Why do Christians make so many TYPES of Jesuses?
Do you think it's ALLOWED in your/their religion?
Any PROOF?

The problem is Muslims DO NOT draw/paint/sculpt any religious personality. This is considered as a part of PAGANISM and leads to PAGANISM.

Now when Muslims don't do that, how anyone else should be doing that for them. I won't paint Jesus for you or Krishna for Hindus either.Other people have NO RIGHT to make pictures of anyone's else's religious personalities.

Leave alone pictures, why do they make cartoons of Muhammad s.a.w., then?

Isn't it just to INSULT , MOCK and TEASE....what else, then, tell me and don't run away please?

Well first, Christianity is hardly the only alternate religion that has and does exist...there are thousands, and they all have there opinions on this or that. Why anyone should be beholden to what some other person believes, thinks or claims to believe in the ocourse of their own affairs is senseless to me.

Now as I understand it yes, depicting Christ is "allowed" in many christian religions as practiced, though some feel one of the Ten Commandments insists this should not be allowed. You don't see one or the other side of that dispute rioting and insisting on the murder of violators of this principle, though no doubt that's been the case in the past. People claiming to speak for super-beings seem to get awfully touchy.

Now you say that Muslims don't paint any "religious personality" yet I wonder how you would explain that there are several depictions of Mohamed going back over the centuries, drawn by good Muslims...and further, where in the Koran it says that you cannot draw him. I have a source that says the actual prohibition is not to draw ANYTHING living of ANY sort, animals or people:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

Certainly seems factual and uninsulting to me. Not that it shouldn't be anyone's right to say anything they like about any subject...after all, who is to say what is "insulting"? The mere act of praying is considered by some faiths to be an insult...does that mean you should not pray.

Further, you say Muslims don't draw other prophets and so forth, but some very extreme Muslims claim the right to kill those who state their disbelief in the Islamic God (or any other). So you think it is polite not to make drawings, but proper to murder? And further, murder in the name of a creature who you claim is certainly able to defend itself (all-powerful, hell for apostates and so forth).

It seems obvious that one might want to draw or otherwise depict Muhammed in a number of ways that wouldn't be considered insulting or mocking. Say, for example, I believed that he felt badly for the Shia/Sunni Schism and felt the Shia had gone astray, and I chose to show him looking at Persia and weeping (in a cartoon you understand). How is that in any way disrespectful?

And as I said that shouldn't be the criteria anyway.

And finally I don't think I've run away.That's two or
three unwarranted assumptions on your part in one small post. Why that should be the case is something else you might like to ponder...

Well, my assumptions were only on what was not clear in your post. Did you mention your religion or beliefs?

Generally, the most common example of the religions is Christiany, the worlds largest, then Hinduism , a popular one and many others ending at "ism". All are involved in such practices and all are eventually ending up at, one or another form of "paganism". What do you say?

Christianity is a cult, they don't try to follow the law of Moses. If they would they won't draw "Jesuses".Where in New Testment do you find something in favour of drawing or sculpting holy personalities? Christians and others draw or paint or sculpt...to WORSHIP , only!

Islam is basically is the revertion of the religion of ONE CREATOR, back to its "original" form ,the Abrahimic version, so to speak. I don't find any reason to "draw" God or the "messengers" even if it is not mentioned in the Quran. I think this book of Allah is enough to draw conclusions on account of the common sense. Muslims who become very peculiar about Quranic statments have generally not under-stood or have mis-understood the Quran. Most of them don't bother to read it at all after reading the "so-called-authentic-books-of-hadith". I'm not one of them, at least.

I don't think Hadith is a very reliable source since I know about the filth recorded in the name of service to Muslims also. So if you can find filth along with the holy , your mind don't want to believe in the holy,either.(Addition: except for that, which makes Quranic teachings clearer to you)

I don't know if a girl named Ayesha ever existed, and a man called Muhammad who married an old woman in his youth, married a child in his old age, who used to played with dolls.

