Irked by the stupidity of the argument of Mufti Taqi in his futile attempt to bolster his flaccid and flapdoodle fatwa of the permissibility of digital pictures, a Sister from Pakistan posed the following question to him:


Muhtaram Janaab Taqi Sahib!     Assalamu Alaikum

With your fatwa you have made pictures lawful (jaaiz). According to your fatwa, the digital picture is a reflection, hence permissible. According to my understanding, a reflection relates to the object. As long as the person or object is present, the reflection will remain in the medium in which it is reflected. The reflection will disappear immediately with the removal of the object/person, for example, the reflection in a mirror. The reflected image immediately disappears with the removal of the object.

Now what type of reflection is this digital ‘reflection’ which is retained (even after disappearance of the person/object), and could be reproduced at will and fancy, e.g. U-tube, Facebook and other Dajjaali social media which present all these ‘reflections’ as pictures?

The bayaans (i.e. with the pictures) of the Ulama, Muftis and Buzrugs are all preserved. Night and day these are being viewed. Kindly answer my question.


Our fatwa is not that the digital picture is a reflection. Our fatwa is that prior to the printing of the digital picture on paper, etc., it resembles a reflection on the screen, etc. where it does not have permanency. Therefore there is no incumbency for the definition of reflection or for all the features of a reflection to apply to this (i.e. the image on the screen).

It should be clear that according to the respected seniors of Darul Uloom Karachi and many Ulama and respected Muftis of other countries, the haqeeqat (reality/nature) of the digital picture is that it is neither Bi-aynihi (per se) a true picture nor Bi-aynihi a true reflection because a true picture is engraved on a surface and it is preserved with permanency on that surface.

Also, it is not a reflection Bi-aynihi because the reflection is subservient to the reflected object. Now when the digital picture is not subservient to the reflected object, but could be reproduced without the reflected object, it will not be a reflection Bi-aynihi (per se). However, it has a greater resemblance with a reflection than with a picture. That is why we say that it has a greater resemblance with a reflection.

Shah Muhammad Tafaddhul Ali

Affirmed by the Mufti of Daarul Ifta Jaami’ Daarul Uloom Karachi

(Mufti Taqi Usmani)

(End of Mufti Taqi’s fatwa)


Indeed this weird fatwa is bizarre in the sphere of skulduggery and humbug. The ludicrous idea that the image appearing on a television screen or any similar media screen is neither a picture nor a reflection is a shaitaani view urinated into the brains of these miscreant, wayward Karongi Muftis to provide them with a straw for presenting as a ‘daleel’ to further hoodwink and bamboozle the ignorant masses and the ulama-e-soo’ who have latched onto Mufti Taqi’s baatil haraam halaalization of haraam pictography.

Labelling the haraam television/video pictures as ‘digital’, Mufti Taqi has shamelessly, blatantly and most insincerely halaalized a shaitaani act, namely Tasweer Saazi (pictography) which the Shariah has made haraam on the basis of explicit Nusoos of absolute certitude (Qat’iyyat).

It is indeed satanic to fabricate the irrational and stupid, hybrid ‘reflection-picture’ phenomenon simply to provide ‘daleel’ for Mufti Taqi’s view of permissibility which has thrown open the floodgates of pornography and immorality. It is indeed an insult to intelligence and a mockery of their own brains to forge and fraud this stupid, illogic and totally untenable proposition of the hybrid phenomenon. No man of Aql-e-Saleem will ever accept this ludicrous and stupid phenomenon which has existence in only the hallucination of these Muftis. Due to the absolute moronity of this concept, we are constrained to ask these Karongi Muftis, including Mufti Taqi: Kiya dimaagh kharaab ho gaya? What are your brains vermiculated?

Their argument is pure nonsense and absolutely coprophilic. They stupidly and satanically claim that prior to the printing of the digital image on a surface, e.g. paper, it resembles a reflection. Thus, they are constrained to concede that this hallucinated reflection is transformed into a haraam picture once it is given permanency on a surface of any medium, enabling the reproduction of the image.

Note well that in her Istiftaa’ (question) the Sister asks firstly about the reproduced picture, that is the picture created by the digital process. It is not the process or method of production which is in question. The issue is the picture. Hence, regardless of the method by which the picture is created it remains haraam tasweer. Now, whether the image is made by pen, brush, sculping, photography, the digital process or any other means yet to be invented, it will be a haraam picture if it is of an animate object.

In another Istiftaa’ which shall, Insha-Allah, form the subject for another article, the Sister asked these miscreant Muftis whether it is at all permissible for females to look at the snouts of the molvis and muftis appearing on youtube and facebook regardless of the image on the screen being a picture or a reflection. In that Istiftaa’ too, she truncated the Muftis and drove them into a corner of confusion from which extrication is impossible.

Even the kuffaar who are the manufacturers of this process of digital pictures will mock at the stupidity of the hybrid reflection-picture concept of these silly muftis who have are making a laughing stock of themselves with their weird, irrational and stupid concept. How can a picture be part reflection and part picture at one and the same time? The image in a mirror or in water is never a picture in the meaning of the term given by the Shariah. Yes, even the reflection in the mirror is haraam to view if haraam factors are present, e.g. the image of a ghair mahram female/male or the depiction of nudity and the like.

Thus, if we too should momentarily descend into the pits of jahaalat to accept that even the reproduced image on the internet screen is NOT a picture, then too, it is not possible for the most stupid, moron, maajin mufti to claim that looking at pornography on the video/internet screens is permissible. Just as viewing obscenity and pornography in a mirror is haraam, so too, in fact to a higher degree, will it be haraam on these Ibleesi and Dajjaali social media platforms.

It  should be well understood, and for which understanding, much brainpower is not a requisite, that all digital images on computer/video screens are haraam pictures in the meaning of the Shariah regardless of whether these screen images are produced digitally or by the phenomenon of reflection, and whether the show on the screen is live or ‘dead’. The hurmat is the same.

Let it also be understood that the image on the screen is NEVER a reflection even in a live show. While in the mirror one views a true reflection of the object, on the screen which may be thousands of miles from the screened object/person, it is not the reflection of the latter. It is a true picture produced after the image of the object is preserved in whatever contraption and method devised for this purpose.

The moron molvi is not standing infront of the screen for his image to be reflected thereon. His image is secured thousands of miles away in a device, then reproduced to form the picture which is transmitted with extreme speed to be reproduced at the receiving end for depiction on the screen. So these muftis of Karongi should go to the zoo and try to convince some baboons of their hybrid reflection-picture theory which places the seal on the khataabiyyat (vermiculation) of their dimaagh (brains).

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted that in the era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, Muslims will halaalize liquor with fancy names. This prediction may be extended to other haraam acts and practices halaalized by the zigzag muftis who are experts in the Ibleesi art of issuing zigzag fatwas to bamboozle the ignorant and the unwary.

Insha-Allah, the other Istiftaa’ of the Sister and baatil fatwa of Mufti Taqi shall be discussed in another article.

6 Sha’baan 1444 – 27 February 2023

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.