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  
Modest Muslim

Self-Flagellation In Islam

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

Is self-flagellation allowed in Islam? I did some research and made this:

http://matamislam.blogspot.com/

Get ready for a thousand pages of this stuff...

I remember just under two years ago I made a similar thread. It was closed down eventually... 20 odd pages later :donno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Jazakallah khayr for your research. Here are some points I'd like to make, relating to the bolded, numbered list on your blog.

1. The first ayaa is talking about weeping, which is what we're instructed to do as well. It doesn't have anything to do with self-flagellation. I've never seen people weep while they're beating themselves with blades solely by the blade. Does that even happen? Your description for it is also stretching it. Why can't Shi`a Muslims give themselves a little pain or lose some blood? Because recounting the events of the martyrdom and weeping over them should cause you enough pain. Refer to the hadeeth of Imam Sajjad's (as) servant saying to him I think you might die due to all your weeping.

As for Ibrahim's (as) wife, yes she hit herself (presumably once) at the approach of the news of her son, but is this really evidence for taking a sword and beating yourself with it?

2. Yes, crying over the tragedies the Ahl al Bayt (as) encountered is one of the ways to please Allah (swt) and secure your spot in jannah

3. Is this even a Shi`a hadeeth, regarding Uwais? Either way we don't believe Rasulallah's (S) tooth broke during the Day of Uhud.

You just said "Lady Ayesha (God be pleased with her)" so I think it's more relevant to speak about why you chose those words than to argue over the legitimacy of this extreme azadari...

Wait, you also are using (ra) for Umar?

The sources you are using are by Sunnis so sure you can use it to provide evidence for them, but if you don't have evidence from us then the practice really has no basis.

4. More Sunni stuff, inshaa'Allah we can go over any Shi`a hadeeths you might have about self-flagellation

5. I don't believe the Bible can be used as evidence for the shari`a.

Calling self-flagellation a 100% Islamic "ritual" is also pushing it since we haven't established it yet from Shi`a sources.

Thanks for reading my blog. Your points are notable. It'll be a great pleasure replying to your questions.

1) I also don't like when Shia Muslims use chains and swords to beat themselves. If they have so much blood to spill, they can donate it to a hospital to help humanity as helping humanity was the principle of Imam Husayn ibn Ali (peace be upon him). I myself abstain from using weapons for self-flagellation. I prefer self-flagellation with hands only.

Jacob wept for Joseph and lost his sight. This shows that if a man hurts himself grief, Islam allows it calling it natural.

Sarah who was the wife of Abraham, flagellated herself with her hands. Thus, self-beating with hands is not prohibited in Islam because God mentioned it in Qur'an and didn't condemn it.

2) Indeed, those who remember the problems and difficulties faced by the progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) and weep over them especially over Imam Husayn ibn Ali (as) and other martyrs of the Battle of Karbala; they please God and earn his blessings.

3) I actually wrote that blog to convince the Sunni Muslims that self-flagellation is allowed in Islam. If you don't believe in what I wrote about Uwais al Qarni (ra) then OK. There are many more proofs.

Yes, I used (ra) for Caliph Umar. I commonly use this term for him not because I love or follow him. Caliph Umar (ra) himself used to ask Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) for his help whenever he was in trouble. I use (ra) for him to make Sunni Muslims happy and erase hatred from their hearts towards Shia Muslims.

Lady Ayesha (ra) is revered by Sunni Muslims. Thus, I mentioned what she did to prove that self-flagellation was not an innovation of Shia Muslims.

Read my blog carefully. I'd given one proof from a Shia Islamic book.

'The daughters of Fatima flagellated themselves over Husayn ibn Ali so we must do it as well (Jawahir al Kalam, volume #4, page #370).'

4) Brother, that blog was intended to be for Sunni Muslims particularly.

5) Bible has been distorted but Muslims believe that it was actually revealed by God. Thus, all Muslims honor Bible but we don't take it as like as we take Qur'an. I was trying to prove that even the distorted form of Bible allows self-flagellation.

Go and search for 'matam' at www.al-islam.org. Our scholars are against self-flagellation with weapons. I agree with them but they allow self-flagellation with hands. Draw a picture in your mind. A group pf Shia Muslims, bathing in its own blood, marching naked with no shirts on their chest, with chains and swords they are waving and hitting it even on the heads of little children. Then, draw another picture that a group of Shia Muslims, marching in lines, dressing in full clothes with black color, tapping their hands on their chests, calling 'ya Husayn, ya Husayn' together. Which one is better?

In my blog, I've given a link of en.shiapen.com. They'd quoted some Shia Islamic hadiths as well in their article.

God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use (ra) for him to make Sunni Muslims happy and erase hatred from their hearts towards Shia Muslims.

Who gives a damn what they want? Are you here to please them or Allah (swt)? Fine, don't send la'na on them if you don't want but don't you dare ask Allah to be pleased with individuals who the Imams (as) cursed themselves and who committed the most atrocious of crimes against the Prophet's (sawa) Family (as). Why are you so concerned about them? If they have hatred towards us thats thier problem. It's not gonna get fixed by you spitting garbage like (ra) after the names of those they love. All you have to do is refrain from saying things against them in public. It's not rocket science... Anyone who just openly curses or insults the Prophets (sawa) wife in public just too piss of Sunni's is a moron himself. The Imams (as) didn't do this. There is a time and place for everything.

