"Draw-Muhammad-Day"

azadaar110 wrote: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.

If the shirt of a prophet (as) can be His (as)'s shabih, then why cant syeds as the flesh and blood of the Aimma (as)? We are not talking about an exact replica or foto image, shabih as in something that represents and relates to the original ie the Aimma (as)?

Do you believe the Alam made of common wood and cloth is an exact replica of the Alam Of Mola (as) in kerbala? or is it a visual simile of the Alam of karbala?

Is the jhoola the actual jhoola, or an exact replica of the one in karbala? If not then why do you not object to it?
Is the zuljenah the exact copy of the one in karbala?

The answer is no, it is the association that makes something a shabih.
A shabih is the association of something common with something specific.
We as syeds are common people but because of our association with our Aimma (as) who are forefathers, we have the respect and elevated kufv.
How many syeds are meritorious of this respect and status on their own? the answer has to be not many!But it is our association with Mola(as) which does this. This is why sadaq is haram on us and khums is halal for us.

So now tell me about the syeds not being shabihs as an association with the Aimma (as).

Silat_warrior110 wrote:When it comes to hindus, they do not consider them self as Idol worshipers. If you where to ask a true Hindu as to why they worship a Idol they will tell you that they are using it as Shabih to come closer to god. And they are not worshiping the idol directly but rather that Idol represents a certain attribute of God. Now If you say God does not have a image then, yes you are right in sayying so.. how is creating images of holy Imams (as) and prophets (as) any differant from hindus who keep the same principal us when having a idol? we can also apply the same logic to creating somthing and sayying it is Allah (swt) Shabi. or in this case a Shabi of the Imam (as) or a Prophet (saw).

No I am not against Shabihs nor did I say it is haram in any of my posts, however the intial issue is creating a image to ones understanding and sayying this is a Sahbih of a Imam (as). As I said before, instead of using a face it can replaced with light. Is a Sayyid a Shabih of the Imam (as) ? well the reality is they are the progeny of the Messenger of Allah, and that devotion to them is obligatory, because it is the requital of his apostleship (saw). As it is mentioned in the Quran "Say (0 Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no requital therefor, save loving - kindness of (my) kinsfolk" [42, 23]. But likewise act those who Sayyids who act sinfully will be punished doubly, and those who do good acts among them will receive a double reward. This is the nearest association a Sayyid has to the Ahlulbayt (as). But If however one believes that a Sayyid is a Shahbi then they should not have the need of having alams or taboots when in reality the living shabahi is in there own physical presence or they must go find a sayyid.

You seem to be giving very confused responses.

How does a hindus attribution of the avtars (gods) attributes to an idol relate to a shabih of the Aimma (as)?

Allah does not have an image hence you cannot attribute an image to Allah as then you are committing shirk by associating something to Allah (swt) which is not Allah (swt).

The Aimma (as) had physical forms, so to say something is a shabih of mola (as) can be done. The hindu argument is misconcieved.

Please do try again with a rational argument that actually does not contradict itself.

Subhanallah point to be noted!

Sorry brother Silat, but some issues with you above comments...

Firstly, brother RM is referring to Allah (swt) NOT the Aima Ma'sumin (as). The whole argument is, Allah (swt) does not, never did and never will have a form whereas the Aima Ma'sumin (as) did. Unless of course you go down the 'literal route'?

Otherwise, using your argument, mazallah the Ka'aba is also shirk as it's a replica of the the baital Mehmor?

What about the Qur'an? I,e is on a tablet preserved with god?

What about Shezada Ali Akbar (as) who was a shabih of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (s)?

Obviously there are many more examples but you get my point right?

Lol, brother Silat, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen me state the following...

Allah (swt) does not, never did and never will have a form whereas the Aima Ma'sumin (as) did. Unless of course you go down the 'literal route'?

Lo and behold that's EXACTLY what you did lol.

When Allah (swt) refers to Imam Ali (as) as Wajhullah, Asadullah etc etc, is that also in a literal sense (ndb) or otherwise?

If you believe (Mazallah) that Imam Ali (as) are the actual face of Allah (swt) then I believe we should open a separate thread but if not, why not adopt the same principle to the ''veil''?

I have addressed the issue of the hand behind the veil but please don't try changing the topic to that of the veil purposefully or otherwise. I simply will not entertain it!

For the record, I used other holy shabis as an 'example' and NOT a comparison. Please understand the difference.

Now if you could please address my previous post

Maula (as) waris

Please read my previous post again brother

Please read my above comments and ponder of the term 'literalism' for a moment

Brother Silat, please read my comments above and let me know exactly which part you didn't understand