When the religious edict (fatwa) declaring the printing press haram (prohibited) was issued, it came from none other than the Shaykh al-Islam—the highest religious authority of Islam at the time. The decrees opposing the radio, English education, loudspeakers, allopathic medicine, photography, videography, and organ transplantation were of the exact same calibre.
These fatwas were pronounced by the most eminent and renowned Islamic scholars of their respective eras. Would anyone dare claim that these scholars lacked the capacity to research the Quran and Hadith? Certainly not. This implies that, within the context of their time, these rulings were deemed entirely ‘Islamic’ and grounded in scripture. In that era, to oppose such a fatwa was tantamount to outright apostasy or rebellion against Islam, the consequence of which was ‘qabil-e-gardan zani’ (an offence punishable by decapitation).
The Proscribed Printing Press
The Shaykhs decreed, and upon hearing their pronouncements, ordinary Muslims dedicated their lives and souls to enforcing them. They exerted whatever pressure was within their means to ensure compliance, doing so under the righteous banner of “Al-Amr bi-l-Ma’ruf wa-n-Nahi ‘ani-l-Munkar” (Enjoining good and forbidding evil).
It took nearly 300 years for the printing press to transition from haram to halal (permissible). The rest of the trajectory is well known to you. The contemporary Shaykhs of our time initially declared the Covid-19 vaccine haram, only to later declare it halal, and they are now comfortably touring and preaching after having taken the vaccine themselves (may Almighty Allah grant them a long life).
When these advancements were initially branded as haram, no ordinary Muslim bothered to scrutinise the scriptural deeds, titles, or ledgers behind the decision. Nor did they seek any clarification after they were made halal. As for turning the pages of the source texts to investigate for themselves—that was entirely out of the question. They preferred the easier path of hearsay, adopting the stance of “Amanna wa Saddaqna” (We believe and we confirm). Is this blind, uncritical adherence (taqlid) not a profound insult to our God-given intellect (aql)?
None of us possesses the courage to ask: given that the decrees of the Quran and Hadith are immutable, how does something once deemed haram suddenly become halal a few decades later under the pretext of ijtihad (independent reasoning) or qiyas (analogous deduction)?
How does it transition from a restricted allowance to being universally permitted? Has the time not yet come to align “Al-Kitab” (The Book) given by Almighty Allah with the blessings of our own sight and intellect?
An established principle of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) states: “La yunkaru taghayyurul-ahkami bi-taghayyuril-zaman” (It cannot be denied that laws change with the changing of times). Yet the question remains: when a nation falls centuries behind in knowledge and science due to these ‘jurisprudential errors’, who bears the responsibility for this ‘collective ruin’?
I happen to know the answers to those questions.
Almighty Allah will settle accounts with the scholars; that is a matter strictly between them and their Creator. However, my grievance lies elsewhere—who will bear responsibility on the Day of Resurrection for the fanaticism of the unthinking masses who, in implementing these fatwas, persecuted progressive minds for generations, socially ostracised them, and thwarted modern education? Will the said scholars shoulder the blame for their zealotry?
Is this cultural and technological ‘time lag’—this colossal waste of epochs—compatible with Islam? Will those who made others’ lives miserable by forcing these fatwas upon them get away on the Day of Judgment by simply pleading ‘erroneous ijtihad‘?
Any ideas?
I await answers to these fundamental questions from the people of knowledge (Ahl al-Ilm) and those of intellectual standing (Sahib-e-Haysiyat).
Following the publication of this piece, I observed many individuals taking to Facebook to dismiss my assertions as mere figments of my imagination. I generally refrain from appending references to keep the text concise; this does not, however, mean my words are fabricated. I would gently urge those harboring doubts to indulge in some reading. Spend the time you waste on vitriol on education instead; it will be to your own benefit. At the very least, it might save you from the sin of such abuse in the future. For those who require references, the sources are provided below:
Sources:
-
The Printing Press Controversy:
Though Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1455, it took nearly 300 years for the Muslim world to adopt it. In 1485, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II issued an imperial decree (ferman) banning printing in the Arabic script. Subsequently, in 1515, Sultan Selim I reinstated this ban. The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme religious authority of the Ottoman Empire, provided the religious justification behind this prohibition, arguing that printing the Holy Quran could compromise its sanctity and would deprive calligraphers (who copied the Quran by hand) of their livelihood.
Source: “The History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey” – Stanford J. Shaw. Furthermore, the renowned historian Ibrahim Muteferrika (who secured permission to establish the first Ottoman Turkish press in 1727) chronicled this protracted struggle in his writings.
-
The Loudspeaker and Microphone Debate:
When the loudspeaker introduced itself at the dawn of the twentieth century, many scholars denounced it as the ‘voice of Satan’. Several scholars from Al-Azhar University in Egypt and the Deobandi school of thought in India initially declared it haram. Their rationale was that the device did not transmit the actual human voice but rather a mechanical echo or reproduction, thereby rendering congregational prayers invalid. Once its utility became undeniable, the fatwa was revised.
Source: “Fatwa on the Use of Loudspeakers in Mosques” – Journal of Islamic Studies (Oxford).
-
Photography and Videography:
At one point, capturing images with a camera was strictly forbidden, being equated with the creation of idols (taswir). The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Ibn Baz (may Allah have mercy on him), long maintained that photography was haram, save for essential requirements like passports or identification. However, with the advent of satellite television and the internet, contemporary jurists permitted videos and digital images, classifying them merely as a temporary ‘shadow’ or ‘reflection’ (Crux of Reflection).
Source: “Ruling on Photography” – Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta, Saudi Arabia.
-
English Education and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan:
Around 1835, learning the English language and modern sciences was deemed an act of infidelity (kufr) in the Indian subcontinent. One hundred and twenty-four scholars of Delhi issued a fatwa of disbelief against Sir Syed Ahmad Khan simply because he encouraged Muslims to acquire English education.
Source: “Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the Muslim Renaissance” – M. Ikram.
See more: