O Muslims: All that agrees with Islaam and does not oppose Islaam all represent rulings of Kufr and they are not from the Ahkaam of Islaam
By way of the thought: ‘That which agrees with Islaam is from Islaam’, the disbelievers were able to bring Kufr thoughts to us and by way of the thought: ‘That which does not oppose Islaam is from Islaam’ the disbelieving States were able to make us adopt the rulings of Kufr. Through this the thoughts of Kufr began to enter into the minds of the Muslims so that you would hear the statements: ‘Democracy is from Islaam’, ‘Islamic socialism’ and ‘Social justice’ amongst others. This also made it easier for the disbelievers and the hypocrites to apply the Kufr rulings upon the Muslims in areas such as the penal code, the rules of testimonies (Al-Bayyinaat) and trade laws amongst others. This was the first step which the disbelievers took to remove the Ahkaam of Islam and the thoughts of Islaam so that the thoughts and rulings of Kufr could replace them in the lands of Islaam and in the minds of the Muslims with their consent and acceptance. When this was made easy for them and they firmly established this they then moved on to the following step; the step of presenting the rulings of Kufr whilst describing them as being progressive in order to replace what they called backward i.e. to replace the thoughts and rulings of Islaam. Then you have seen with your own eyes the gall and insolence of some of the Muslims in regards to their distancing of Islaam. You have also seen the triviality of those who pretend to work for Islaam or said differently, those who attempt to reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islaam and the Ahkaam of Kufr in order to dress it with the cloth of progress and their agreement to the modern era and time. This meant that Kufr was spread all across the lands whilst Islaam was completely sinking from existence.
And now after Syria has suffered all that it has suffered from the ruling crisis and the corruption of the rulings of Kufr and the thoughts of Kufr have been exposed and clearly manifested, the masses from the Muslims have realised and comprehended that there is no saviour for them other than Islaam and that nothing would put a stop to this anxiety and corruption except for the return of the State of Islaam. As such hope in the coming of the authority of Islaam became embodied within the believers and that Islaam was on the verge of launching its State once again. For this reason it was necessary for Islaam to return in its clear (pure) form, the same form that was revealed upon the Messenger of Allah (saw). Similarly it was necessary to fight against anything that was a cause for the rulings of Kufr to become present and to fight against any method that was used to remove the Ahkaam of Islaam.
The people of power and prevention (Ahl ul-Quwwah Wa-l-Man’ah) began to realise that there was no saviour except for Islaam however the material progress that has appeared in the West and the East still controls their minds and even if their love for Islaam is dominant within their breasts. For this reason it is feared that the era of attempting to reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islaam and the Ahkaam of Kufr will return, the era of ‘Whatever agrees with Islaam, then it is from Islaam’. In addition, many of the remaining Muslims engaged in this attempted reconciliation are still active and have followers. They still regard Islaam to be flexible and flowing with every time and place, a view that is (often) heard and given. As such it is necessary to make clear the danger of the thought: ‘Whatever agrees with Islaam then it is from Islaam’ and the harm of the thought: ‘Whatever does not oppose Islaam then it is from Islaam’. This thought is from the most terrible thoughts that the Muslims have come across and has had the most severe of effects upon them in terms of making them accept the adoption of rulings and thoughts of Kufr whilst abandoning the thoughts and Ahkaam of Islaam.
Islaam is that which has come as Wahi (divine revealed inspiration) from Allah (swt). As such it is that which the Kitaab, the Sunnah and what these two have guided to in terms of evidences, have come with. This alone is Islaam and anything else is Kufr whether it agrees with Islaam or it doesn’t contradict and oppose Islaam. The evidence for this is that Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger (saw) has commanded us with and to leave what he (saw) has forbidden. He (swt) has commanded us to go to the Messenger of Allah (saw) for judgement i.e. to what the Messenger (saw) came with.
Allah (swt) said:
وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ
Whatever the Messenger brings to you take it and whatever he forbids you from abstain from it. And fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr 7).
This is a Nass (text) concerning the obligation of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to leave that which he has forbidden. If we link and connect this Aayah to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
So let those who go against His command be warned that a Fitnah will afflict them or that they will be afflicted by a painful punishment (An-Noor 63).
