Ziarat or Shrines

[Pokhton]

i ''writtet'' what

i think you understood wat i wrote to you even when i have a bad english :D
but good answer keep it up

[abubaker]

hahah delet ahhaha.

i wouldn't accept any one who is doing shirk, and they have every right to live as Allah is the one who decides whos to live and whos to die

[Roshina]

This whole "Hanafi" stuff is getting out of hand. In case some of us don't know, there are four *major* schools of thought in Sunni Islam; one of them is Hanafi (the others are Shafi', Hanbali, and Maliki). Now, you're not OBLIGATED to follow any of them, but for organizations purposes as well as for the sake of unity, each Muslim region follows a specific one -- again, to keep things organized. South and Central Asia theoretically follows Hanafi law, so we happen to be Hanafis.

All of those scholars came during the first couple of generations after the Prophet's death. What was happening was that everyone was developing their own understanding of Islam, and those who had studied and were studying it more carefully and scientifically feared that if they don't get more organized, then Islam will perish sooner or later and Muslims will be all over the place, doing whatever they want and calling it Islam. So it was only reasonable and perhaps even inevitable that major schools develop so that people are more on the same page. According to many interpreters and hadith scientists, the interpretations of Islam that THOSE FOUR scholars offered were THE best ones. Hence, all questions have been answered -- if they're not answered, then we use ijtihad to figure out the answers.

During their times, they weren't the only ones; there were many others. BUT only the works of these four scholars/jurists survived, hence proving to be the strongest.

Also, these schools have to do with law. And they were not just scholars, by the way; they were jurists as well. This basically means that they are the major (but not necessarily the only) interpreters of Islamic law. For instance, what do you do in case of divorce and child custody? The verses of the Quran are open to interpretation (not just when it comes to divorce but on all other matters as well) -- and we know because some people/scholars believe that triple talaaq ("talaaq, talaaq, talaaq!") is acceptable and valid and others believe it's not. Can we just read the Quran and hadiths and conclude how divorce should take place? No, we can't. If we could, then we'd ALL agree on what exactly we're supposed to do and when, and there wouldn't be any differences among us; we'd all be one people with just ONE way of understanding and practicing Islam.

So the argument is that you need scholars to interpret Islam and Islamic law for you. The GOOD thing is that there's no only "one" scholar of Islam, and that's why Abu Hanifa is not the only one. They disagree on many, if not most, things, and to some of us, they might be minor issues, like whether you can eat shrimp or not and where you can dig a well. But to others amongst us, they are not as trivial. I am one of those who believe that differences in opinion among scholars is a blessing on humanity: Scholar A will say X, Scholar B might say, "No, Y." And Scholar C might say, "Not X or Y but Z only." You as a Muslim have the right to go with any of them, and you won't be wrong in your decision.

The criteria include that the scholars whose opinions you decide to accept be extremely well-knowledgeable in Islam, Islamic law, Arabic, Quran, hadiths, and everything else that has to do with Islam; of course, they MUST be pious, humble, upright people who practice what they preach and all.

So quit fighting over how you need evidence only from Hanafi law or another. They ALL disagree on many aspects of Islam, but they're simply the major schools of thought, not the only scholars we have. (Perhaps one of the things they don't disagree on is the circumcision of females: They all say it's okay and even honorable to circumcise females.) To me, all are equally good, and all had their own flaws, big or small, in their interpretations of Islam. This doesn't mean they're not worthy of being studied, though, of course.

New arguments have been issued that we don't need these madhabs anymore, and they've been very well justified. We need to make ourselves aware of this idea as well, although we do not have to accept or agree with it. Just know that it's there as much as is the old argument that we NEED madhabs for the sake of unity.

[abubaker]

i think you understood wat i wrote to you even when i have a bad english :D
but good answer keep it up

i didnt mean to offend you

[Pokhton]

i didnt mean to offend you

i know but i gave you the answer of your question if you scroll up .
and can i ask you ,you wouldnt accept people that doing shirk?

