Q. Does Islam prohibit the use of a video camera or taking pictures for any purpose? Could you cite any reference to such a prohibition in the Qur’an of the hadith?

A. A number of hadiths are quoted which make it clear that is is forbidden to create a likeness of Allah’s living creation. Among the most telling of these are a sacred or qudsi hadith and a statement by the Prophet. In the sacred or qudsi hadith, the Prophet quotes Allah as saying: “Who does a greater wrong than one who tries to create something like My creation. Let them create a particle or a seed or a barley seed.” (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). In many of these hadiths, the Arabic word used for “the creation of a likeness” is the same we use today for photography. Hence, some scholars have tended to pronounce photography as forbidden on the basis of these hadiths. However, photography was invented long after the Prophet and, therefore, it is not possible that these hadiths refer to photography unless there was some technique at the time of the Prophet which was used to create photos in the same way as a camera does. Since there was none, we should determine what the word signified at that time.
If we consider how the word is used in the Qur’an, we find that it is invariably used to denote how Allah creates people, animals and things. In its original use the word sawwara means “to give shape and form.” Hence, the majority of learned scholars are of the view that these hadiths refer to sculpture and making statues and shapes and engravings on stone or wood to create likenesses of Allah’s creation. Hence, there is no disagreement among scholars that such works are forbidden not only to produce, but also to buy, possess or display.
Photography does not enter into that. The late sheikh Muhammad Bakheet, a former Mufti of Egypt, has made it clear that photography is not included in such prohibition. He states that this art is no more than capturing a shade or reflection by a special technique. He clarifies that what is forbidden is to create a likeness which has no previous existence in order to produce something like what Allah has created. Using a camera to take a picture is similar to fixing what we see in the mirror. No one says that looking into the mirror is forbidden because it shows a likeness of Allah’s creation. We use lenses in cameras in order to capture a mirror picture of the person or the object for which we need a photo. This is perfectly legitimate.
The same applies to using a video camera because it does no more than taking a large number of still pictures which, when shown rapidly, create the image of movement.
Having said that, I should add that the purpose for which photos and videos are used is certainly significant in arriving at a ruling concerning them. We can, therefore, conclude that the likenesses, whether shaped or painted which carry the strictest prohibition are those which have for their objects person or other creatures whom some people worship, such as the statues of Jesus Christ. Such likenesses are forbidden to make, sell or own or to photograph. Similarly, statues of people who are not worshipped, but are given a position of majesty are also forbidden. All statues and sculptures work are forbidden as well unless they are treated as toys for children. Paintings of people who are glorified are forbidden to start with, unless they are photographs of someone or something which is forbidden. Take, for example, a person who is worshipped by his followers or glorified in an exaggerated way. To have his photo hung on the wall as a sign of respect is forbidden, particularly if he is a disbeliever or an atheist. For example, Communists glorify Lenin and have his pictures everywhere. It is forbidden for a Muslim to display a photograph of Lenin, because Lenin was a man who denied the existence of Allah and who sought to replace religion with a creed of his own.
Whatever is applicable to videos and video tapes of the above uses have the same ruling. Moreover, a video camera may be used for a variety of purposes. The purpose dictates the ruling. If we use a video camera to study animal life in order to understand Allah’s creation, knowing that when we learn something new about the universe and Allah’s work in it, we feel that our faith gets stronger, then there is no harm in such use. Any other permissible use is approved. But when we use a video camera to say, film a woman dancer who displays part of her body which Allah has forbidden to reveal, then we are using a video camera for a forbidden purpose. Hence, its use becomes forbidden.
I have dwelt in detail on this question hoping to clarify its different aspects. I am particularly keen that there remains no misconception about the use of photography and video cameras.

Q. Our parents died 20 years ago, leaving behind three sons and four daughters. One of the sons and two daughters have died since. We bought a plot of land, with 40 percent of the price provided by our mother and the balance by the two surviving sons. These two also paid for the construction of our house. During her lifetime, our mother always said that only 40 percent of the house should be divided among all her children, and 60 percent should go to the two sons who made the contributions. Now we want to sell, giving the equivalent of the present-day cost of building and 60 percent of the present day value of the land to the two sons who paid for these and dividing the rest among all children, giving two shares to a son and one to a daughter. Objections are raised by the widow of our deceased brother and the husbands of our deceased sisters. They maintain that the division should be of the total price. Please advise.

