers get it from our Facebook and then it gets shared by people. You meet a few people (physically) by indulging in photography while my images get to millions. How come you are a Da’ee (inviter to Allah) and I am a mischief maker? Please explain to me the difference? It is not my habit to crack jokes but make me get the difference between yourself and me. I am not trying to crack jokes! You are all Ulama (scholars) so let’s have an honest discussion and put an end to tale carrying and gossiping.” Our Comment This cocktail of spurious arguments is baatil. All these stupidities are devoid of Shar’i substance. The belief of the Tablighi group regarding permissibility of pictures for their Tabligh activity does not render their act halaal, nor is it a basis for halaalizing the act of the mudhiel. The indulgence in haraam by a Tablighi group or by even the greatest Allaamah on earth never constitutes a daleel for permissibility. In the attempt to legalize his haraam pictography, the mudhiel has abortively attempted to present as his DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 39 grounds for permissibility the action of the Tabligh Jamaat. In terms of this convoluted logic, his pictography is halaal on the basis of the Tabligh Jamaat’s photography being halaal. However, both premises are flawed and baseless. For the acquisition of a Shar’i Hukm, a Shar’i daleel is the fundamental requisite. The very first premiss in the syllogism has to be a valid Shar’i ground. The action of the Tablighi Jamaat is not such a premiss on which an act could be based for the obtainal of a Hukm. The Tabligh Jamaat’s act itself is in need of a Shar’i Hukm. Thus the qiyaas of Ghumman is glaringly baseless and stupid. Both deeds are in need of a Shar’i ruling, and the fatwa is that it is haraam for the Tabligh Jamaat to have photos taken for the sake of passports and visas merely for travelling to other countries for Tabligh. Likewise it is haraam for the mudhiel and those of his ilk to indulge in videos and the like for propagating the Deen. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. He guides whomever He wills. The obligation of Muslims is to only deliver the Deen, and the delivery has to be incumbently in a halaal method. Abortion is not permissible. The 125,000 subscribers of which the mudhiel is so proud, are irrelevant. It does not constitute a factor for permissibility of haraam. Facebook is pure Rijs. It is haraam to use this impure and immoral medium for DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 40 propagating the Pure Deen of Allah Ta’ala. If Allah Ta’ala had so desired, He would have created the treasure of Imaan in every human being. But His Wisdom demanded creation of a group for Jannat and a group for Jahannam. His Wisdom dictated the creation of Shaitaan and the evil nafs. The Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) had no authority to force the kuffaar to embrace Islam and accept Imaan. Hadhrat Nooh (Alayhis salaam) in his more than 9 century term, succeeded in convincing only about 80 persons. He did not fail in his mission of Nubuwwat. It was Allah Ta’ala Who had ordained Imaan for only the 80, and kufr for the myriad of others who were doomed and created for Jahannam. Both the miscreant mudhiel and the Tabligh Jamaat are enamoured by numbers. They measure success in terms of numbers. The greater the number, the greater the success according to their baatil opinions. Regarding the misconception of numerical abundance and superiority, the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Verily, We have brought the Haqq to you, But most of you are averse to the Haqq.” “If you had to follow the majority, you too will become among the mushrikeen.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 41 Facebook and similar other media are immoral filth. Only brains to which rijs is acceptable are sufficiently desensitized to employ FILTH for Tabligh. About such soiled and corrupt brains, the Qur’aan Majeed states: “He (Allah) casts rijs (filth/najaasat) on the (brains of) those who lack aql.” What is the imperative need for people in America and Europe to see the snout of the mudhiel? Why is it incumbent for the picture of the daa-ee to accompany the message he propagates? Which tenet of the Shariah requires the snout to accompany the message? When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent letters of Da’wat to the various kings, did he have pictures of himself drawn for sending along with his letters? Why can these miscreant daa-ees and muballigheen not adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? What constrains them to follow like drunken fools in the footsteps of the western kuffaar to whom pictures are an indispensable component of human life in this shaitaani technological era in which the advancement of atheism and immorality is the primary goal of life. The mudhiel has not presented a single Shar’i daleel to bolster his haraam action structured on his fallacious opinion. He prides himself for having silenced moron DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 42 molvis and Tablighi Jamaat characters