Is it permissible for women to look at the picture of any Aalim, Shaikh or Buzrug whose gives talks on YouTube, television and other social media platforms? All of these buzrugs are na-mahaarem for the women?
If there is no fear of fitnah or lust then it is permissible for women to look at a video-talk of a reliable Aalim/Shaikh. But, since fitnah cannot be initially assessed, it is therefore precautionary for women not to look at the pictures when listening to the lecturer.
(End of the corrupt fatwa)
The aforementioned ‘fatwa’ to the question posed by a Pakistani lady, was issued by the darul ifta of Mufti Taqi. Every Muslim with healthy Imaan regardless of him/her lacking in Islamic Knowledge can understand the stupidity and invalidity of this corrupt fatwa.
Mufti Taqi is a halaalizer of haraam pictography, hence he and his darul ifta are in tight spots when such questions are posed. In seeking to wriggle out of the tight corner, these muftis adopt stupid fence-sitting stances which highlight the silliness and butlaan (invalidity) of the ‘fatwas’ which they disgorge by way of sucking their thumbs.
Firstly, the Qur’aan Majeed prohibits men and women looking at one another. “Say to the Mu’minaat to lower their gaze and to guard their chastity……” (An-Nur, Aayat 31). The first step towards zina (fornication/adultery) is the look, hence the Qur’aan prohibits looking without restrictive conditions. That is: it is haraam to look regardless of the assumption that the look is without lust. That the look is without lust is a shaitaani hallucination of the nafs. The Qur’aanic command is not abrogated on the basis of the hallucination of the look not being accompanied by lust.
The Qur’aan commands: “Do not come near to zina.” The look takes one near, very near to zina. In all cases, at least zina of the mind and heart is the first effect of the look. Even the moron mufti acknowledges in his fatwa that the Ihtiyaat (safety/precaution) necessitates abstention from looking.
Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the zina of the eyes is in looking… and the heart desires (zina).” But this wayward mufti says that it is permissible. Furthermore, he compounds his haraam, baatil fatwa with the kufr of pictures. Thus, the sin is a compounded double one: The sin of looking, and the kufr sin of believing that the haraam picture is halaal, and deceitfully encouraging women to stare at the ugly snouts of the so-called ‘buzrugs’ who advertise themselves on the worst kind of haraam media such as youtube, facebook and the like.
As far as the prohibition of looking is concerned, the Fuqaha have ruled that if one is aroused by looking even at one’s mahram female, e.g. niece, aunt, etc., then looking at her is forbidden. In one Hadith it is mentioned: “Every eye is adulterous.”
Despite the mas’alah being so palpably clear, the mufti befogs it with his stupid nafsaani answer because he is in a quandary stemming from his halaalizing of pictures.
The correct fatwa is simple and straightforward: Pictures are haraam. It is haraam for women to look at the ugly faces of the stupid molvis, shaikhs and crank buzrugs who appear on the satanic media screens. The sin is of an aggravated kind.
THE MAJLIS VOLUME 26 NUMBER 08