Meet Romeisa, the faceless Islamic doll

Meet Romeisa, the faceless Islamic doll

Creepy, or what? This week a British woman drew local media attention after she launched an “Islamic doll” with no facial features.

According to this report, Romeisa’s face is:

Entirely flat, cushy, and eerie, draped in a hijab.

Ridhwana B the doll’s creator, designed it as the first model of a larger Deeni (Arabic for faith) Doll collection, that seeks to comply with what some interpret as Islamic religious law’s prohibition on the depiction of distinct features on any children’s toy.

Ridhwana, a former teacher at a Lancashire Muslim school,  told the Lancashire Telegraph:

I came up with the idea from scratch after speaking to some parents who were a little concerned about dolls with facial features. I spoke to a religious scholar in Leicester who guided me through what was and was not permissible when producing the product

After four years in development, the sharia-compliant monstrosity is being manufactured in China and undergoing limited distribution (via inquiries to for about £25.00.

Believing the selection of toys for observant, strictly orthodox Muslim children is quite limited now, Ridhwana claims she is considering launching a wider range of products and writing a book on Islamic child rearing.

It’s doubtful that her book  it will be anything like My ChaCha is Gay, written by a Canadian ex-Muslim to combat Islamic homophobia.


Although it’s attracted a good deal of local interest, Romeisa is not the first faceless model in the world. In the thriving niche of Islamic toys, there are actually several specialist faceless doll makers, but the Lancashire Telegraph reports that Ridhwana’s dolls are unique “for their high-quality production”.

Faceless dolls derive from Islamic religious texts that prohibit the depiction of humans and animals in any medium (although encountering faces on things like coins is accepted as unavoidable). This stems from the beliefthat one ought not to create or worship idols and the fear that depictions of man or beast will lead to false worship, or at least distract people from their focus on Allah.

Creating dolls in human and animal form is explicitly exempted form these rules, so long as they have no facial features because the “Prophet” Mohammeded  child bride, Aisha, played with dolls. There’s also  the belief that they can teach young girls how to show affection and care for children. In the past this has led religious authorities to suggest that observant Muslims burn the faces off of their children’s conventional dolls is faceless alternatives aren’t available.

19 responses to “Meet Romeisa, the faceless Islamic doll”

  1. Cali Ron says:

    Poor Muslims, it’s so hard to find good quality faceless dolls these days. I guess the dolls have to be faceless, just like they expect their women to be faceless, voiceless and subjugated. I have a better solution than faceless dolls-free yourself from your oppressive religion, become an atheist and buy any fucking doll you want! There seems to be no end to the stupidity that religion constantly foists on it’s brainwashed followers. I say burn the face off of the so called “religious scholar in Leicester” who guided her through what was and was not permissible. Too harsh? I think not!

  2. Trevor Blake says:

    Perhaps a line of dollies with acid-burned faces would be equally soothing to Muslim parents and instructive to their daughters.

  3. 1859 says:

    Just imagine what sort of mental gymnastics a kid that receives one of these dolls must have to go through? Religious thought-control or what? So, so sad.

  4. Justin says:

    “The doll, after four years in development, ”

    Four years to develop a doll without a face? Surely not.

    “Creating dolls in human and animal form is explicitly exempted form these rules, so long as they have no facial features because the “Prophet” Mohammed child bride, Aisha, played with dolls.”

    Are you sure it wasn’t one of those sexual abuse dolls they use with children who have been sexually abused?

    “Tell us, Aisha, where did Mohammad touch you? Show us on the doll”

  5. Paul Cook says:

    How have they got time to play?
    Shouldn’t these children be working in the house washing, cleaning and cooking?

    But the woman is very very savvy, she will make millions. The muzzie-market is a potentially massive market. Clothing, food, goods and services. The best ideas and products should come from Athiests (hidden behind as sleeping partners!) to sell them stuff they think they want – then use the profits generated to educate them out of their Stone Age straight jacketed existence.