who lack valid Ilm of the Deen. But having silenced such molvis with his opinions, he has not succeeded to prove on Shar’i grounds the validity and permissibility of his haraam practise of photography and videoing. The inability of the molvis is not a Shar’i daleel. It does not follow as an axiomatic truth from their silence and inability that videos and digital pictography are halaal. The only gain in his spurious argumentation is that both are equal in the sin of perpetrating haraam pictography. The mudhiel says: “I was in Hong Kong and my speech was being recorded. There was a Khaleefa of Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) before me who strongly disagreed with making (of) videos and his Mureed also discussed the matter with me. I spent 40 days at the Khanqah of Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) and he had also given me Khilafah. The Mureed told me that (his) Shaykh strongly disagreed with making of videos while I indulge in it. I asked him why he had become bay’t to his Shaykh? He replied that Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) had granted his Shaykh Khilafah and it is the reason for his Bay’t. I asked him if he knew that Shah (Hakeem) Akhtar Saheb (RA) had also given me Khilafah and he knew about it. I asked him if his Shaykh was a scholar to which he replied in the negative. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 43 I said we are both Khaleefahs but one is a Scholar and the other isn’t so shouldn’t you be given my opinion to him rather than the other way around? He had no answer. I further explained that I am not asking for him to follow my opinion or to become bay’t to me. However, I wish for conversations to be contextualised and principled. Thus, we have decided to make videos and use digital (photography).” END OF SPEECH Our Comment Firstly, it is necessary to say that the translation into English is absolutely putrid and confusing. Regardless of the mudhiel’s relationship with Hakeem Akhtar (Rahmatullah alayh), and regardless of the khilaafat acquired from Hakeem Sahib, these are not Shar’i dalaa-il. There is absolutely no justification in these issues for legalizing haraam pictures. The mudhiel’s discussion with the mureed has not presented a single Shar’i ground for the mudhiel’s legalization of haraam pictures. His decision to make videos and employ the digital pictures is thus haraam. He has miserably failed to present a single Shar’i daleel DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 44 to justify his haraam stance. All the claptrap stupidities he has disgorged are pure bunkum. One Mr. Muadh Khan, a fan of the mudhiel Ghumman, in support of the haraam opinion, presents the following argument: “Questions: • National ID Card (if forced by the Government) is a NEED. • Coins (with images) is a NEED because you won't be able to feed your family etc. How is Passport or VISA a need? Based on what?...” Our Comment A passport is not a Shar’i Dhuroorah (need) nor is a visa necessary in terms of the Shariah, hence there is no basis for claiming hillat (permissibility) for passport and visa photos merely because one has the urge to participate in tabligh in the style of the Tabligh Jamaat. The mudhiel’s argument will hold water for the Tabligh Jamaat since they too indulge in haraam pictography which they justify. But, in reality there is no valid Shar’i basis for taking photos for passports and visas for Tabligh purposes. The Fan of the mudhiel says: DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 45 “If you say that National ID Card is a need in Pakistan (due to Government Law) but not in UK so the Hukum (injunction) with regards to photographs differ then don’t you agree that the matter is an issue of Ijtehaad? Our Comment: The claim of ‘ijtihaad’ in this context is misleading and silly. If in Napakistan the government compels ID cards, then due to dhurrorah it will not be sinful to commit the haraam act. On the contrary, if these cards are not compelled by the UK government, the question of dhuroorah does not develop. Hence, it is not a case of ijtihaad as the Fan of the mudhiel attempts to peddle. It is purely the operation of principles of the Shariah which the Mujtahid Imaam of the Math-hab had formulated. The Fan of the mudhiel says: “Every year we have a large number of Scholars who hold this opinion come to Britain after getting their pictures taken (for VISA etc.) and printed (in hard form) which is unanimously Haram. I suspect that these Scholars (somehow) consider it genuine Islamic need to come to Britain, thus permissible to indulge in (absolute Haram act of photography).” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 46 Our Comment All these scholars are in grievous error. Most of them, if not all, are scholars for dollars. They come to Britain for monetary objectives. There is absolutely no need for them to travel to Britain, hence whatever is absolutely haraam in the Shariah remains haraam for them. These scholars are signs of Qiyaamah. In a Hadith it is mentioned: “They will search for the dunya with a’maal of the Aakhirat.” They are the materialization of a prediction of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Fan of the mudhiel says: “The same Scholars (above) however disagree with other Scholars who use Youtube as a medium to defend Islam. The Ulama who engage in (digital photography) also consider it a genuine Islamic need and engage in digital photography which they consider to be permissible. Our Comment In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of these scholars for dollars use the Rijs of Facebook, Youtube, etc. The ‘scholars’ who utilize these evil and immoral media are shaitaan’s scholars and agents. There is no daleel in the misdeeds of these miscreant scholars for legalizing the DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 47 absolutely haraam pictures. Both groups are plodding the path of baatil with their haraam opinions. There is simply no Shar’i need, and both groups are unable to present Shar’i evidence for their heinous misdeed of legalizing absolutely haraam pictography. The Fan of the mudhiel says: “We (laymen) could understand and appreciate the perspective if those agreeing with the Fatwa were consistent in their approach and more importantly its application.” Our Comment The confusion of the Fan is one effect of the villainy of these scholars for dollars who acquit themselves with nifaaq. They convolute the Haqq and plunder the Deen with their nafsaaniyat. While commission of sin is understandable – no person besides the Ambiya – is ma’soom (sinless), justifying one’s haraam activities and sins with a convoluted opinion in which the ahkaam of the Shariah are mutilated, is unacceptable. It is tantamount to kufr. Even if a molvi takes photos for a passport and for visas to satisfy his nafs, he should not compromise his Imaan by presenting justification with a cocktail of corrupt arguments disguised in Islamic hues. He should DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 48 concede his weakness and repent for his sins. The rotten state of the Ummah is primarily the consequence of the rotten condition of the Ulama whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said would become “the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky, and from who will emerge fitnah.” This truth is today being conspicuously manifested by the deluge of corrupt molvis and sheikhs who are the scholars for dollars. They trade the Deen for the miserable crumbs of the dunya. The Fan of the mudhiel says: My complaints to the group are: 1) Don't be Nasty 2) Be consist, coming to UK is not an Islamic need for you or your teachers to override this prohibition.” Our Comment We have not understood the purport of not being “nasty”. We agree with the second objection of the Fan. There is no need for these molvis to come to the UK. They have absolutely no licence to override the prohibition. Nevertheless, it should be understood that the overriding of the prohibition by the dubious molvi characters does not justify the videos of the other camp of mudhielleen. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 49 The Fan of the mudhiel says: “Ulama (who rule) that photography (in all forms) is impermissible BUT: They come to London to see their Grandchildren or to collect Chanda or to make Aitekaaf during Ramadhan (or otherwise). Since this is an Ijethaadi matter they (self) classify these as Islamic needs.” Our Comment It is not an ‘ijthaadi’ matter. The Shariah does not permit such corrupt, baseless ‘ijtihaad’ for overriding Allah’s Laws. Their classification is baatil. The Fan of the mudhiel says: “Maulana (ilyas) Ghumman (HA) makes videos on youtube to defend the Eemaan of Muslims and attacks on Islam but that is not classed as an Islamic need to have the prohibition (temporarily) overturned.” Our Comment It is not an ‘ijthaadi’ matter. The Shariah does not permit such corrupt, baseless ‘ijtihaad’ for overriding Allah’s Laws. Their classification is baatil. The Fan of the mudhiel says: “Maulana (ilyas) Ghumman (HA) makes videos on youtube to defend the Eemaan of Muslims and attacks DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 50 on Islam but that is not classed as an Islamic need to have the prohibition (temporarily) overturned.” Our Comment Most certainly it is not an Islamic need in the Fiqhi category of Dhuroorah, hence there is no scope for even a temporary legalization of an evil which Allah Ta’ala has decreed absolutely haraam. The Mushrikeen of Makkah and the kuffaar in every age have attacked Islam, and the Ulama had always defended the Deen. But never did they deem it valid to override the prohibitions of Allah Azza Wa jal in the process. They did not cast urine in water. “Verily, you (O Muhammad!) cannot guide who you love, But Allah guides whomever He wills, and He knows best Who are to be guided.” (Qur’aan) This should be sufficient to clinch this dispute. It is not our obligation to ensure hidaayat. Our duty is only to proclaim the Haqq within the parameters of the Shariah. The mudhiel and others of his ilk who have assumed upon themselves the obligation of hidaayat, seek to usurp a function which is the Divine Prerogative. They are grossly