If we connect them we will know that the ‘Maa’ in His speech: ‘And whatever (maa) he brings to you’ and in His speech: ‘And whatever (maa) he forbids you’ are in the form of generality clearly manifesting the obligation of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to leave what he (saw) forbade. That this is general in regards to all what he commanded to be done and all that he forbade. The Talab (request) in this Aayah whether it is a request to do (Talab ul-F’il) or a request to leave (Talab ut-Tark) is represents a Talab Jaazim (decisive request) establishing the obligation due to the Daleel (evidence) of Allah’s threat to the one who opposes him with a painful punishment.
And Allah (swt) said:
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission (An-Nisaa 65).
In this Aayah Allah (swt) negates the Imaan of the one who goes to judgement to other than the Messenger in his actions. This indicates the restriction to going to judgement to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought alone and it indicates firm resolution in regards to taking from anything other than what he (saw) has brought. This is all blatantly clear and explicit in respect to being restricted to that which Islaam has come with.
However, Allah (swt) did not find this sufficient alone but rather He (swt) also explicitly forbade taking from other than what he (saw) brought in terms of the Wahi from Allah. So Allah (swt) condemned those who want to take judgement from other than what the Messenger (saw) came with.
Allah (swt) said:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آَمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا
Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghoot, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray (An-Nisaa 60).
This is explicit in regards to forbidding the going to judgement to other than what the Messenger (saw) came with. It made that Dalaal (going astray) as it going to judgement to Taghoot. This is whilst there are Ahaadeeth that make it explicitly clear that the Halaal is what Allah has made Halaal and the Haraam is what Allah (swt) has made Haraam. This means that what Allah has not made Halaal is not considered to be Halaal and what Allah (swt) has not made Haraam is not considered to be Haraam and as such can absolutely not be taken at all.
Salmaan Al-Faarisi (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the fats, cheeses and Al-Faraa’ (animal skin and fur) so he (saw) said:
الْحَلَالُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ ، وَالْحَرَامُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ
The Halaal is what Allah has made Halaal in His Kitaab and the Haraam is what Allah has made Haraam in His Kitaab.
Ad-Daaruqutniy recorded a Hadeeth ffrom Abu Tha’labah that the Nabi (saw) said:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا
Verily Allah has prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them and He has set limits so do not transgress them.
This is explicit in stating that it is not valid to transgress and go beyond that which Allah has set as limits for us and as such it is not valid for us to take from other than what the Messenger of Allah (saw) came with.
Additionally the Hukm Shar’iy is the address of the Shaari’ (legislator) attached to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (slaves) and the Muslims are commanded to make the address of the legislator the judge in their actions and to make their behaviours and conducts proceed in accordance to it. So if they take that which does not contradict or oppose it or if they take that which agrees with it, then they would have (in effect) taken from other that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy because they did not take it from it. Rather they took what agreed with it i.e. that which resembled it or did not oppose it i.e. that which did not clash with it. In these two circumstances they would not in fact have taken what agrees with it i.e. what resembles it and they would not be taking that which does not oppose it i.e. does not clash with it. And in these two cases they would not have taken the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy itself. Rather they would have taken other than it and other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is not considered the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy whether it contradicted it or did not contradict it, and whether it agreed or did not agree. This adoption which they would have undertaken would not therefore be and represent the adopting of a Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. For example, marriage in accordance to the Shar’a is offer and acceptance with the worded expressions of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage, in the presence of two witnesses. If however two Muslims went to a Church and the Priest conducted the marriage ceremony according to the Christian way whilst employing the worded phrasing of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage), would they in this case be considered to have married in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy or in accordance to other than it? Did they judge by what the Messenger of Allah (saw) came with or did they go to judgement to what Christianity, which has been abrogated by the Deen of Islaam, came with? This incident agrees with Islaam and in accordance to their statement that it is permissible to take that which agrees with Islaam and what does not oppose Islaam, then this marriage in accordance to their view would be considered to be Saheeh (valid). This is despite the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy making this marriage invalid (Baatil) from its very basis and even if it agrees with or is in harmony with Islaam. This is because we have been forbidden from the origin from which this marriage has come i.e. the Christian religion. We have been forbidden from the origin from which this marriage came and that is going to judgement to other than what the Messenger (saw) brought, which came in the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ
They want to go to Taghoot for judgement (An-Nisaa 60).
