by means of a machine is not of this nature. Since it is not of this nature, we cannot include it within the curse and say: “This man has been cursed on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him” (1). For just as we must exercise scrupulous caution before including within a wording something whose apparent sense indicates that it is not included, we must likewise exercise scrupulous caution before prohibiting something when it is not clear to us that it falls under the wording. This is because the former is an affirmation and the latter a negation. Thus, just as we are cautious in making an affirmation, we must also be cautious in making a negation; and just as we must be cautious in making a negation, we must also be cautious in making an affirmation.

The matter is not merely one of declaring something prohibited; punishment will follow from it. Can we testify that this person is punished by being cursed, by severe wrongdoing, and the like? We cannot be decisive except on the basis of something clear. This is why a distinction is made between a man who takes a document written in my own hand, places it in a photographic machine, and operates the machine so that the image is reproduced, whereupon it is said: “What has appeared on this paper is a reproduction of the original,” and it is said, “This is his handwriting,” and people testify to this; and the case where I take your handwriting and imitate it with my own hand, drawing letters and words like yours. In that case, I have attempted to imitate you, to write what you wrote, and to make an image as you made one.

In the first case, however, there is no action on my part whatsoever. Thus, I may take a photograph at night; a person may take one with his eyes closed; and a blind man may take one. So how can we say that this man is an image-maker?!

My view, then, is that this does not fall under the derivation of the word ṣawwara (“to fashion an image”), with the doubled wāw; therefore, he does not deserve the curse.