Zanjeer Zani Absolute Haram Or Conditionally Haram

[Ibn Al-Ja'abi]

Those rulings of prohibition are given by his representatives. He probably doesn't give an answer himself because he wants to avoid controversy*. I can imagine people cursing him if he did.

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/25850-update-your-questions-to-sayyid-seestani/?p=311725

 

The questioner was an SC ex-mod who was opposed to the Iranian leadership.

 

​* Similarly he doesn't give rulings regarding the qualifications of Sayyid Fadlallah, but his representatives do.

 

Assalam Alaykum bro, sorry for quoting an old post here but I thought in the interest of sharing information I should show this so there isn't any misconception regarding Syed Sistani's office. There doesn't seem to be a uniform stance on tatbir and zanjir in Sistani's representatives, his London office I believe was the one who gave the opinion it's Haram, however in an Arabic fiqh book of his I found a fatwa from his office saying it's fine, to quote:

 

104 السؤال:

ماهو حكم الضرب بالزنجير ولطم الصدور والدخول في النار في عزاء سيد الشهداء عليه السلام ؟

الفتوى:

اذا لم يستلزم ضررا بليغا او نقص عضو فلا مانع 

 

104 - Question: What is the ruling of beating with zanjir and slapping the chest and entering the fire for the aza of Syed Al-Shuhada (as)?

Fatwa: When there is no unrequired significant damage or deficiency caused to the organs, then there is no prohibition.

 

Also to assume what the Syed meant or to think his silence is him denying it in a tactical way is the thing his student Syed Hashim Al-Hashimi said not to do, but to just simply do ruju.

[narsis]

Brother, our great scholars have obviously (!) placed their views on different figh standars. So, when they have allowed x or y they have placed their views on narrations etc. So the followers of these scholars have certainy license to perform these acts even though some others have forbidden it. This is well known in shiism.

 

You say that these scholars, who have allowed tatbir, made a mistake in their research (if that's what you're saying). Who says that the scholars who have forbidden tatbir are correct?

 

Dear brother, we have plenty of scholars who have allowed the performing of tatbir.

 

Some of these scholars are:

 

Sheikh Neni

Ayatollah al-Khoei

Ayatollah Wahed Khorsani

 

 

If you read this thread (below) you'll see many great scholars who have accepted the fatwa of Sheikh Neni. 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234972041-ayatullah-khorasani/page-5

 

(!) = Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì knows best.

 

Bismillah.

 

Salaam my dear brother.

 

Regarding my point delicately shows that I never give me this right to speak about their potential mistakes.

 

The second point is that I said that this is obvious that they are not Maʻsoum and they can do mistakes, not necessarily, but it has been proved in the history of Muslim scholars that there never be a scholar without mistakes, because they are non- Maʻsoum and do not have unlimited access to God-given knowledge, and this is natural and this is maybe to show us the difference between Maʻsoum, who has access to God-given knowledge and scholars, who don’t have such access.

 

The third point is regarding their permission; as I know majority of scholars only give us permission to do Tatbir – not as recommended action and just as permitted acts – and they issue such rules mostly due to the insufficiency or lack of proofs not due to the proofs which prove the action, and this is why you see many of the scholars who have issue permission, never do that personally.

 

So a permitted action, not recommended nor Makruh, is equal jurisprudentially to be done or not; here what is the best choice? I think Imams’ choice.

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

[A true Sunni]

 

Assalam Alaykum bro, sorry for quoting an old post here but I thought in the interest of sharing information I should show this so there isn't any misconception regarding Syed Sistani's office. There doesn't seem to be a uniform stance on tatbir and zanjir in Sistani's representatives, his London office I believe was the one who gave the opinion it's Haram, however in an Arabic fiqh book of his I found a fatwa from his office saying it's fine, to quote:

 

104 السؤال:

ماهو حكم الضرب بالزنجير ولطم الصدور والدخول في النار في عزاء سيد الشهداء عليه السلام ؟

الفتوى:

اذا لم يستلزم ضررا بليغا او نقص عضو فلا مانع 

 

104 - Question: What is the ruling of beating with zanjir and slapping the chest and entering the fire for the aza of Syed Al-Shuhada (as)?

Fatwa: When there is no unrequired significant damage or deficiency caused to the organs, then there is no prohibition.

 

Also to assume what the Syed meant or to think his silence is him denying it in a tactical way is the thing his student Syed Hashim Al-Hashimi said not to do, but to just simply do ruju.

 

 

 

You are misrepresenting his ruling. I do wish the copy and paste brigade would read what they post before pasting it. 

 

read it carefully it refers to chains not chains with blades not blades just chains. Even Ayatullah Khameni allows chains 

[Ibn Al-Ja'abi]

You are misrepresenting his ruling. I do wish the copy and paste brigade would read what they post before pasting it. 

 

read it carefully it refers to chains not chains with blades not blades just chains. Even Ayatullah Khameni allows chains 

 

Firstly, I haven't disrespected you at all so I have no idea why you would want to accuse me of trying to misrepresent the Syed. Also I don't know why you'd accuse me of being part of a "copy paste brigade", if you find a way to paste his fatwa from an online source without copy pasting please enlighten me otherwise I found this by researching his opinion via what's available online, not reading one large article on tatbir and posting tidbits I find onto here.

 

Secondly, if you read my original post you'd know I wasn't talking about Sistani himself at all but rather the fatwas of his wakeels, seeing as he himself hasn't given a fatwa on tatbir, and Muhammad Ali said it was prohibited by his wakeels. A source I know of attributed to his wakeel is found on tatbir.org (this scan of a fatwa) in which the wakeel talked about the avoidance of zanjeer and preform other rites of mourning for Imam Hussain, me quoting the fatwa I quoted from Arabic was to show another wakeel allowing it when it doesn't harm the body.

