—yet this new form of photography is still, by every standard—linguistic, juristic, precedent-based, and in the harm it entails—nothing but “depiction,” as anyone can see by reflecting on the practical consequences of the distinction just criticized. Years ago I said to one of its proponents: “Your position would also oblige you to permit idols that are not chiseled by hand but produced by merely pressing an electric switch attached to a machine that can turn out dozens of statues in minutes, exactly like the toy figures of animals and the like. What do you say to that?” He was left speechless. It is remarkable that these modern Zahiri literalists are so oblivious to their own literalism that one of them even declared, “They alone have understood the text in its true sense!” By now the discerning reader should know who “they” are; so take heed, people of insight. Before closing this remark, I must note that although we emphatically deem both kinds of depiction forbidden, we find no objection to photography that yields a clear, necessary benefit, involves no accompanying harm, and for which no equally effective lawful alternative exists—such as images required for medicine, geography, tracking and warning against criminals, and similar needs. In fact, some of these uses may at times be obligatory. Two hadiths support this: 1. ʿAisha reported that she used to play with dolls, and whenever the Prophet ﷺ