Is the permissibility of image-making a matter of unlegislated public interest? And what is the criterion for unlegislated public interest?

The Shaykh : And although this rule is not absolute, as the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) explained in his book *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim fi Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim*, where he said that "unlegislated public interest is not permissible to act upon absolutely; rather, it must be detailed." He mentioned the following in brief: When the cause necessitating unlegislated public interest appears after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), one looks to see if acting upon this cause was present in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) yet he did not act upon it, or if this cause was not present. If the former is the case, it is not permissible for Muslims to act upon this cause, even if they claim it achieves a legitimate public interest, because if this cause had been prescribed and actually achieved a legitimate public interest, the Messenger (peace be upon him) would have been the most deserving of people to make it a prescribed cause and adopt it, since it achieves a legitimate public interest. He said, "If the cause necessitating the achievement of unlegislated public interest was not present in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), we look at what compels us to act upon it to achieve the public interest. Is it the Muslims' negligence in implementing some of the rulings of the Shari'ah? If the cause for acting upon this cause is due to the Muslims' negligence in implementing some of the rulings of the Shari'ah, then it is also not permissible to act upon this cause. Rather, one should say to them: Take what Allah has prescribed for you of means and prescribed causes, for they are sufficient to achieve the desired public interest through this new cause. This is the second aspect. The third and final aspect: If the cause for acting upon it is not the Muslims' negligence in implementing some of the rulings of the Shari'ah, but rather they are acting upon them, yet this cause also achieves for them an additional public interest beyond those prescribed causes, then here he says it is permissible for us to act upon it." If we keep this detail in mind and return to the question, the first thing that obstructs the legitimacy of acting upon this means to achieve a legitimate public interest is that this means is not prescribed. If they return to the claim that these images are not forbidden, we return to the discussion we were in earlier. But if they concede that this means is forbidden and not prescribed, then it is very easy to say to them: How do you make permissible the commission of a forbidden means to achieve a legitimate public interest in your claim? In reality, it is not permissible to act upon a cause that is not contrary to the Shari'ah if the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not act upon it to achieve the legitimate public interest. There is a very great difference between what I mentioned earlier from Ibn Taymiyyah—that a cause was present, the necessitating factor for acting upon it to achieve public interest existed, and the Messenger did not act upon it, so it is not permissible for us to act upon it—versus how we act upon a means that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade. Therefore, in reality, those who issue these fatwas, in my opinion, are adopting the disbelieving rule which says, "The end justifies the means." And unfortunately, this is a very widespread phenomenon among many Islamic writers who have not been granted a sufficient share of knowledge. "The end justifies the means"—what is in this, my brother? It achieves a public interest; they do not look at this scientific detail that Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) brought and clarified. It is good to mention some examples regarding the three categories, the most important of which is the category that says: If the cause occurred after it did not exist, and the necessitating factor for acting upon it is the Muslims' negligence, then it is not permissible to act upon it. An example is the reality of Islamic states today, which impose taxes and monies on Muslim peoples, taking them from them against their will. Why? My brother, the interest of the state necessitates it. How can the state achieve interests for the people without money? So it is said to these people: Take the prescribed means of collecting money, such as the known zakah on animals, on fruits, and on some plants whose ruling is known in Islam, and on estates and the like that have no heirs. Apply these rulings of the Shari'ah and collect these monies in the state treasury. At that time, if these monies are not sufficient to carry out the interests of the state and the interests of the Muslim people, it is possible to impose a new obligation that corresponds to the need. But as for you, you have turned away from the causes that Allah prescribed to enrich the state treasury, and you have come after deactivating them with causes and laws you imposed from yourselves. It is not permissible to act upon these under the claim that they achieve public interest, because this public interest has already been achieved by the Lawgiver through a prescription you turned away from. This is one of the examples that clarifies that not everything that achieves a public interest must be clung to; rather, it must be studied in light of the rulings of the Shari'ah. On the contrary, for example, and this may be hidden from many students of knowledge, is the legitimacy of the second adhan by 'Uthman. This is a means that 'Uthman adopted. There is no doubt that this means was not in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), but what Ibn Taymiyyah indicated in his previous speech is that the necessitating factor was found in the time of 'Uthman and was not present in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Because, as al-Sa'ib ibn Yazid (may Allah be pleased with him) said, 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) added the second adhan when the houses around the Prophet's Mosque increased and the people of these houses no longer heard the adhan from the Prophet's Mosque, so he made a second adhan in the place known as al-Zurwa so that those far from the Prophet's Mosque in their houses could hear it. This cause appeared after the Messenger (peace be upon him) first, and secondly, this cause did not arise due to the Muslims' negligence in implementing some of the rulings of the Shari'ah, as we exemplified earlier regarding the laws imposed on some Muslim peoples in the form of taxes. Therefore, 'Uthman's adhan was not a subject of denial from the Companions who were with him at that time, but rather it was approved, because it does not fall under the category of innovation in religion, but rather falls under the category of acting upon unlegislated public interest. Its exact example now is broadcasting the adhan as you hear it with loudspeakers. This is a means that occurred, and the Muslims' negligence in implementing some of the rulings of the Shari'ah is not the cause for acting upon this means. No. Therefore, it is permissible for us, and in light of the hadiths that indicate that the mu'adhdhin should be one with a loud, resonant voice, if this loudspeaker or this broadcast achieves a legitimate meaning, then this means was not present in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), it occurred now, and its occurrence is not the result of the Muslims' negligence in implementing the rulings of the Shari'ah. So it is permissible for us to act upon it. But look now at how the issues differ.