Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
i do know what you mean 
but like these we have mazar tomb and all those dargha where ppl bow in front of the graves. therefore its really hard for people to get satisfy and only trust ALLAH SWT and Prophet PBUH through Quran and Hadith.
many of us need something to satisfy our visuals receptors
dont you worry, many of us in the name of Islam do bigger idolatry than these flat images and calling then Muhammad PBUH. 
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
so you want that picture to accept that as true picture of Hazoor PBUH
first you said that face is not visible and i am lieing then you said that you have seen that in book** and you authenticate that , that pic is of Hazoor PBUH**
kia yeh khula tazad naeen
You are a Liar.
You are constantly trying to prove those pics made by wiki people when you don't have any proof, I was trying to make you realise that these pics are not new and were made hundreds years ago.
No where I said that its the picture of Prophet Muhammad(SAW).
Its only an imaginary picture of the prophet(SAW)....its not real.....it can't be real and a child can tell you this.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
I remember seeing them somewhere - some history book - but exactly cannot recall
no they are licenced if you check it out
True making pictures is forbidden in islam.
In ancient times history was written in the form of paintings - maybe it was one of those times or cultures where this was made.
It is also true that making an image of Hazrat Muhammad :saw: would be the greatest sin .
But this web page only represents the information regarding Hazrat Muhammad :saw:
So It has nothing to do on our behalf , as we do not promote images or consider this useful in describing Hazrat Muhammad :saw: in any case
( which the muslims already know)
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a muslim website. They don't have to follow the rules of Islam, and as a muslim you should know better than to force Islamic rules onto a non-muslim. Where's the petition for that? I'd like to sign it.
The drawings are labelled as centuries old - and done by muslim artists (or at least they're Eastern in ethnicity). The drawings have been scanned in, which means they're available elsehwere on the internet and in books, and such. Where are your petitions for those mediums of communication? You wanna force yourself into every library and burn those books. FURTHERMORE, people are signing the petition without even validating if such artists existed in the past and whether they were the ones who drew these drawings. Ignorance at its height. Lets do action, without even making ourselves knowledgeable on the topic.
Wikipedia is simply reporting something. It doesn't mean that its right or wrong, if you objectively report something. I have to do that sort of thing for a living!
Try to focus your energies on better things.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
I am not surprised that the the OP, from reading her previous posts, would start such a garbage thread while blatanly lying and creating fasad when there doesn't need to be one. Quite telling of a yazidi lover.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Pics of the Prophet pbuh are not Allowed. Simple.
Why not? Where does this rule come from? Hadith? Quran? Interpretation of both?
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Peace All
This has got to be one of the most trickiest topics that I have seen on GS to date. I say this because I can almost certainly see both views on this.
So I'm going to babble a bit ... We should generally not draw pictures. But what is the ruling for pictures that have been drawn by others? Are we supposed to destroy them or prevent them being seen? And how would this go down if such pictures were considered history and heritage?
What was the context in making those pictures by the painters, and what is the reason for displaying those pictures by the site owners? Nativity fine art paintings were NOT designed to be real or "photo" images of the personnages in them rather they had certain sizes, and actions that determined a status and style and feel and mood depicting a story. If the emphasis of the painting was not for worship nor for displaying a sense of creative artistry i.e. they were only designed to tell the story what is the condition behind such paintings? But imagery making is forbidden.
If we are to destroy these pictures they must belong to someone are we then sanctioning the destruction of someone elses property? But images are forbidden. To what extent are we allowed to rebuke the pictures? Are we supposed to protest to an audience of deaf ears? They will argue that people have ALLOWED those pictures to be for centuries. What makes us different in this day and age? Less tolerance may be? Or wiser than those who came before us?
Do these pictures encourage the making of imagery? They did not encourage me? Do we disagree with them I think we should disagree with the fact that they are supposed to depict the holy Prophet (SAW). But should not be equally repulsed by images of other personnages? Such as Isa (AS) ??? So many in the Christian world ... Did that encourage us to make images of him (AS) ???
Perhaps we should take a stance ... but then will Muslim communities follow suit? What is the Shi'a opinion on this matter? Will a fuss over this issue make it more of an issue or less of an issue? Is it really an issue if the motive behind the images are merely to tell a story and not to put creativitiy into the person of Muhammad (SAW) nor to defame him in any way? Can we see if this has been an issue in the past? Why is it so now just because it is on the net? Perhaps all we need to stress on the website is that WIKIPEDIA make it clear that though painting are frowned upon .... and these pictures are not intended to be accurate nor dematory in any way rather to help people conceptualise the story, but then does that sound like an acceptance of the idea of painting pictures?