 

It's unfortunate how those so against this rite reply with rudeness and haste. Please learn manners before replying to me again and note I only talked to you like this after you spoke to me like that. 

 

wassalamu ala man itba al-huda.

[kamyar]

sallam

as far as i can understand (especially from ayatollah khamenei fatwas )everything that has this two issues with it is haram:

1- harming in a notable way

2-insulting shia beliefs 

otherwise its allowed .

[shiamehdi14]

Is it just me or are these opposer s of tatbir and zanjeeer only on here? Honestly I dont know because all Shia mosques in my vicinity take part in zanjeer. There has not been an occasion in these mosques where one of you opposers speak out against it. If you are trying to stop tatbir and zanjeer for what you think is the betterment of Shia Islam then speak. Or find but not pay a legitimate moulana/shaykh to speak out for you.

[A true Sunni]

Firstly, I haven't disrespected you at all so I have no idea why you would want to accuse me of trying to misrepresent the Syed. Also I don't know why you'd accuse me of being part of a "copy paste brigade", if you find a way to paste his fatwa from an online source without copy pasting please enlighten me otherwise I found this by researching his opinion via what's available online, not reading one large article on tatbir and posting tidbits I find onto here.

 

Secondly, if you read my original post you'd know I wasn't talking about Sistani himself at all but rather the fatwas of his wakeels, seeing as he himself hasn't given a fatwa on tatbir, and Muhammad Ali said it was prohibited by his wakeels. A source I know of attributed to his wakeel is found on tatbir.org (this scan of a fatwa) in which the wakeel talked about the avoidance of zanjeer and preform other rites of mourning for Imam Hussain, me quoting the fatwa I quoted from Arabic was to show another wakeel allowing it when it doesn't harm the body.

 

It's unfortunate how those so against this rite reply with rudeness and haste. Please learn manners before replying to me again and note I only talked to you like this after you spoke to me like that. 

 

wassalamu ala man itba al-huda.

 

Seems like you misunderstood the term 'copy and paste brigade' it refers to a mentality which some people possess of copy and pasting without understanding and worse still misrepresenting totally what the 'copy and paste' was. I see you steadfastedly maintain your ignorance by nor understanding your copied post

Is it just me or are these opposer s of tatbir and zanjeeer only on here? Honestly I dont know because all Shia mosques in my vicinity take part in zanjeer. There has not been an occasion in these mosques where one of you opposers speak out against it. If you are trying to stop tatbir and zanjeer for what you think is the betterment of Shia Islam then speak. Or find but not pay a legitimate moulana/shaykh to speak out for you.

 

Maybe they know the thuggish mentality of the pro blood letting lobby. Violence and insults are never far away where the pro blood letting lobby are concerned 

[TheIslamHistory]

(bismillah)

 

 

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi

 

 

Um if you are providing your list from Tatbir.org I'll tell you right now they are extremely dishonest when it came to the fatwa section, I've stated already how they quoted maraja who have allowed it (and some even used the hadiths I quoted - of Bibi Zainab - as evidence such as Mirza Jawad Tabrizi

 

 

 

 

First, Of all, let me get something out of this discussion. That is: The narration that either Zeinab (a.s) or Imam-Zain Al-Abideen, Had Supposedly hit  themselves on a rock or  a pole, is no evidence to be used. The narration mentioned in Al-Bih'ar, saying that it is from an accept (Mu'tab'ar) books, is nothing but a claim, and not a correct chain. You have tried hard to validate your argument, but it collapses on the rules of narration science and jurisprudence-law. The reasons for this are simply: (1) Just because Al-Majlsi stated that the narration is from a "Mut'abar" book, does not support the narration in anyway, since we have many Mut'abar books, such as Al-Kafi or Kamal Al-Ziyaa'rat, that does not make the book itself 100% correct, there are many weak narration in these book, just as there are fabricates and correct. A "Mut'abr" book, does not mean a book filled with (Sahih) narrations, it is a book that it simply held acceptable by the particular group/sect. Which gives the fact: (2) that he did not even mention the name of the book itself or its author. (3) clearly there is no evidence of support of Tatbir in our books. Nor did any of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) or their followers practice such acts. You will also find that the classical scholars, do not have a specific ruling on "Tatb'ir", and that is because it was not an act practiced at their time, it came rather later, and not through any scholar, but by the people. This is a concern, as you find when the scholar come to a particular "Wajab" act, they become very strict on its ruling and authenticity from authentic narrations, however when it comes to "Tat'bir", all of a sudden, Mursal narrations become Authentic? Ironic really. 

 

 

 

In addition I really don't care what Khamanaei or those who ally themselves with him say because frankly it isn't relevant. My point in showing these Maraja (btw the list was just of those I could think of off the top of my head, there are more and you can find them by searching online, there is actually a good youtube series which shows the marja and quotes his fatwa on the permisibility of this) was just to show that it's not a thing that the mutabirin do out of their own whims and the scholars reject it.

 

 

      

 

your distorting factual issues. A fallacy that you are making, is that all those that have made Tatb'ir impermissible or disliked are aligning themselves with Sayed Ali-Al-Khamenei? I expect a bit of logic, more than this. The amount of scholar that have made this "Act" not recommended, are not little, and nor do they make their "Rulings" based on a person (As you are trying to imply), there are many before them, who have sought this act as not recommended. Perhaps be less bias when making such judgements. 