[abubaker]

no i wouldn't

[Pokhton]

no i wouldn't

this is sad ,because do you know the art work that you are doing,the creation of faces of humans painting etc is shirk in some islamic understaning ,wat are you saying about that`?do i have to hate you now?not accept you as a human?

[شمله ور خراساني]

This whole "Hanafi" stuff is getting out of hand. In case some of us don't know, there are four *major* schools of thought in Sunni Islam; one of them is Hanafi (the others are Shafi', Hanbali, and Maliki). Now, you're not OBLIGATED to follow any of them, but for organizations purposes as well as for the sake of unity, each Muslim region follows a specific one -- again, to keep things organized. South and Central Asia theoretically follows Hanafi law, so we happen to be Hanafis.

All of those scholars came during the first couple of generations after the Prophet's death. What was happening was that everyone was developing their own understanding of Islam, and those who had studied and were studying it more carefully and scientifically feared that if they don't get more organized, then Islam will perish sooner or later and Muslims will be all over the place, doing whatever they want and calling it Islam. So it was only reasonable and perhaps even inevitable that major schools develop so that people are more on the same page. According to many interpreters and hadith scientists, the interpretations of Islam that THOSE FOUR scholars offered were THE best ones. Hence, all questions have been answered -- if they're not answered, then we use ijtihad to figure out the answers.

During their times, they weren't the only ones; there were many others. BUT only the works of these four scholars/jurists survived, hence proving to be the strongest.

Also, these schools have to do with law. And they were not just scholars, by the way; they were jurists as well. This basically means that they are the major (but not necessarily the only) interpreters of Islamic law. For instance, what do you do in case of divorce and child custody? The verses of the Quran are open to interpretation (not just when it comes to divorce but on all other matters as well) -- and we know because some people/scholars believe that triple talaaq ("talaaq, talaaq, talaaq!") is acceptable and valid and others believe it's not. Can we just read the Quran and hadiths and conclude how divorce should take place? No, we can't. If we could, then we'd ALL agree on what exactly we're supposed to do and when, and there wouldn't be any differences among us; we'd all be one people with just ONE way of understanding and practicing Islam.

So the argument is that you need scholars to interpret Islam and Islamic law for you. The GOOD thing is that there's no only "one" scholar of Islam, and that's why Abu Hanifa is not the only one. They disagree on many, if not most, things, and to some of us, they might be minor issues, like whether you can eat shrimp or not and where you can dig a well. But to others amongst us, they are not as trivial. I am one of those who believe that differences in opinion among scholars is a blessing on humanity: Scholar A will say X, Scholar B might say, "No, Y." And Scholar C might say, "Not X or Y but Z only." You as a Muslim have the right to go with any of them, and you won't be wrong in your decision.

The criteria include that the scholars whose opinions you decide to accept be extremely well-knowledgeable in Islam, Islamic law, Arabic, Quran, hadiths, and everything else that has to do with Islam; of course, they MUST be pious, humble, upright people who practice what they preach and all.

So quit fighting over how you need evidence only from Hanafi law or another. They ALL disagree on many aspects of Islam, but they're simply the major schools of thought, not the only scholars we have. (Perhaps one of the things they don't disagree on is the circumcision of females: They all say it's okay and even honorable to circumcise females.) To me, all are equally good, and all had their own flaws, big or small, in their interpretations of Islam. This doesn't mean they're not worthy of being studied, though, of course.

New arguments have been issued that we don't need these madhabs anymore, and they've been very well justified. We need to make ourselves aware of this idea as well, although we do not have to accept or agree with it. Just know that it's there as much as is the old argument that we NEED madhabs for the sake of unity.

Are you saying that Imaam Abu Haneefah and Imaam Ibn Hanbal declared that their opinion should be a particular school of jurisprudence?

Because that's not true. In fact there is not even one book authored by imaam abu Haneefah.