How much tolerance do we have and what priorities are we setting. We protest that is good, but how do we protest? It can be argued that those paintings do NOT describe Muhammad (SAW) because they were not made in his time and if anywhere they should exist only on the site pages of the artist ... Those paintings are more assocaited to the painter than to Muhammad (SAW) for the major reason that he himself did not sanction them nor did he generally allow images to be made in the fear or caution that people may begin to worship them. So under the topic of Muhammad (SAW) in the Wiki are we to protest with the argument that images are not allowed or rather is it better to protest with the notion that those pictures do not belong in the Muhammad (SAW) section ... rather they can display them as long as they are done under the heading of the artist rather than Muhammad (SAW). The counter argument is that they were designed to tell the story just as the WIKI is designed to do about Muhammad (SAW) on that particular topic ... What better way of getting the message across than by a picture that paints a thousand words. But Muslims should be aware of what words are being painted? Do we idolise Muhammad (SAW)? no ... do these pictures do that? may be to most it would look that way ...
Can we ignore it? Yes ... Should we protest if new images are created ... Probably we should ... but it does matter how we protest ... Should we NOT protest? I don't think staying silent will help much. Should we protest? I think it depends on clearly defining the protest scope and criteria ... We will not be able to stop the images entirely, but we might be able to get them seen in the places they are deserved to be seen and hence clear up other places for the information that we would like.
Wiki criteria is based on evidence and links ... these are provided and are justified and hence Orientalists have just as much authority on Muhammad (SAW) as Muslims according to the rules of WIKIPEDIA ... Furthermore not all Muslims see a problem in the pics ... I do ... but I can't see myself protesting !!!
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Salam
I totally, honestly appriate ur post, its shldnt be done… Not fair to muslims.
However i do have question for my fellow chatters who believe that Mohammed s.a.w is just like us. If it is permissible to make picture of any of us, how come its not permissible to make pic of Our Prophet s.a.w
I am against the Drawing of our Prophets s.a.w coz my beleives are that he isnt like us he’s noor we r bashar.
Wasalam
Aqeel
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Peace, You people do need to lighten up... these "pictures" were made during the Abbasid and Ottoman eras and are part of your heritage and history. This is not the work of the "infidel".
I will do what I can help them stay on, whether members here like it or not. I am against signing the petition.
Yea that shows the Respect Ottoman and Abbasid's had for Prophet s.a.w ..... when we have muslims like you, i really Pray to ALLAH, Oh ALL Mighty Creator Bless Islam !!!!!! these Ottoman and abbasid's have already done best to change islam into there fathers religions..... now there followers r showing there reality ....
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
I don't think that's what hypnotix meant.
The Ottoman's and the Abbasids are 6 feet under and probably barely their skeletons might be left. But they are a piece of history, and you can't erase that whether or not you like them. And you can't stop people from studying their work, whether or not you like them. What you folks are advocating is censor of academic information. Just because YOU don't agree with the morals of an act done centuries ago doesn't mean it should be trashed and unavailable for scholarly research.
That's a total disrespect for academia, and of course, folks like you don't treasure the importance of academics - not very surprising at all.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
PCG, thank you for reinforcing the idea.
PS:
trust hypnotix to always take the antagonistic approach towards Islam and Shariah.
If the voice of reason (that forms the basis of Islam) appears to you as antagonism towards Islam itself, then so bit it. Of course, this too is my opinion so you may differ with me on it. Peace bro.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
I don't think that's what hypnotix meant.
The Ottoman's and the Abbasids are 6 feet under and probably barely their skeletons might be left. But they are a piece of history, and you can't erase that whether or not you like them. And you can't stop people from studying their work, whether or not you like them. What you folks are advocating is censor of academic information. Just because YOU don't agree with the morals of an act done centuries ago doesn't mean it should be trashed and unavailable for scholarly research.
That's a total disrespect for academia, and of course, folks like you don't treasure the importance of academics - not very surprising at all.
Do u have guts to make a portait of Rasool s.a.w ? abbasids did... now u can think the way u want ... u r rite that we cant erase history of banu ummyads or abbasids but when u can see the work they have done is wrong ... then u have to admit they r wrong ..... or u can try to make urself feel better and think otherwise but u know that wont help ... u can just find excuse overanother to defend ummyads and abbasids .... thats just the lock Quran talks about
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Aqeel, PCG was not defending the Ummayads or the Abassids. And there is nothing here about what the Umayyads or the Abbasids did, thats a separate topic.
