A number of Hadiths are quoted which make it clear that it is forbidden to create a likeness of Allah's living creation. Among the most telling of these are a sacred or Qudsi Hadith and a statement by the Prophet. In the sacred or Qudsi Hadith, the Prophet quotes Allah as saying : "Who does a greater sin than one who tries to create something like My creation. Let them create a particle or a seed or a barley seed." (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The authentic statement by the Prophet quotes him as saying: "Those who endure the most grievance or suffering on the Day of Resurrection are the ones who create a likeness." (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). In many of these Hadiths, the Arabic word used for the "creation of a likeness" is the same as we use today for photography. Hence, some scholars have tended to pronounce photography as forbidden on the basis of these Hadiths. However, photography was invented long after the Prophet and, therefore, it is not possible that these Hadiths refer to photography unless there was some technique at the time of the Prophet which was used to create photos in the same way as a camera does. Since there was none, we should determine what the word signified at that time.

If we consider how the word is used in the Qur'an, we find that it is invariably used to denote how Allah creates people, animals and things. In its original use the word sawara means "to give shape and form." Hence, majority of learned scholars are of the view that these Hadiths refer to sculpture and making statues and shapes and engravings on stone or wood to create likenesses of Allah's creation. Hence, there is no disagreement among scholars that such works are forbidden not only to produce, but also to buy, possess or display.

Photography does not enter into that. The late Sheikh Muhammad Bakheet, a former Mufti of Egypt, has made it clear that photography is not included in such prohibition. He states that this art is no more than capturing a shade or a reflection by special technique. He clarifies that what is forbidden is to create a likeness which has no previous existence in order to produce something like what Allah has created. Using a camera to take a picture is similar to fixing what we see in a mirror. No one says that looking into mirror is forbidden because it shows a likeness of Allah's creation. We use lenses in cameras in order to capture a mirror picture of the person or the object for which we need a photo. This is perfectly legitimate.

The same applies to using a video camera because it does no more than taking a large number of still pictures which, when shown rapidly, create the image of movement.

Having said that, I should add that the purpose for which the photos and videos are used is certainly significant in arriving at a ruling concerning them. We can, therefore, conclude that the likenesses, whether shaped or painted which carry the strictest prohibition are those which have for their objects persons or other creatures whom some people worship, such as the statues of Jesus Christ. Such likenesses are forbidden to make, sell or own or to photograph. Similarly, statues of people who are not worshipped but are given a position of majesty are also forbidden. All statues and sculpture work are forbidden as well unless they are treated as toys for children. Paintings of people who are glorified are forbidden to hang, particularly if they are paintings of dictators, unjust rulers, atheists or people whose conduct is anti-Islamic. On the other hand, paintings of natural scenery are permissible. Photographs are permissible to start with, unless they are photographs of someone or something which is forbidden. Take, for example, a person who is worshipped by his followers or glorified in an exaggerated way. To have his photograph hung on the wall as a sign of respect is forbidden, particularly if he is a disbeliever or an atheist. For example, Communists glorify Lenin and have his picture everywhere. It is forbidden for a Muslim to display a photograph of Lenin, because Lenin was a man who denied the existence of Allah and who sought to replace religion with a creed of his own.

Whatever is applicable to videos and video tapes of the above uses, have the same ruling. Moreover, a video camera may be used for a variety of purposes. The purpose dictates the ruling. If we use a video camera to study animal life in order to understand Allah's creation, knowing that when we learn something new about the universe and Allah's work in it, we feel that our faith gets stronger, then there is no harm in such use. Any other permissible use is approved. But when we use a video camera to, say, film a woman dancer who displays a part of her body which Allah has forbidden to reveal, then we are using a video camera for a forbidden purpose. Hence, its use becomes forbidden.

Taking photographs and filming videos are not objectionable in themselves. Some scholars say that photography is strictly forbidden, but they have no real evidence to support their view. Unfortunately, they rely on Hadiths in which the term we use nowadays for photography is mentioned. However, that term used to refer to something else at the time of the Prophet, because photography had not yet been invented. If we compare the use of that term in the Qur'an and Hadith at that time, we are bound to conclude that it refers to the creation of a shape which is akin to Allah's creation. So it is more accurate to say that it refers to the making of statues, sculpture and similar art. As for photography, which is similar to the image one sees in the mirror, it cannot be included in the prohibition. The same argument applies to video filming.