 

 

 

 Now going back to I don't care about what Khamanaei says

 

 

 

 

I didn't use his ruling as evidence, nor did I speak of his ruling. You are exaggerating by claiming that he is alone in this ruling. 

 

 

 

I say that for this reason; 1. My Marja, Syed Ali Sistani (ha) has no fatwa on this issue (as has been proven by his student and even the attestations of those who visit him)

 

 

 

 

 

He Al-Sistani (May Allah prolong his life) has not made an ruling on this issue, only shows that he did not find any reason to legitimize it completely, and this is no excuse. 

 

 

 

and 2. One of his most prominent students, Syed Hashim Al-Hashimi (ha) has written as Nader wrote earlier that it is better to do ruju here than to assume that he meant it was haram with his silence and I do ruju to the obviously most knowledgable after Sistani, 

 

 

 

 

 

Sayed-Hasim Al-Hashimi, first of all, is not considered as the "Most knowledgeable" nor is AL-Sayed Al-Roh'ani, if you do not have a support from a Mujtahid, of their "Knowledge" As we mention now: (2): you cannot choose any scholar (based on your opinion), unless a jurist recommends him for you. Here is Al-Sistani's Ruling on this issue:

 

 

Taqlid: Following a jurist » General Rules

 

Question: The jurists tell us that it is wajib to emulate the most learned (a'lam) mujtahid, and when we ask the religious scholars in our area, "Who is the a'lam?" we do not get a clear-cut answer so that we may follow his fatwa. When we ask them about their answer, they say that they are not ahlul khibra and they also say that: "we have asked ahlul khibra (1) and have been informed that identifying the a'lam mujtahid requires the study of the books of the mujtahids and that obviously is a time consuming and difficult task; so go and ask the others."If the problem of identifying the a'lam mujtahid is so difficult in religious circles, obviously the problem would be even more difficult in other countries like Europe and America. After a lot of difficulty when we convince the youths of these countries that it is necessary to abide by the shari'a laws, we reach to the question of who is the a'lam, and find ourselves lost for words. Is there a solution to this problem?

 

 

Answer: If there are some ahlul khibra who refuse to identify the a'lam for one reason or another, there are other ahlul khibra who readily identify him. It is possible to contact those ahlul khibra through the religious scholars and others who are reliable and have contacts with religious seminaries and with the scholars in other countries. So, although identifying the a'lam is not without difficulty, yet it is not a serious problem.

 

 

Question: How do we know who ahlul khibra are so that we may ask them about the a'lam mujtahid? How do we reach them since we are far away from religious seminaries? Is there a way that can simplify for us the process of determining whom we should follow in taqlid?

 

 

Answer: The ahlul khibra are the mujtahids and those next in line in religious sciences, and they know quite well that one person in a limited group of mujtahids is the a'lam. And they have to consider the following three things to identify that a'lam: First: His knowledge concerning the methods for providing the authenticity of the hadith, and that involves 'ilmu 'r-rijal (the science of narrators of hadith) and 'ilmu 'l-hadith (the science of hadith). On this subject, issues like familiarity with the books [of hadith] and the ahadith that have been tampered with; knowledge of causes for fabrication [of ahadith]; variance in the manuscripts and distinguishing the most correct one; and being aware of confusion which sometimes occurs between the text of a hadith and the explanation of the compilers, are of utmost importance. Second: His ability to understand the meaning of the text by considering the general rules of speech, especially the style used by the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in describing the laws. The science of 'usûlu 'l-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), Arabic grammar and literature, as well as familiarity with the views of the Sunni jurists who were contemporaries of the Imams play an important role in the understanding of the hadith texts. Third: Soundness of his view in deriving the rules from the sources. And the method of getting acquainted with those in whom the status of a'lam is confined to having scholarly discussions with them or to referring to their books or to the transcripts of their lectures on Jurisprudence and the Principles of Jurisprudence. If a person cannot know the ahlul khibra by himself, he can come to know them through the religious scholars and others whom he trusts. The geographical distance should not be a barrier to establishing communication with them in this era where many fast means of communication are easily available. 

 

 

In this we find the three importances of one being considered as one of the "Ahlul-Akhb'aar" (Mujtahid)  who must align with these three prerequisites. And as you see, I'lm Al-rij'aal is of extreme importance when deciding on a ruling, prohibiting it, or allowing it, making it disliked, or liked, and so on. Here, therefore you stance is not justified by no means, as the narration you have quoted or referred to, are weak, without an established chain. Note: we are not saying that it is "Impermissible" on this bases, as we will explain later: 

 

 

 

Syed Rohani who has written an excellent encyclopaedia of fiqh (Fiqh Al-Sadiq in 26 volumes, I find it like a modern day Hada'iq or Jawahir) and he allows it and if I recall says it is mustahab 

 

 

 

 

 

First, it must be noted, that my position on the issue if "Tatbir", is not against it. What I am against, is that the sufficient events for the act, as the person (layman) must put limitations to what extent it should be acted upon, and where it should be acted upon, and so on so forth. And in addition: To those who you oppose, as you have no right to criticize them, as their position is justified, just as those who have recommend it (based on their opinion from research). I am also against those, who consider the act of such greatness to the extent of criticizing those who do not embrace it, which is in not a justified stance to take. 

