a Muslim or to seize a Muslim’s property, we would declare that sale forbidden, even though buying and selling are, in and of themselves, lawful. The same principle applies to photography: what did the photographer intend by it?
A person may pursue an evil purpose. He might photograph a woman who is not his wife so that, whenever time passes, he can take the picture from his wallet—or from what they call an album—and look at her for pleasure. This is unquestionably forbidden. He might photograph a handsome, beardless youth simply to enjoy gazing at him time after time; that, too, is forbidden. He might photograph illustrious figures—princes, rulers, or scholars—in order to venerate them and hang their portraits in his house; this is likewise forbidden. He might photograph devout worshippers of Allah so that he can keep their pictures at home, seeking blessing through them; this, too, is unlawful.
If he takes pictures merely “for the memories,” that as well is forbidden, for it is a waste of time. What benefit is there in recalling the subject of a photograph over and over again? More serious still is the case of someone whose relative dies and who keeps the deceased’s photograph. This is impermissible. Once a person has died, burn his picture so that you are not continually reminded of him, thereby renewing your sorrow, and so that you do not fall into false beliefs concerning him. The moment he dies, the photograph should be burned; there is no benefit in keeping it—unless one fears he may later need it to prove entitlement to a state pension or something similar. In that case he is excused; otherwise, if no such need exists, destroying it is obligatory.
Conversely, if photography is undertaken to establish identity or to document real events for a legitimate purpose, then there is no harm in it. Suppose, for instance, that a government appoints a committee to perform a certain task and its members wish to prove that they have done so; they photograph their work, and there is nothing wrong with that, because