“except for a raqm on fabric.” In other words, the exception applies only to a piece of cloth that is used for a lowly purpose and is not hung up, as Aishah’s report makes clear. Her wording explicitly shows that the angels will not enter a house so long as a picture is hanging there, whereas they do enter if the image is treated as a mere floor-cushion, as evidenced by her statement: “I once saw him reclining on one of them, and it had a picture on it.” That kind of picture does not bar the angels. Aishah’s narration is therefore a detailed explanation that restricts the general wording of Abu Talhah’s hadith, and one may not rely on the latter in its unrestricted form, as the writer has done. The writer errs a second time when he takes Abu Talhah’s hadith as proof that embroidering images on cloth is permissible, and from that extrapolates the permissibility of drawing on paper. This is a sleight of hand: the hadith allows only the use of a cloth already bearing such a design in the limited manner just described; it says nothing about the act of producing the image itself. That issue is addressed in Aishah’s hadith, which explicitly declares the making of images on cloth prohibited, quoting the Prophet ﷺ: “Those who make these images will be punished….” One must not set aside this explicit text in favor of Abu Talhah’s report, which is silent on the matter. Any fair-minded reader can see this, God willing. A corollary of the above is that a Muslim who knows the ruling on images may not purchase a decorated garment—even for base use—because doing so amounts to cooperation in wrongdoing. If someone buys such a cloth without knowledge of the prohibition, he may use it only for a demeaning purpose, as Aishah’s hadith indicates. Allah is the one who grants success. As for the image mentioned at the end of the hadith—“for I saw him…"