Bottom line: just stop using (ra) for them for youre own sake. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is sick of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our proof against the Dajjalis or followers of self-declared Imam (Khamene'i) would be the historical and very detailed Fatwa issued by Ustad ul-Fuqaha wa al-Mujtahidin Ayatollah al-Udhma Na'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise) in answer to question of People of Basra about 'Tatb'ir', which was endorsed by all his contemporary great Mujtahids (some of them still alive, such as Ayatullah Khirassani).

Ayatullah Na'ini ® who knew all about Islamic laws, harm to ones self, being mocked by others, etc. says "It is permitted even if the blood spills"

Imam al-Reza (A) says: "Our eyelashes are injured due to crying for Hussain (A)" and Sahib ul-Asr wa al-Zaman (A) says in 'Ziyarat e Nahiyah': "I shall cry blood for you day and night"

Edited by Haji 2003
rude content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, I'm also against shedding one's own blood while mourning for Imam Husayn ibn Ali (as). I myself just pat myself on my chest with my hands.

Who gives a damn what they want? Are you here to please them or Allah (swt)? Fine, don't send la'na on them if you don't want but don't you dare ask Allah to be pleased with individuals who the Imams (as) cursed themselves and who committed the most atrocious of crimes against the Prophet's (sawa) Family (as). Why are you so concerned about them? If they have hatred towards us thats thier problem. It's not gonna get fixed by you spitting garbage like (ra) after the names of those they love. All you have to do is refrain from saying things against them in public. It's not rocket science... Anyone who just openly curses or insults the Prophets (sawa) wife in public just too piss of Sunni's is a moron himself. The Imams (as) didn't do this. There is a time and place for everything.

Bottom line: just stop using (ra) for them for youre own sake. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is sick of it.

I'm not requesting you to put (ra) with their name. Just don't say anything bad about them. I want to please Sunni Muslims as they're our brethren in faith. You're first line is offensive for them. It will make them think that Shia Muslims don't care about them or their feelings. Look, they are ours and we're theirs. A Muslim always care for other human beings. Why exception for your own Muslim brothers and sisters...?

Bottom line: taqiyyah...

Our proof against the Dajjalis or followers of self-declared Imam (Khamene'i) would be the historical and very detailed Fatwa issued by Ustad ul-Fuqaha wa al-Mujtahidin Ayatollah al-Udhma Na'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise) in answer to question of People of Basra about 'Tatb'ir', which was endorsed by all his contemporary great Mujtahids (some of them still alive, such as Ayatullah Khirassani).

Ayatullah Na'ini ® who knew all about Islamic laws, harm to ones self, being mocked by others, etc. says "It is permitted even if the blood spills"

Imam al-Reza (A) says: "Our eyelashes are injured due to crying for Hussain (A)" and Sahib ul-Asr wa al-Zaman (A) says in 'Ziyarat e Nahiyah': "I shall cry blood for you day and night"

Some part of your post was edited due to rude content.

Pity on you! Don't you know Imam Khamenei? He's the successor of Imam Khomeini and the supreme leader of Iran. Iran is the country where Shia Muslims rule.

I'm unaware of Ayatollah Naini. Was he the teacher of Ayatollah Khoei? Look, Imam Khamenei is followed by millions of Shia Muslims and it's he who represents the Shia Islam today. He issued a verdict. I researched about it and found it 100% Islamic. He was also my marja. Thus, it was obligatory for me to follow him as taqlid is obligatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, I'm also against shedding one's own blood while mourning for Imam Husayn ibn Ali (as). I myself just pat myself on my chest with my hands.

Imam Hussain (A) do not need your chest and pat. We are in need of Imam (A), we do this for ourselves and shedding of blood, even a drop, is the best form of Azadari for Master of Martyrs (A) because it symbolizes the victory of Blood over Swrods.

I'm not requesting you to put (ra) with their name. Just don't say anything bad about them. I want to please Sunni Muslims as they're our brethren in faith. You're first line is offensive for them. It will make them think that Shia Muslims don't care about them or their feelings. Look, they are ours and we're theirs. A Muslim always care for other human beings. Why exception for your own Muslim brothers and sisters...?

Bottom line: taqiyyah...

They are our brothers and sisters in humanity not in faith. But when these brothers and sisters try to impose their religion on us and are asking us to abandon our beliefs and become 'Murtad', then we have to expose them and defend our beliefs against them and disassociate ourselves from them.

You are indirectly Threatening again Taqiyyah is to protect one's life and property from unbelievers and its a personal matter. You cannot come here and order people to do Taqiyyah for the sake of Umaris and abandon our beliefs or simply get killed.

Some part of your post was edited due to rude content.

You cannot conceal the Sun with Two fingers. The truth will shine even if unbelievers dislike it.

Pity on you! Don't you know Imam Khamenei? He's the successor of Imam Khomeini and the supreme leader of Iran. Iran is the country where Shia Muslims rule.

No way? Is it in Europe? lol

I was born and raised in Iran you filthy wanna-be Shia.

I'm unaware of Ayatollah Naini. Was he the teacher of Ayatollah Khoei? Look, Imam Khamenei is followed by millions of Shia Muslims and it's he who represents the Shia Islam today. He issued a verdict. I researched about it and found it 100% Islamic. He was also my marja. Thus, it was obligatory for me to follow him as taqlid is obligatory.

If you are unaware of Ustad ul-Fuqaha wa al-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Na'ini (ra) then you are not even worthy of debate. Instead of doing researches about Khamenei, go educate yourself. You are wasting everybody's time.

