Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Gwalch

I Am Starting Tatbir Next Ashura

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salamalaikum

Well said, the problem with people who are against it do not have a proof against it except for their underlying hated towards it. They say blood donation is a good act instead and they don't have a proof for that one too except that they think it is moral responsibility.

You will find common in most of them is ; why so much mourning? Doubting fadail of ahlulbayth a.s, giving opinions on things which they don't know, soft corner for Sunnis, etc etc if you don't find all of the above then remind yourself that I said 'mosft'

The 'underlying hatred' stems from the proof.

Why not mourn for Ahl al-Bayt in the way Ahl al-Bayt did? Why innovate in religion?

^^

Next they will say to abandon matam altogether then they will say ziyarah is shrik etc.

I always knew that there was a strong correlation between deteriorated IQ and Tatbiri leanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always knew that there was a strong correlation between deteriorated IQ and Tatbiri leanings.

Oh shush, its people like you start coming out saying everything is wrong, haraam, bidah etc. Won't be suprised if it moves onto other things.

Edited by Labbayk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who do it, anything to tell me? Tips, how it felt like, etc.

Experience it first hand. Please dont create another tatbir fight here. Peace.

ANd don't forget that majority of members here are anti tatbir so be ready to ignore them.

With ignoring most of the part, mind an iota of it too. That will be helpful may be.

I didn't ask the opinion of deviant anti-tatbiri filled with Wilayat el-faqih propaganda of making tabarra and tatbir haram. To those who answered me well, 7ayyakum Allah.

Facepalm

I'll close this thread if it gets too far.

Dont you know where tatbir thread goes???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the view point of tatbiris and anti tatbiris on aliyun waliyullah in adhan? as we all know that its also a biddah. I cd have created the other thread for this but just want to know the view of the people, specifically of this thread. also that I don't want to create any more chaos or dispute; u can see the first reply of the thread.(its just that m not sure).wassalam

Edited by worshiper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the view point of tatbiris and anti tatbiris on aliyun waliyullah in adhan? as we all know that its also a biddah. I cd have created the other thread for this but just want to know the view of the people, specifically of this thread. also that I don't want to create any more chaos or dispute; u can see the first reply of the thread.(its just that m not sure).wassalam

I'm anti-tatbir and I think that aliun walillah is mustahab and that the Prophet (pbuh) instituted it gadeer. I just don't think it's wajib. Nor do I think it's bidaa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamalaikum

Well said, the problem with people who are against it do not have a proof against it except for their underlying hated towards it. They say blood donation is a good act instead and they don't have a proof for that one too except that they think it is moral responsibility.

You will find common in most of them is ; why so much mourning? Doubting fadail of ahlulbayth a.s, giving opinions on things which they don't know, soft corner for Sunnis, etc etc if you don't find all of the above then remind yourself that I said 'mosft'

Walekum salaam wrt.

The irony is that the people who say that they should donate blood are usually the ones that haven't donated any. Yet they say oh you shouldnt do zanjeer and donate blood?! Hypocrisy in its highest form.

In reply to those who say that we should mourn the way that the Ahlulbayt a.s mourn over Aba Abdillah A.S. There are numerous traditions which say that The Lady of Light A.S used to slap her face when mourning over Aba Abdillah A.S. I have also heard that She A.S slapped her eyes in particular. Now in all fairness, I would like to pose a question. What is 'easier'? Zanjeer on the back, tatbeer (qum) on the head or slapping of the eyes? Do you have the same love for Aba Abdillah A.s as her A.S to mourn the same way ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

To the OP: My suggestions are:

1 - make sure your marja` finds it to be permissible/mustahabb

2 - purify your intentions

3 - make sure this act and salaat time do not conflict

I didn't realise Syed Abu al-Hassan al-Esfahani and Sheikh Muhammad-Hussein Kashif al-Ghitaa' were 'deviant WFers'.

Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, their reasoning for saying it is not permissible was the self-harm argument (which is highly subjective) and most scholars do not take this one seriously. I believe, also, that Sayyid Khumayni and Khamenei have made it impermissible on political bases (the image of Islam).

Not at all, it's just that you're sort of like a mythical creature.

Yes, I'm looking for two mythical creatures myself:

1 - Shirazi muqallid who believes in WF Mutlaq

2 - Khamenei muqallid who doesn't believe in WF, but only follows him cause he believes in his a`lamiyya

Don't start trashing scholars and being clever about it. If your marja says you are allowed to, then do it. If he says it's haraam then don't. It's that simple. No need bringing other marjas into it.