Therefore everything and anything where the Asl (origin) has been forbidden is Baatil (invalid) and Haraam to take. This marriage described above would therefore be Baatil and similar to that would be the civil marriage in addition to everything where the origin has been forbidden which would be Baatil and Haraam to take. So it is Haraam to take that which Islaam has not come with whether it agrees with Islaam or does not agree with it and whether it opposes Islaam or does not oppose it. This is because, in addition to and above the fact that we have been commanded to take what the Messenger (saw) has commanded us and to leave that which he has forbidden with its understanding that we cannot take from other than this, an explicit forbiddance has also come in respect to taking what the Messenger (saw) did not bring or come with i.e. to take a matter that the Messenger (saw) did not come with. This is supported by many other explicit Ahaadeeth that establish this forbiddance. ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِي أَمْرِنَا هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
Whoever brings into our affair that which is not from it, then it is rejected.
And in another narration from her (ra):
مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلًا لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
Whoever does an action that is not upon our affair then it is rejected.
Al-Bukhaari recorded from Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said:
لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَأْخُذَ أُمَّتِي بِأَخْذِ الْقُرُونِ قَبْلَهَا شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ فَقِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَفَارِسَ والرُّومِ؟ قَالَ: وَمَنْ مِنَ النّاسِ إلَّا أُوْلئِكَ
‘The hour will not happen until my Ummah follow the generations that preceded her, hand span by hand span, arms length by arms length’. It was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, like the Persians and the Romans? He (saw) said: ‘And which people other than those would it be’.
Al-Bukhaari also relates from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said:
لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ ، حَتَّى لَوْ دَخَلُوا فِي جُحْرِ ضَبٍّ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمْ قُلْنَا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ! الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى ؟ – قَالَ فَمَنْ ؟
You will surely the ways of those who came before you, hand span by hand span, arms length by arms length to the extent that if they were to enter in to a lizard’s hole you would follow them into it. O Messenger of Allah! The Jews and the Christians? He (saw) said: Who else?
These texts are explicit in forbidding the taking from other than ourselves. The first Hadeeth states: ‘Then it is rejected’ whilst the other two Hadeeth include within the meaning of the forbiddance. So taking the western laws represents taking from other than Islaam and it represents a following of those who are like the Persians, Romans, Christians and Jews as it represents a following of the English, French and Americans amongst others. For this reason it is Haraam to take them regardless of whether they are in agreement with Islaam or they do not agree, oppose it or do not oppose it. Taking it is Haraam.
It should not be said that certain things happened that were not from the time of the Messenger (saw) or from the time before and no Hukm (ruling) was brought for them. As a result of this it is permissible to take and adopt them based on the statement of the Messenger (saw):
وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْو
And what it has been silent upon then it is pardoned
This is also in addition to the statement that ‘the origin of things is Ibaahah (permissibility)’. This cannot be said because the speech (Qawl) of the Messenger (saw) does not mean what the Shar’a has remained silent upon with the meaning that it has not explained and clarified it. How perfect is Allah for this to be the case because the Shar’a did not remain silent about matters where it did not explain its Hukm. Indeed the Shar’a the Hukm (judgement) for every matter and there exists no reality except that it has a Hukm and there is no incident except that it has for it a Hukm (judgement). It is not right for a Muslim to say that the Shaar’i (legislator) has been silent over a thing or matter and has not clarified and explained its Hukm after reading the speech of Allah (swt):
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
Today I have completed your Deen for you and perfected my favour (or blessing) upon you and I have chosen for you Islaam as a Deen (Al-Maa’idah 3).
And His (swt) speech:
وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ
And we have revealed upon you the Book as an explanation of every matter and as a guidance, mercy and glad tidings to the Muslims (An-Nahl 89).
Therefore it is not right or valid for anyone from amongst the Muslims to hold the view that some realities are devoid of a Shar’i ruling where it is viewed that the Sharee’ah has completely neglected it. Viewing that it has no Daleel from the Kitaab or the Sunnah attributed to it or an ‘Illah Shar’iyah (Legal reasoning) that has come in an explicit text or by way of Dalaalah (implication) or Istinbaat (extraction) or Qiyaas (analogy) that alerts the Sharee’ah by way of a certain Daleel or sign (Amaarah) to the Hukm for some of these realities. This in regards to providing the Hukm in terms of it being obligatory, recommended (Mandoob), Haraam, Makrooh, Mubaah, Baatil, Faasid or a Sabab, Shart or Maan’i etc… It is not permissible for any Muslim to hold this view because by doing so he will be finding fault in the Sharee’ah by saying that it is incomplete and he would permit going to judgement to other than the Shar’a which is in opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ
But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they go to you for judgment (An-Nisaa’ 65).
