-
A Hadith Regarding Pictures
Hello there,
My question is assalamualaikum
In a hadith it is said that
Sahih al-Bukhari 3351
Narrated Ibn
Abbas:The Prophet (peace be upon him) entered the Kaba and found in it the pictures of (Prophet) Abraham and Mary. On that he said’ “What is the matter with them (ie Quraish)? They have already heard that angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures; yet this is the picture of Abraham. And why is he depicted as practicing divination by arrows?https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3351
We know that the prohibition from making pictures that was from Prophet is only stated in Ahadith. And thus it cannot be said that it is independent total prohibition of pictures itself, because if it was, then prophet would have propagated it in a way that it would have reached the level of Ijma and tawattur, as a separate injuction. So if the prohibition was in ijma and tawattur, then we could say that an independent injuction may exist.
And as i think ghamidi sahab interpreted the hadith about the topic that angels do not enter a house with pictures, and related it this way that since prohibition of shirk is from Quran (Ijma and tawattur level) and mostly pictures were of for purposes of shirk, which associated these pictures with moral impurity and it was the angels’ sensitivity that made them not enter house. So i guess he concluded that neither the making of picture is independently a sin, and neither is putting up or having pictures in house is an independent sin.
Now the question is that, when looking at this hadith, we come to know that the people of quraish already knew (because of being the nation of previous prophet) that angels do not come at such house, so if i try to relate that what if because quraish already knew the concept that the angels do not enter such place, this concept was already widespread and hence possibly reached ijma and tawattur, hence prophet did not himself made arrangements for spreading it to that level of Ijma and tawattur. And hence maybe possibly an independent injuction of it being sin to place images in house, may exist. Is it possible?
Can you explain if I’m wrong? And of it isn’t to an ijma and tawattur level? And i mean what would have been the circumstances which would have made it to that level?
-
6 Replies
-
A Hadith Regarding Pictures
updated 1 year, 10 months ago
2 Members
·
6
Replies
-
Beliefs were always clearly conveyed to the people. Some of their details might be missing. Since Quraish were the custodian of Kaaba, their elders might have knowledge of this minor detail about angles too. However, in the absence of complete information, nothing can be said for sure.
-
@Irfan76 sir i wanted to ask does the concept of angels not entering such a place, did this concept take a level of Ijma and tawattur? Can it be said that it was spread in a way of ijma and tawattur?
-
@Irfan76 sir here in this Hadith
Ghamidi Sahab says that pictures in the house of Hazrat Ali were not in a state of placement or reverence that sentiments of shirk or reverence of shirk things would trigger, and such pictures could have been allowed because of the fact that Hazrat Ali and their family would have not worshipped them but still prophet mentioned the fact that angels do not enter, and he himself did not enter such place.
But in this hadith ghamidi Sahab said that angels do not enter homes where picture are there but then words “except for clothes” are also mentioned. Ghamidi sahab explained it that it meant that those clothes which are of daily use items like pillow or rugs, blankets etc. Such exceptions were allowed because instead of putting them up in places of reverence, using them for such places finish their status as being revered or any way of reverence for worship.
So why was it not allowed in one case above but not in one another case, although both held the same status that the images were not being revered or on places where some sentiments of shirk could be associated with it?
Q1- can it be said that the pictures prohibited above in Hazrat Ali’s house were of some dieties or something like that, that even those pictures when putted in a place where there is no reason of veneration, EVEN then such pictures would be sin to keep and Angels would not come. And in the case where it was allowed, it was those normal pictures of living things (not of dieties). So only those pictures were allowed to keep with a condition that they too are not put up in high place but rather are treated in a way which a person may say is not revered? Can it be said like this?
Q2 – even if some picture of a deity of a religion is placed somewhere, but there is no threat of anyone being influenced by it or it leading a way for shirk. So even if a picture like this is placed, and angels might not come. So is it necessary that if the angels do not come then it means that this action is, in and of itself is a sin? (If someone puts a statue of buddha in a his house as a show piece, but there’s no likely threat that it would influence anybody for shirk sentiments or revered) so would this keeping in a house (which does not lead to shirk) will also be sin, independently?
Q3- was the concept that angels do not enter a house where there is a picture, spreaded into Muslims in a form of ijma and tawattur? Like the way Sunnah and Quran were transferred? And it may be said if an ijma and tawattur was there then an independent prohibition may be taken that it is Haram in and of itself to keep images in house?
-
Answer to Q. 1. Yes.
Q. 2. This is not recommended.
Q. 3. The claim of Ijma and Tawatur cannot apply to things in Ahadith however, this idea of angels not entering a hourse with pictures is famous enough. Anything haram even mentioned in Quran has to fulfil the criteria of Haram that it is against Tazkika e Nafs, and fulfills any of the five categories mentioned in 7: 33.
-
@Irfan76 sir if someone for example someone visits a temple or a church and takes his photo their with an idol or a cross in background. now this image that he made/took in his phone, would not even be close to respect, let alone veneration or worship. and neither is he sending it o spreading it to someone, who would respect or venerate it. so would his making/taking the image in phone be sin? and would he fall under the category of those Ahadith which tell about punishment for image makers? or it would be sin only if the person adopts/accepts or helps other in doing Shirk by providing or making them items for worship? like the way a proper idol maker does, he makes it with a belief of shirk. and makes it so that the belief is promoted and the image is worshipped?
so the example of this person, would he be sinful at all?
-
Since the whole idea of taking a picture with an idol is not likely to lead someone astray or cause misconception to the person, so it is ok
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
