What is the benefit of a girl making her own toys?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The hadith mentions winged horses...?
The Shaykh : ...First, regarding your statement that the hadith mentions winged horses, the Lawgiver does not distinguish between a doll a girl makes and a horse with wings or without wings, because the intent is that it is permissible for a girl to make something from her imagination, as we mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, to help her practice managing the household. But if you buy an idol for her, what benefit do you gain from it? She has not twisted a thread, nor sewn a stitch in the tailor's needle, nor sewed anything, nor made an eye or an eyebrow or anything else; rather, the idol is presented to her as it is. So Malik observed a principle. In reality, this principle is one of the subtleties of the principles of jurisprudence, and few books of the present age pay attention to it. This principle states: "What is contrary to the standard of analogy is not subject to analogy." We have a principle regarding images; the principle regarding images, as you heard from some of the hadiths that passed here, is prohibition or permissibility? It is prohibition. The hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) regarding her daughters' toys, does it permit or prohibit? It permits. So what do we do with the hadiths that prohibit? Do we weaken them with the hadith of the girls' toys, so that the toys of young children are excluded from the prohibition? That would be contrary to the principle, contrary to the standard of analogy. So what is contrary to the standard of analogy is not subject to analogy. In other words, if you want, for example, to attach what the author did with the sweets, which are images, to the girls' toys, meaning to what is permissible, you should ask why these images, which are not girls' toys, were not attached to the principle, which is prohibition. The principle is that every branch for which we do not find an explicit text is attached to the principle, not to a part excluded from the principle by a specific proof. This is what the author overlooked, and many like him greatly, in that whenever they see a formal similarity between, for example, one matter and another, they attach it to it, whereas there is a complete similarity to the principle, yet they did not attach it to it. So the statement of Imam Malik that it is not permissible, or is disliked, for a man to buy toys for his daughter, is because he observed that girls' toys are limited to the scope of permissibility. So if you want to buy from outside, who makes these images from outside? The girls, or the girl's mother, for example? No, there will be people who make a living by making these toys, so it becomes a forbidden profession in Islam. And so when a man came to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and said, "My profession is from these images," what did he say? He declared for him the severe warning of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is:Sahih Muslim 2110b, then he said to him: "If it is absolutely necessary, then make images of what has no life, such as trees and stones," as he said in similar cases.
The questioner : ...is not subject to analogy.
The Shaykh : He said.
The questioner : In a small matter, the operative cause for the permissibility of toys for girls is amusement, either...
The Shaykh : I see that you should save your questions, everyone, for the end of the lesson, because this lesson may take up all the time, and even this time may not be sufficient. So whoever has a question in mind, and it is his habit not to forget, should keep it in his mind, or else write it down on paper, and then afterwards, if we are given the opportunity, we will listen to your questions.
The Shaykh : ...First, regarding your statement that the hadith mentions winged horses, the Lawgiver does not distinguish between a doll a girl makes and a horse with wings or without wings, because the intent is that it is permissible for a girl to make something from her imagination, as we mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, to help her practice managing the household. But if you buy an idol for her, what benefit do you gain from it? She has not twisted a thread, nor sewn a stitch in the tailor's needle, nor sewed anything, nor made an eye or an eyebrow or anything else; rather, the idol is presented to her as it is. So Malik observed a principle. In reality, this principle is one of the subtleties of the principles of jurisprudence, and few books of the present age pay attention to it. This principle states: "What is contrary to the standard of analogy is not subject to analogy." We have a principle regarding images; the principle regarding images, as you heard from some of the hadiths that passed here, is prohibition or permissibility? It is prohibition. The hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) regarding her daughters' toys, does it permit or prohibit? It permits. So what do we do with the hadiths that prohibit? Do we weaken them with the hadith of the girls' toys, so that the toys of young children are excluded from the prohibition? That would be contrary to the principle, contrary to the standard of analogy. So what is contrary to the standard of analogy is not subject to analogy. In other words, if you want, for example, to attach what the author did with the sweets, which are images, to the girls' toys, meaning to what is permissible, you should ask why these images, which are not girls' toys, were not attached to the principle, which is prohibition. The principle is that every branch for which we do not find an explicit text is attached to the principle, not to a part excluded from the principle by a specific proof. This is what the author overlooked, and many like him greatly, in that whenever they see a formal similarity between, for example, one matter and another, they attach it to it, whereas there is a complete similarity to the principle, yet they did not attach it to it. So the statement of Imam Malik that it is not permissible, or is disliked, for a man to buy toys for his daughter, is because he observed that girls' toys are limited to the scope of permissibility. So if you want to buy from outside, who makes these images from outside? The girls, or the girl's mother, for example? No, there will be people who make a living by making these toys, so it becomes a forbidden profession in Islam. And so when a man came to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and said, "My profession is from these images," what did he say? He declared for him the severe warning of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is:
He who painted pictures in the world would be compelled to breathe soul in them on the Day of Resurrection, but he would not be able to breathe soul (in them).
مَن صَوَّر صورةً كُلِّفَ أن ينفخ فيها الروح يوم القيامة وليس بنافخٍThe questioner : ...is not subject to analogy.
The Shaykh : He said.
The questioner : In a small matter, the operative cause for the permissibility of toys for girls is amusement, either...
The Shaykh : I see that you should save your questions, everyone, for the end of the lesson, because this lesson may take up all the time, and even this time may not be sufficient. So whoever has a question in mind, and it is his habit not to forget, should keep it in his mind, or else write it down on paper, and then afterwards, if we are given the opportunity, we will listen to your questions.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.