A. This is a very complicated case, not because of the figures of investment involved, but because ever since the house was built, the main beneficiaries of its use were the two sons who provided the funds for buying the land and the building of the house. If you were to divide the price of the house on the basis you have mentioned, then these two sons would have lived in the house for all these years for free, while they tied up the portion due to their late brother and their four sisters. This is unfair to those others. At the same time, if you do as your in-laws are saying, disregarding what the two sons provided, and dividing the whole price among all heirs, you will be unfair to these two, because without their funds no house would have been built.
How do we sort out this complicated problem? We have to work on the basis of a clear Islamic principle, which states: “To forgo what is due to you is closer to being righteous. Do not forget to act benevolently to one another. God sees all that you do.” (2: 237) Acting benevolently is the key word in this principle, and forgoing what is due to oneself in order to maintain close family and social relations will be highly rewarded by God. This means in your case that the two sons who provided the funds should be benevolent to their brother and sisters, and the others should be generous with these two. All should be ready to compromise and forgo a little here or a little there. Working on the basis of this principle, the surviving children of this family, i.e. the two sons and the two daughters, should sit together and review the whole situation, looking also at the families of their deceased brother and sisters. They should consider the conditions and the means of all these, looking at who is in need and who is well off. They will be then in a position to decide how to make a fair distribution that looks at needs. For example, if their deceased brother has left behind young children who need to be educated, and their mother has limited means, the two brothers who paid for the construction of the house should look after these children and their education. If giving them a larger share of the price of the house will help to make them self-sufficient, then they should give that. On the other hand, these two brothers may themselves be in need of funds. It all depends on how to provide the fairest distribution in the circumstances.
Having said that, I reiterate that this is all a question of generosity and benevolence, which is richly rewarded by God, not merely on the Day of Judgment but also in this life. However, the question of the inheritance shares remains unsolved. I cannot provide a clear-cut answer because of the complication of the use of the house in the 20 years since it was built.
Any formula may be as good as any, provided it looks at who benefited by the house. Assuming that all daughters lived in the house until they were married and the two sons always lived there, then these two sons have made a good return on their investment. I suggest in this case that the two sons should take the original amounts they paid for building the house and buying 60 percent of the land, while the balance should be divided among all brothers and sisters, at the rate of 2 shares to a son and one share to a daughter.
This means 10 shares, two to each of the three sons and one to each of the four daughters, the deceased ones included. Thus, the appreciation of the value of the land and the house is given to all, while the original amount of the investment is returned, and the use of the house is the benefit of that investment. There may be other formulas, which look at the present situation in a better way, but this can only be determined on the basis of a full picture of the situation, which is not available to me.

Q. I have one son and one daughter. Every now and then I buy a piece of gold jewellery for my daughter. How do I maintain equality between them? The boy does not need jewellery.
If I give him money instead, it is likely to depreciate while the gold appreciates in value.

A. The important point is to maintain equality at the time of giving the gift. The gifts do not have to be identical, but of the same value and use to the recipient.
You may give your son jewellery, which he may sell or give to his wife when he is older, or you may give him money which you invest in his name so that it will retain its value. You need to determine the best way for your son and seek to maintain fairness.

Q. We know that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent to all mankind, but was Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) also sent to all mankind? If he was sent as a messenger of God to his own people only, and they refused to accept his message, why was all mankind drowned by the floods that engulfed the whole world? It is said that the whole population of the earth come from his three sons, Ham, Sam and Yafith. Please explain.

A. To start with, there are several statements in the Qur’an making clear that Prophet Noah was sent to his own people. He was not a messenger to all mankind. Only Prophet Muhammad was given this task, and therefore, the miracle supporting his message was a book, the Qur’an, outlining a code of living that is suitable to all generations and all communities and environments. Therefore, the question posed by the reader is valid: was the great flood a punishment to all people on earth at the time? If so, why?
In fact, there is no indication or reference in the Qur’an suggesting that the floods overwhelmed the entire planet. The description given in the Qur’an of the flood makes clear that it was of overwhelming proportions, leaving none of the wrongdoers among Noah’s people alive. It does not mention other communities. In fact there are several references that it engulfed Noah’s own people in particular. Take for example the twice-repeated Qur’anic statement: “Do not appeal to Me on behalf of the wrongdoers. They shall be drowned.” (11: 37 & 23: 27) “We saved him together with all those who stood by him, in the ark, and caused those who rejected Our revelations to drown. Surely they were blind people.” (7: 64) The contexts in which all these statements occur are very clear in their references to Noah’s own community to whom he was required to address his message. Hence we can say that the flood punishment was directed to his own people who rejected his faith, after clear evidence had been given to them, and after their long opposition to his efforts and their repeated hurling of abuse and ridicule on him.
This means that other communities to whom Noah’s message was not addressed were not involved in these events.
There is no reason to suppose otherwise. This means that those communities either received other messages, about which the Qur’an remained silent, or they were not at the time receiving any message. In either case, their fate would be determined by their circumstances. We need not go into this because we have no means to establish such historical events with any reasonable measure.
Nor can we say that all people living today are descendents of Noah through his three sons. To start with, there were other people saved in the Ark. These could have had children of their own and they would have descendents. Moreover, we cannot establish with any degree of certainty that Noah had three sons. Indeed, it is practically impossible to ascertain that Sam ever existed, which casts doubt on the very idea of Semitism.
Whether such things are established or not is of no importance. What is important is to rely only on what God says in the Qur’an and what the Prophet has taught in his authentic Sunnah. This is what ensures our salvation in the life to come.