If the Shar’a had not come with the Hukm (according to this view) and the Muslim then took a Hukm that the Shar’a had not come with, then he would have judged by other than the Shar’a and this is not permissible. As such the claim that the Shar’a did not come with Ahkaam (rulings) for every incident means permitting going to judgement to other than the Shar’a, because the Shar’a (in their view) did not come with it, is a false and invalid (Baatil) claim.
Therefore the meaning of the Hadeeth ‘And what it has been silent upon then it is pardoned’ is not that the Shar’a has not explained the Hukm. Rather its meaning is that the Messenger (saw) addressed his Sahaabah (rah) and said to them in meaning: ‘Take what the text has brought and do not ask about other than that so that it does not become Haraam for you’. This is like his speech (saw):
ذَرُونِي مَا تَرَكْتُمْ فَإِنَّمَا هَلَكَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ بِكَثْرَةِ سُؤَالِهِمْ وَاخْتِلَافِهِمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ . فَإِذَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ . وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِأَمْرِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
Do not push me to tell you more than I have told you. Those who came before you were destroyed because they asked too many questions and argued with their Prophets. So if I have forbidden you from something then keep away from it and if I have commanded you with something then do it to the best of your ability (Muslim).
The meaning therefore of: ‘What it has been silent upon’ is that which he has not forbidden, so do not ask me about it as Allah (swt) has pardoned it and lifted it from you, so do not make the weight and burden heavier upon yourselves and do not seek to do so. The evidence for this is found in the full text of the Hadeeth as he (saw) said: ‘And do not search for them’.
إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا ، وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا ، وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا ، وَعَفَا عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رَحْمَةً بِكُمْ لَا عَنْ نِسْيَانٍ فَلَا تَبْحَثُوا عَنْهَا
Verily Allah has prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them, He has forbidden things so do not contravene them, He has set limits so do not transgress them, He has pardoned matters out of mercy to you and not out of forgetfulness so do not search for them.
The forbiddance is therefore related to searching into them and it does not mean that there are matters in which Allah (swt) has not explained and clarified their Hukm.
As for making deductions by the principle (Qaa’idah): ‘The origin of things is Ibaahah (permissibility)’. Then this specifically relates to things and not actions. The things that are present in existence are permitted for us due to the general texts of the Qur’aan:
وَخَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا في الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً
And He created for you all that is in the earth
Eat and drink
These are amongst other texts indicating that the origin in regards to them (things) is Ibaahah (permissibility) due to the generality of the texts. Therefore for a thing to be Haraam it is essential for there to exist a text that makes it Haraam because the general permissibility covers everything whilst exempting a thing from the generality to make it Haraam requires a text that exempts it. The principle of: ‘The origin of things is Ibaahah’ is therefore based upon this.
As for Af’aal (actions) then the origin in regards to them is restriction and adherence to the address of the legislator. Therefore, if the legislator (Ash-Shaar’i) has brought its permissibility the action would be Mubaah and if the Shaar’i has not come with its permissibility then it is essential to search for its Hukm within the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (The legislative evidences). Therefore the origin in regards to actions is not Ibaahah (permissibility) but rather it is the restriction and adherence to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy.
Someone could argue that the invention of the nuclear bomb is an action, drawing war plans is an action and going to the Moon is an action, all of which do not contradict and oppose Islaam, and as such we can adopt them because they agree with Islaam and do not contradict with it. Adopting it would represent adopting that which does not contract Islaam and it would be an adoption of what agrees with Islaam. The answer to this is that there is a difference between the thoughts related to the ‘Aqa’id (beliefs) and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and between the thoughts related to sciences, arts, manufacturing, inventions and similar matters. This is because the thoughts related sciences and arts (skills) etc… are permitted to take if they do not contradict with Islaam whereas the thoughts related to the ‘Aqaa’id and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah are not permitted to be taken except from that which the Messenger (saw) came with i.e. the Kitaab, the Sunnah and which these two have guided to (Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas). The Daleel for this is what Muslim related from the Nabi (saw) who said:
إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ ، إِذَا أَمَرَتْكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ دِينِكُمْ فَخُذُوا بِهِ ، وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ رَأْيِي فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ
Verily I am only a man, if I have commanded you with a matter from your Deen then take it and if I command you with a matter from my opinion then I am only a man.