 

 

 

 The Sahih Hadith that every Jaz'i is makrooh except for the killing of Hussain , first Jaz'i means a higher form of distress, sadness, and grieving than normal, so is physical mourning, second tatbir would fall under this

 

 

 

 

First and foremost, please do not create your interpretation of things. The Word "Jaz'a" is simply the sadness that goes beyond wailing and weeping, that is, to rip garments (for), slap the thigh, chest, cheeks, and so on, or wailing loudly due to the tragedy. Tatb'ir, does not fall under this, as the in word itself, does not contain it. There is no such thing as "Physical mourning", your body does not distress on its own, it is your mind that reacts to this tragedies, and how it will act will depends on what you intend. As we have authentic narrations, that the angles and jinn were in a state of Ja'za, after the tragedy of Ashura, but does that mean, they harming their physical being as well? Of course not. In addition, what is out of the realm of Ja'za, you cannot attribute such to it, you cannot apply it, in the case of the tragedy, to make it completely liked.

 

 

 

The famous hadith "Everything is permitted until discouraged" which is a basis of fiqh, and general rules of fiqh wouldn't apply here either because of the rule from point #1

 

 

 

 

 

Nope. Harming on self in general is not permitted, however we are concerned with the issue of, to what extent? Thus, you cannot apply, any situation to the case of Imam-Hussain (a.s), as it is discouraged in other situations and say, that it is permitted by "All means" (that is all circumstances), without applying any limitations to the act before hand. 

 

 

 

 

The reliability of it is irrelivant here because it isn't necessary in fiqhi matters, otherwise we should consider saying Ashhadu Anna Aliyun Wali Allah haram in Adhan and Iqamat as well (because the lack of any explicit narration, or any reliable one 

 

 

 

 

The issue with the third testimony cannot be compared to an act of a tragedy, that is not Obligatory. The third testimony is of more importance, as it has go to do with whether our prayer is accepted or not. In concern with it, being an "Innovation", that it is, only when your intention takes it in as an obligatory act, rather than an act of "Being liked for" (Istihb'aab), and we have clear evidence for it's Isthib'aab (Liked). However, this has nothing got to do with the issue of Tat'bir, I repeat my self: I am not saying it is impressible, or an innovation, I am not a scholar to make these judgments. However, my issue, if with those who go publicly with it, attaching knives with chains, and cutting their backs into pieces, or those who use other forms of extreme, which in reality misrepresents the religion of Islam. The Question is: To what extent? Imam-Al-Hussain (a.s),has went out, for the Shariah of Islam and not against it. In these cases, Tatbir is not considered the flag of Ashura, nor does it represent the practices of the Shia (In Totality). That is why you find, the scholars have taken this into perspective, and stated that is: if (1) it misrepresents the Madh'ab, (2) Causes Self harm. That is Why: for you to oppose those who have made it disliked or Impermissible, you have no right to judge. In this period of time, where we are in front of the world, how do we want preach the Religion of Islam? Perhaps a question you need to ask yourself. There is nothing wrong with chest, face slapping, or ripping garments and wailing, weeping loudly or using Zanjeel (without Knives), However we are simply concerned to what extent should such acts of blood letting be done? especially in public, where the world watches. I am not asking you to change your views, but neither do you have the right to slander those scholars who have taken a decisive choice or a precaution on this matter.

 

______________________________________________



 وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

Edited October 24, 2014 by TheIslamHistory

[GermanShia]

alhamdulillah tatbir gets more and more attention. this muharram we can do tatbir in many mosques in our country alhamdulillah 

[Ibn Al-Ja'abi]

bismillah al-rahman al-raheem

assalamu alaykum

 

I'll do my best to respond to this wall of text which I need to thank you for taking the time to write

 

(bismillah)

 

 

@Ibn Al-Ja'abi

 

 

 

 

First, Of all, let me get something out of this discussion. That is: The narration that either Zeinab (a.s) or Imam-Zain Al-Abideen, Had Supposedly hit  themselves on a rock or  a pole, is no evidence to be used. The narration mentioned in Al-Bih'ar, saying that it is from an accept (Mu'tab'ar) books, is nothing but a claim, and not a correct chain. You have tried hard to validate your argument, but it collapses on the rules of narration science and jurisprudence-law. The reasons for this are simply: (1) Just because Al-Majlsi stated that the narration is from a "Mut'abar" book, does not support the narration in anyway, since we have many Mut'abar books, such as Al-Kafi or Kamal Al-Ziyaa'rat, that does not make the book itself 100% correct, there are many weak narration in these book, just as there are fabricates and correct. A "Mut'abr" book, does not mean a book filled with (Sahih) narrations, it is a book that it simply held acceptable by the particular group/sect. Which gives the fact: (2) that he did not even mention the name of the book itself or its author. (3) clearly there is no evidence of support of Tatbir in our books. Nor did any of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) or their followers practice such acts. You will also find that the classical scholars, do not have a specific ruling on "Tatb'ir", and that is because it was not an act practiced at their time, it came rather later, and not through any scholar, but by the people. This is a concern, as you find when the scholar come to a particular "Wajab" act, they become very strict on its ruling and authenticity from authentic narrations, however when it comes to "Tat'bir", all of a sudden, Mursal narrations become Authentic? Ironic really. 

 

Let me clear something up that might seem unclear from my earlier posts, mu'tabar kutub is not a form of sihhat to the complete book but a book we can depend on. This seems to be about 2/3 of what you were saying so let me just clear that up right now. In addition, this is a piece of history while rijal was a system created for hadith, you have two different things present. However interestingly, maraja have used this hadith of bibi zainab (as) as evidence for tatbir, such as by Sheikh Mirza Jawad Tabrizi:

 

بسمه تعالى؛ التطبير في حد نفسه جائز، وقد استشكل في استحبابه جزعاً، وإن كان المنقول أن السيدة زينب (عليها السلام) لما رأت رأس أخيها الحسين (عليه السلام) على رمح طويل نطحت بمقدم المحمل حتى سالت الدماء من رأسها، واللّه العالم.

