How Are the Hadiths Prohibiting Images Reconciled with the Opinion Permitting Drawing Living Beings?
Question
Esselemu Aleikum.
I saw your fatwa on drawing living beings being permissible, and I found some hadiths which I did not really understand.
In Sahih al-Bukhari 5957, Aishah bought a cushion containing pictures, and the Prophet ﷺ said that the people who made those pictures would be punished.
Also, in Sahih al-Bukhari 6109, Aishah had a curtain containing pictures, and the Prophet ﷺ made a similar statement.
And in Sunan al-Nasa’i 5365, Jibril did not enter the house of the Prophet ﷺ because of a curtain containing pictures.
Do these hadiths not indicate that drawing living beings is forbidden, or have I misunderstood them?
Answer
Alhamdulillah, wassalatu wassalamu ala rasulillah, wa ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma’in.
These hadiths are authentic and are among the strongest evidences used by the scholars who prohibit drawing animate beings. Therefore, your understanding is not unreasonable.
However, the issue of taswir has considerable juristic detail. The disagreement is not about rejecting these hadiths, but about what type of image the Prophet ﷺ was prohibiting and what the effective cause of the prohibition was.
1. The Hadith of Aishah’s Cushion
Aishah رضي الله عنها purchased a cushion containing images. When the Prophet ﷺ saw it, he remained at the door and did not enter. He said:
“The makers of these images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them: Give life to what you created.”
He also said:
“The angels do not enter a house in which there are images.”
Sahih al-Bukhari
Taken by itself, this certainly appears to establish a prohibition.
However, other authentic narrations concerning the same general issue provide important qualifications.
Aishah رضي الله عنها reports that she later cut a curtain containing images and made it into cushions which were sat upon. The Prophet ﷺ did not prohibit their use after the images had been placed in this degraded, non-honored form.
This led the jurists to distinguish between different forms and uses of images.
2. The Curtain Hadith
The narration concerning the curtain is particularly important.
The Prophet ﷺ objected when Aishah رضي الله عنها hung a curtain containing images. In another narration, he explained:
“The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection are those who imitate Allah’s creation.”
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Aishah then turned the material into cushions.
This indicates that the issue cannot simply be understood as:
“Every appearance of an image of a living being on any material is absolutely forbidden.”
Otherwise, converting the same material into cushions would not have changed anything.
Rather, the nature, purpose, form and treatment of the image have legal significance.
3. The Hadith of Jibril
The narration concerning Jibril عليه السلام provides even more detail.
Jibril informed the Prophet ﷺ that he had been prevented from entering because there was an image at the door, a curtain containing images, and a dog in the house. He instructed that the head of the image be altered so that it resembled a tree, that the curtain be made into cushions which would be used and stepped upon, and that the dog be removed.
This hadith is actually one of the important texts through which the jurists understood that not every image has exactly the same ruling.
It establishes distinctions involving a complete animate representation, an image whose defining features have been removed, and images placed in an honored versus degraded position.
4. The Majority Classical Position
The majority of classical jurists understood these and other hadiths broadly.
According to the well-known position, deliberately creating a complete image of a human or animal is prohibited, particularly when the image is complete and represents a living creature.
Three-dimensional statues are treated even more severely because of their resemblance to the idols and statues historically associated with worship.
This position relies upon the apparent generality of hadiths such as:
“Every image-maker will be in the Fire.”
Sahih Muslim
and:
“The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Resurrection are the image-makers.”
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Therefore, it would not be correct to claim that the scholars who prohibit drawings of animate beings lack strong textual evidence. Their position is firmly rooted in these authentic narrations.
5. Why Did Some Scholars Understand the Hadiths More Narrowly?
Another interpretation considers the reason and historical context behind the prohibition.
The Quran strongly condemns the manufacture of objects that compete with Allah’s creative power or become objects of religious veneration. The hadiths themselves repeatedly connect the punishment with:
“Those who imitate Allah’s creation.”
and the challenge:
“Give life to what you created.”
Some scholars therefore understood the strongest prohibition as concerning taswir involving imitation of Allah’s creation, religious veneration, idols, or images treated in a manner resembling objects of glorification.
This interpretation receives support from other texts showing that not every representation of an animate creature was treated identically.
6. The Important Position of the Maliki School
There is also a significant classical distinction regarding two-dimensional drawings versus three-dimensional figures.
Within the Maliki school, the strict prohibition was particularly associated with three-dimensional figures possessing a complete bodily form. Flat images painted or drawn upon cloth, walls, paper and similar surfaces were treated more leniently by important Maliki jurists, although displaying honored images could still be disliked or prohibited depending upon their nature and use.
Thus, the more permissive interpretation is not simply a modern attempt to disregard the hadiths. There is genuine classical fiqh discussion concerning what exactly constitutes the prohibited surah addressed by these texts.
7. The Dolls of Aishah
Another important evidence is that Aishah رضي الله عنها played with dolls.
She said:
“I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ, and I had friends who would play with me.”
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Other narrations describe toys representing living creatures.
The majority generally treated children’s toys as a specific exception to the prohibition.
Others considered these reports part of the broader evidence demonstrating that the hadiths concerning taswir require qualification and cannot necessarily be applied identically to every representation of a living creature.
8. What About Ordinary Modern Drawing?
This is therefore an issue in which the scholarly disagreement should be acknowledged.
According to the stricter and majority classical approach, drawing a complete human or animal should be avoided unless there is a recognized need or exception.
According to the more permissive approach, particularly when drawing is two-dimensional and is not intended for worship, glorification, obscenity, or imitation of Allah’s creative power, ordinary drawing is permissible.
Even according to the permissive position, the subject matter of the drawing remains relevant. An image involving nudity, pornography, religious idolatry, glorification of prohibited things, or another independently prohibited subject remains impermissible.
9. Relevant Usul Principle
An important principle here is:
الجمع بين الأدلة أولى من إهمال بعضها
Reconciling all of the evidences is preferable to disregarding some of them.
The hadiths threatening image-makers cannot be ignored. At the same time, neither can the narrations concerning Aishah’s cushions, dolls, altered images, and the distinctions between different uses of images.
The disagreement therefore arises from الجمع بين النصوص, reconciling the texts, and تحقيق مناط التحريم, determining precisely what characteristic of taswir brings about the prohibition.
Final Ruling
The hadiths you mentioned are authentic and genuinely constitute strong evidence for the scholars who prohibit drawing animate beings. You have therefore not misunderstood them.
However, scholars differed regarding the scope of those hadiths.
The majority and stricter position prohibits deliberately drawing complete animate beings, with certain recognized exceptions.
There is also a recognized more permissive interpretation, supported by classical juristic distinctions, particularly within Maliki fiqh, which distinguishes ordinary two-dimensional drawings from complete three-dimensional figures and from images connected with glorification, worship, or imitation of Allah’s creation.
Therefore, the earlier fatwa permitting ordinary drawing should be understood according to this recognized second interpretation, not as a rejection of the hadiths you cited. A Muslim who follows the stricter position has strong evidence for doing so, while there is also recognized juristic basis for the more permissive position concerning ordinary two-dimensional drawings that contain nothing independently prohibited.
And Allah knows best.