Skip to main content

I recently found myself at a website.  It is called "Turn To Islam: Towards Correcting The Common Misconceptions About Islam".  I must admit that one of my misconceptions was corrected, after I read this forum thread:

"Are we (Muslims) allowed to draw anime?"

Some excerpts are below.  (But I wrote a lot more after the excerpts, so please check out the rest of what I posted!)

Zelim123:
"Assalamu aleykum Brothers en Sisters, I just wanted to know, are we are allowed to draw anime, like Bleach ? Cuz i've drawn much drawings of anime's, and some peole say it's allowed and others say its haram"

Ibn Uthaymin:
"Bro I think its not permissible. Since Bleach is about Shinigami and Hollows which have heads, eyes etc. All these are essential for life. 
This is a answer from Sheikh Sami el Majid:
'Drawing an image with all the essential parts for life - such as the chest area, the abdomen, the head - will surely be prohibited even if the person does not intend to draw someone specific and just something from his imagination. The prohibition will be there as long as the drawing looks like a living creature, whether human or animal. This is unlawful. This is the emulation of Allah’s creation. It was mentioned in an authentic hadîth that Allah said: 'Who is more of an oppressor than the one who aspires to create as I create.'  ALlah knows best'"

Zelim123:
"Thanks for giving advice bro, but what do I have to do with these drawings? because i've got alot of them. Just throw them away?"

Ibn Uthaymin:
"I think in true style you should set it on fire."

Nasariya:
"assalamualaikum... i have drawn lots of anime picz... thanks for asking this question...i would stop drwaing anymore... may allah forgive us..."

Azmirush:
"I thought I am gifted to be able to draw portraits and now my kids are drawing anime. Looks like got to put a stop to all these. Thanks for bringing this up."

Zelim123:
"So brothers and sisters, we'll decide to barbeque all these drawings we've drawn about anime and other living things with a soul. and inshallah we will be forgiven for this."

OK. I'm back.

Anyway, wow...so much for these budding artists.

Sort of funny that these are the kinds of conversations that show up on a website supposedly dedicated to "correcting the common misconceptions about Islam".

I was wondering something, though.  If you look up a name of someone like Augangzeb (a strict Islamist Mughal king), you will see paintings.  In fact, there is quite a lot of Islamic art showing animals and people.  Are all these artists in Hell now, according to most Muslims?

Maybe they're wrong on that forum and it's just painting the prophets of Islam which is not allowed.  But if that's true, any Christian or other person who draws Jesus should be inflaming the Islamic World.  Jesus is considered a prophet.

Do you think that perhaps the reason why the Islamic World doesn't go batshit insane about depictions of Jesus is because they grew to be accustomed to it?  Could it be that the Christians long ago just said, "You don't want us to draw Jesus?  Fuck off!  We don't have to follow your rules."  Then, they continued doing what they wanted and the Muslims of the world just had to deal with it until they didn't care anymore?

Could the same thing happen with Muhammad in the future?  Could he be drawn and parodied so much that it just becomes impossible for people to get angry at every single instance of it?

Let me know what you think!

Here's the original forum thread:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63534
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sokal-style hoaxes work for religious postmodernists, but (post) modernism is the real hoax Modernism in art and architecture, and postmodernism in philosophy are, like religion, insults to human intelligence.  Unfortunately, many people fall for their hollow propaganda. The "Sokal Affair" was a hoax whereby a man called Alan Sokal submitted a postmodern-sounding article to a postmodern journal.  It turns out that the English you hear isn't just unintelligible to you, but it's unintelligible to the people at the journal as well.  But if it's unintelligible, it must be profound, right?  The journal quickly accepted it, not knowing that it was all fake B.S.  They then got embarrassed when they were told that it was pompous-sounding drivel. Religion has done the same thing.  When people can't understand something, they generally think it's much more profound than if they can understand it.  If a priest speaks Latin, wears some weird costume, and sp...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Islamic State has beheaded at least 21 Christians in Libya.

Whenever a Muslim brings up the Crusades, I have to laugh to myself.  Christians have done horrible things, including in later crusades against Constantinople and the Cathars in particular.  However, get this.  The Islamic State militants said, "Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for" right before butchering Egyptian Christians. It seems that many Muslims haven't taken a single history class.  If they had, they would have known that Christians existed in Egypt for 400 years before Islam.  (Heck, they were even around to murder Hypatia, perhaps the last major ancient female philosopher.)  It was the Muslims who were the "Crusaders"...yet almost nobody will admit to this.  Muslims instigated a merciless war against Christian Egyptians until they were overcome and under Islamic domination.  They did this to people across the world, from Spain to India...massacring any who resisted.  They tried to destroy the Byzaintine Em...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Defense of...Cecil Rhodes?!

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph H...
3 comments
Read more