 

http://ar.tabrizi.org/2013/11/hosseini-aza/

 

We are dealing with history here anyways, it's arbitrary to ask for a rijal analysis on history, it's like me asking you to prove to me the validity of the sanad of x statement in the maqtal of imam hussain or y event in the maqtal of imam hussain.

 

Also I find it interesting on how you talk about how this sha'ira is not found far back in history, I'd be interested in knowing what our Imams said about us reciting Nohas/Latmiyya (in the fashion they're done now) or the organized matam/latom we do, or the Alams/Taziye we set up, or the decorated shrines we have made for them, I'd be very interested in knowing what they had to say on this.

 

 

      

 

your distorting factual issues. A fallacy that you are making, is that all those that have made Tatb'ir impermissible or disliked are aligning themselves with Sayed Ali-Al-Khamenei? I expect a bit of logic, more than this. The amount of scholar that have made this "Act" not recommended, are not little, and nor do they make their "Rulings" based on a person (As you are trying to imply), there are many before them, who have sought this act as not recommended. Perhaps be less bias when making such judgements. 

 

 

 

You did say earlier on "On what bases, do you say that Al-Khamenei has no jurisdiction to state the law on the issue? Do you know how many scholar prohibited it? I can start with the list with reference if you like. Are you going to call every scholar unrighteous by prohibiting Tatb'ir?" The list I assume you are referring to (the one on tatbir.org) had a huge list of scholars who are just quoted as saying that following the hukm of the wali is necessary, a great number of other maraja were misquoted and wrongly added to the list. If you made your own list I apologize. I won't deny that there are a number of Ulama who reject tatbir, but the a lot of the major ones accepted it and I'll provide a fatwa from Sheikh Ishaq Fayyadh that even Syed Al-Khoei included it in the sha'irat al-hussainiyya and said it had ajr and thawab in it:

 

 

 

 

 

He Al-Sistani (May Allah prolong his life) has not made an ruling on this issue, only shows that he did not find any reason to legitimize it completely, and this is no excuse. 

 

 

 

Conjecture, you have no way of knowing that's why he didn't rule, it can just as easily be said he didn't rule on it because it is obviously halal therefore it would've been unnecessary. He has himself refrained from answering a tahlil or tahrim and said he has no fatwa on it when he was asked therefore it's dishonest to try to assume what he means.

 

 

 

 

 

Sayed-Hasim Al-Hashimi, first of all, is not considered as the "Most knowledgeable" nor is AL-Sayed Al-Roh'ani, if you do not have a support from a Mujtahid, of their "Knowledge" As we mention now: (2): you cannot choose any scholar (based on your opinion), unless a jurist recommends him for you. Here is Al-Sistani's Ruling on this issue:

 

 

Taqlid: Following a jurist » General Rules

 

Question: The jurists tell us that it is wajib to emulate the most learned (a'lam) mujtahid, and when we ask the religious scholars in our area, "Who is the a'lam?" we do not get a clear-cut answer so that we may follow his fatwa. When we ask them about their answer, they say that they are not ahlul khibra and they also say that: "we have asked ahlul khibra (1) and have been informed that identifying the a'lam mujtahid requires the study of the books of the mujtahids and that obviously is a time consuming and difficult task; so go and ask the others."If the problem of identifying the a'lam mujtahid is so difficult in religious circles, obviously the problem would be even more difficult in other countries like Europe and America. After a lot of difficulty when we convince the youths of these countries that it is necessary to abide by the shari'a laws, we reach to the question of who is the a'lam, and find ourselves lost for words. Is there a solution to this problem?

 

 

Answer: If there are some ahlul khibra who refuse to identify the a'lam for one reason or another, there are other ahlul khibra who readily identify him. It is possible to contact those ahlul khibra through the religious scholars and others who are reliable and have contacts with religious seminaries and with the scholars in other countries. So, although identifying the a'lam is not without difficulty, yet it is not a serious problem.

 

 

Question: How do we know who ahlul khibra are so that we may ask them about the a'lam mujtahid? How do we reach them since we are far away from religious seminaries? Is there a way that can simplify for us the process of determining whom we should follow in taqlid?

 

 

Answer: The ahlul khibra are the mujtahids and those next in line in religious sciences, and they know quite well that one person in a limited group of mujtahids is the a'lam. And they have to consider the following three things to identify that a'lam: First: His knowledge concerning the methods for providing the authenticity of the hadith, and that involves 'ilmu 'r-rijal (the science of narrators of hadith) and 'ilmu 'l-hadith (the science of hadith). On this subject, issues like familiarity with the books [of hadith] and the ahadith that have been tampered with; knowledge of causes for fabrication [of ahadith]; variance in the manuscripts and distinguishing the most correct one; and being aware of confusion which sometimes occurs between the text of a hadith and the explanation of the compilers, are of utmost importance. Second: His ability to understand the meaning of the text by considering the general rules of speech, especially the style used by the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in describing the laws. The science of 'usûlu 'l-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), Arabic grammar and literature, as well as familiarity with the views of the Sunni jurists who were contemporaries of the Imams play an important role in the understanding of the hadith texts. Third: Soundness of his view in deriving the rules from the sources. And the method of getting acquainted with those in whom the status of a'lam is confined to having scholarly discussions with them or to referring to their books or to the transcripts of their lectures on Jurisprudence and the Principles of Jurisprudence. If a person cannot know the ahlul khibra by himself, he can come to know them through the religious scholars and others whom he trusts. The geographical distance should not be a barrier to establishing communication with them in this era where many fast means of communication are easily available. 