Khamenei do not represent the Shias at all. In fact great Mujtahids of Najaf and Qum call him illiterate and even Dajjal! but he will be responsible for misguiding millions of Shias. You can follow anyone you want, "There is no compulsion in Religion" and "Unto Allah in our return" then those leaders who misguided people will be punished for the crimes of all his followers without any decerase in the punishment of his followers.

May Allah Hasten the reappearance of our Imam (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro banizahra

if you are truly the follower of the ahlulbayt(as)

1. you have to be just even with people you dislike for some odd reason

2. you have to read agha naini's fatwa again, which you quoted as 'till even the blood spills and not for bloodshed'.

you have to do justice to the fatwa of the great mujtahid.

your brother

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'And he (Jacob) turned away from them and said, 'Oh, my sorrow over Joseph' and his eyes became white from grief for he was (of that) a suppressor (Q. 12:84).'

When Shia Muslims flagellate themselves, they hurt their bodies. Sunni Muslims call this act inhumane however it's written in our divine scripture that Jacob wept so much over Joseph that he lost his sight and became blind. If a prophet can lose his two eyes in grief, why can't Shia Muslims give themselves a little pain or lose some of their blood in the grief of their religious leader?

I think that is a massive stretch. Prophet Yaqub's(as) blindness was not pre-meditated and deliberately inflicted harm, and it didnt take place in an exhibitionist kind of way either, there was no gathering in a room for everyone to witness it happening or parading through streets. It was a private and personal, naturally occuring result of his extreme grief/shock.

'And his (Abraham's) wife approached with a cry (of alarm) and struck her forehead and said, '(I am) a barren old woman (Q. 51:29).'

Pickthall has used the phrase 'smote' instead of 'struck'. 'Smote' means to hit firmly and 'struck' which is a form of the verb 'strike' means to hit forcibly. The actual Arabic word is fasakkat and it means to beat or to hit hard. Thus, the verse shows that it's allowed for one to flagellate himself in sorrow.

Again, this is a massive leap. You are taking the instantaneous, reflexive and private gesture of distress and extrapolating that into a premeditated, usually public, communal act of body harming, sometimes to the point of drawing blood. These are very different occurances/concepts. The psychology involved in these 2 events are not comparable.

Edited by Ruq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a massive stretch. Prophet Yaqub's(as) blindness was not pre-meditated and deliberately inflicted harm, and it didnt take place in an exhibitionist kind of way either, there was no gathering in a room for everyone to witness it happening or parading through streets. It was a private and personal, naturally occuring result of his extreme grief/shock.

Again, this is a massive leap. You are taking the instantaneous, reflexive and private gesture of distress and extrapolating that into a premeditated, usually public, communal act of body harming, sometimes to the point of drawing blood. These are very different occurances/concepts. The psychology involved in these 2 events are not comparable.

Just to add to sister Ruq's points, these examples cannot be used to actually derive a ruling regarding Tatbir. The only ruling we could derive from these examples is that if one experiences shock, to the extent that their psychological state is altered, then their striking themselves hard would not be considered a sin. Indeed, if one did completely forsake reason, and was to strike himself to the extent of losing blood, then the fact that he forsook reason, or was overcome with madness, would itself alleviate him from the usual rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reading my blog. Your points are notable. It'll be a great pleasure replying to your questions.

1) I also don't like when Shia Muslims use chains and swords to beat themselves. If they have so much blood to spill, they can donate it to a hospital to help humanity as helping humanity was the principle of Imam Husayn ibn Ali (peace be upon him). I myself abstain from using weapons for self-flagellation. I prefer self-flagellation with hands only.

Jacob wept for Joseph and lost his sight. This shows that if a man hurts himself grief, Islam allows it calling it natural.

Sarah who was the wife of Abraham, flagellated herself with her hands. Thus, self-beating with hands is not prohibited in Islam because God mentioned it in Qur'an and didn't condemn it.

2) Indeed, those who remember the problems and difficulties faced by the progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) and weep over them especially over Imam Husayn ibn Ali (as) and other martyrs of the Battle of Karbala; they please God and earn his blessings.

3) I actually wrote that blog to convince the Sunni Muslims that self-flagellation is allowed in Islam. If you don't believe in what I wrote about Uwais al Qarni (ra) then OK. There are many more proofs.

Yes, I used (ra) for Caliph Umar. I commonly use this term for him not because I love or follow him. Caliph Umar himself used to ask Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) for his help whenever he was in trouble. I use (ra) for him to make Sunni Muslims happy and erase hatred from their hearts towards Shia Muslims.

Lady Ayesha is revered by Sunni Muslims. Thus, I mentioned what she did to prove that self-flagellation was not an innovation of Shia Muslims.

Read my blog carefully. I'd given one proof from a Shia Islamic book.

4) Brother, that blog was intended to be for Sunni Muslims particularly.

5) Bible has been distorted but Muslims believe that it was actually revealed by God. Thus, all Muslims honor Bible but we don't take it as like as we take Qur'an. I was trying to prove that even the distorted form of Bible allows self-flagellation.

Go and search for 'matam' at www.al-islam.org. Our scholars are against self-flagellation with weapons. I agree with them but they allow self-flagellation with hands. Draw a picture in your mind. A group pf Shia Muslims, bathing in its own blood, marching naked with no shirts on their chest, with chains and swords they are waving and hitting it even on the heads of little children. Then, draw another picture that a group of Shia Muslims, marching in lines, dressing in full clothes with black color, tapping their hands on their chests, calling 'ya Husayn, ya Husayn' together. Which one is better?