I don't want to know how people kill others people on account of Hadith only. The simple religion of Islam has been ruined by the so called scholars and leaders of Muslims, NOT OF ISLAM.

Now the Quran tells us about paintings and sculptures at the time of Soloman (pbuh). Allah also allows aesthical things for Muslims which may include, good poetry, music, art etc. This religoin stresses on modesty and being a human or Muslim we know a general standard of modesty. Why would Allah ask a person to put "life" when no one can? Living things include plants too, so it means landscapes are also not allowed according to Hadith?

Now about depiction of Muhammad by Iranians. When did it start? At the time of prophet who was against paganism ?
Prophet forbade to write his sayings too. Who , when and why started to write his sayings, then?

Why do we need picture od Muhmmad s.a.w.? especially the "hand-drawn", imaginary? Some people worship his "name" too.Some the picture of Kabah.What do you say?

I'm glad you stayed, usually no one does, mostly it's like throwing a pebble in water and vanishing. :)

..........

...and cartooning is a 'mockery'..I've studied it, myself and it's not possible without 'exeggeration' and 'distortion' of the features and the facts!

Interesting, under your definition of a proper religion there are only two: Islam and Judaism (both hold to only one god). Ironic, isn't it? ;)

As I mentioned, cartooning need not equal mocking--witness how political cartoonists often depict figures they like in cartoons, and they do so without insulting them. Insults they leave to those they dislike.

But what of it? The question is why do muslims get so indignant, to the point of violence, over what other people think? Surely if you actually believe in some kind of creature capable of creating all the galaxies and the vast expanse of space, said creature would hardly care a wit what some near ape thought about him. And if he actually did welll then supposedly there is some kind of awful place called "hell" where he will roast for all eternity...there is nothing you, a believer, can do to him that will remotely approach tis punishment. And as a human you might make an error and hurt some innocent on your way to showing your deep reverence, and how would some supposedly all-merciful being allow THAT?

Your point about the depiction of plants is interesting...yes, they are alive and so by rights they should not be depicted either. Of course, they did not know about germs and viruses and such and so would not be aware that if you can't draw animals you couldn't draw even a picture of the sky, rocks in the desert, anything at all...because they are all crawling with tiny creatures we cannot see without a microscope. Your religion, like so many others, was dreamed up by one or many people who were very ignorant of the true nature of the world they lived in...understandable, of course but this fact should not color modern people's thoughts and behaviors. So sad that it still does.

So it's all very confusing. As to the use of the term "paganism" well just because YOU want to think that there is only one superpowerful magical being behind everything does not mean that everyone else has to, nor does the mere fact that you believe it make it so. You have no more proof than those who believed in Zeus, or the Aztec Sun God, or the Indian animists, or the Christians (whom you claim believe in multiple gods, a point they hotly dispute).They all say there beliefs were revealed to them in the same manner muslim claim there notions were revealed. So who are you to dispute them?


How's that for a few ripples in the pond? ;)

25:63 And the true servants of the Gracious God are those who walk on the earth humbly and when the ignorant address them, they avoid them gracefully by saying, `Peace !'


"PEACE!"

And modern adults don't hide behind musty old sayings of long-dead goatherders and such, but rather use reason in the course of discussion to best approach the truth. I would much rather a "piece" of your mind, so that I might learn, rather than simply your wizened proclamation that I am supposedly "ignorant". It is this inability to break free of commands from an imaginary creature and the scribbles of his cultish followers that have led to so much backwardness in the Islamic world at large.

Do you shout "PEACE" while running away?

We are not upset,we are angry
as about your point of animals,but what do you eat... plants,vegetables.that too have life.

Seems like a bland word game, but okay then...why do so many get angry? Particularly when good muslims drew picturs of Mohammed for hundreds of years? And why get "angry" when it doesn't say anywhere in the Koran to not draw him in the first place? And why, even if you are "angry", do you think that it is your human right to attack another person who does not hold to your beliefs (I don't know if you do personally but obviously some do)?

