What is your eminence's opinion on the evidence of those who believe that the forbidden images are those of deities other than Allah Almighty, citing as proof the action of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the image of the bird that Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) had, and the action of the Companions in minting coins with images on them, and the making of statues mentioned in the Holy Quran as a miracle of the prophets?

Scholars differed on the ruling concerning the depiction of animate beings. The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence weakens and criticizes the view that prohibition only applies if the idol is made to be worshipped besides Allah, because no known scholar holds this opinion. It also states the consensus of scholars on the حرمة (prohibition) of three-dimensional, corporeal images of animate beings.

The two main reasons for the prohibition are: transgressing upon an attribute and action exclusive to Allah Almighty, and images being a means to glorify other than Allah and establish polytheism. If these two reasons are absent, the image becomes permissible.

The argument based on the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) regarding the image of a bird has been challenged because the hadith has multiple narrations. The preponderant view in the jurisprudence of Aisha's hadith is that if images are "designs on a garment," then it is permissible to use them in a manner that shows disrespect, thereby removing any glorification.

Furthermore, a rebuttal was made to Dr. Abu Bakr's claim that Omar ibn al-Khattab, Muawiyah, and Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan minted coins with images of Persian and Roman kings. Historians agree that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was the first to mint coins in Islam, and before that, Muslims used Persian and Roman currency out of need and necessity, not as an affirmation of the images on them.