The Ruling on Using a Camera App as a Mirror

Since camera apps make images without us pressing the capture button: opening the app and using it as a mirror is not appropriate; it is haram (impremissible).

If it is said:

We did not take a picture, as it is not fixed and disappears when the app is closed.

One could say to that:
The imitation is still fulfilled. What you see on the screen is not a reflection, but automatic image-making.
The image being permanent is not necessary for imitation to be fulfilled; creation itself is the condition for that.

Based on this, using a phone camera as a mirror is not allowed, and it is a major sin.

Important Note

If it seems strange to you that the app creates pictures without pressing the capture button, this indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of photography and how these devices work, and does not mean it is not considered photography.

The advice is: Do not speak about what Allaah ruled, without knowledge. This matter concerns a major sin.

Therefore, please consult experts before issuing a ruling on a purely scientific matter related to these modern devices.

Those who permit photography have reached an astonishing level of heedlessness, to the point that if some of them are advised not to publish pictures of scholars — especially those who warned that whoever does so will face their opposition on the Day of Judgment — their reply is:

There is a dispute in the matter, and it is between me and him. You have nothing to do with it.

This is a violation of the sanctity of the scholars and a great injustice against them.

How did they drag in a flimsy dispute into what is merely the scholar’s personal wish not to have his picture published?

This is not permissible, even if that scholar himself says photography is lawful. For his view on the general ruling has nothing to do with him being harmed by publishing his pictures without his permission.

What ignorance and lack of restraint could be worse than this?

This — by Allah — is among the clearest signs of the corruption of the position of those who permit it, in addition to the fact that many people of deviant desires fall under their banner.

What difference is there between you and those who worship Allah through innovations? Will you be able to stand against al-Albaany, Ibn Baaz, al-Uthaymeen, and al-Wadi‘ee — all of them — on the Day of Judgment?

O Allah we complain to you against this ignorance, transgression, and lack of restraint.

If photography were merely a reflection, there would have been no need to invent it, and a mirror would have sufficed.

This forces one to say that photography is a fixed, preserved reflection, which contradicts both sense and reason.

It is the same as saying that realistic painting is the fixing of a reflection on paper using brush and colors. Same thing.

One is merely deceived by the precision of the machine’s drawing, nothing more, nothing less.

The truth is clear, by Allah.

A Clarification to People of Sense: The Claim that Photography Is Mere Reflection Makes No Sense

Many people today claim that photography is nothing but reflection, and that what appears in a photo is just like what is seen in a mirror, and therefore harmless. This is astonishing, and it is one of the most corrupt analogies, because the differences between photographs and mirrors are many.

To clarify, let us consider some basic scientific facts.

First: The Definition of Reflection Reflection is when light bounces off a reflective surface, such as a mirror or calm water, allowing the object itself to be seen directly on that surface.

Second: Conditions for Reflection For reflection to exist, two things are required:

• The object itself.
• A reflective surface.

And for the reflection to be visible, a direct line of sight between the eye and the reflective surface is necessary.

Third: Why Photographs Are Not Reflections Photographs exist independently without fulfilling any of these conditions — a fact so obvious.

For example: suppose you liked a flower outside the house, photographed it with your phone, then went home and showed your brother the picture. Where is the flower? Where is the reflective surface? Where is the direct line between your brother’s eye and the reflective surface? All the conditions of reflection are absent, yet he still sees the picture.

Why? Because you copied the flower’s image with your phone camera. Instead of needing a canvas, paints, and a brush, you used a modern device to reproduce its image.

This is obvious, simple, and clear — and should not require such lengthy explanation.

To photograph = to draw with light.

There are no shadows or reflections in this equation.

The only reason someone would insert such terms is because they do not understand how a machine uses light to produce images — and that is purely scientific.

No expert says that photography is like a mirror, or that a camera traps shadows. None.

The only people in the world who make that claim are Muslims who say drawing by hand is forbidden, but photography is not.

Isn’t that enough reason to stop and rethink one’s position on this matter — especially when grave punishment awaits image makers?

Advice and Warning to Those Who Are Lenient with Photography

We have noticed that some publishers use pictures of senior scholars and caption them with emotional phrases, then justify it by blotting out the head.

The problem is that these pictures were originally produced through sin, so using them is an approval of that evil and a habituation of the public to it — one of the steps of Shaytaan.

Had the photographer feared Allah, the picture would not have been taken in the first place.

So is it fitting for us to make the fruit of his sin into material for da‘wa? And would you stand before the scholars to photograph them from the neck down, in their presence?

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded that pictures possessed out of ignorance of the ruling be blotted out in order to dispose of them — not to justify seeking them out, blotting them, and then using them in da‘wa.

This is neither honoring the scholars nor following the guidance of the Prophet and the Salaf.

Did none of them ask themselves: would the scholar photographed be pleased with a post containing his body while his head is blotted out with scribbles or strange shapes?

One would not dare show shaykh al-Fawzaan such posts. And if that is the case, then what about Allah?

One may ask: why write such posts?

Because it has become absurd that many scholars describe photography as merely "shadow capturing", or more faithfully, "shadow trapping".

And now, saying that "photographing animate beings is forbidden" is treated as insanity.

It is a duty to resist such false beliefs.

It is not me who did it, it is the machine.

Said the criminal in court after killing an innocent man by running him over.

This is the same reasoning used by many who declare taking pictures of animate objects permissible.

Allah permitted grape juice and all wholesome drinks, and He forbade intoxicating wine.

He permitted sale and trade, and He forbade usury.

He permitted marriage, and He forbade fornication.

He permitted lawful slaughter, and He forbade carrion, blood, and pork.

He permitted earning through one’s work and effort, and He forbade theft and fraud.

He permitted making images of inanimate things, and He forbade making images of animate beings.

Whoever claims that the prohibition of image-making is too narrow, then the only narrowness is in his own knowledge and faith.

O people, fear your Lord, for you will meet Him, and to Him you will return.

Do not occupy yourselves with the matter of image-making.

We will occupy ourselves with it, for it is among the greatest avenues of forbidding evil.

The one who says this only does so based on his understanding of photography, an understanding built upon ignorance of its reality, then he goes on to decisively declare it permissible on that basis. In truth, he is imposing his ignorance upon you in order to belittle a major sin.

If we were to concede to him in this belittlement, it would necessitate:

• Remaining silent about a major sin.
• Remaining silent about a means leading to shirk.
• Remaining silent about that from which the angels recoil.
• Remaining silent about opening a wide door for fitan (scourges).

Are we to be expected to swallow all of these evils merely because they are ignorant of the reality of photography?

And if it were said to them: "Do not occupy yourselves with forbidding the making of statues", they would reject that in the strongest terms.

Yet the evil of photography has a greater impact, and its disastrous consequences are plainly witnessed—except to the one whose insight has been blinded from seeing them.