 

 

In this we find the three importances of one being considered as one of the "Ahlul-Akhb'aar" (Mujtahid)  who must align with these three prerequisites. And as you see, I'lm Al-rij'aal is of extreme importance when deciding on a ruling, prohibiting it, or allowing it, making it disliked, or liked, and so on. Here, therefore you stance is not justified by no means, as the narration you have quoted or referred to, are weak, without an established chain. Note: we are not saying that it is "Impermissible" on this bases, as we will explain later: 

 

 

 

This argument is completely fascicle because if you read his books of fiqh, esp. Fiqh Al-Sadiq you will see him grading ahadith he quotes at times, Syed Rohani clearly knows the sciences of hadith. In addition I never said Syed Hashim Al-Hashimi was an A'lam but rather he was one of Sistani's most prominent students, and that statement stands if you go to Najaf.

 

 

 

 

 

First, it must be noted, that my position on the issue if "Tatbir", is not against it. What I am against, is that the sufficient events for the act, as the person (layman) must put limitations to what extent it should be acted upon, and where it should be acted upon, and so on so forth. And in addition: To those who you oppose, as you have no right to criticize them, as their position is justified, just as those who have recommend it (based on their opinion from research). I am also against those, who consider the act of such greatness to the extent of criticizing those who do not embrace it, which is in not a justified stance to take. 

 

 

 

 

I don't criticize them but their opinion on the basis that knowledgeable marjas have given sufficient evidence for it's permission. That being said, this has nothing to do with Fiqh Al-Sadiq so I don't know why quote that part.

 

 

First and foremost, please do not create your interpretation of things. The Word "Jaz'a" is simply the sadness that goes beyond wailing and weeping, that is, to rip garments (for), slap the thigh, chest, cheeks, and so on, or wailing loudly due to the tragedy. Tatb'ir, does not fall under this, as the in word itself, does not contain it. There is no such thing as "Physical mourning", your body does not distress on its own, it is your mind that reacts to this tragedies, and how it will act will depends on what you intend. As we have authentic narrations, that the angles and jinn were in a state of Ja'za, after the tragedy of Ashura, but does that mean, they harming their physical being as well? Of course not. In addition, what is out of the realm of Ja'za, you cannot attribute such to it, you cannot apply it, in the case of the tragedy, to make it completely liked.

 

 

 

That's what I wrote, an extreme sadness where one will harm themselves physically, and I apologize for the typo, I meant to say physically* mourning. Allah in the Qur'an called the mourning of Nabi Yaqub when he blinded himself from all his crying as huzn, Jaz' is more extreme than huzn, the grammarians state how Jaz' is a form of grieving where a person is unable to hold patience for what is befalling him (as can be seen in famous statements of the Imams if you want to put the statements of them hitting their heads, such as the one of Imam Al-Qa'im crying so much that he cries tears of blood, furthermore in Amali Al-Saduq page 111 Imam Al-Sadiq says that the day of Hussain has wounded their eyelids from the constant mourning). And Imam Zain Al-Abidin stated (as can be found in Kamil Al-Ziyarat) that he did not only do Jaz' but Hal' as well, Hal' being defined as more intense than jaz' (الشديدُ الحِرصِ أَو الجَزَع), the Hadith of Imam Zain Al-Abidin being "How can I not do jaz' and hal'" (وكيف لا أجزع وأهلع). The point of all of this is to show you that causing oneself harm beyond striking yourself falls under Jaz', and tatbir would be counted as harming oneself while mourning, as stated by Sheikh Danial Al-Kirmanshahi.

 

 

 

The issue with the third testimony cannot be compared to an act of a tragedy, that is not Obligatory. The third testimony is of more importance, as it has go to do with whether our prayer is accepted or not. In concern with it, being an "Innovation", that it is, only when your intention takes it in as an obligatory act, rather than an act of "Being liked for" (Istihb'aab), and we have clear evidence for it's Isthib'aab (Liked). However, this has nothing got to do with the issue of Tat'bir, I repeat my self: I am not saying it is impressible, or an innovation, I am not a scholar to make these judgments. However, my issue, if with those who go publicly with it, attaching knives with chains, and cutting their backs into pieces, or those who use other forms of extreme, which in reality misrepresents the religion of Islam. The Question is: To what extent? Imam-Al-Hussain (a.s),has went out, for the Shariah of Islam and not against it. In these cases, Tatbir is not considered the flag of Ashura, nor does it represent the practices of the Shia (In Totality). That is why you find, the scholars have taken this into perspective, and stated that is: if (1) it misrepresents the Madh'ab, (2) Causes Self harm. That is Why: for you to oppose those who have made it disliked or Impermissible, you have no right to judge. In this period of time, where we are in front of the world, how do we want preach the Religion of Islam? Perhaps a question you need to ask yourself. There is nothing wrong with chest, face slapping, or ripping garments and wailing, weeping loudly or using Zanjeel (without Knives), However we are simply concerned to what extent should such acts of blood letting be done? especially in public, where the world watches. I am not asking you to change your views, but neither do you have the right to slander those scholars who have taken a decisive choice or a precaution on this matter.

 

______________________________________________



 وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

 

 

Cool but that's not what I meant, and what I meant should have been obvious as I clarified at the end in brackets so that it won't at all be confused. But if it needs further clarification, I'll ask you to find me a sahih hadith for giving shahadat al-thalitha in adhan and iqamat. Not going to happen because there isn't any explicit hadith for this, let alone sahih hadith. I didn't mean at all that the act of Tatbir and the act of Shahadat Al-Thalitha are one in the sahih. In addition, I hope you realize that tatbir causes as much self harm as hijama might (and these acts are related because they have the same asl, letting blood out of the body and I can go on about the similarities of these two acts), it's the process of letting blood out, and the maraja have stipulated that it shouldn't cause bodily harm to you if you preform it. In addition there are medical crews on standby in case there is an emergency so the worst harm to yourself is a cut on your scalp.

