In this ongoing Jumu‘ah series titled “Clothing from the Perspective of Islam,” in the previous posts we have been studying the rulings related to placing images and figures on our clothing and adornments. Since the discussion touched upon images, we also examined additional related matters last week, so that we may gain a complete understanding of the rulings concerning images.
Images in the cloth
Among those discussions, today we turn to another aspect: figures in the form of toys. There are dolls, are there not? Toys shaped like humans, toys shaped like animals, and even inflatable forms filled with air—various types of figures that are given to small children for play. We purchase such items for them to play with.
Now, if we take the general statement that angels do not enter houses in which there are images, does that include these toys as well? Because after all, they too are forms. The wording of the hadith is general: in houses where there are dogs or images, angels do not enter. If we were to take that statement at face value, then even these toys would have to be considered impermissible.
However, the Messenger ﷺ of Allahﷻ himself granted permission for such play items. How did he permit it?
A’isha (Mother of Believers) narrates—and this is found in Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith number 6130—that she used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ. She mentions that because she had been married at a young age, she still retained the nature of a child even after marriage. So, she would play with dolls—this one as a father, that one as a mother—various kinds of dolls.
Her young friends would come to her house to play with her. When the Messenger of Allahﷻ ﷺ entered, they would hide themselves. But the Prophet ﷺ would call them back and allow them to sit and play with A’ishah.
From this, what do we understand? Dolls can take many forms. At that time, there were no plastic toys as we have today; they were made of cloth, handmade figures. Yet when it is said that she played with dolls, it is certain that these had forms. And the Prophet ﷺ permitted this, even though these were kept inside the house.
If angels do not enter houses with images, then would not this apply here? Yet the Prophet ﷺ did not forbid it. He did not say, “Take these outside, do not keep them in the house.” Rather, they were kept inside and played with there.
Therefore, we understand that toys for children are permitted. Parents need not feel that they are committing a sin by buying such items. Even if some assume that images are generally not allowed, this specific case is not prohibited. There is no harm in it. What greater proof do we need than the fact that the wife of the Prophet ﷺ herself played with them in his presence?
And this was not limited only to her childhood. Even when A’ishah (Mother of Beleivers) grew older, she continued to have such toys.
Another narration—found in Sunan Abu Dawood—mentions that the Prophet ﷺ returned from a military expedition. It is said this could have been either the Battle of Khaybar or Tabuk. If it was Khaybar, her age would have been around fourteen; if Tabuk, around sixteen. In either case, she was no longer a small child.
When the Prophet ﷺ returned and entered the house, he saw a curtain at the entrance with decorative images on it and instructed that it be removed. After it was removed, inside there was a small partition covered with cloth. As the curtain moved with the wind, what was inside became visible—there were many dolls arranged within.
The Prophet ﷺ asked, “What is this that you have kept here?”
She replied, “These are the toys I play with.”
Even at that age—fourteen or sixteen—she still had that playful nature. Some individuals retain such qualities longer than others. The Prophet ﷺ then looked closely at the toys. Among them was a toy horse. He noticed something unusual—it had wings. A horse does not have wings; birds do. But this toy had two wings.
So the Prophet ﷺ asked, “What is this, O A’ishah?”
She said, “It is a horse.”
He asked, “A horse with wings?”
She replied, “Have you not heard? The horse of Prophet Sulayman (Alahis Salam) had wings.”
She said this with the innocence of a young girl. The Prophet ﷺ did not rebuke her. Instead, he smiled so widely that his molar teeth became visible.
What do we understand from this?
This was not merely a flat image—it was a three-dimensional figure, a complete form with depth and shadow. Yet it was present in the house, and the Prophet ﷺ approved of it.
There could have been many such figures—horses, donkeys, animals, perhaps even human dolls. The Prophet ﷺ did not object. He only questioned the unusual feature of wings.
If such figures were categorically forbidden, would the household of the Prophet ﷺ contain them? Would he allow something that prevents angels from entering? Certainly not.
Thus, through his actions, the Messenger ﷺ of Allahﷻ clarified that such forms—specifically toys for children—are not included in the prohibition regarding images.
Thus, the Messenger of Allahﷻ ﷺ clarifies—through his own actions—that these types of forms are not included in the prohibition of images.
Now consider this: how does a child treat a toy? Is it something that is honored, framed, preserved, and displayed with reverence? No. A child tosses it here, throws it there, leaves it around without care. It carries no sense of sanctity, no sense of elevated value.