  6. Paul Cook says:

    Nice to see the religion of peace at work in full view in Sydney Australia.
    Can’t wait for the apologists.

  7. Newspaniard says:

    I hope these dolls have a removable clitoris for the boys to practice FGM on.

  8. barriejohn says:

    Creating dolls in human and animal form is explicitly exempted form these rules, so long as they have no facial features because the “Prophet” Mohammeded child bride, Aisha, played with dolls.

    This is so much like the Plymouth Brethren and other literalist Christians that it is uncanny. I well remember how they used to find some obscure Old Testament reference (maybe just part of a verse) which, when “interpreted” correctly, gave clear instruction to Christians as to what God allowed and what was strictly forbidden. The RCC does the same thing, and can provide Biblical references that justify all their bizarre beliefs and practices , like Transubstantiation, Confession and Purgatory. All this from a collection of rewritten myths and fables, yet some of them live in mortal fear of “offending” their god!

  9. barriejohn says:

    Here is an example of the sort of mindnumbing thing to which I refer (entertainment of all kinds providing particular problems for the religious, of course!):

    #Every instance of dancing that is not considered sinful was done in worship or praise to God.

    #Dancing to bring attention to yourself or your body, therefore, would be sinful.

    #In the end, there is a lot of dancing that is inappropriate for believers who should be seeking to glorify God with their lives and especially with their bodies. Yet the Bible acknowledges that we can dance in a way that does not tempt others, does not tempt ourselves, and brings glory to God.

    Can you imagine living your life constantly looking over your shoulder like this?

  10. Brian Jordan says:

    They’ll have to lock the felt-tip pens away – what child could resist drawing a face on that doll?

  11. Brian Jordan says:

    Goodness! I’ve just had another look and, surely, that doll has had its hands chopped off!

  12. barriejohn says:

    BJ: If they draw a face on it they will go to hell! You can argue that Jewish and Christian children shouldn’t have lifelike dolls or toy animals either:

    “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (Ex. 20:4)

    That’s where Mohammed got his ideas.

  13. barriejohn says:

    I was trying (unsuccessfully) to leave an addition to my last comment, to the effect that Muslims have been traditionally forbidden from making any representation of any living form – plant or animal – which is the origin of the Arabesque form of decoration.

  14. Philip Smeeton says:

    I guess it depicts someone after an acid attack.

  15. Cali Ron says:

    Apparently, the doll was ‘caught’ stealing and was appropriately punished by amputating it’s hands. Or worse, it was ‘pleasuring’ itself-gasp! How weak must these god’s be if they are threatened by “any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”. Kind of inconsistent with the whole almighty, all powerful, all etc. bull shit. Of course there is no god’s, this is just a reflection of the weakness of the men who wrote their religious tomes. Weak, parasites taking advantage of and living off of their indoctrinated followers.

    @ Paul Cook. I like you business idea, let the muslims pay for their freedom from religious oppression. Society is certainly paying a price for their (and other religions) continued oppression.

  16. Philip Smeeton says:

    For god’s sake don’t call her a British woman, she is a Muslim that happens to live in Britain. A Briton could never have come up with such an insane idea.

  17. barriejohn says:

    Cali Ron: Not only was he not all-powerful, he wasn’t even the ONLY god at one stage!

    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Ex.20:3)

    “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex.15:11)

    “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Ex.34:14)

    Christians may wrigggle and squirm as much as they like, but the meaning of those words is quite clear.

  18. Cali Ron says:

    barriejohn: Indeed, another of the many inconsistencies in the bible. He’s the only god, oh wait, he’s actually 3 gods, but only one, oh wait, he’s jealous of other gods, but he’s the only… Insane. And isn’t jealousy a negative human trait, doesn’t seem very “god” like.

    I love atheism because I don’t have to do any mental gymnastics for it to make sense or justify it. As Sgt. Joe Friday would say, “just the facts”.

  19. Marky Mark says:

    Again…they show their friggen stupidity for all to see