In my blog, I've given a link of en.shiapen.com. They'd quoted some Shia Islamic hadiths as well in their article.

God bless you.

(salam)

And baraakallahu feek, may He bless you as well.

I don't like to even use the term "flagellation," let along self-flagellation. The connotations of this word are so negative, it's a surprise pro-tatbeer people even associate themselves with this word and make room for their opponents to mock them with this terminology.

As for Nabi Ya`qoob (as); yes, he cried for years and is listed among the individuals of this earth who have cried tremendously (along with Imam as Sajjad). Issue is, he was crying, full stop. He didn't do anything else. This is actually in line with our hadeeth, which detail over and over that we must weep for the tragedy of Imam al Husayn (as). So to use this saying it's allowed to cause oneself grief is again, stretching the incident so much that it can no longer stand on its own.

For Sarah, Allah is speaking about what a wife of a Prophet (as) did, hundreds of years before the complete and final shari`a was revealed. This doesn't necessarily represent a proof in Islam.

It's not a matter of whether I believe in the story of Uwais, rather it's about what the Ahl al Bayt have narrated about him and the Uhud incident.

I understand your reasoning for using ra for `Umar and `Aa'isha; however, I think you are confusing unity with conformity. Unity in the issue of Shi`a Sunnis is when we accept our differences and tolerate each other in this modern world of ours where all Muslims, regardless of sect, are being attacked by numerous people and ideologies. Conformity is when we give up some of our beliefs, beliefs which distinguish ourselves from the other schools of thought, for the sole purpose of pleasing them, or for reading a bit more of our blogs. Conformity is not the way to go. This is a step in the wrong direction where we essentially work towards creating some sort of mesh of tashayyu` and sunnism. That can't possibly work out because you would have to ignore so many ayaat from the Quran and hadeeths from Rasulallah (pbuh) and his Ahl al Bayt to even come close to this solution. The ideal way is to say simply, "After the murder of Umar..." and "...`Aa'isha slapped herself..." This way you have introduced their notable personalities and haven't expressed your judgement on them (which if you did would be very negative, considering the crimes those 2 have committed).

Yes, you did give a Shi`a reference, but I don't believe it is translated well at all. Even then, the lack of actual hadeeths regarding beating one's self when the Aa'imma were describing their methods of mourning Imam Husayn (as) is enough to raise eyebrows among the Shi`a as to whether this practice can be considered mustahab, recommended, or even something which we are inclined to do in honor of the Ahl al Bayt (as).

We honor the Injeel as a book of Allah; what is called the Bible today cannot be described as the Injeel or even close to it. And as you state, you are defending self-flagellation from a distorted book; but that really puts a stronger case for self-flagellation being a distorted practice.

I hope that makes sense brother, I admire your work towards the cause of Imam Husayn but I just don't believe tatbeer is the route to be taking to promote or even justify it. It would be a lot better if you shift the blog's topic to the actual tragedies of Karbala which the Ahl al Bayt (as) detail for the Shi`a to differentiate what is true and what is yelled by some preachers. Or, you can speak about the majaalis we conduct for Imam Husayn, inshaa'Allah. Jazakallah khayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imam Hussain (A) do not need your chest and pat. We are in need of Imam (A), we do this for ourselves and shedding of blood, even a drop, is the best form of Azadari for Master of Martyrs (A) because it symbolizes the victory of Blood over Swrods.
OK, spill your blood. Man, why are you always angry? Look, I prefer self-flagellation with hands only over usage of weapons. Many scholars are also against using chains and weapons.

They are our brothers and sisters in humanity not in faith. But when these brothers and sisters try to impose their religion on us and are asking us to abandon our beliefs and become 'Murtad', then we have to expose them and defend our beliefs against them and disassociate ourselves from them.You are indirectly Threatening again Taqiyyah is to protect one's life and property from unbelievers and its a personal matter. You cannot come here and order people to do Taqiyyah for the sake of Umaris and abandon our beliefs or simply get killed.

There are only some Muslims who are terrorists and kill us and Sunni Muslims. Majority of Muslims consider us as Muslims. Thus, we don't need to hate them. The time of Imams have passed when the majority of Muslims was against us. Now, majority has seen the fact and admits that we're Muslims as like as they are. I'm not threatening anyone. You're again imposing your false notions about me over me. I'm not ordering anything. I'm telling you the truth. You asked me to prove myself. I proved it. It's up to you know whether to believe or not. If you don't believe in it then OK.

You cannot conceal the Sun with Two fingers. The truth will shine even if unbelievers dislike it.

That wasn't the truth. That was immorality.

No way? Is it in Europe? lolI was born and raised in Iran you filthy wanna-be Shia.No more replies...If you are unaware of Ustad ul-Fuqaha wa al-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Na'ini (ra) then you are not even worthy of debate. Instead of doing researches about Khamenei, go educate yourself. You are wasting everybody's time.Khamenei do not represent the Shias at all. In fact great Mujtahids of Najaf and Qum call him illiterate and even Dajjal! but he will be responsible for misguiding millions of Shias. You can follow anyone you want, "There is no compulsion in Religion" and "Unto Allah in our return" then those leaders who misguided people will be punished for the crimes of all his followers without any decerase in the punishment of his followers.May Allah Hasten the reappearance of our Imam (A).