Noble indeed are the motives which have caused this particular community to form such a vigilante group to ensure that its members fulfill their duties which are distinctive of Muslims generally. Their action, however, raises a number of questions such as the one you have raised. The first question I would like to ask is whether the vigilante group will limit its activities to violation of Islamic rules on prayer and alcohol drinking? If so, the question is what distinguishes these rules? Why is it so important for a Muslim not to violate the prohibition on alcohol drinking when the observation of other Islamic prohibitions are not so important? If a group will try to implement all Islamic laws then they have to give an answer to the question: What are they going to do about someone who commits murder? Will they organize their own court and do their own investigations? If the suspect is proved guilty, will they enforce capital punishment? Suppose that the law of your country does not allow capital punishment, will they still execute the murderer? What if he has been tried by the government court and given a sentence which is less than the capital punishment, or even set free, because the court determined that the evidence against him is not sufficient? Some people of the Muslim community may come forward and give further evidence which may not be admissible in court, but is convincing enough to the vigilante group that the man is the murderer. In this case, the alternatives are limited to either executing the man and, by so doing, raising a huge problem with the civil authorities, or claiming that they cannot exercise authority over such matters and will leave them to the civil authority.

Neither alternative is satisfactory in view of the aims the group has set for itself. The second alternative will bring us back to the first question of the group observing the fulfillment of certain Islamic rules to the exclusion of others. This is not acceptable from the Islamic point of view because any authority which can implement Islamic law should implement it as a whole. The other alternative may lead to big problems. Indeed, the group may be rounded up by the civil authority and tried for murder.

It need not go as far as that for problems to arise. Suppose that they take someone to flog in the mosque for drinking alcohol and the man goes out to lodge a complaint against the leaders of the community or the imam of the mosque. The civil authority will feel that they must intervene and when they know the extent of the problem, they may feel it to be very serious as it signifies a duality of authority. No government approves such a situation. If the authorities happen to take an unfavorable attitude toward the Muslim community, the action of the vigilante group will give them justification to translate such an attitude to something much worse. In this way, the whole of the community may suffer for the actions of a few people.

Moreover, what about other Islamic duties such as the payment of zakah? Will they administer the collection and distribution of zakah? If they will not concern themselves with zakah, then they are neglecting a duty which ranks among the five pillars upon which the structure of Islam is built. If they say that they will collect zakah and distribute it, what will they do about those who refuse payment? In the case of zakah, cooperation is essential between the administrative authority and those who are liable to pay it. Otherwise, there can be a wide range of problems beginning with defiance on the part of some and extending to trying to get the government to intervene. Again, this may land the Muslim community as a whole in a multitude of problems. Other Islamic duties which must be observed will require various punishments for those who do not fulfill them. If the vigilante group enforces such punishments, then they are assuming an authority which they cannot claim. If they do not, then they leave violation of Islamic laws unpunished. The dilemma is terrible.

Then, what about those additional punishments which the vigilante group seems to want to inflict? The example you have mentioned of someone continuing to drink after the first punishment. The group wants to enforce a total boycott of this man and his family. Why should his family be punished for his conduct? Maybe his wife and children are totally opposed to his drinking. Why should they be discarded from the Muslim community? Indeed, they are in need of help.

There is no doubt that a Muslim community is required to enforce Allah's laws when they are able to do so. This means that the Muslim community should have power in its area. In other words, it has to wield central authority. Otherwise, it cannot act on its own. Allah describes the community of believers as one which will enforce Allah's laws when they are established in the land. This is taken to mean that they have real authority, not as pressure or vigilante group, but as a government. In a situation like that of your community, I feel that it is the wrong approach to form such a vigilante group to see that individual members are observing Islamic laws. If your community is large enough, you may be able to negotiate with the central government the exercise of certain powers within the community. This will require that you have your own leaders who are recognized by the government for the exercise of certain powers within the community. This will require that you have your own leaders who are recognized by the government of the land and indeed receive its backing when it comes to the enforcement of Islamic law. Short of that, the method you have described is bound to produce more harm than good.

As for the validity of the prayers offered in such circumstances, the answer is that we do not know. From the theoretical point of view, a person who offers prayers under any circumstances has discharged his duty. We do not know his intention or his inner feelings. He may be going through the movements of prayer without putting his mind into it. In such case, his prayers are not valid. It is Allah alone who knows his intentions. He judges people as He knows best.