However, one point remains for consideration: if a person wishes to produce this permissible type of image, its ruling falls under the five legal categories according to his intention. If he intends something prohibited by it, then it is prohibited; and if he intends something obligatory by it, then it becomes obligatory. Indeed, image-making may at times be obligatory. For example, if we see someone involved in a crime that violates the rights of others—such as an attempted killing and the like—and we cannot establish it except through photography, then photography in that case is obligatory, especially in matters by which the case can be precisely documented. This is because means take the rulings of their ends.

Likewise, if someone produces an image which it is unlawful for him to enjoy looking at, in order to enjoy looking at it, then this is undoubtedly prohibited. The same applies to a picture kept as a memento, for we do not say that it is not an image; rather, it is unquestionably an image. If he keeps it, then the warning has come concerning one who possesses an image: the angels do not enter a house in which there is an image, as will come, Allah willing (1).

Its Use ………

His statement, “Its use”: there is a degree of figurative expression in this phrase. For if we were to take it according to its apparent wording, its meaning would be: “the use of image-making,” since the pronoun refers back to image-making; yet this is certainly not what he intends. In al-Rawd, it says: “the use of the image” (2). Thus, by “image-making” he means “the image”; the pronoun has returned to a verbal noun intended in the sense of a passive participle. That is, using the image is prohibited.

The apparent sense of the author’s unrestricted wording is that its use is forbidden in every manner whatsoever. However, the matter requires further detail.