You're really pathetic. If those scholars call him anti-Christ then they must repent. Man, what're we doing? Fighting and abusing each other like Sunni Muslims do...?
I wasn't going to get involved, but you're the one being a Dajjal (misguider).However, i'll keep it short and sweet.Firstly, the vast, overwhelming majority of Mujtahideen have ruled Tatbir to be Haraam, some blatantly, others not so blatantly. Some scholars have given clear rulings, such as contemporary scholars Syed Mahmoud al-Hashemi, Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoobi, Syed Muhammad-Hussein FadhlAllah, Syed Ali al-Khamenei, Sheikh Nasser Makarem-Shirazi and others. Some classical scholars have also given clear rulings - Sheikh Muhammad-Hussein Kashif al-Ghitaa', Syed Abu al-Hassan al-Esfahani, Syed Muhsin al-Amin al-Amili, and others.Other scholars have not given such clear rulings. Scholars such as Syed Abu al-Qassim al-Khoei, Syed Muhsin al-Hakeem, Syed Ali al-Sistani, Syed Abd al-A'laa al-Sabzawari, Sheikh Ishaaq al-Fayyadh, etc. An example of one of these 'unclear' rulings is this, the Fatwa of Syed Abu al-Qassim al-Khoei:As you can see, the Syed has said that if it causes ridicule to the religion and sect, it is impermissible. I don't think anyone with a brain would dispute that Tatbir brings ridicule to the religion. This is the academic, scholarly, Hawzawi way of subtly saying that something is Haraam. Now, Fatawa aside, the practise itself has no origin in Islam. There is not a single authentic narration which refers to any practise that even resembles the practise. The example you quoted, of the Imam (as) crying blood, is not a narration from which a Fiqhi ruling can be derived. It is the Imam (as) being poetic.Now, to answer some of your rudeness. Firstly, no 'great Ulemaa' in Najaf or Qom refer to Syed al-Khamenei as a Dajjal or as illiterate. Secondly, stop giving scholars these colourful titles. It doesn't add any legitimacy to your claim, it just makes you look foolish. Sheikh al-Na'ini does not in any part of his Fatwa actually support Tatbir - he, at the very most, allows it, to an extent. I'm not sure if you've actually read the Fatwa, but the Sheikh puts some very rigid conditions on the practise.Furthermore, just because a few classical scholars didn't declare the practise to be Haraam (though most did anyway), it doesn't mean that the rulings of contemporary Maraji' are any less valid. Rulings are dependant on the time and the place. Tatbir may not have been an issue a hundred years ago - it was such a small practise. Carried out by a few hundred people at the most, in only a few places. The sword was merely 'tapped' on the head, to draw a tiny amount of blood. It did not bring ridicule to the religion, because the world was not as open as it is now.Finally, on the issue of Latm. Latm does not bring any ridicule to the religion; at least if done sensibly. I believe there is a narration in which Imam al-Ridha (as) witnessed Latm taking place, and didn't comment - you can actually derive a ruling from this kind of narration. However, I may be wrong. If that narration is weak, then we go back to normal the normal Fiqhi ruling system, which in this case, would dictate that Latm is Halal, since I said earlier, it doesn't harm, nor does it bring ridicule to the religion.
Thanks... Edited by Modest Muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

And baraakallahu feek, may He bless you as well.

(wasalam)

I don't like to even use the term "flagellation," let along self-flagellation. The connotations of this word are so negative, it's a surprise pro-tatbeer people even associate themselves with this word and make room for their opponents to mock them with this terminology.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with 'self-flagellation'. If you have reservations then you can use 'matam'.

As for Nabi Ya`qoob (as); yes, he cried for years and is listed among the individuals of this earth who have cried tremendously (along with Imam as Sajjad). Issue is, he was crying, full stop. He didn't do anything else. This is actually in line with our hadeeth, which detail over and over that we must weep for the tragedy of Imam al Husayn (as). So to use this saying it's allowed to cause oneself grief is again, stretching the incident so much that it can no longer stand on its own.

I'm not exaggerating, my friend. Prophet Jacob did lose his sight and it's mentioned in Qur'an. I've said nothing except what God have told 1400 years ago.

For Sarah, Allah is speaking about what a wife of a Prophet (as) did, hundreds of years before the complete and final shari`a was revealed. This doesn't necessarily represent a proof in Islam.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. If Lady Sarah's self-flagellation was non-Islamic, why did God mention it in His book in the first place? Why did He not condemn it after mentioning it? It's notable. Thus, it's evident that flagellating one's body in grief is the sunnah of ancient people as well and God mentioned it in His book as well without condemning it.

It's not a matter of whether I believe in the story of Uwais, rather it's about what the Ahl al Bayt have narrated about him and the Uhud incident.

That's a very famous incident. But you insist on references from Shia Islamic books then both of us must research more.

I understand your reasoning for using ra for `Umar and `Aa'isha; however, I think you are confusing unity with conformity. Unity in the issue of Shi`a Sunnis is when we accept our differences and tolerate each other in this modern world of ours where all Muslims, regardless of sect, are being attacked by numerous people and ideologies. Conformity is when we give up some of our beliefs, beliefs which distinguish ourselves from the other schools of thought, for the sole purpose of pleasing them, or for reading a bit more of our blogs. Conformity is not the way to go. This is a step in the wrong direction where we essentially work towards creating some sort of mesh of tashayyu` and sunnism. That can't possibly work out because you would have to ignore so many ayaat from the Quran and hadeeths from Rasulallah (pbuh) and his Ahl al Bayt to even come close to this solution. The ideal way is to say simply, "After the murder of Umar..." and "...`Aa'isha slapped herself..." This way you have introduced their notable personalities and haven't expressed your judgement on them (which if you did would be very negative, considering the crimes those 2 have committed).