I think the doctrine of WF Mutlaq is that the Wali al-Faqih's authority, his "political" hukm, overrides one's mujtahid's hukm

Why not mourn for Ahl al-Bayt in the way Ahl al-Bayt did? Why innovate in religion?

I'm okay if you say this as long as you are consistent and throw away all things that are not proven to come from the Ahlulbayt [as] in specific mourning rituals such as ma`tam like we see today [ie synchronized chest beating while a poem is lyrically recited]. I don't even think other kinds of chest beating are proven in riwaayaat, also, nor things like processions, banners, etc.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

To the OP: My suggestions are:

1 - make sure your marja` finds it to be permissible/mustahabb

2 - purify your intentions

3 - make sure this act and salaat time do not conflict

Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, their reasoning for saying it is not permissible was the self-harm argument (which is highly subjective) and most scholars do not take this one seriously. I believe, also, that Sayyid Khumayni and Khamenei have made it impermissible on political bases (the image of Islam).

Yes, I'm looking for two mythical creatures myself:

1 - Shirazi muqallid who believes in WF Mutlaq

2 - Khamenei muqallid who doesn't believe in WF, but only follows him cause he believes in his a`lamiyya

I think the doctrine of WF Mutlaq is that the Wali al-Faqih's authority, his "political" hukm, overrides one's mujtahid's hukm

I'm okay if you say this as long as you are consistent and throw away all things that are not proven to come from the Ahlulbayt [as] in specific mourning rituals such as ma`tam like we see today [ie synchronized chest beating while a poem is lyrically recited]. I don't even think other kinds of chest beating are proven in riwaayaat, also, nor things like processions, banners, etc.

في امان الله

Salaaam,

What does mutlaq mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

To the OP: My suggestions are:

1 - make sure your marja` finds it to be permissible/mustahabb

2 - purify your intentions

3 - make sure this act and salaat time do not conflict

Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, their reasoning for saying it is not permissible was the self-harm argument (which is highly subjective) and most scholars do not take this one seriously. I believe, also, that Sayyid Khumayni and Khamenei have made it impermissible on political bases (the image of Islam).

Yes, I'm looking for two mythical creatures myself:

1 - Shirazi muqallid who believes in WF Mutlaq

2 - Khamenei muqallid who doesn't believe in WF, but only follows him cause he believes in his a`lamiyya

I think the doctrine of WF Mutlaq is that the Wali al-Faqih's authority, his "political" hukm, overrides one's mujtahid's hukm

I'm okay if you say this as long as you are consistent and throw away all things that are not proven to come from the Ahlulbayt [as] in specific mourning rituals such as ma`tam like we see today [ie synchronized chest beating while a poem is lyrically recited]. I don't even think other kinds of chest beating are proven in riwaayaat, also, nor things like processions, banners, etc.

في امان الله

They had a mixture of factors, one of them being self-harm, another more significant factor being that it's a Bid'a.

:lol:

Yes, they are mythological creatures indeed. However, according to many Maraji', it is Wajib to follow your Marji' in all areas, including their view on WF; so it's not a bad thing as such.

Well, i'd agree with you that Latm isn't a Mustahab act in itself, however, it does not harm the body in any way, nor does it contradict any Sharia rulings. Also, isn't there a narration in which Imam al-Ridha (as) witnessed Latm, and said nothing?

Edited by Wizdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

They had a mixture of factors, one of them being self-harm, another more significant factor being that it's a Bid'a.

I think their calling it bid`ah is directly related to their establishing it's tahreem due to self-harm. Because the nature of what is/isn't bid`ah is tied to opposing the shari`ah.

:lol:

Yes, they are mythological creatures indeed. However, according to many Maraji', it is Wajib to follow your Marji' in all areas, including their view on WF; so it's not a bad thing as such.

I shall scour the face of the earth.

Well, i'd agree with you that Latm isn't a Mustahab act in itself, however, it does not harm the body in any way, nor does it contradict any Sharia rulings. Also, isn't there a narration in which Imam al-Ridha (as) witnessed Latm, and said nothing?

