"Draw-Muhammad-Day"

As someone living outside Pakistan, I did not see much protest against "Draw-Muhammad-Day", however, I have seen people posting lots and lots of stuff against it on Facebook. I have also noticed that a lot of people deactivated their accounts for one or more days, in order to boycott Facebook for not removing this event called "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day". (the funny thing is that everyone has got this picture of "Boycott Facebook" up and instead of just leaving this platform they are still using all its tools...lol)

I myself did not deactivate my profile because I somehow am of the opinion that its the Muslims' fault.
Non-Muslims do this kind of things in order to show their hatred towards Muslims. I believe that most of the Non-Muslims do not even know who the Prophet (saww) was or what He (saww) looked like; they just do anything to hurt Muslims which I fully understand.
Let alone all the Muslim terrorists....if you go to Southall and see all the ugly Wahabies there, you think you are in another world and even as a Pakistani you do not feel comfortable (at least that's with me when I go there). Most of those people do not have any manners and they think they are better than white people.
Well, this is a matter of taste... everyone has got their own likes and dislikes...

The actual reason why I am opening this thread is something else.
A year ago I was not aware of the caricatures published in Denmark. When we discussed this in school I was asked about my views regarding the whole conflict. My answer was, "I do not believe it is right to draw caricatures of any religious figure, however, I understand why Non-Muslims do these things. What I do not understand is why all Muslims stand up against these caricatures while Shiites in Iran make animated videos and cartoons about the tragedy of Kerbala and the Holy Progeny of our Prophet Muhammad (saww). No Muslim has ever said anything against Iran and the Shias publishing these things. We should first sort out the problems within our community before we go and fight Non-Muslims."

What do you think about that...?


Ya Ali Madad

Yes, that's right. People should protest against their 6 major books and against any other forms of Shirk as seen in Iran.

Regardless of where it is there is nothing wrong with a shabih if it is understood it is a replica/association.
How is making a shabih shirk? is that not the wahabi argument?

I am not talking about Shabis either. There is nothing wrong with Shabis, but presenting the Ahlul Bayt (as) as cartoons and other strange creatures is wrong as it degrades Them (as).

Lol no Astaghfirullah! Thank God, I don't have any Murshid, nor do I believe in any mere man to be the Shabi of Imam Hussain (as).

yes derogatory depictions should be condemned, but how? by burning shops and beating up non muslims?
The way to do it should be by peaceful protest.

Depictions of the Aimma (as) should be seen as shabihs and not as realistic reproductions of images.
Incidently, does anybody have any hadeeth on the prohibition of images of the Aimma (as) from shia sources? or is it a sunni storm in a tea cup that we have all agreed on that no visual depictions?

Cartoons need not be derogatory if used sincerely and especially if children are going to watch them and learn from them.

As far as those caricatures which caused an uproar, well all the basis of those can be found in the sihah e sitta, so do not condemn the cartoonists only, condemn the authors/narrators of those hadeeth books also.

Yes, its the Muslims' fault, not only the Non-Muslims'.

Okay, I get what you are saying... What about the saying that the Masumeen (as) are pure Noor? And another one says that once a man wanted to touch Rasulallah (saww)'s belt but when he stretched his hand he felt nothing, his hand went through the "body" of the Prophet (saww).
How can we make cartoons of Noor?

Furthermore, where did all these cartoons and animated videos come from? Why do we need these media in order to understand the tragedy of Kerbala or the life of Imam Ali Raza (as)? Did the people of past era not know about the Shiite history? I don't think they had a DVD-Player to play these films, or a coloured book to show their kids how Imam Hussain (as) was killed in Kerbala.

I understand your point but cannot agree with it.
In those times, people used to portray the roles by enacting as 'a play' the tragedy of kerbala.
This happens to this day with people acting as the Aimma (as) and as the shimrs etc.

Masoomeen are noor but they also had bodies, if not then how can the tooth of the Priohet(saww) be hurt, how can the Aimma (as) be poisened and tyrranised?