[abubaker]

those for my degree work part of architectural visualization soon as the module is done that would be the end of it


creating 3 dimensional sculptures of the two holy majids is also prohibited and since it is not part of the curriculum ''even though would have loved to'' for the degree i have avoided making those

[Pokhton]

those for my degree work part of architectural visualization soon as the module is done that would be the end of it


creating 3 dimensional sculptures of the two holy majids is also prohibited and since it is not part of the curriculum ''even though would have loved to'' for the degree i have avoided making those

wrora i would preciate if you answer me next time thx and bro dont understand me wrong but you have a extremist form of islamic understaning its like IAM RIGHT THE REST IS WRONG
by the way i love your work on the artist forum here

[abubaker]

yeah right

[Pokhton]

yeah right

so you doing shirk but you hate people that doing shirk.
tobah audu billah bro i wish you a great night sleep well

[abubaker]

read my reply above

do you even know what shirk is

Is making pictures shirk?
Is drawing or capturing pictures of the livings by hand or camera Shirk?.

Praise be to Allaah.


We have already discussed the ruling on making photographic images with a camera. You can refer to questions nos. 13633, 10668, 7918.

With regard to the question of whether making pictures is shirk:

The answer is that it is not shirk, but it may be a means that leads to shirk or associating others with Allaah, especially if the picture is of someone who is venerated by the people, such as scholars, righteous people and rulers. The first case of shirk among mankind was through images and statues. It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, concerning the verse in which Allaah says of the people of Nooh (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwaa‘, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya‘ooq nor Nasr’ (these are the names of their idols)”

[Nooh 71:23]

– These were the names of righteous men among the people of Nooh; when they died, the Shaytaan inspired their people to set up stone altars in the places where they used to sit, and call them by their names. So they did that, but they were not worshipped until those people died and knowledge was lost, then they were worshipped.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4920.

We have already discussed this matter in detail. See Question no. 7222.

And Allaah knows best.

[Roshina]

Are you saying that Imaam Abu Haneefah and Imaam Ibn Hanbal declared that their opinion should be a particular school of jurisprudence?

Because that's not true. In fact there is not even one book authored by imaam abu Haneefah.

Once you have read my post, then quote me on where I implied what you're claiming ... whatever it is that you're saying.

Loye sarray she.

[Pokhton]

read my reply above

do you even know what shirk is

Is making pictures shirk?
Is drawing or capturing pictures of the livings by hand or camera Shirk?.

Praise be to Allaah.


We have already discussed the ruling on making photographic images with a camera. You can refer to questions nos. 13633, 10668, 7918.

With regard to the question of whether making pictures is shirk:

The answer is that it is not shirk, but it may be a means that leads to shirk or associating others with Allaah, especially if the picture is of someone who is venerated by the people, such as scholars, righteous people and rulers. The first case of shirk among mankind was through images and statues. It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, concerning the verse in which Allaah says of the people of Nooh (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwaa‘, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya‘ooq nor Nasr’ (these are the names of their idols)”

[Nooh 71:23]

– These were the names of righteous men among the people of Nooh; when they died, the Shaytaan inspired their people to set up stone altars in the places where they used to sit, and call them by their names. So they did that, but they were not worshipped until those people died and knowledge was lost, then they were worshipped.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4920.

We have already discussed this matter in detail. See Question no. 7222.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Question and Answer - Is making pictures shirk?
every mullah of afghanistan would say its forbidden, if you paint a picture of an human or if you creat a picture of an human with an 3d software,than give this picture also his soul like god gave the humans the soul,you are changing God's creation and making what is beautiful ugly..
i will not try to defend now your contra against people that doing shirk, because i love art in a clean way (no western art porn nacked stuff etc).i accept christians shias sunnis etc as long they accept me as a sunni muslim that prays 5 time a day.so if you dont accept people that doing shirk or let me say HARAM why you dont stop with doing harami tings because its in islami not halal to paint or creat pictures of an human.

if you now scroll up to that point where you started to write about kufar etc than you will hopefully understand my point.i dont wanna insult you or try to teach you how do you have to live but why you are against those people that doing this shrine stuff if you do yourself harami things?
ps:sorry for my bad english