A lot of threads have been opened regarding the issue of taking pictures.
I want to look at it from a different point of view and would appreciate your input, especially from people who are against taking pictures (of any sort).
I have a few questions regarding this:
1. If one is not allowed to take pictures of living things, what is the stance with respect to taking pictures of plants? Is that allowed?
Furthermore, are you allowed to take pictures using a microscope of a bacterium? That is -after all- a living thing as well.
2. Coming back to humans, are you allowed to take a picture of a silhouet (behind a window for instance)?
Furthermore, are you allowed to take a picture of a shadow? If the argument is that you aren’t allowed to take pictures, since they represent living things (humans), are you allowed to take pictures of a representation of a living thing (shadow), thus creating a representation of a representation of a living thing.
3. There are various forms of pictures. Are you allowed to take an X-ray? After all, that is an image of a living thing as well. And usually such pictures (X-ray, CT, MRI) are even more detailed, and actually are designed to represent very acurately the living being. If this is allowed due to medical necessity: are you allowed to take such images for fun…for example having an echo done of your baby in the womb just for fun?
On this last part, I think almost everyone would allow medical imaging as a matter of neccesity.
All scholars are united on the principle that neccesity overrides prohibition. An example is the Taliban themselves. Whilst believing photos to be haraam (hence you never had any official pictures of Mullah Omar or other Taliban leaders), the Taliban insisted on people having their photos on ID documents - because they felt the neccesity overrode the prohibition. It even went as far as forcing women to show their faces in ID photos.
Naturally, of course, only female Taliban officials were allowed to look at those women’s ID and check if the face under the burqa was right…
somehow you all fail to reason beyond the points I've already made:
MS: yeah, but as I asked: are you allowed to do it for fun? have an echo for fun?
armughal: why is taking pics of plants allowed? Aren't those living creatures? I don't see any scolar making distinction between animal or plants, when it's telling about living things? any reference that these two things are seen as seperate? wat about fungi/bacteria? can we take pictures of those things?
secondly, the point of the shadow/silhouet is: how clear should a picture be to be deemed representing a living being? Is a cartoon allowed? CLearly, some cartoons can be vaguer towards representing a living being than a silhouet? where's the line?
what about a person hiding behind the tree? can you photograph him or her? can she wear a knee high skirt in the photograph as long as she is behind the tree?
is there any trees that are considered bad or kafir in Islam?
this is strange. If the essence of not making pictures is that you would otherwise commit idolatry, then there shouldn’t be a distinction in animals. Clearly, the potential of an image of a dog to cause idolatry is equal to that of a fish.
And if it is only restricted to animals, then a. there are a lot of organisms that fall on the boundary between ‘animals’ and ‘micro-organisms’ (for example a lot of worms and parasites…and b. also i fail to see WHY the limitation to animals and not plants/fungi etc, if the reason is potential of idolatry?
well, i hope the intention is to learn/follow and not just to argue and forget (for all of us). From what i've read, in cases where there is a need for taking pictures, its not forbidden, for e.g. like you said, taking pictures of bacterium, xray.. what not.. even humans (in medical books for e.g.). Even children books.. how would a child know its a horse if it doesn't see a picture?
What I think is disallowed is taking pictures where there is a case of idolatory (this ofcourse doesn't require proof i think), or pictures just for the heck of it (i say this because of the hadith in which the Prophet(saws) asked Aisha (ra) to take down the curtain with the picture of flying horses).
As for plants/trees, then from what I know, there is nothing from the Prophet (saws) on it, so you can consider it "open to interpretation", but I do know that the companions of the Prophet (saws) did not forbid that.. and as the Prophet (saws) himself asked us to cling to what his companions were upon, then this can be considered allowed.
a) yes u can photograph worms
b) the reason is not potential of idolatory.... ppl have worshipped trees as well along with animals....
ppl worship sun, moon and stars, and even fire, but u can very well photograph them or paint them....
Well as far as the explaination for taking pictures of the plants goes I guess it's for the same reason that you could pray with a tree or a plant right infront of you but you cant if a human is there. I think the photogrpahy is mostly prohibited because it let's a na-mehram see another na-mehram but if one doesnt abide by parda to begin with then I guess they are willing to be seen in the first place.
In a hadith through Ibn Abbas about angels not entering houses containing pictures there is the comment: "He [the Prophet saw] meant pictures of things having souls (al arwah)." (Sahih al Bukhari, 5:338)
similarly Ibn Abbas advised someone who seemed insistent on picture making: "Woe to you! If you insist on producing [pictures] then take to [such as] this tree, [and] everything not containing a soul [ruh]." (Sahih al Bukhari, 3:428)
ok, so from I gather from this Hadith is that things containing a soul are prohibited to make a picture of and other things are okee, like the tree?
so for a dog it's quite clear that it has a soul.....so what about the worm? or a fly? or even smaller: a microscopic parasite living in the gut of an animal?