Can you take photos of muslims

Many of the images of Muhammad which date from the s were intended only to be viewed privately, to avoid idolatry, says Christiane Gruber, associate professor of Islamic Art at Michigan University. Such items included miniatures which showed characters from Islam. Gruber says the advent of mass-circulation print media in the 18th Century posed a challenge.

The colonisation of some Muslim lands by European forces and ideas was also significant, she says. The Islamic response was to emphasise how different their religion was to Christianity, with its history of public iconography, Gruber argues.

Pictures of Muhammad started to disappear, and a new rhetoric against depictions emerged. He maintains that the effect of the Hadiths, with their injunctions against any images of living things, is automatically a prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.

He says the medieval images have to be understood in context. There is a ram or a horse. He is on the horse or something like that. But they do exist. A key point is that they are not simple portraits of Muhammad. Asim also argues that the subject of many of the images is unclear. There is a question of whether all of these depictions actually intended to portray the Prophet or a close companion involved in the same scene, he suggests.

The later Muslim community has tended to have different views on this question as on others. For example, children are asked to take blessings from their late grandparents. They go to their photos hung on the wall and start praying. Seeking blessings from the ones who passed away. This practice is common in adulthood also. For Muslims, "shirk" is the biggest of all sins.

Since hanging pictures can lead to idolatry and "shirk", it is completely avoided. Landscapes are beautiful. There is no issue of hanging them. Having said that I must also say that Muslim Scholars are against the photography of living things and some completely avoid photography and videography. When you say abstract art, I can't make any comment. It is discouraged because of the reasons mentioned above.

I have never heard of a Hadith or Verse against this, but you may be referring it to a form of shirk as the above person said. I say that taking photos of family, people and such and hanging them on a wall for memory of a blissful time is allowed, as long as it doesn't exceed the limit and end with you praying to it like some cultures and religions do, as we should only pray to Allah swt alone. Though sometimes people say 'May my family watch over me in the hereafter', If in this they mean 'May my family watch my journey through life' then I say that it is ok, as they aren't asking them for guidance or praying to them and only asking them to watch them, but if they mean 'may they guide me in life' and believe that their ancestors can help them, then I don't recommend.

I'm no scholar or imam so I can't label it makrooh, but i don't recommend it as only Allah can help us, not our ancestors. The original question is WHY?

Why do we have to pray 5 times a day? Why not 4? Because that is what our Creator swt has prescribed. Allah swt is most wise. So if there are sound hadith against it then if we dont understand or it doesn't make sense that is when we use our faith in Him swt. It's good you are looking for answers but just make sure you are following the appropriately educated scholars. Me personally I think its what they try to feed you I have my kids pictures on my way and i don't worship them at all.

I don't believe that Allah gives us knowledge to make an have things that are that bad. They drew on walls in their time telling their stories so was that wrong? Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?

Learn more. Why are muslims not allowed to hang photos of their family on the walls of their houses? Ask Question. Asked 5 years, 9 months ago. Active 3 years, 7 months ago. Viewed 57k times. If it is true, can you hang pictures of landscapes or abstract art on the wall? Improve this question. Rebecca J. Stones Professor of programming Professor of programming 1 1 gold badge 1 1 silver badge 5 5 bronze badges.

Sure you can hang any picture on the wall, that is not a picture of a animals humans included , calligraphy, abstract art, modern art and pictures of landscapes, skyscapes, seascapes and other stuff is all allowed. You may have observed that in mosques that are old, generally built from the start of till are all decorated with mosaics, calligraphy of Quran and even abstract architectural designs.

Also I would suggest the answer at Islam SE - [] islam. However, several government agencies have made exceptions to this rule in the case of religious headwear. The U. State Department, for example, gives explicit guidelines for U. In this case, it is acceptable for the hair to be covered for religious reasons, as long as the full face is visible.

Under no circumstances are face veils niqab allowed to be worn in U. Each individual U. In many places, an exception is made for religious headwear as long as the person's face is clearly visible, in line with the State Department guidelines quoted above. In some states, this exception is written into state law, while in other states it is agency policy. A few states allow a no-photo ID card in certain circumstances or provide other accommodation for those with religious needs.

If there is a question about a particular state's rules, one should consult the DMV head office and ask for the policy in writing. With regard to face veils, virtually all photo IDs require the face to be shown for identity purposes. In a case in Florida, a Muslim woman petitioned for the right to wear a face veil in a driver's license photo, in accordance with her interpretation of the Islamic dress requirements. The Florida court denied her claim. The judge supported the DMV's opinion that if she wanted a driver's license, a brief removal of her face veil for an identity photograph was not an unreasonable request and therefore did not violate her religious rights.

Similar cases have resulted in the same ruling in other states.