Q. In my village in India, a young woman who is not a Muslim was appointed by the Government as a primary school teacher and was given the task of teaching Arabic, since she is a graduate of Arabic, Muslim parents have refused to allow her to teach their children the language of the Qur’an as they claim this is not allowed by Islam. Is this true?

A. It is examples like these which strengthen my belief that the most important thing Muslims need these days is a good knowledge of Islam. You have here a situation where Muslim parents prefer their children not to learn Arabic because the teacher is a non-Muslim. From where did they get the notion that a teacher of Arabic must be a Muslim, I do not know. The notion is highly mistaken. It cannot be supported by any logical reason. These parents may think that because Arabic is the language of the Qur’an, it is sacred. There is no such thing as a sacred language. Indeed, Islam does not speak of anything as sacred or holy. These parents may think that an Arabic teacher will have to teach their children passages of the Qur’an. As a non-Muslim, their teacher is not allowed to read the Qur’an, or so they think. Little do they realize that Allah has addressed the Qur’an to non-believers on every occasion so that they might listen to its argument and realize the truthfulness of its message. If we were to stop non-Muslims from listening to the Qur’an and learning its message, how do we expect them to have a favorable view of Islam?
Nor is there any evidence to support the view of these Muslim parents. Indeed, we have evidence to show the fallacy of their view. After the battle of Badr, the Muslims were left with 70 prisoners of war. The Prophet decided to allow their relatives to buy their freedom. However, to those prisoners of war who were able to read and write he made the offer that they could buy their freedom by teaching ten Muslim children to read and write. Obviously those teachers were teaching Muslim children Arabic writing and reading. They worshipped idols and associated partners with Allah. They indeed were polytheists. But that did not stop the Prophet asking them to teach Muslim children their Arabic language. Some of those polytheists accepted the Prophet’s offer and completed their task of teaching Muslim children writing and reading, and then they were set free. You may tell those Muslim parents in your village this example, to help them benefit by the services of the Arabic teacher. Otherwise, their children may not be able to learn Arabic.
Having said that, I realize that if the Arabic teacher in your village was a good scholar of Qur’an, he or she can be an infinitely better teacher.But if such a person is not available, let us make use of the facility which is available.

A. Allah has permitted divorce, because in many cases, it is the only way out of a problem. Things may deteriorate within the family to the extent that the continuation of the marriage becomes a greater evil than its dissolution, for this reason, Allah has made it permissible for Muslims to terminate marriage with divorce and has given each of the two parties certain rights and imposed on them certain obligations. However, Islam makes it clear that marriage is meant to be permanent. The Prophet describes divorce as “the most detestable to Allah of all things permissible.” This description is sufficient to make us realize that, from the Islamic viewpoint, divorce is a bitter medicine which relieves a bad situation.
There are many situations in life which could influence the verdict given in any particular question. Thus, something may be forbidden but rendered permissible in a particular situation. This applies when the harm which is caused by the prohibition is greatly outweighed by the need to waive that prohibition. Take for example, the eating of pork. It is forbidden in all normal situations. However, if a Muslim finds himself without food for a couple of days and there is absolutely nothing available to him except pork and he fears for his life, then eating that pork does not only become permissible, but also obligatory.
With regard to divorce, it certainly can be forbidden. That is when a man divorces his wife, knowing that she has no one to look after her and she will come to harm as a result. He has no reason to divorce her except a desire to humiliate her or deprive her of her chance to lead a decent life. In such a situation, the divorce is made in a vengeful way, either to please a second wife, or to demonstrate one’s ability to inflict harm, etc. In such a situation, divorce is certainly forbidden, because of the intention behind it and its likely outcome.

A. Islam has given women the right to have their own business and to attend to their own trade or business and to manage their investments without interference from anyone. All these privileges go with the right of ownership which Islam has given women in full. Indeed, a husband may not interfere with the way his wife manages her business or invests her money as long as her activities do not represent violation of any Islamic principles or disobedience to Allah. In view of that, a Muslim woman may be director of a factory or a company, whether in a Muslim country or abroad and regardless of the number of men employed in that factory or company. In her dealings with her subordinates, she has, of course, to observe Islamic standards of propriety. This applies to all women in all situations. She should avoid shaking hands with men because we know that the Prophet did not shake hands with women when they gave him their pledges of obedience and loyalty.

Our Dialogue