And also the Hadeeth related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) and Anas (ra) who both narrated that the Nabi (saw) passed by a people who were grafting their palm trees and so he said to them that it would be ok if they did not practise this technique. They followed his advice and the produce was poor. So he (saw) passed by them and asked them about what had happened to the palm trees and they told him (saw) that we followed what you had told us. So He (saw) said:
أَنْتُمْ أَدْرَى بِأُمورِ دُنْيَاكُمْ
You are more aware of the affairs of your Dunyaa.
Another evidence has been reported by the writers of Seerah when they related that when the Nabi (saw) went out to meet the Mushrikeen in the Ghazwah of Badr. He descended at the nearest water (wells) of Badr and Al-Hubaab Bin Al-Mundhir (ra) said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allah, has this location been revealed to you by Allah Ta’Aalaa so that we cannot move forward or move back from its position or is it (from the matters) of opinion, war and intrigue (planning)?’ He (saw) said:
بَلْ هُوَ الرَّأْيُ وَالحَرْبُ وَالمَكِيدَة
Indeed it is opinion, warfare and intrigue (cunning, plotting).
He (Al-Hubaab) said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the right place to descend, so arise with the people until you come to the nearest water source of the people as I know the abundance of its water and that it will not run out. So we should descend there and then cave in all of the other water sources (wells) from the middle. Then we should build a basin upon it and fill it with water so that we can drink and they cannot. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘You have provided indication by way of opinion’.
All of these texts are evidence indicating matters that are not from the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. If these matters do not contradict with Islaam where a text has not come forbidding it, then these are what we (can) adopt if it is in agreement to Islaam and does not oppose it. If there is a text forbidding it then we do not take it because the Shar’a has forbidden it. The areas of the Funoon (arts/skills), ‘Uloom (sciences), manufacturing, inventions and areas that are similar to these can be taken if they are not contrary to Islaam. So Tasweer (making pictures) is an art from the Funoon which is not from the Aqeedah and not from the Ahkaam Ash-Shari’iyah and as such we can adopt it if it is not contrary to Islaam. However a text has come to forbid it and as such we do not take it. Drawing a picture of a human, animal or bird which all possess a Rooh (spirit) by hand is Haraam upon the Muslims because the text has come forbidding it. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
كُلُّ مَصَوِّرٍ فِي النَّارِ
Every picture maker is in the fire.
And he (saw) said:
الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ
Those who produce these pictures will be punished on the Day of Judgement.
This is therefore a Nass (text) forbidding the Tasweer and so the drawing by hand, despite being an art, is contrary to Islaam due to a text coming forbidding it. It is therefore Haraam and it is not permissible for a Muslim to draw a picture or sculpt anything that possesses a Rooh. As for the Tasweer (Making pictures) with a camera then this is Mubaah (permissible) because it is not the making of pictures by the work of the man but rather it represents the transference of the very same thing (image). It does not fall under the mentioned forbiddance and as such is Mubaah because it is a Fann (art) which is permitted to take and adopt as long as it is not contrary to Islaam. The same applies in respect to agriculture, sea navigation, draw war plans/tactics and inventions as a whole and those areas which resemble them (in nature). This therefore is what is permissible if is not contrary and against Islaam. If however it is from the matters of the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah then it is not valid to be taken unless it is done in accordance to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought from Allah i.e. all actions have to be undertaken in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah.
This is the reality of Islaam. So what the Wahi came with represented in the Kitaab and the Sunnah is Islaam and it is the Shar’a. What the Wahi did not bring is not the Shar’a and it is not from Islaam. Therefore anything that does not have a Daleel from the Kitaab and the Sunnah or what these two evidences have guided to as sources of evidence (Adillah i.e. Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas), would represent the thoughts of Kufr, whether they were contrary to Islaam or were not contrary and whether they agreed with it or did not agree. The Muslims must therefore beware of anyone bringing to them the deception of taking that which agrees with Islaam or an action that does not contradict with Islaam. This is because it represents a dangerously slippery slope that leads to the abandonment of Islaam and to the acceptance of the Ahkaam and thoughts of Kufr. It is also a dangerous slope that leads to swerving away from Islaam and deviating from its path/method (Tareeqah). Indeed the Muslims must know that everything that agrees with Islaam and everything that is not contrary to Islaam are thoughts and rulings of Kufr and that it is absolutely not Halaal to take them at all. They must be outright rejected and indeed it is obligatory for them to be fought ferociously and fiercely opposed. This is because it is a terrible deception and trickery used to bring the rulings of Kufr upon the Muslims and as a means to divert them from the path of guidance, the path of Islaam.
Damascus 20th Rabee’u-th-Thaaniy 1386