transgressing the limits prescribed by Allah Ta’ala. DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 51 When the halaal methodology of numerous Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) did not succeed to convince the vast majorities of their respective nations, they did not resort to haraam ways. They did not fail in their missions. It was Allah’s Will to withhold hidaayat from them. This should set the mudhiel and the Tabligh Jamaat to ponder. They should remain within the confines of the Shariah. When even halaal methods do not succeed, it is preposterously stupid to believe that their haraam methods will have the desired effect of hidaayat. IJMA’ ON PROHIBITION Ijmaa’ — Consensus of Opinion — of the Jurists of Islam on the Prohibition of Pictures of Animate Objects The verdicts and the opinions of the Fuqaha on this question are indeed sufficient proof for the sincere Muslim. The interpretations given to the Ahadith of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by the great authorities of Islam are sufficient to act as guidance for the seeker after the Truth. The unanimous verdict of the great and true learned men of Islam will belie the false theories and baseless interpretations of the followers of desire. Now read on and realise the truth DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 52 from the statements of the true Representatives of Rasulullah fig, viz., the Fuqaha. Imam Nawawi (Rahmatullah alayhi) states: “Our Ulama as well as others among the Ulama said that the portrayal of pictures of living creatures is Haraam – an absolute prohibition. And, it is among the great sins. It (picture-making) is a practice against which severe warnings of punishments have been issued in the Ahadith mentioned. . . . Therefore, the making of pictures is Haraam (forbidden) in every manner because in it is the imitation of Allah Ta’ala’s creation ... This is the summary of our Mazhab (i.e. the Shafi Mazhab). And, the overwhelming majority of the Ulama among the Sahaabah, the Taa-bi-een and those after them has opined likewise. This is also the Mazhab of Imam Thauri, Abu Hanifah and others. Imam Zuhri has said that the prohibition of pictures is general (i.e. without any conditions qualifying the prohibition). The same applies to the use of items having pictures on them, and entry into homes having pictures in them . . . This (says Imam Nawawi) is the strong (i.e. well substantiated) opinion. The Ulama have said that the reason for the prohibition of pictures is because these are open and evil sin, and, in them is the imitation of Allah Ta’ala’s creation (i.e. Attribute of Creative Power); and, some among these DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 53 are worshipped besides Allah. And, these Ahadith are categoric in the prohibition of pictures of living creatures. And, verily, it is a very stringent prohibition. He who does not intend the worship of the pictures, nor imitating Allah Ta’ala’s creation is, nevertheless, a Faasiq (an open and rebellious sinner); he is the perpetrator of a great sin . . .” (SHARHUL MUSLIM OF IMAM NAWAWI) “Ibn Hajar Makki Haitami (Rahmatullah alayhi) says in his Kitaab, Azzawaajir aniktiraafil kabaa-ir: The making of pictures of living objects on anything whatsoever is a kabira (great) sin. The authentic Ahadith state so clearly. The making of pictures of living objects is Haraam without any conditions stipulated to it. (AT-TA’LEEQUL MUMAJJAD ALAA MUATTA IMAAM MUHAMMAD) Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi (rahmatullah alayhi) states: “The abhorrence of the Angels for pictures is necessary because in pictures the meaning of idols has been established, and it is a fact that from the realms above descend wrath and curses upon idols and their worshippers. When mankind is resurrected on the Day DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 54 of Qiyamah the pictures of the picture-maker will be given life. His pictures will assume the forms he had in mind at the time he made these. This will be so because it is most appropriate for him because he (the picture-maker) endeavours to the best of his ability to represent his imagination in the form of these pictures. Thus, these will assume the forms of hardship, i.e. he will be required to instil life in the pictures, and he will not be able to do so.” (HUJJATUL-LAHIL BAALIGHAH) “The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that it is not permissible for me or a Prophet to enter a house decorated with pictures. Since the making of pictures and the wearing of clothing having pictures on them are forbidden, it follows that homes adorned with pictures should be shunned.” (HUJJATUL-LAHIL BAALIGHAH) “The Shariah has declared picture-making as being absolutely forbidden (Haraam Qat’i), and the use of pictures forbidden as well.” (Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Grand Mufti of Pakistan) It is not permissible to make pictures of animate objects as well as of such inanimate objects which are DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 55 worshipped, like the cross. The Ahadith have severely denigrated