We have already mentioned this earlier—these are objects without honor. They are handled in a casual, insignificant manner. Children do not preserve them as something noble; they use them simply for play.
That is precisely why they are permitted.
Even if such toys are arranged neatly on a shelf, it does not change their nature. They are still objects of play, not objects of reverence. They are not used for worship, nor are they elevated in status.
However—there is an important distinction.
There are certain types of figurines—like those displayed in other religions, where small statues of deities are placed together and venerated. These are not toys. These are objects of worship.
Such items are absolutely not permissible.
Even if they are small in size, even if they resemble toys, if they represent something worshipped, they cannot be kept, cannot be given to children, and cannot be allowed in the home.
Because anything connected to worship has no exception—whether small or large, whether decorative or symbolic—it is completely prohibited.
But if the form has no connection to worship, and if it is treated without honor—as mere play—then the Shariah does not prohibit it. When it is for children’s play, the evidence clearly shows permissibility.
Now, moving to another related matter.
In the early days of Islam, before fasting in Ramadan was made obligatory, only one fast was mandatory—the fast of the 10th of Muharram (‘Ashura).
This day was already considered sacred even during the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), possibly rooted in the tradition of Prophet Ibrahim(Alahis Salam). Even the disbelievers recognized its significance. They would even change the covering of the Ka‘bah on that day.
So when the Prophet ﷺ came to Madinah, he instructed the people to fast on that day.
The command was strong—so strong that if someone had already eaten in the morning, they were told to stop eating for the rest of the day and complete the fast. It was treated as a serious obligation.
Later, when Ramadan fasting was made obligatory, the fast of Muharram became optional—whoever wished could fast, and whoever wished could leave it.
Initially, however, it was compulsory.
Then, towards the later period, it was observed that the Jews also fasted on that day. When asked, they said it was in gratitude for Allahﷻ for saving Prophet Musa (Alahis Salam). The Prophet ﷺ said, “We have more right over Musa than you,” and expressed his intention to fast an additional day the following year. But he did not live to see that year.
So the connection to Musa (Alahis Salam) was a later association. Originally, the day itself was already held sacred.
Toys to divert the children who are fasting
Now, here is the point relevant to our discussion.
Since it was only one day of fasting, the companions would train their children to fast on that day—even though fasting is not obligatory for children. Children are not required to fast until they reach maturity. Yet, as a form of training, they would encourage them.
And when the children became hungry or restless during the day, the companions would give them toys to distract them—to divert their attention from hunger.
A narration in Sahih al-Bukhari (1960) mentions that they would make woolen toys for the children, so that they would play with them and remain engaged until the fast was completed. This practice was widespread—not limited to one or two individuals. It was a common behavior among the companions.
And when something becomes widespread in the society of the companions, it is highly unlikely that it would occur without the knowledge—or at least the approval—of the Prophet ﷺ.
Even if one were to argue that the Prophet ﷺ did not directly witness it, the fact that it was collectively practiced indicates implicit approval. Thus again, we see toys being used—and permitted—in the time of the Prophet ﷺ.
However, this should not be misapplied.
This was a single day fast. Children could manage one day. It does not mean that children should be made to fast the entire month of Ramadan. Islam has not made fasting obligatory for them, and we should not impose what Allahﷻ has not made obligatory. At most, light training can be given—occasionally, gradually, according to their ability—but not in a burdensome or harmful way.
There is a narration found in Musnad Abu Ya‘la and Tabarani, which states that the Prophet ﷺ instructed nursing mothers not to breastfeed their infants during the day of fasting, implying that even infants should fast. This narration is sometimes used to argue that children—even infants—must fast.
But this is incorrect. This hadith is weak.
Why?
Because the chain of narration contains unknown narrators. A woman named Ruseina narrates—but her identity is unclear. From her, her daughter narrates—again unknown. Then another narrator—also unknown. When multiple narrators in a chain are unknown, the hadith becomes unreliable.
Therefore, this narration cannot be used as evidence.
So the conclusion is clear:
- Toys used for play—without reverence—are permitted
- Objects connected to worship—no matter how small—are strictly prohibited
- Children are not obligated to fast, though light training is allowed
- Weak narrations cannot be used to establish rulings
And through all of this, the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ remains the clearest guide—explaining not just through words, but through lived example.
We are told that two narrators in this chain are weak.