If you agree that the Aimma (as) are pure noor and cannot be touched, then how can you mourn karbala and 21st ramadhan?

Ya Ali Madad brother warrior.
You do realise that the nasibies have made haram something not haram in the quran, namely the drawing and sculpting of animate objects.

There is no prohibition on drawing or sculpting live images in the quran.

The prohibition is on making idols for worship which is aiding and encouraging polytheism (shirk).

Other than that, there is no textual evidence in the quran at all declaring drawing or sculpting humans or animals wrong.

The whole argument of negetivity falls flat on its face as then you deny choice to individuals and you are playing god yourself.

Oh and as far as a taziah being done is cultural...il make sure to make a note of that in sura e yusuf (12:93) "Go with this shirt of mine and lay it on my
father's face, he will become (again) a seer; and come to me with all
your folk".

I will certainly note down that the giving of a shirt as a representation/shabih of hazrat yusuf to hz yaqub (as) in order to wash away the illness and grief was a 'cultural thing' and even though it is in the quran, it has no part in islam

Although im sure you will ease my confusion a little. You are saying it is a cultural thing with no basis in religion and these representations have no religious significance.
But the Quran is telling us that the representation/imitation/shabih of a Prophet(saww) has the ability to heal and to bless.

Borther how can you expect me to follow you when the quran is clear in the matter ?

Rational Mind wrote:
Other than that, there is no textual evidence in the quran at all declaring drawing or sculpting humans or animals wrong.

Aren't we speaking about the Masumeen (as)?


I agree with brother Silat_warrior110. We should avoid portaying the Infallibles (as) in any shape and form so that They are not portrayed in a negative light.
Everyone has a different understanding and way of looking at things, and some people might be hurt by seeing these portraits. For example all the pictures of our Imams (as), do you think this is what They looked like? I am SURE Their beauty and Nooraniyat cannot be shown on a simple piece of paper.

Maula Ali Madad

azadaar110 wrote:

Rational Mind wrote:
Other than that, there is no textual evidence in the quran at all declaring drawing or sculpting humans or animals wrong.

Aren't we speaking about the Masumeen (as)?


I agree with brother Silat_warrior110. We should avoid portaying the Infallibles (as) in any shape and form so that They are not portrayed in a negative light.
Everyone has a different understanding and way of looking at things, and some people might be hurt by seeing these portraits. For example all the pictures of our Imams (as), do you think this is what They looked like? I am SURE Their beauty and Nooraniyat cannot be shown on a simple piece of paper.

Maula Ali Madad

Yes Azadarr we are speaking about the Aimma (as), but in order to declare something haram you need to first prove it via quran and hadeeth, and if the general is not haram then you need to show the specifc ie pictures/fotos/drawings/paintings of the Aimma (as) being haram.
If that cannot be done then there is no basis for condemning or criticising those who do.

Now you may not wish to portray the Aimma (as) and that is your choice. But you cannot force that choice on another and you cannot say someone else is wrong for doing that.

Do you think the jhoola we have in muharram is the one in karbala? or the horse/zuljanah? The alam? Yet we accord a great deal of respect and honour to them.
Knowing something is a representation is more than enough, it is a focal point and signifies the same respect as the asal.

If you or anybody else is hurt by the depictions of Mola (as) the question arises as to why?
If it is because you do not think that those depictions do justice, then ok..dont buy them, dont look at them. But everyone has varying levels of understanding, faith and belief. You cannot force others to believe, act or say the same things as you because your perception is different.

So if people want to have animated cartoons of the Aimma (as) let them, if you dont agree dont watch.

Silat_warrior110 wrote:My point exactly Azadaar, the biggest Question, I would like to ask is, would somone who keeps such a picture stand on it? If No then they should not be looking at these pictures or even keeping them for the very reason that they have accepted these pictures as been a form of representaion of the Imam (as) If you can stand on top of the Kaba, which at one point people used to, when they had to give the azan, then why can't somone stand ontop of a picture? unless of course the picture is greater then the Kabba?

Astaghfirullah Silat. Your point is so confused and defunct, but i will answer it since you keep bringing it up.