Seems like you misunderstood the term 'copy and paste brigade' it refers to a mentality which some people possess of copy and pasting without understanding and worse still misrepresenting totally what the 'copy and paste' was. I see you steadfastedly maintain your ignorance by nor understanding your copied post

 

Maybe they know the thuggish mentality of the pro blood letting lobby. Violence and insults are never far away where the pro blood letting lobby are concerned 

 

If you'd prefer insulting me rather than giving me an argument it's your choice. My choice will be to let what you say be between you and Allah and ignore what you say from here on. But I do find your maligning of mutabirin comical. Wa assalam.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

[A true Sunni]

 However interestingly, maraja have used this hadith of bibi zainab (as) as evidence for tatbir, such as by Sheikh Mirza Jawad Tabrizi:

 

بسمه تعالى؛ التطبير في حد نفسه جائز، وقد استشكل في استحبابه جزعاً، وإن كان المنقول أن السيدة زينب (عليها السلام) لما رأت رأس أخيها الحسين (عليه السلام) على رمح طويل نطحت بمقدم المحمل حتى سالت الدماء من رأسها، واللّه العالم.

 

http://ar.tabrizi.org/2013/11/hosseini-aza/

 

 

 

If you'd prefer insulting me rather than giving me an argument it's your choice. My choice will be to let what you say be between you and Allah and ignore what you say from here on. But I do find your maligning of mutabirin comical. Wa assalam.

 

You say I insult you by pointing out that you have grossly misrepresented a fatwa from Ayatullah Sistani. Rather then addressing the issue of you misrepresenting a fatwa you criticise me for not coating my words in honey.

 

Coating my words in honey would not change that fact that you have misrepresented a fatwa.

 

In addition you say that Sheikh Mirza Jawad Tabrizi endorses the narration of Hz Zainab striking her head. Have you asked him to explain why in the the same narration the women of tHe Ahlul Bait were veiled in the markets of Kufa. Have you asked him to explain why in the same narration the women

and children of the Ahlul bait were in covered camel litters.

 

If you have ever attended a Majalis in Moharram would you not find that rather incongrous. Or do you only consult people who seem to selectively endorse parts of a narration

[mina]

That scares me brother, why do u show us the picture?

[Mahdi Yassine]

I did zanjeer zani today.

 

think ur cool cousin?

[narsis]

I think he mentally needs others to pay attention to him.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Sorry all who did not like. I request the admin to remove my previous post...

[Hasan0404]

Why did you post the pic of your bare back? Your words were fine enough to convey that you did tatbir.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Brother, i think i have requested the admin so no issue remains. Thank u

[133ali]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

Dear Brothers,

 

I have followed this topic since long before. There was an old link to this I cannot locate. If the Administerators kindly find it and advise, I will be very much obliged.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49989841=

 

or

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=499898hl=

 

Another link towards fatwas of Ayatollah Sistani and Khamenei is as follows:

 

http://ezsoftech.com/mazloom/zanjeer.asp

 

Hopefully, things will be more clear in view of these two links.

 

vas Salam

 

Ali

[theshiatoday]

I did Zanjeer Zani today.

 

 

Photo1042.jpg

 

I did zanjeer zani today.

Ma3joor inshalah

 

I think he mentally needs others to pay attention to him.

show some respect please, if you have a different opinion on this topic don't think he mentally needs others to pay attention to him

[narsis]

Ma3joor inshalah

 

show some respect please, if you have a different opinion on this topic don't think he mentally needs others to pay attention to him

 

Having different opinion is not matter here and it is natural, but to show such picture publicly is offensive and there is no other reason for that except what I've mentioned.

[theshiatoday]

Having different opinion is not matter here and it is natural, but to show such picture publicly is offensive and there is no other reason for that except what I've mentioned.

 

the brother has requested the admin to remove it, yet you guys still say these kind of things even after he apologized.

[narsis]

the brother has requested the admin to remove it, yet you guys still say these kind of things even after he apologized.

 

What I've wrote, was before his asking. If I was about to write something after his request, I had never written that.

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

[repenter-gone4awhile]

Ma3joor inshalah

 

show some respect please, if you have a different opinion on this topic don't think he mentally needs others to pay attention to him

 

Seriously, you are the last person to speak about showing respect. Why don't you show respect to the scholars you called Jahil and stupid?

[theshiatoday]

Seriously, you are the last person to speak about showing respect. Why don't you show respect to the scholars you called Jahil and stupid?

The sad thing is, it's true we do have scholars these days that are ja'hel

[Hasan0404]

The sad thing is, it's true we do have scholars these days that are ja'hel

Indeed, they fail/ignore to see the big picture for things very trivial, and the consequences they bring n a long run.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Hasan0404

[narsis]

Seriously, you are the last person to speak about showing respect. Why don't you show respect to the scholars you called Jahil and stupid?

 

Sorry brother, I did not understand you. In fact I am totally disagree with showing disrespect and I've never done that. Even what I've wrote was not disrespect, it was declaring a psychological fact among some people.

[sayedamir2000]

(bismillah)

(salam) brothers and sisters

 

I know how much we love Imam Hussain (AS) and love continues, but unfortunately and I don't want to judge anybody but from general picture it is seen that there are many shias who do tatbiir and zanjeer but when it comes to the teachings of Ahlul-Bayt (AS), they forget them or are ignorant of them. This of course is not about all shias. Wouldn't it be best to follow the message and lessons of Imam Hussain (AS) and Ahlul-Bayt (AS) rather than doing tatbiir and zanjeer. Also wouldn't be better to donate that blood shed for people who are in need of it?