Again, "self harm" is highly subjective and most don't hold it as a valid reason of tahreem. You probably lose more blood form donating than doing Tatbir (meaning the tiny, finger nail sized cut on the head, not that crazy back slicing stuff). So, if it doesn't contradict the shari`ah (see how this point is important for calling something a bid`ah or not), it cannot be made forbidden. As for the narration, I have not see such, perhaps it is there. However, what kind of latom is it? In the heat of emotion latom, not synchronized to the recitation of a lyrically recited poem or whatever else is well choreographed. So if tahreem and opposition to shari`ah is not established, the general principles of sha`aair Allah, mourning for Abi Abdillah [as], niyya etc. take hold practically ruling it to be a mustahabb act.

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malangs claim that that the Marje have made blood letting haram on the basis of self harm. In fact if anybody bothered to go read the fatwas they will find that the majority have deemed it haram on the basis of causing misunderstanding and contempt for Islam coupled to the fact it has no historical basis.

Question 1 why do malangs want us to believe it is a self harm issue

Question 2 why do people continue to spout half baked ideas without bothering to go read the fatwas themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, this is my view on tatbir

I feel, if someone has memorised the entire Quran, understands it's whole interpretation, has implemented Quran in his/her life perfectly, has not commited any sin AND then goes ahead to cut themselves, well then i say someone with such a huge amount of knowledge and Iman, a sinner like me won't begin to understand their love for the Imam, and they should go ahead. For anyone who has less than memorised and understood the complete Quran, it makes no sense that they would love the Imam so much to cut themselves, as the cut is usually directed by other motives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, "self harm" is highly subjective and most don't hold it as a valid reason of tahreem.

What, would you say is the most common definition of self harm, based on actual sources? And what's your opinion on the supposed hadith which related that Zaynab (as) hit her head on a metal pole with Imam al Sajjad (as) present and remaining silent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I think their calling it bid`ah is directly related to their establishing it's tahreem due to self-harm. Because the nature of what is/isn't bid`ah is tied to opposing the shari`ah.

I shall scour the face of the earth.

Again, "self harm" is highly subjective and most don't hold it as a valid reason of tahreem. You probably lose more blood form donating than doing Tatbir (meaning the tiny, finger nail sized cut on the head, not that crazy back slicing stuff). So, if it doesn't contradict the shari`ah (see how this point is important for calling something a bid`ah or not), it cannot be made forbidden. As for the narration, I have not see such, perhaps it is there. However, what kind of latom is it? In the heat of emotion latom, not synchronized to the recitation of a lyrically recited poem or whatever else is well choreographed. So if tahreem and opposition to shari`ah is not established, the general principles of sha`aair Allah, mourning for Abi Abdillah [as], niyya etc. take hold practically ruling it to be a mustahabb act.

في أمان الله

Some interesting points.

I suppose it comes down to the jurisprudent. This is why we need Maraji'; rulings change in accordance to society's progression. A hundred years ago, when Tatbir was highly organised and conservative, perhaps it wasn't an issue. Perhaps now it has grown wild, and Maraji' feel the need to control it. However, we can all agree that the vast majority of Maraji', at the very least, discourage the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps now it has grown wild, and Maraji' feel the need to control it. However, we can all agree that the vast majority of Maraji', at the very least, discourage the act.

Shi'ites as a whole have recently become polarized and extreme on many issues, azadari and tabarra being good examples. I remember one time during my ziara to Karbala at the shrine of al Hurr (as) I saw a sign that I would see again which said : لعن الله من حرمه ديني و تطبيري- May Allah Curse whoevers forbidden my faith and my tatbir.

Edited by HassoonBazoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, would you say is the most common definition of self harm, based on actual sources? And what's your opinion on the supposed hadith which related that Zaynab (as) hit her head on a metal pole with Imam al Sajjad (as) present and remaining silent?

I know you didn't ask me, but I have asked about this narration before, in Najaf.

The narration itself actually has no Sanad. None at all. It is found in al-Kafi (I believe?), with no chain of narration, and commentary stating that it was found in authentic books. Of course, in Fiqh, if a chain has no Sanad, it cannot be used to derive a ruling.

The Sanad aside, the narration itself has many discrepancies. We can list these:

1) Why would there be a metal pole? Caravans were made of wood, wrapped with leather.

2) Zainab (as) is a Ma'sooma. Is it feasible that she would injure herself until bleeding point, rendering her unable to pray? We have narrations stating that Zainab (as) did not even miss Salat al-Layl during these times, let alone her Wajibat!

3) Is it feasible that a Ma'sooma would forsake reason and become 'lost in the moment'?

4) Zainab (as) would have worn thick, covering garments. She would have had to have bled a LOT for it to be visible to outsiders.

5) Zainab (as) was instructed by the Imam of her time, Imam al-Hussein (as) not to even scratch her face or wail.