I don't understand your second sentence. I was pointing out how the actual command, to not draw living beings, is senseless because it doesn't take into account tiny, invisible bacteria which Mohammed and the rest of his contemporaries where ignorant of. Funny how some supposedly all-knowing being forgot to tell him, isn't it?

Drawing the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) can be for two purposes one is to insult him and the other is it admire him
but the both reasons are haram (forbidden) in Islam
firstly admiration reason:
most of Arabs before Islam and even non Arabs were used to be pagans who made idols for great people then started to worship them ,so drawing people and making statues was forbidden to avoid reverting to be pagans again
in Islam prophet Mohammad is no more than a great man so it is forbidden to worship him

secondly the insulting reason:
as that prophet Mohammad is the dearest man for Muslims ,it is so hurtful for Muslims to see pictures about him are made to make fun on him
uncaring about feeling of 2 billions of Muslim people can`t be called free of speech but racism

the biggest part of the problem that those who draw pictures of the prophet didn't releaise that muslims never draw pictures of other`s abrahamic religions as it is haram and never they use that as a revinge ,i can`t understand why don`t non muslims learn to be the same tolerant? may be it is not a part of thier religions

King Soloman's Empire (Al-Quran)

34:13 They made for him what he pleased of fortresses and images, and bowls (large) as watering-troughs and cooking-pots that will not move from their place; give thanks, O family of Dawood! and very few of My servants are grateful.
.................

7:32 Say, "Who prohibited the nice things GOD has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

7:33 Say, "My Lord prohibits only evil deeds, be they obvious or hidden, and sins, and unjustifiable aggression, and to set up beside GOD powerless idols, and to say about GOD what you do not know."
..............

There are many Hadiths which say many things which create doubt about human natural tendencies given by the Creator Himself. Muslims have made the religion of Allah very difficult to follow because they have become very picky about minor things like how should we sit for the prayer, doing abulation, and mannerism etc..

similarly they have become too concerned about, singing, drawing , painting etc...as if Allah who himself is an Artist (Al-Mussawir) is perheps an un-natural dictator (Naouzobillah)..who keeps on changing his LAWS from prophets to prophets...for fun...

I don't think that Allah doesn't know that a biology student has to draw humans and animals..as a zoological aspect of the studies just like the botanical one...constituting plants and vegetation etc...
A doctor can't become a doctor without ..being a sort of visual artist...

A visual artist, on the other hand, may depict and highlight many cultural (sensetive) issues of a society in his/her art just like a poet who writes for it..

Quran recitation and Nasheeds are not possible without 'singing'...If there are hadiths about 'singing is haraam' then there are hadith which tells us about singing at the time of rejoicing...like when Muhammad s.a.w was welcomed by the Medina's people..

Now some people today thinks that 'Hijab' is the most potent way to follow Allah's command ...and all other options are not included in the category of word 'Hijab'..

I personally feel that a life of a lay man who is basically conscious about rights and wrongs is nothing different from a good Muslim who does it all for Allah's sake, but the difference is..we take everything for it's face-value..only!

I feel those who worship Kabah and the black stone are equally pagan as those who pray before the word 'Muhammad' s.a.w..framed on the wall (Ya Muhammad group!)

It all doesn't mean that I favour drawing holy personalities of any religion...no ...absolutely NOT! :)

Is dynamiting statutes of some other religion OK? Why is it allowed by Islam to insult other religions but a great sin to insult Islam? Why does Islam allow and even condone lying about acts done by others, but will not bother to retact statements made by Islamic religious authorities when they turn out to be false! Across every mosque in the world the twin towers dissaster was attributed to Mossad/CIA! When Bin Laden pridefully admited it was Alqueida "boys" that did it, there was no retaction from the religious authorities that had made the initial accusation! You can tell the truth extensivelly for a long time, but one little lie such as happened, makes all of ISLAM a pack of liars!

The 'Truth' is not the property of the 'pack of hounds'....