There is nothing wrong with making depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Being a Shia, you should know that Shias have made pictures of the Prophet Muhammad and their 12 imams.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
good points guys. I hope ppl can think about things with a cool mind.
psyah, thanks for a well balanced viewpoint, best post in this thread.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Aqeel, PCG was not defending the Ummayads or the Abassids. And there is nothing here about what the Umayyads or the Abbasids did, thats a separate topic.
There is nothing wrong with making depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Being a Shia, you should know that Shias have made pictures of the Prophet Muhammad and their 12 imams.
Ok first of all am not shia, and i dunno abt others who made the pics of Imam wether they called there selves shia or were the actually shia .... there are people who call Ali a.s ALLAH and they calim to be shia too ... so forget that i dont think Pictures of Imams a.s and Prophet s.a.w shld be permissble ....
offcourse thats only my opnion .,... and what i say is not fatwa soo no hardfeelings for people who do think differently ..... I am not sure what shia belives are on this but i have heared from sunni's that Drawing people is not permissble ....... God knows better, no more posts on this thread its getting difficult for me to understand this concept of painting Imaginary holy pics
ALLAH Haffiz
wasalam
Aqeel
the message u quoted wasnt actually for pcg it was for hypo, i mean not the whole thing the last part.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Okay if i am shia, and shia's made the pictures of imams .... does that mean i shld support em, There are shia's who call Ali a.s Allah shld i be arite with that too ?
No, but maybe you should investigate into WHY those Shias made those pictures.
I'm sure they have their religious justifications for it.
I still don't see why making a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is so wrong. No one is worshipping those depictions.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
ohh i edited my post and u quoted from earlier one sorry ... i think i went little over limits and treid to impose my thoughts sorry for that too ... everydbody is free to do what they like ....
wasalm
Aqeel
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
You are a Liar.
what do u think of urself
[quote]
You are constantly trying to prove those pics made by wiki people
when you don't have any proof, I was trying to make you realise that these pics are not new and were made hundreds years ago.
[/quote]
still these are not accepted as part of islamic history , so wiki people have no right to paste their with name Muhammad PBUH
but you agree with them that these are pics of Muhammad PBUH
[quote]
No where I said that its the picture of Prophet Muhammad(SAW).
[/quote]
read your earlier post
[quote]
Its only an imaginary picture of the prophet(SAW)....its not real.....it can't be real and a child can tell you this.
[/QUOTE]
how an imaginary picture can be named pics of Muhammad PBUH
so you are giving fatwa that making of imaginary pics of Hazoor PBUH is allowed
shame on you
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Weighing in my 2 cents, the picture on the wikipedia site is one of a series of illutrations ordered by the Khalifah himself, Murad III, for a book on the life of the Prophet (pbuh)
The ulema in the government of the Uthmani Khalifah, who defined Shariah at the time, did permit such images as long as no one drew the face of the Prophet itself - hence the screen.
Scholarly opinion DOES change over time; most current interpretations of Islam would now agree that old Uthmani government ulema's ruling on art are not correct.
Uthmani government ulema did make several other rulings that would not be tolerated today. For example, they ruled that it was permissible for a newly appointed Khalifah to murder his brothers (because of the bloody civil wars that resulted when brothers would try and seize power from each other). Their position on images falls into category of questionable rulings too.
Re: Picture of Hazoor PBUH on wikipedia
Weighing in my 2 cents, the picture on the wikipedia site is one of a series of illutrations ordered by the Khalifah himself, Murad III, for a book on the life of the Prophet (pbuh)
The ulema in the government of the Uthmani Khalifah, who defined Shariah at the time, did permit such images as long as no one drew the face of the Prophet itself - hence the screen.
but problem is that pictures that have been pasted on wikipedia have face
[quote]
Scholarly opinion DOES change over time; most current interpretations of Islam would now agree that old Uthmani government ulema's ruling on art are not correct.
Uthmani government ulema did make several other rulings that would not be tolerated today. For example, they ruled that it was permissible for a newly appointed Khalifah to murder his brothers (because of the bloody civil wars that resulted when brothers would try and seize power from each other). Their position on images falls into category of questionable rulings too.
[/QUOTE]
hmmmm