Further to those points, the other issue with using the Hadith to derive a ruling on Tatbir is that the ruling would be specific to its time and place. If the Hadith were authentic, then it would mean that it is permissible to beat your head, upon seeing the head of Imam al-Hussein (as). You'd have to actually see the holy head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

The narration itself actually has no Sanad. None at all. It is found in al-Kafi (I believe?), with no chain of narration, and commentary stating that it was found in authentic books. Of course, in Fiqh, if a chain has no Sanad, it cannot be used to derive a ruling.

That's not entirely true. It being in al-Kafi, if it really is, is enough to establish it's i`tibar for some unless other mu`tabar nass conflicts with it. Also, sanad and all that stuff is not looked to in cases of isti7bab.

Also, I cannot affirm your claim that the majority of maraji discourage it. The entire discussion centers around what is the role of maraji in hamlat al-ahkaam and if their duty extends beyond that and by how much, etc. And even at that point, what exactly is the best course of action to take here and there, when and where. Questions of progress in modern societies are not the point, at least to my understanding.

What, would you say is the most common definition of self harm, based on actual sources? And what's your opinion on the supposed hadith which related that Zaynab (as) hit her head on a metal pole with Imam al Sajjad (as) present and remaining silent?

Hmm I think the most common definition I have been told about what constitutes as forbidden self harm is something that will cause immediate or near-immediate loss of life or limb or serious fear of that.

As for the hadith on Sayyid Zaynab al-Kubri عليها سلام الله I don't think it is crucial to the point or the ruling. It is the absence of it shown to be forbidden that allows the general principles to take over and rules it as mustahabb.

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

That's not entirely true. It being in al-Kafi, if it really is, is enough to establish it's i`tibar for some unless other mu`tabar nass conflicts with it. Also, sanad and all that stuff is not looked to in cases of isti7bab.

Are there any ahadith that conflict with the ones indicating tatbir/latam ? I heard someone telling Allamah Tabatabai' mentioned this in his al Mizan? Is it possible for you to verify this claim?

As for the hadith on Sayyid Zaynab al-Kubri عليها سلام الله I don't think it is crucial to the point or the ruling. It is the absence of it shown to be forbidden that allows the general principles to take over and rules it as mustahabb.

Didn't Sayyed Khoei mentioned somewhere in his book (sorry, no reference) that one cannot say something is mustahabb unless we fetch a hadith for it? The point people usually state in favour of tatbir is that it is due to the love of Ahlulbayt (a.s) and Imam Hussain (a.s), thus mustahabb.

I agree with Sayyed Khoei.

Number 1: There's no sahih hadith, at least in my knowledge, that prove tatbir to be mustahabb.

Number 2: When issues surround controversial topic, a sahih hadith is all the more needed.

Number 3: If it is for the love of Imam Hussain (a.s), are people nowadays claiming they have it more than the Imams (a.s) who came after him?

Personally speaking, I still need more clarification to make up my mind. Right now, I haven't taken a stance, whether positive or negative, on this issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm anti-tatbir and I think that aliun walillah is mustahab and that the Prophet (pbuh) instituted it gadeer. I just don't think it's wajib. Nor do I think it's bidaa.

its a good biddah but for the sake of lessening our exaggeration and unity we mus not do it. what say? cz all these things give rise to other innovations; one of them being tatbir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Didn't Sayyed Khoei mentioned somewhere in his book (sorry, no reference) that one cannot say something is mustahabb unless we fetch a hadith for it? The point people usually state in favour of tatbir is that it is due to the love of Ahlulbayt (a.s) and Imam Hussain (a.s), thus mustahabb.

I agree with Sayyed Khoei.

Number 1: There's no sahih hadith, at least in my knowledge, that prove tatbir to be mustahabb.

Number 2: When issues surround controversial topic, a sahih hadith is all the more needed.

Number 3: If it is for the love of Imam Hussain (a.s), are people nowadays claiming they have it more than the Imams (a.s) who came after him?

Personally speaking, I still need more clarification to make up my mind. Right now, I haven't taken a stance, whether positive or negative, on this issue...

The ruling for the 3rd Shahada in the Adhan is that is it not part of it and forbidden to say as a part of it. However, as the rulings go, it is general musthabb to say the 3rd Shahada after Shahadatayn. The Adhan has the Shahatayan, so it would be mustahabb to say it there, too. Nothing specific to adhan, there is a general point is applied generally. Sihha of ahadeeth are not relevant in the discussion of mustahabb/makrooh as they operate under the principles of rajaa matloobiyya, as far as I understand.