Ok will u ppl like to answer that why President Obama expelled his genius General(Gen McChrystal) from his service only for a few ridiculous comments on USA and its officials

Are u ppl are not civilized enough to bear some harmless jokes

As a practising Muslim I do not support the depiction of Prophet Muhammad because I feel that depiction of a great person simply restricts his personality to that depiction in the human mind. We want to know Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) through his stories, deeds and sayings, then do we have the wish to see him which we believe would do in Paradise. BUT I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE FACT THAT ANY ARIST OR FILM-MAKER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEPICT HIM AS A HISTORICAL, POLITICAL OR SOCIAL FIGURE WITHOUT MAKING INSULTING CARTOONS OR CARICATURES OF HIM....one thing must be made clear to all Muslims and Non-Muslims that making the picture of a guy with a turban and labelling it 'Muhammad' or 'Mohammed' does not make it a picture of Muhammad {peace be upon him} but merely something childish...

The problem is: People, especially the artists of old, are thoroughly unable to depict Muhammad {peace be upon him} correctly, and we Muslims should not take them into account, as I have said MAKING THE PICTURE OF A MAN WITH TURBAN AND LABELLING HIM AS MUHAMMAD DOES NOT MAKE IT A PORTRAIT OF THE PROPHET but non-Muslims can have right to depict him correctly as a highly-influential and successful historical, political and social figure.
Shia depictions of Ali and Muhammad {peace be upon him} are really incorrect I've to admit, they look more like Sikh Guru Nanak or Indian Sai Baba illustrations than Arabs

I saw Prophet's (s) picture in some books of comparative religions (elementary level) first time and remember my reaction of becoming a bit un-comfortable with it. It was probably a persian version of the depiction , not a non-muslim one, I guess.Prophets's multiple versions of depictions give me the same feelings always (including Jesus (as).I'm not sure it's right or wrong but I know that such depictions do have many commercial purposes behind them.

Movie 'The Message' can be included in a careful depiction yet it faced criticism at many levels at its time. Today it seems quite acceptable and has exceptionally become a token of a decent depiction.(and have actually helped Muslims convey the message instantaneously, which they have failed to convey through expert spoke-persons)

Salman Rushdie didn't use a brush to paint his holiness (s) yet he used a worst mode of depicting a private aspect of the life of a decent human being.Similarly the Danish cartoonist's intentions were malicious.If you give rights, then you should anticipate violations!!!

As far as the resemblence of the pictures to any specific cultural group is concerned, it could just be affliated to individual perceptions of an artist's mind which is developed and trained under te influence of certain ethanic stimulants. I don't see any white person would be able to depict blue Krishna any better than a typical Hindu artist!

Again should this upset Hindus if someone choose to paint him brown or black, instead? ( just like stimulating a dual between a white and black Jesus!)
Should this be regarded as an'insult'?
Should there be any serious punishment for such 'insult'?

Now relevantly,you may ask, should a Christian woman be put to death for insulting Muslim's Prophet?

The complications of this world are far to be comprehended or straightened out!

You are absolutely right, brother...I agree...The affairs of this world is far too complicated...if it would have been simple...everyone would accepted the laws of Allah as taught to us by our Prophet and would have lived in peace and harmony...indeed some well-known historians and politicians, non-Muslims and Muslims alike agree unanimously if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was given the leadership of this world, it would have known peace,..e.g. George Bernard Shaw and Michael H. Hart and many others

I agree brother, the real peace is in following the straight path, and not in going astray. Some people punish others and some punish themselves for others by losing some very precious things they trust for years. It is pity that some people get caught in wordly games and become confused and mistaken. I apologize for the sadness in my tone for I have tears in my eyes at the moment. I wish my real brother would read what I wrote here tonight.God bless George B. Shaw ,Michael H.H.and many others for saying something nice about our prophet (its a precious contribution) though they couldn't understand him. It might be psycological but yes we all split!

Peace!!!...