the picture-maker.” (FATAAWA RAHIMIYA) Shaikh Mustufaa Hamaami (Rahmatullah alayhi) of Egypt writes: “Shaikh Nawawi’s (Rahmatullah alayhi) statements clearly indicate that Ijma’ (Consensus of Opinion of the Jurists) is recorded on the prohibition of pictures of living creatures. There exists no difference of opinion on this score among the Ulama of Islam . . . Shaikh Ibn Arabi (Rahmatullah alayhi) said that the prohibition extends over all pictures. Imam Aini (Rahmatullah alayhi) states in Sharhul Bukhari: ‘It is recorded in Taudheeh that our Ulama as well as other Ulama have said that the making of pictures of living objects is Haraam, and this practice is a Kabira (great) sin, because in this practice is the imitation of Allah’s creation. Pictures of animate objects, whether these are on cloth, carpets, coins, utensils, walls, are all Haraam. ... Imaam Malik, Imaam Thauri, Imaam Abu Hanifah and other groups of Jurists as well hold the same view.’ ” Shaikh Hamaami (Rahmatullah alayhi) further adds: “Imaam Aini (Rahmatullah alayhi) has accepted the Ijma’ on this prohibition recorded by Imaam Nawawi DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 56 (Rahmatullah alayhi). Imaam Aini is one of the Hanafi Jurists . . . Imaam Zuhri (Rahmatullah alayhi) says that the prohibition of picture-making is general (not qualified with any conditions). Similarly the use of an object which has pictures on it is forbidden. And, it is not permissible to enter a house which contains pictures. This Mazhab (of Imaam Zuhri) is the strong Mazhab (i.e. well substantiated with proofs). I take an oath by Allah (says Shaikh Hamaami) that I incline towards the view of Imaam Zuhri (Rahmatullah alayhi). By the grace of Allah I have probed and established this matter thoroughly. When picture- making is forbidden, the logical conclusion is that use of pictures is likewise forbidden.” “Shaikh Makki (Rahmatullah alayhi) states in Hidayah: ‘I cannot recall that a single Alim has said that pictures are lawful’." “Shaikh Abu Hayyaan (Rahmatullah alayhi) says that Ijma’ exists on the prohibition of pictures. He has stated emphatically that those who have said that pictures are permissible are not among the Ulama." It should be borne in mind that this prohibition is evidenced by Shar’i evidence of absolute certitude DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 57 (Qat’iyyat). While indulgence in this major sin with the understanding and acceptance of its prohibition, is fisq, denial of its prohibition is kufr. The disputation of these mudhielleen of the ilk of Molvi Ghumman and Molvi Taqi is baatil and comes within the Qur’aanic castigation stated in the following Aayat: “Those who (baselessly) dispute about Allah (about His Ahkaam), after its acceptance (by the Ummah), their disputation is baseless (baatil and haraam) by their Rabb, and upon them is (Allah’s) Wrath, and for them there is a severe punishment.” (As-Shuraa, Aayat 16) In fact, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that for these picture-makers will be the “severest punishment”. Their stupid kufr interpretations to justify pictures will not avail them in Qiyaamah. Their haraam interpretation is a monstrous misapplication of the intellect. Thus the consequence is making halaal that which Allah Ta’ala has made haraam. The Prohibitions of Allah Azza Wa Jal are not the subject of mismanipulation of the Ahaadith which distances man from Allah Ta’ala. Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed: DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 58 “Run (make haste) towards Allah. Verily, I (Muhammad) am for you a Clear Warner from Him.” (Ath-Thaariyaat, Aayat 50) Instead of running towards Allah Ta’ala with Taa-at (Obedience), these moron molvis who legalize Allah’s Prohibitions, flee from Allah Ta’ala – from the Haq – from His Shariah – like wild donkeys as is mentioned in the Qur’aan: “What is the matter with them (these morons) that they turn away from admonition as if they are wild donkeys fleeing from a lion?” (Al-Muddath-thir, Aayats 49-51) The Haq is like a lion for these juhala who react like wild donkeys. About them, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, I fear most for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.” They are the molvis, sheikhs and buzrugs who misguide the ignorant masses, leading them to Jahannam. They flee from the Haqq as if they are wild donkeys. While Allah Ta’ala orders them to run towards Him by means of total Obedience, they flee towards Shaitaan with their satanic misinterpretations thereby opening wide DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 59 avenues for immorality and perversion – fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. May Allah Ta’ala guide them back to Siraatul Mustaqeem. PICTURES – THE ROOT OF IDOLATRY The abhorrence for pictures is on account of images being the root cause of shirk. There is no crime as monstrous and repugnant to Allah Azza Wa Jal as idolatry. The Qur’aan emphatically states the negation of forgiveness for those who perish in the state of shirk. There is no forgiveness for shirk. If the idolater