Their crimes shouldn't be the subject of debate today. Even if one's 100% true, the other one doesn't believe in him. Moreover, discussing their crimes increase mutual enmity. Moreover, writing (ra) with their names is not a sin. It's a sign that we must leave whatever our ancestors did. Imam Mahdi (as) will tell everyone the truth. Today, we must have to progress in the world. I never said that Shia Muslims must love or follow the Caliphs. Look, everyone knows that we've disassociated ourselves from some people whom some people revere. We don't need to yell this in bazaars. We just have to save others from the evil of those from whom we've disassociated ourselves.

Yes, you did give a Shi`a reference, but I don't believe it is translated well at all. Even then, the lack of actual hadeeths regarding beating one's self when the Aa'imma were describing their methods of mourning Imam Husayn (as) is enough to raise eyebrows among the Shi`a as to whether this practice can be considered mustahab, recommended, or even something which we are inclined to do in honor of the Ahl al Bayt (as).

Did you visit en.shiapen.com?

We honor the Injeel as a book of Allah; what is called the Bible today cannot be described as the Injeel or even close to it. And as you state, you are defending self-flagellation from a distorted book; but that really puts a stronger case for self-flagellation being a distorted practice.

We prove Muhammad's (pbuh) status as a prophet from Bible as well that blah verse describes his characteristics like Paraclete's mentioning in John's Gospel. Thus, self-flagellation can also be proven.

I hope that makes sense brother, I admire your work towards the cause of Imam Husayn but I just don't believe tatbeer is the route to be taking to promote or even justify it. It would be a lot better if you shift the blog's topic to the actual tragedies of Karbala which the Ahl al Bayt (as) detail for the Shi`a to differentiate what is true and what is yelled by some preachers. Or, you can speak about the majaalis we conduct for Imam Husayn, inshaa'Allah. Jazakallah khayr

Everyone in the word (whether Muslim or not) believes in the truth of Imam Husayn (as) and hates Yazid the Cursed Caliph except for some fools who are not worth even of being known as human beings. People allow us to preach the tragedies the People of the Household tolerated. People criticize our matam and we must have to defend its original shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatullah al-Udhma Khorassani (May Allah preserve and protect him) is one of the living Mujtahids who endorsed the Historical Fatwa of Ustad ul-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Naa'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise). He currently lives and teaches in Qum al-Muqaddasa. His teachings are in par with the teachings of my Marja' Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Husseini Shirazi (d) and other prominent Mujtahids of Qum and Najaf al-Ashraf.

The following video is an excerpt from a long speech given by Ayatullah al-udhma Khorassani (d) with English subtitle, in this video he clearly denounces the self-declared Anti-Tat'bir so called fuqaha (Khamenei as their leader) and calls them "Illiterates" and one again endorses Ayatullah Naa'ini's fatwa with reference to ahadith of Ahle bayt (A).

The followers of Illiterate should watch this;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatullah al-Udhma Khorassani (May Allah preserve and protect him) is one of the living Mujtahids who endorsed the Historical Fatwa of Ustad ul-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Naa'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise). He currently lives and teaches in Qum al-Muqaddasa. His teachings are in par with the teachings of my Marja' Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Husseini Shirazi (d) and other prominent Mujtahids of Qum and Najaf al-Ashraf.

The following video is an excerpt from a long speech given by Ayatullah al-udhma Khorassani (d) with English subtitle, in this video he clearly denounces the self-declared Anti-Tat'bir so called fuqaha (Khamenei as their leader) and calls them "Illiterates" and one again endorses Ayatullah Naa'ini's fatwa with reference to ahadith of Ahle bayt (A).

The followers of Illiterate should watch this;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in the word (whether Muslim or not) believes in the truth of Imam Husayn (as) and hates Yazid the Cursed Caliph except for some fools who are not worth even of being known as human beings. People allow us to preach the tragedies the People of the Household tolerated. People criticize our matam and we must have to defend its original shape.

I think reading this article, http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/3270/pdf/Ende_Flagellations_of_Muharram.pdf, will be of benefit to your research. Not all the conclusions the author draws may be accurate; but this definitely provides a historical background to the development of tatbeer.

It's quite short as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatullah al-Udhma Khorassani (May Allah preserve and protect him) is one of the living Mujtahids who endorsed the Historical Fatwa of Ustad ul-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Naa'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise). He currently lives and teaches in Qum al-Muqaddasa. His teachings are in par with the teachings of my Marja' Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Husseini Shirazi (d) and other prominent Mujtahids of Qum and Najaf al-Ashraf.

The following video is an excerpt from a long speech given by Ayatullah al-udhma Khorassani (d) with English subtitle, in this video he clearly denounces the self-declared Anti-Tat'bir so called fuqaha (Khamenei as their leader) and calls them "Illiterates" and one again endorses Ayatullah Naa'ini's fatwa with reference to ahadith of Ahle bayt (A).

The followers of Illiterate should watch this;

Buddy, our scholars must be united. If we're not united, how can we struggle for Shia-Sunni unity?

I think reading this article, http://www.freidok.u...of_Muharram.pdf, will be of benefit to your research. Not all the conclusions the author draws may be accurate; but this definitely provides a historical background to the development of tatbeer.

It's quite short as well.

Sorry but I can't read pdf files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

listen to agha wahid's lecture again, there is no mention of blades dangling at the ends of the chains.

