Ruling regarding the covering of childrens toys with eyes

Jul 5, 2021 | Uncategorized


I have two young children with lots of toys in the house with eyes on them (trucks, books, interactive toys etc.)
We make a conscious effort to not keep dolls with eyes and no pictures on walls in our home.
All the toys get tidied away every evening but my husband will make every effort to cover every single exposed eye on the toys in the house.
In the morning my son doesnt have access to any of the toys because they’ve all been covered/ hidden away and I have another young baby to look after so don’t have the means to take things out and put them back in a way where things are accessible and encourages play for him.

What is the islamic ruling regarding toys with eyes, these days it is near enough impossible to find things that have no eyes on them. Hiding them every evening is becoming less practical as there is just so many – will we be sinful if they are not covered.

JazakaAllah Khair


If an image fulfils the following conditions it will be impermissible to keep that image within the house:

1. The image is of a living being like a person or an animal.

2. The image is is complete. By complete the jurists refer to an image whereby it has all the necessary parts of the body required for it to survive. If the necessary parts are erased or not included within the image then it will be permissible to keep that image in the house. For example, if there is a complete image of a person along with the mouth, nose, eyes etc then that image will be impermissible. If the image does not have a face, but only has the shape of the head and the rest of the body that will be permissible as a person cannot live without a face, hence, the image will not be classified as a living being. If only the eyes were removed it will still be impermissible, as a person can live without their eyes. If the image is of a head only, without the rest of the body, and the head has all the necessary features, that will also be impermissible.

3. The image is respected or in a place of respect such as being hung on the wall. If the image is in a place which is considered to be  degrading such as a toilet, on a shoe mat, or something else which is trodden or trampled over then it will be permissible to have the image in that place.

4. The image is visible and not covered. If an image is covered and hidden away from sight it will not be impermissible to have that image in the house.

In relation to children’s toys it is permissible to keep inanimate objects such as cars, trucks etc. Also, if such such inanimate objects have eyes on them that will not render the object impermissible as eyes in of themselves will not render the object a living being.

The important question to determine is if an inanimate object such as a car has a complete face on it, will having that face render the car  an animate object and therefore impermissible to keep, or will it still be considered inanimate. We have not found anything explicit in this regard mentioned by the jurists.

One may argue that the prohibition of images is only in relation to living beings whereas these are images of non-living beings. However, as the face is an essential part of a living being it becomes difficult to totally rule out these images from the discussion of living beings.

What we do understand is that the ruling of keeping images in the house is based on respect and veneration. Images which are respected are not permissible to keep whereas those which are not respected can be kept. The jurists have permitted those images which are not usually venerated even if the image is of a living being and contains all the necessary features for life. For example, having the image of living being under one’s feet, or where one sits or having an extremely small image such that if it was placed on the floor a standing person would not be able to clearly make out what it is, are all considered permissible as these images are not usually respected.

The jurists have mentioned that if the above type of images were near a person performing salat, then the salat will not be disliked and those images which do not render the prayer disliked are not disliked to keep within the house.

Going by this principle, as generic toys are not generally respected or venerated then having such toys in the house would not be impermissible. Such toys are dropped, thrown, kicked, and discarded after some time which indicate the lack of respect people have for them. Hence, if someone did have these types of toys in the house it would not be necessary to keep them in a box or out of sight at all times.

On the other hand, the media and entertainment industry also create toys around characters from their films and comics. These characters can at times have a celebrity status in the eyes of children and even some adults. Some are collected and placed on display also. In this scenario as there is an element of glorification here, then it would be impermissible to keep these types of toys if they have the complete facial features.

رد: ما لا يؤثر كراهة في الصلاة لا يكره إبقاؤه

محيط: واتخاذ الصورة في البيوت والنبات في غير حالة الصلاة على نوعين؛ نوع يرجع إلى تعظيمها فيكره، ونوع يرجع إلى تحقيرها فلا يكره

درر الحكام شرح غرر الأحكام (1/ 109)

وَلَكِنْ يُكْرَهُ كَرَاهَةَ جَعْلِ الصُّورَةِ فِي الْبَيْتِ لِلْحَدِيثِ «إنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ لَا تَدْخُلُ بَيْتًا فِيهِ كَلْبٌ أَوْ صُورَةٌ» اهـ كَمَا فِي الْفَتْحِ

رد: الأحاديث مخصصة ]بالتعظيم[ بحر، وهو ظاهر كلام علمائنا 

المحيط لأن إمساك الصورة تشبه بمن يعبد الصنم، والصلاة إليها يشبه تعظيمها وعبادتها فتكره

وخبر جبريل – عليه السلام – معلول بالتعظيم بدليل الحديث الآخر وغيره، فعدم دخول الملائكة إنما هو حيث كانت الصورة معظمة، وتعليل كراهة الصلاة بالتعظيم أولى من التعليل بعدم الدخول لأن التعظيم قد يكون عارضا لأن الصورة إذا كانت على بساط مفروش تكون مهانة لا تمنع من الدخول، ومع هذا لو صلى على ذلك البساط وسجد عليها تكره لأن فعله ذلك تعظيم لها. والظاهر أن الملائكة لا تمتنع من الدخول بذلك الفعل العارض؛

واختلف المحدثون في امتناع ملائكة الرحمة بما على النقدين، فنفاه عياض، وأثبته النووي

(قوله في امتناع ملائكة الرحمة)

قيد بهم إذ الحفظة لا يفارقون الإنسان إلا عند الجماع والخلاء كذا في شرح البخاري وينبغي أن يراد بالحفظة ما هو أعم من الكرام الكاتبين والذين يحفظونه من الجن نهر، وانظر ما قدمناه قبل فصل القراءة

(قوله فنفاه عياض)

أي وقال: إن الأحاديث مخصصة بحر، وهو ظاهر كلام علمائنا، فإن ظاهره أن ما لا يؤثر كراهة في الصلاة لا يكره إبقاؤه، وقد صرح في الفتح وغيره بأن الصورة الصغيرة لا تكره في البيت. قال: ونقل أنه كان على خاتم أبي هريرة ذبابتان اهـ ولو كانت تمنع دخول الملائكة كره إبقاؤها في البيت لأنه يكون شر البقاع،

وكذا المهانة كما مر، وهو صريح قوله في الحديث المار ” أو اقطعها وسائد، أو اجعلها بسطا ” وأما ما مر عن شرح عتاب، فقد علمت ما فيه

Answered by:
Ifta Research Fellow

Checked & Approved by:
Mufti Abdul Rahman Mangera
Mufti Zubair Patel