In fact, when we examine it carefully, one narrator says something—but we do not even know who he is. From him, another narrates—but again, his identity is unknown. Then another—and again unknown. All four narrators in the chain are unidentified.
Thus, the scholar Rahabi states clearly: there is absolutely no reliable information about these narrators.
Because of this, the narration is extremely weak. So if anyone brings this as evidence to say that children must fast—reject it outright. Understand that they are presenting a false report.
Then comes another claim.
Some say: there is a narration in Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq where it is attributed to the Messenger ﷺ of Allahﷻ that children should be trained in fasting for three days in Ramadan. If they manage three days successfully, then they should complete the entire month. If they fail within three days, then they should be excused.
Meaning—test them for three days:
- If they endure → make them fast the whole month
- If they cannot → leave them
But this narration too is weak.
It comes through Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Labiba—who is himself a weak narrator. This is not an authentic report. And the principle in Islam is clear: No obligation becomes binding until a person reaches maturity. Children—before puberty—are not accountable for obligations. Therefore, fasting is not obligatory upon them.
So why was this topic even discussed?
Because in the earlier narration, children were given toys to distract them from hunger while fasting. That becomes our point of focus.
If toys were given… it means toys are permissible. That is the real conclusion.
Are Mannequins allowed?
Today, in large clothing stores, mannequins are placed in display windows—dressed in garments to showcase fashion.
These mannequins can be large, life-sized—shaped like men or women—placed in prominent, visible areas. The very word “showcase” implies display, presentation, and attention.
So the question arises: are these permissible?
To understand this, we must return to a fundamental principle: The head is the essential element of a form.
If the head resembles a real human head—with natural features—then the prohibition applies.
But the mannequins used in display cases do not have such heads. At most, they have a round shape—without eyes, ears, nose, or detailed human features. Even hair is absent. Their purpose is not to represent a human being—but to display clothing.
So if the head is absent, or distorted, or reduced to an unrecognizable form—it does not fall under the prohibited category.
Think about it: If you draw an elephant—but remove the trunk—it is no longer an elephant.
If you draw a horse—but without its head—it is no longer a horse.
Even if the body is large and detailed—without the defining head—it is not considered a true form. There is a powerful proof for this. Jibreel (Alahis Salam) once came to visit the Prophet ﷺ. Even angels, when visiting prophets, interact directly.
Jibreel(AS) asked for permission to enter. The Prophet ﷺ allowed him.
But Jibreel said: “How can I enter, when there is a curtain with images in your house?”
A curtain with figures was hanging in the Prophet’s home.
Jibreel(AS) then gave guidance:
- Either remove the heads of those images
- Or convert them into something that is walked upon—like a mat or cushion
If the image is honored—displayed—it becomes a barrier.
If it is degraded—stepped upon—it loses that status.
And if the head is removed—then even if the rest remains, it is no longer considered a prohibited form.
This hadith clearly establishes: The head is the defining factor.
This is why cartoons are not included in the prohibition.
Cartoons do not have realistic heads. They are exaggerated, symbolic, and incomplete. They are imagined—not real representations. So, no matter how large such figures are—they do not fall under prohibition.
Even Ibn ‘Abbas (RA) explained this—deriving from this very hadith: “A form is defined by the head. If the head is removed, it is no longer a form.”
Though this is his statement, it aligns directly with the instruction given by Jibreel (Alahis Salam).
So what do we learn? The general rule is: images are prohibited.
But within that rule—there are exceptions. And these exceptions are clarified by the Prophet ﷺ himself.
Are Dogs Allowed?
Take another example: Regarding dogs. We know that angels do not enter a house where a dog is present.
So, does that mean all dogs are forbidden? No.
Islam allows:
- Dogs for hunting
- Dogs for guarding livestock
- Dogs for protection outside the home
What is prohibited is treating a dog as a pet inside the house—bringing it into living spaces, bedrooms, and giving it intimate companionship.
So again—we see: A general rule… with specific exceptions.
Similarly: Images are generally prohibited.
But:
- Toys for children → allowed
- Non-realistic forms → allowed
- Headless or distorted figures → allowed
These are exceptions given through the Sunnah.
Digital Images Allowed?
Now we arrive at a modern question.
What about today’s images?
- Images on mobile phones
- Video recordings
- Camera photography
- AI-generated human-like figures
Can something that does not even exist in reality—but is digitally created—be considered the same?
Does it fall under the same ruling?
This is a deeper discussion.
And, In shaa Allahﷻ, it will be explored in the upcoming posts.