According to your 'standing' theory, we shouldnt keep a quran, sajda gah (turbah), names of the Aimma (as) or shabihs/fotos of the mausoleoms of the Aimma (as).

and yes the shabih of the Aimma (as) is greater than the kaaba. The onloy reason the kaaba has any virtue or greatness is because it has an association with the Aimma (as).
Other than that, its a stone hut.

But the question you should be asking is, can you stand on a verse of the quran? and if you can then there is nothing stopping you, but if you cant, why not?

Silat_warrior110 wrote:And I could say "Astaghfirullah for people who draw and support pictures..." The Ahlulbayt (as) are the only people who are the walking talking Qurans. We are not in any postion to stand on the Quran only they can. As did Imam Hussain (as) infront of the companions.

This stone hut is the place which sits under the divine Throne of Allah (swt), the blessings of all 7 heavens shower upon it, not to mention this "Stone hut" was the place which kept veil the Zahoor of the Imam (ajf) from the public. So Astaghfirullah to you! I do not consider pictures of ugly looking people as been the Shabihs of the Imams (as), so It has no place in my eyes. For all I care, you could use it as rizla paper while eating a pizza in "Pizza Hut" (not stone hut get it? ) and it would not bother me.

You havent asnwered the question.
The shabih of a masoom (as) or an object of the Masoom (as) should be respected regardless.
IT is an attempt by a fallible to express their understanding of Mola (as) beauty, of course flaw cannot express perfection, but at least they have tried.

To revere and adore that effort as something imperfect that signifies the perfection of the perfect in an mperfect manner is to be applauded and supported, not to be criticised and ridiculed.

You would not stand on the qruan which is a shabih of the quran "preserved in a tablet" in heaven.

You would not stand on a turbah (sajda gah) which has the association of having the blood of the Aimma (as) spilt on it.
You would not stand on any art work with an ayat from the quran or the name of the Aimma (as).

But you will not respect another persons homage to the perfection and beauty of the Aimma (as)?

I do not understand your reasoning.

Silat_warrior110 wrote:As I said before I do not see images of ugly looking people been as a Shabi of the Imam (ajf), using your same logic why don't you draw of God? after all it is a Shabi and it is the intention that counts right? wouldnt you say a "Sayyid" is the biggest Shabi you have of the Imams (as)?

If god had a form you could argue that.
So if certain 'not very attractive' syeds can be shabihs, what problem do you have with the pictures?

It is entirely possible that what you are considering as 'ugly looking' is something beloved to and respected by the Aimma (as) themselves?

What do you say about the zuljenah and the jhoola or the mehndi and alam?
Do you believe they should be changed because they are not like the originals?

Rational Mind wrote:
So if certain 'not very attractive' syeds can be shabihs, what problem do you have with the pictures?

Who said 'not very attractive' Syeds are Shabihs?

azadaar110 wrote:

Rational Mind wrote:
So if certain 'not very attractive' syeds can be shabihs, what problem do you have with the pictures?

Who said 'not very attractive' Syeds are Shabihs?

Azadaar please follow the conversation

Silat Warrior claimed (and i do not disagree with it) that all syeds are shabihs of the Aimma(as) as we all represent our forefathers (as) and we are a source of respect for the ummah.
Now if you accept this about syeds, then you have to accept that beauty is subjective and some will be 'goodlooking' and others will be 'badlooking' or even 'ugly'.

But regardless of how they are percieved physically, how can you me or anybody else decide that they do or do not represent our Aimma (as) and are the embodiment of the obligation to 2love my near kin" ?

Sorry, I seem to have not read that part of his post.

How can we be Shabihs of the Aimmah (as)? Astaghfirullah.

Yes, we represent them in some way being their descendents and as Syeds we have more duties than others, we have to show that we are Their desendents, but how can we be their Shabihs? We don't deserve the same respect and love as the Aimmah (as) obviously. You said above that a replica deserves the same respect, but we are not 'replicas' of the Aimmah (as) Maazallah.