 

(wasalam)

In fact it appears that he is answering a specific question. A question that has been written on that piece of paper he keeps referring to. As such he talks about the rites of mourning without stipulating which ones though he mentions crying and lashing of the back with chains.

 

He quotes Ayatulla Naeini's fatwa which isnt about blood letting but rather says that you can lash yourself to such an extent that a little blood is drawn.

So this discussion that is quite clearly not about blood letting, its about high severity of expression of grief 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatullah al-Udhma Khorassani (May Allah preserve and protect him) is one of the living Mujtahids who endorsed the Historical Fatwa of Ustad ul-Mujtahidin Ayatullah Naa'ini (May Allah elevate his status in paradise). He currently lives and teaches in Qum al-Muqaddasa. His teachings are in par with the teachings of my Marja' Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Husseini Shirazi (d) and other prominent Mujtahids of Qum and Najaf al-Ashraf.

The following video is an excerpt from a long speech given by Ayatullah al-udhma Khorassani (d) with English subtitle, in this video he clearly denounces the self-declared Anti-Tat'bir so called fuqaha (Khamenei as their leader) and calls them "Illiterates" and one again endorses Ayatullah Naa'ini's fatwa with reference to ahadith of Ahle bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.

The followers of Illiterate should watch this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Owyrlkkuvg

 

Interesting you jump to echo Ayatullah Khorassani words of illetracy without fiirst going to read and study the afore mentioned Ayatullah Naenis fatwa.

 

Ayatullah Naenis fatwa is about whipping with chains (self flagellation) it is not about whipping yourself with chains and blades. The fatwa is very clear in its instructions.

 

Ayatullah Khorasani talks about self flagellation with chains again without mentions chains and blades. There is no dispute in the the content of this video. It is just that the pro-blood letters like to misquote or portray this video wrongly. So maybe the blood letters need to go back to school and become litterate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact it appears that he is answering a specific question. A question that has been written on that piece of paper he keeps referring to. As such he talks about the rites of mourning without stipulating which ones though he mentions crying and lashing of the back with chains.

 

He quotes Ayatulla Naeini's fatwa which isnt about blood letting but rather says that you can lash yourself to such an extent that a little blood is drawn.

So this discussion that is quite clearly not about blood letting, its about high severity of expression of grief 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Just so that I have understood it correct, the fatwa says that if it is your intention to blood let, it is impermissible.

 

Secondly this fatwa in my opinion has now been overtaken by the fatwa of Ayatullah Khameini(ha) the WF.

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Just so that I have understood it correct, the fatwa says that if it is your intention to blood let, it is impermissible.

 

Secondly this fatwa in my opinion has now been overtaken by the fatwa of Ayatullah Khameini(ha) the WF.

 

(wasalam)

 

Reading Ayatullah Naenis fatwa on the Shirazi website . Its quite clear that the blood mentioned is a by product resulting from excessive bruising and the skin breaking. With reference to chains it doesnt mention or endorse as the the primary aspect for this ritual. He does however allow tatbir but urges caution in how its performed.

 

But as you said it has been superceded 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umaris and Anti-Azadari Dajjalis have one thing in common and that is they are United against issues which incites hatred towards the First and the Second and their Successors, and the issue of Azadari for Master of Martyrs Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is a very sensitive issue because according to Umari ulama it incites hatred towards the Idols of Quraysh and reveals the true face of their Khalifa's. So it is not a surprise to see that the Umaris and Dajjalis are desperately backing each other up here.

 

In response to numerous worthless replies, with intention of getting rewarded by Imam al-Zaman Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã during these sacred days of Sha'ban al-Mu'azzam, I present the following;

  1. Ayatullah Khorassani's high knowledge and status among Fuqaha is crystal clear.
  2. Ayaullah Khorassani is not the only one who opposes Khamenei and his foolish verdicts. All prominent Fuqaha are against him.
  3. Khamenei's is not in a position to turn around other fuqaha's verdicts nor did he claim that he could.
  4. Fuqaha of Shia have to study the Books of Narrators of Hadith of Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã such as Sheikh Tusi, Sheikh Mufid, Sheikh Saduq and Kulayni, etc. May Allah elevate their status in paradise. So if Khamenei's verdicts contradicts the verdicts of his Superiors and the teachings of Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, that is his and his followers problem.
  5. "There is no compulsion in religion" I am not here to force people to follow a specific Mujtahid but the onus is upon the followers of Khamenei to read some books and do their research, instead of blindly following someone who invites them towards fire.

Now, the Umaris are desperately trying to snare some fish from muddy water here. I suggest them to prove the "Iman" and "Justice" of their First and Second Idols before trying to twist the words of our Fuqaha to their taste and desire, Ayatullah Khorassani's words are pretty clear and do not need any explanation.

 

Watch the video here again:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For so called anti-Azadari Shias

The Mujtahids are to be followed ONLY if they follow the teachings of Ahle Bayt (A) not because of their political and governmental position and status. What the followers of Khamenei are doing here is simply what the Umaris are doing in following their political leaders instead of Book of Allah and Ahle Bayt (A).

Umar (LA) said: "The book of Allah is sufficient for us.", Dajjalis are saying: "The words of Khamenei is sufficient for us."

