The world today abounds with deviates who have set themselves up as ‘mujtahideen’ with the objective of casting the Shariah into the mould of modernity by way of baseless interpretation. Numerous molvi and sheikh deviates acting as agents of Iblees have been appointed by Shaitaan to execute the pernicious plot of undermining the Shariah which has reached us intact from the Sahaabah via authentic narration from generation to generation.
One such deviate whose baatil opinion is the subject of this refutation, is known as Molvi Ilyas Ghumman who presents himself as a defender of the Maslak of our Ulama of Deoband when in reality he is a wolf in sheep’s skin, there being no affinity between him and the Akaabir Ulama and Auliya of Deoband.
This deviate whose satanic mission is to misguide the ignorant and unwary Muslims has abortively laboured to justify the utilization of haraam pictography for propagating the Deen. Whilst he ostensibly concedes that pictures of animate objects are haraam, he is at pains to show that pictures produced by the digital process are not pictures, hence are halaal.
He further seeks to bolster his baatil opinion by invoking the Shar’i principle of Dhuroorah (Need) which legalizes forbidden things.
In this refutation we have, Alhamdulillah, demolished all the hogwash which constitutes his ‘daleel’. He has failed to present even a single valid Shar’i daleel to substantiate his absolutely baatil idea of permissibility of haraam pictures for Tabligh and Da’wat. An opinion without Shar’i proof is devoid of Shar’i worth. The one and only argument he has for the attempt to legalize the kabeebrah sin of pictography is the act of present-day molvis, especially Tabligh Jamaat molvis who freely indulge in taking photos for passports and visas despite the fact that there is no Shar’i incumbency for such haraam indulgence. This is his only ‘daleel’.
His argument, in a nut shell, is: If these Ulama believe that it is permissible to take photos for their Tabligh and other visits to countries, then on the same basis it is permissible to use videos, facebook and the like to display his snout whilst delivering his talks. We have, Alhamdulillah, negated and demolished this stupid argument in the ensuing pages.
We have reproduced his entire speech which one of his fans had translated from Urdu and published. His statements in our refutation appear in italics, followed by our refutation under the sub-headings: Our Comment.