So, I think the same thing is argued for tatbir. General istihbaab shadeed for the mourning of Abi Abdillah [as]. With the negation of its conflict with the shar`iah, this principle takes effect. This their argument. The burden would be on those who say it is forbidden to bring forward their conclusive evidence and it should be free of ishkaal if they want people to accept it.

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, as the rulings go, it is general musthabb to say the 3rd Shahada

how is there a ruling that its mustahab when the leaders themselves have forbidden to state anything as mustahab or makrooh without any hadeeth? also that how do they give the rulings for anything which isn't there in hadeeth? Edited by worshiper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

The ruling for the 3rd Shahada in the Adhan is that is it not part of it and forbidden to say as a part of it. However, as the rulings go, it is general musthabb to say the 3rd Shahada after Shahadatayn. The Adhan has the Shahatayan, so it would be mustahabb to say it there, too. Nothing specific to adhan, there is a general point is applied generally. Sihha of ahadeeth are not relevant in the discussion of mustahabb/makrooh as they operate under the principles of rajaa matloobiyya, as far as I understand.

So, I think the same thing is argued for tatbir. General istihbaab shadeed for the mourning of Abi Abdillah [as]. With the negation of its conflict with the shar`iah, this principle takes effect. This their argument. The burden would be on those who say it is forbidden to bring forward their conclusive evidence and it should be free of ishkaal if they want people to accept it.

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamalaikum.

From what I know they actually deal with this topic differently. They differ on whether it is Shuba mauduyya(mauzuyya) or Shuba Hukmiyya. If they consider it shuba mauzuyya they will apply the priciple of asl all baraa (everything ispermissable until proven haram). And if they consider it shuba hukmiyya (cases where an act is done to seek nearness of Allah azwj) then it becomes a bidda without an asl (general encompassing rule). The ulema who go with alian wali Allah in azaan apply shuba hukmiyya and stop at it being mustahab if the chain of an asl is weak among other conditions and it pretty much depends on which asl they want to choose, for e.g., the mural hadees in ehtijaaj or the many sahih ahadees about no acts of worship are accepted without alien waliullah.

With regards to tatbir, the ones who go with shuba mauzuyya allow it due to the reasons mentioned above and also the one you cited in your post. The only thing common is shuba and then chain of narrations among others. And when considering social norms currently prevalent to issue supplementary fatwas to a given fatwa; they will opiniate as per physical and/or character harm the act may cause. Like Ali an wali Allah is a subject of our recognition hence they assumeed that it has or will not cause any physical or character damage to the community however this is highly subjective to me and so is the issue with tatbir and once the "if "condition is dropped from the rulings of tatbir being haram than it becomes permissible even for the muqallideen of the marjas who don't allow it.

If it doesn't cause damage to Islam, If it doesn't cause self harm, if it is not intended for Riya, if it is not sought for nearness to Allah azwj as a wajib or mustahab act but as a show of our nusrah and readiness for our imam ajf, etc etc.

All these rules, clauses, counter clauses, ifs, buts, whens. Far to complex for a simple man like me. Why not just emulate the Ahlul Bait . Mould yourself to fit the Islamic mould. Stop trying to mould Islam to fit you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

how is there a ruling that its mustahab when the leaders themselves have forbidden to state anything as mustahab or makrooh without any hadeeth? also that how do they give the rulings for anything which isn't there in hadeeth?

This is the criticism of those that support Tatbir. They say the other guys do not understand fiqh and general principles. This is what I have heard, anyway.

All these rules, clauses, counter clauses, ifs, buts, whens. Far to complex for a simple man like me. Why not just emulate the Ahlul Bait . Mould yourself to fit the Islamic mould. Stop trying to mould Islam to fit you

That is why we have maraji who do fiqh and we follow. But they have ikhtilaf. To each his own capabilities and understanding.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why we have maraji who do fiqh and we follow. But they have ikhtilaf. To each his own capabilities and understanding.

في امان الله

And thats why it helps if people actually quote relevant and latest fatwas from these aforementioned Maraji rather then deliberately 'confusing commentaries'.

This thread is a case in point. Why are people talking about self harm and tatbir when most Maraji I have read are banning it based on causing contempt and misunderstanding of Islam not just self harm. Has anyone gone away to read the relevant fatwas. Seems like a case of misdirection

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...