 

Azadari by Sahib ul-Asr wa al-Zaman (A)

Of the several prescribed Ziyarat of Imam al-Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, one is recited by Imam al-Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and reached us through one of his four special Deputies. It is called "Ziyarat Nahiya Muqaddasa" because it was issues from the Sacred Side of Imam (A). Those who are inetrested can do a reasearch about its authenticity. In this Ziyarat Imam al-Mahdi (A) says;

 

“But as I have been hindered by the course of time, and (Allah’s) decree has prevented me from helping you, and as I could not fight those who fought you, and was not able to show hostility to those who showed hostility to you, I will, therefore, lament you morning and evening, and will weep Blood in place of tears, out of my anguish for you and my sorrow for all that befell you…”

 

This is in par with saying of other Imams (A), especially Imam al-Reza (A) who said: "Our eyelashes had injured because of intense weeping for Imam al-Hussain (A)."

 

Now It is all Shias belief that Imam al-Mahdi (A) is Ma'sum (infallible). Now without twisting the words and going off-topic and trying to justify your misunderstanding, please answer:

  1. Is Imam Mahdi (A) exaggerating when He say; I will cry Blood instead of Tear for Imam Hussain (A)?
  2. Is Imam Reza (A) exaggerating when He say: Our eyelashes had been injured due to intense weeping for Imam al-Hussain (A)? or;
  3. Do you believe that they are simply Lying?

If your answer is in the affirmative, then you are out of the fold of Shi'ism.

 

Azadari by Inhabitants of Sky

Imam Mahdi (A) cintinues;

 

"Hence the Holy Prophet became very aggrieved and his soft heart began to weep.

The Angels and the Prophets offered condolences to him with regard to you.

Your respected mother, Zahra was in agony because of your massacre.

Armies after armies of Angels arrived to offer their condolences to your respected father Amirul Momineen.

and the Maatam (Azadari) stated for you in the Highest level of skies (A'laa A'li'een)

Women (Hooris) of Paradise slapped their own faces in your grief.
And the sky begun to weep and so did it's inhabitants and the chain of mountains began to cry.

And the sea and the fishes wept.

And Mecca and it's buildings and Paradise and it's young male servants and Kaaba and the Maqaam-e-Ibrahim and "Hill" and "haram" all began to sob."

 

Ahadith about Azadari and Shedding Blood for Imam al-Hussain (A) are way more than they can be denied and rejected by people like Khamenei.

 

Now who's words do you take? Khamenei or the Imams (A)? or maybe you guys believe that Khamenei can also overturn the sayings of Imams? in all cases you are out of fold of Shi'ism and should repent and correct your beliefs before its too late.

 

May Allah curse the Enemies of Ahle Bayt (A) and May Allah hasten the reappearance of our Imam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For so called anti-Azadari Shias

The Mujtahids are to be followed ONLY if they follow the teachings of Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã not because of their political and governmental position and status. What the followers of Khamenei are doing here is simply what the Umaris are doing in following their political leaders instead of Book of Allah and Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.

Umar (LA) said: "The book of Allah is sufficient for us.", Dajjalis are saying: "The words of Khamenei is sufficient for us."

 

Azadari by Sahib ul-Asr wa al-Zaman Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Of the several prescribed Ziyarat of Imam al-Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, one is recited by Imam al-Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and reached us through one of his four special Deputies. It is called "Ziyarat Nahiya Muqaddasa" because it was issues from the Sacred Side of Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. Those who are inetrested can do a reasearch about its authenticity. In this Ziyarat Imam al-Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã says;

 

“But as I have been hindered by the course of time, and (Allah’s) decree has prevented me from helping you, and as I could not fight those who fought you, and was not able to show hostility to those who showed hostility to you, I will, therefore, lament you morning and evening, and will weep Blood in place of tears, out of my anguish for you and my sorrow for all that befell you…”

 

This is in par with saying of other Imams Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, especially Imam al-Reza Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã who said: "Our eyelashes had injured because of intense weeping for Imam al-Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã."

 

Now It is all Shias belief that Imam al-Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is Ma'sum (infallible). Now without twisting the words and going off-topic and trying to justify your misunderstanding, please answer:

  1. Is Imam Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã exaggerating when He say; I will cry Blood instead of Tear for Imam Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã?
  2. Is Imam Reza Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã exaggerating when He say: Our eyelashes had been injured due to intense weeping for Imam al-Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã? or;
  3. Do you believe that they are simply Lying?

If your answer is in the affirmative, then you are out of the fold of Shi'ism.

 

Azadari by Inhabitants of Sky

Imam Mahdi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã cintinues;

 

"Hence the Holy Prophet became very aggrieved and his soft heart began to weep.

The Angels and the Prophets offered condolences to him with regard to you.

Your respected mother, Zahra was in agony because of your massacre.

Armies after armies of Angels arrived to offer their condolences to your respected father Amirul Momineen.

and the Maatam (Azadari) stated for you in the Highest level of skies (A'laa A'li'een)

Women (Hooris) of Paradise slapped their own faces in your grief.

And the sky begun to weep and so did it's inhabitants and the chain of mountains began to cry.

And the sea and the fishes wept.

And Mecca and it's buildings and Paradise and it's young male servants and Kaaba and the Maqaam-e-Ibrahim and "Hill" and "haram" all began to sob."

 

Ahadith about Azadari and Shedding Blood for Imam al-Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are way more than they can be denied and rejected by people like Khamenei.

 

Now who's words do you take? Khamenei or the Imams Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã? or maybe you guys believe that Khamenei can also overturn the sayings of Imams? in all cases you are out of fold of Shi'ism and should repent and correct your beliefs before its too late.

 

May Allah curse the Enemies of Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and May Allah hasten the reappearance of our Imam.

 

I'm still yet to see a narration encouraging the act of striking oneself with a sharp object.

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...