Islam forbids statues

One thing that no doubt is, that all the problems of all the problems and draw the picture in question carved or painted images. As for the issue of pictures taken using the sun or now known by the name of photography, then this is even new that has never happened in the time of the Prophet or scholars of the Salaf and, therefore, whether this can be equated with the hadiths- hadiths that talk about painting and the artist, as in this case there is a hadith stating that Gabriel as never asked for permission to the Prophet Muhammad. To enter the house and then the Prophet SAW. Jibril told a U.S.: "Come in! However, Gabriel answered: How can I get being in the house it was curtains were full of pictures! However, if you are still going to wear it, then decide on his head or cut to make pillow or make a mat. "(Reported by Nasa'i and Ibn Hibban)

Gabriel did not want to go home once the Prophet SAW. Because at his front door there is a statue, the next day Gabriel still would not go so he said to the Prophet SAW.: "Command to cut the head of the statue, so it becomes like a tree head" (Reported by Abu Dawud, Nasai, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Hibban) .
"Indeed the weight siksanya later on the Day of Judgment are those who draw" (Reported by Muslim)
"Take away the curtain from me because the pictures always seem to be in my prayers" (Reported by Bukhari)
The person who made the statue or image Prophet once said:
"Who is more unjust than those who do work make like My creation? Hence they try to make seeds or weight of an atom (Hadith Qudsi. History of Bukhari and Muslim)
The people who insist that the illicit images is restricted to a berjasad (sculpture), a photo for them nothing, especially if you do not sebadan full. However, people who berependapat others, whether such photos can dikiasakan a picture painted with a
brush? Or if maybe illat (reason) which has been stressed in the hadith problems painter, Prohibition melukisa match because of God's creation - not applicable to this photography? while according to experts suggested that illatnya fiqh was not there, who was convicted (ma'lulnya) no.
Clearly this problem is as yan ever difatwakan by sheikh Muhammad Bukhait, mufti of Egypt, that photography is a shadow of detention with a tool that has been known for its technique "Tustel" or "Camera". This way there is not a ban. Prohibition drawing is held the original image, and yet no one can match the previously created (being) created by God, is this kind of understanding is not present in images taken with a camera.
And there are some conclusions of law regarding the image and the drawing as follows:
Type of image that is in the picture is forbidden to be worshiped but Allah, as Isa al-Masih in Christianity. Pictures like this can make the painter kufr if he did it with full knowledge and intent. So also with the makers of the statue, his sin would be enormous if only to glorified in any way. Included also are involved in sin, those who have fellowship in it.
Included also sinful person who paints something not to be worshiped, but at meandingi bertujua for God's creation. That he thinks can make a new model and make as creation of God. It can make kufr, it is, depends on the intention of the artist himself.
Under further including statues are not worshiped, but for glorified, such as statues of the kings, heads of state, or who are considered leaders by their immortality was established monuments built-ground field and so on. His sin is the same, whether the statue was a half-body or full sebadan.
Underneath the statue again the animals with no intention to be sanctified or glorified, exempt statues and toys made from foodstuffs such as sweets and so on.
Furthermore, is on the board by the artist or owner intentionally diagung-like images angungkan rulers and leaders, more so if the picture is planted or hung. Even more strongly drawn illegitimate if it is the oppressors, a wicked and anti-God groups. They glorify this means undermining Islam.
Below that are pictures of animals that are not intended for glorified, but it is considered as a waste, for example, pictures on the walls and so on. It only includes the dimakruhkan.
The pictures of landscapes, for example, trees, date palms, sea, boats, mountains, etc., there is no sin at all either the artist or the store, as long as the image is not her owners away from worship and waste. If it is so, then the law makruh.
The photography in principle permissible, as long as it does not contain objec forbidden, as sanctified by a religious or permiliknya praised the mundane. More-configurable if it glorified the wicked, for example, groups pagan, communist, and artists who have strayed.
Finally, when the statues and pictures were forbidden form has changed and degraded (in pictures), it can be moved from the haram into halal. Like the pictures on the floor of the bias being trampled by the feet and sandals.