dies without having repented and accepting Imaan, he is doomed for eternal perdition in Jahannam. While idolatry was uprooted and eliminated by the Sahaabah, it will again return into this Ummah towards the approach of Qiyaamah. In this regard, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The Hour (Qiyamah) will not come to pass until such time that some tribes of my Ummah join ranks with the Mushrikeen (polytheists), and until such time that some tribes of my Ummat worship idols (authaan).” (ABU DAWOOD and TIRMIZI) DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 60 “The Hour will not come to pass until such time that the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Dous move around zul-khalasah.” “And, zul-khalasah is the name of the idol which the tribe of Dous worshipped during the Times of Ignorance.” (BUKHARI and MUSLIM) “Night and day will not cease (i.e. Qiyamah will not occur) until such time that Laat and Uzza are worshipped . . .” (MUSLIM) Laat is the name of the idol-god of the tribe of Thakeef, and Uzza that of Ghatfaan. Thus, until the Day of Qiyaamah the prohibition will remain in force and intact just as it was during the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and down the long corridor of Islam’s 14 century history. CONCLUSION The argument of the mudhiel consists of only considerable claptrap of trash ‘daleels’. Not a single valid Shar’i daleel has been presented for legalizing the kabeerah sin of pictures. He has abortively attempted DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 61 to spin the stupid view of the Tablighi molvis and similar other miscreants into a ‘daleel’ to bamboozle people of shallow thinking. The action of Tablighi molvis and of the mercenary molvis who converge on the Muslim community in Britain to fleece them of money, is not Shar’i grounds for claiming pictures halaal, or for invoking the principle of Dhuroorah. The Curse of Allah Azza Wa Jal settles on picture- makers. “Aon Ibn Juhaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates on the authority of his father: ‘Verily, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed the devourer of interest, the giver of interest, the one who tattoos, the one who desires to be tattooed and the picture-maker.” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “On the Day of Qiyaamah, a neck (a bodiless beast) will emerge with two eyes, two ears and a tongue. The neck will exclaim: ‘I have been appointed over three types of people: every rebellious aggressor, everyone who committed shirk with Allah, and the picture-makers.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 62 “Whoever makes a picture, will be punished by Allah Ta’ala. He will be commanded to create life in the picture, but never will he be able to do so.” “The severest punished on the Day of Qiyaamah will be a person who killed a Nabi or was killed by a Nabi, the person who killed any one of his parents, the picture- makers, and an Aalim who did not derive benefit from his knowledge.” While all these Warnings in these Ahaadith apply to the mudhiel Molvi Ghumman and Molvi Taqi, their spiritual corrosion and intellectual paralysis have rendered them ineffably oblivious of the calamitous fate which awaits the picture-makers in Qiyaamah. Qiyaamah appears to be a big joke or a fairy tale for these deviates who have opened the widest avenue for the deluge of immorality churned out by the minute, 24 hours daily for 365 days of the year by the plethora of internet shaitaani media. The Ummah is already sinking in an abyss of fisq and fujoor. These deviate molvis have given greater impetus to the ruin of the Ummah down the slippery path into the dregs of degradation and humiliation. The Ummah is drowning in fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. Now come these devilish molvis with their stupid haraam fatwas of permissibility for one of the most heinous kabeerah sins, to knock the final nail into the DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 63 Ummah’s coffin of destruction – ruin and destruction in this dunya and in the Aakhirah, as Allah Azza Wa Jal states in the Qur’aan Majeed: “They are losers in this dunya and the Aakhirah. Indeed it is a terrible loss.” The villainy of these mudhielleen is most abhorrent. They are likened in the Hadith to murderers of Ambiya and murderers of parents. Yet, these severe warnings are meaningless for them. A Muslim whose brains operate within the confines of Imaan, will never embark on something in which there is even the possibility of the invocation of Allah’s La’nat. If two glasses of water are served to these miscreant jaahil molvis with the caveat that one of the glasses contains a lethal poison, but it is not known which of the two has the poison, there will be absolute certitude that these molvis will never venture to drink from any of the two glasses. That is because they understand the value of preserving their lives in this material dunya. But, regarding the Aakhirah, they demonstrate reckless disdain and flagrant disregard for the ahkaam of the Shariah. Among the ahkaam of the Shariah is abstention from Mushtabah (Doubtful things). Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Shun that which is doubtful for DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 64 that which is not doubtful.” “He who abstains from the doubtful things, verily he has saved his Deen and his honour.” What has happened to the brains of these molvis? Do they not understand that the very minimum danger regarding pictures from their point of view, i.e. if they have sincerely erred in their understanding, is that pictures regardless of method of production are in the domain of Mushtabah because there exists the 14 century Ijma’ on the prohibition, and there is an avalanche of Fataawa of the senior Ulama on the prohibition of pictures. But, these mudhiellen are not concerned. They stupidly and satanically peddle their haraam theme of digital pictures not being pictures thereby making a mockery of their brains. They display scorn for the threat of Allah’s La’nat, the special beastly Neck on the Day of Qiyaamah to devour the picture-makers, and that they will be the worst- punished on the Day of Qiyaamah. How is it possible for a man of Imaan to gamble away his Imaan and his Najaat in the Aakhirah in the face of such severe Divine Threats of Destruction? The deluge of immoral fitnah via digital pictures is not hidden from any moron. Even if we should stupidly DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 65 assume for a moment that digital pictures are not pictures, then too, never will it be permissible to open the avenue of this fitnah by proclaiming such pictures halaal. But, it is too debasing for the Aql of a Mu’min to accept that a picture is not a picture simply because it is made by a process which had not existed during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). We have explained in some detail the production of television pictures in several booklets. Molvi Taqi’s absolutely baatil view has also been refuted and demolished in an article. These books are available. Anyone interested, may write for copies. The very first being who made pictures was Iblees who planted the seeds of shirk with his pictures. These mudhielleen molvis of our age are following in the footsteps of Iblees. They have become the agents of Shaitaan who has taught them the lesson of digital pictures not being pictures. Undoubtedly, he has urinated on their brains. Hadhrat Shah Waliyullah (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Indulgence in picture-making opens the door to the worship of idols. In most communities idolatry began with picture-making.” DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 66 Shaikh Mustafa Humaami (Rahmatullah alayh) of Egypt wrote: “The photographers of our time regard picture- making as a great skill and as a branch of the ‘fine-arts’ ... this means that these people regard picture-making as lawful without any qualms. Now, what does the Law state regarding a person who regards a forbidden practice as lawful, and this too, when he has knowledge of its prohibition? We seek Allah’s protection. ...Alas! Muslims today have been encircled by this great evil (of photography) to such an extent that there hardly remains a Muslim home without being full with photos. Ponder! Should Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) make an appearance today and observe this evil, what will be his attitude? The great misfortune of the situation is that this fitnah (the evil of photography) prevails in those cities where the inhabitants regard themselves to excel in knowledge.” Shaikh Mustafa Humaami, also said: “I have no hesitation in supporting Shaikh Abu Hayyaan on this score. I am astonished and amazed when even an ordinary Muslim (i.e. non-Alim) says that pictures are lawful despite the fact that many authentic Ahadith of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have branded this practice of pictures as a Kabira sin.” “Those who are so audacious in this practice of pictures should heed well the warnings in the Ahadith that on DIGITAL PICTURES A DEVIATE MOLVI 67 the Day of Qiyamah in Hell, life will be created in all the animate pictures produced. These will then torture the picture-makers. What greater chastisement could there be?” Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “The second main constituent of their (Muslim) Culture is the creed of Monotheism. Belief in the Oneness of God is manifest in all their activities from spiritual conviction to practical conduct and from worship to festivals and ceremonies. Their homes and studios are expected to be free from every trace of idolatry and polytheism – photographs, statues, images having been prohibited to them by their religion. The same principle has to be followed even while making or buying toys for their children... Wherever Muslims will be honest in their loyalty to Islamic civilisation, they will remain strictly removed from such practices.” “It (Islam) frowns severely upon certain forms of self- indulgence and sensuality to which the West has given the imposing label of ‘Fine Arts’. Some of these are dancing, painting and photography (of living beings) and sculpture.”