[Hameedeh]

Sorry brother, I did not understand you. In fact I am totally disagree with showing disrespect and I've never done that. Even what I've wrote was not disrespect, it was declaring a psychological fact among some people.

Narsis, I have never seen you disrespect anyone. Repenter was not speaking to you, but was replying to theshiatoday.

[narsis]

Narsis, I have never seen you disrespect anyone. Repenter was not speaking to you, but was replying to theshiatoday.

 

Thank you my sister. This is my basic not disrespecting others, whatever they hold.

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

[A true Sunni]

The sad thing is, it's true we do have scholars these days that are ja'hel

 

Jahalat is 'proving' tatbir by quoting a single line from a narration without wondering what the rest of the narration says. Jahallat is accepting a single line from the narration but rejecting the remaining 10 lines. Oh if you blood letters had had more sense you would have read the narration in full and then cried for your own stupidity

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Question: My question is that, what is the actual wording of the ruling of Grand Ayatullah Syed Ali Hussani Seestani (may he live long), on the issue of "Zanjeer Ma'tam"?

Answer: Ayatullah Seestani permits zanjeer matam provided there is no fear of loss of life or causing irreversible injury to any limb. On top of the list of Merjas I provide in my previous email here are some more Ulamaes who allow it.

2. The following Ulama are few of those who have allowed zanjeer zani:- Mirza Hussein Na'ini -Agha Ziyauddin Iraqi-Agha Muhsin al-Hakim -Agha Abul Qasim al-Khui (ref: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00165.html )

- Ayat. Gulpaygani & - Ayat. Araki allow the ritual of self-flagellation so long as there is no fear of loss of life or causing injury to any organ of the body http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00034.html

 

http://www.islamic-laws.com/azadari.htm

[A true Sunni]

Question: My question is that, what is the actual wording of the ruling of Grand Ayatullah Syed Ali Hussani Seestani (may he live long), on the issue of "Zanjeer Ma'tam"?

Answer: Ayatullah Seestani permits zanjeer matam provided there is no fear of loss of life or causing irreversible injury to any limb. On top of the list of Merjas I provide in my previous email here are some more Ulamaes who allow it.

2. The following Ulama are few of those who have allowed zanjeer zani:- Mirza Hussein Na'ini -Agha Ziyauddin Iraqi-Agha Muhsin al-Hakim -Agha Abul Qasim al-Khui (ref: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00165.html )

- Ayat. Gulpaygani & - Ayat. Araki allow the ritual of self-flagellation so long as there is no fear of loss of life or causing injury to any organ of the body http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00034.html

 

http://www.islamic-laws.com/azadari.htm

 

so rather then go ask Ayatullah Sistani what his opinion or fatwa is . You go ask other people. Sand head bury springs to mind

[Aabiss_Shakari]

TRANSLATION OF Q/A PAPER IN URDU - handed over by Aytullah Bashir Najafi office in dec 07

Q1) is azadari wajib or mustahab?

A1) If there is a chance that shiaism will be wiped out by not doing azadari, in such cases azadari becomes wajib, otherwise it is a source of great recompense.

Q2) what is the importance of azadari?

A2) Azadari includes all works whether action or speech which are mubah (ie not haram). It should be done with the aim of spreading word about the oppression of Imam Hussein (a) & other ahl Bayt(a) & the humiliation of their enemies. We have been ordered to do azadari, it brings great recompense.

Q3) During azadari of Imam Hussein (a), is it allowed to kiss the alam, taziah, zuljinah?

A3) It is not a problem to kiss, it is allowed. But to believe that an infallible (masoom) has ordered to kiss is not allowed.

Q4) what do you say to the wearing of chains on the wrists & the ankles.

A4) If one wears so as not to forget the imprisonment of his oppressed & innocent Imam (a), it is allowed. But to do so thinking it to be the sunnat of the Imam is not allowed. No masoom has ever ordered such a thing.

Q5) Is it allowed to ‘de-shirt’ oneself on the streets to do matam, where women are also present? A5) It is not a problem, women should not go to such places. Q6) What is your opinion about zanjeer & kama’

A6) If zanjeer & kama’ are done with the intention of spreading word about the oppression to which Imam Hussein (a) was subjected, not only is it allowed but brings great recompense. However, if before doing such matam, one is satisfied (itminan) that he will die or some organ of his body will become useless, it is not allowed. Similarly, it is not allowed in those areas where people, due to ignorance, will turn away from Islam or will feel a revulsion towards Islam.

Q7) While mourning for Imam Hussein (a) is it allowed to hit with a dagger or knife, which results in loss of a lot of blood. Is this a source of any recompense? While doing so, if a person dies, what is your opinion regarding this?

A7) If matam is done this way to spread word about the oppression of Imam Hussein (a), then it is a source of great recompense. If one dies during this, he will be included amongst the helpers of Imam (a) & the ahl bayt (a) But if he knows before doing such matam that he will die or some part of his body will become useless, it is not allowed. Similarly, do not do such matam in places where ignorant people will turn away from Islam.

Q) During majalis of Imam Hussein (a) some orators recite traditions about which we do not know whether they are true or fabricated, while others are definitely fabricated. Is it allowed to attend such majalis?

A) Bismihi Ta’ala. It is a major sin to recite & hear(while declaring them to be true) those traditions about which one is sure that they are fabricated. If attending such a majlis amounts to the acceptance & spreading the fame of such a false tradition reciter, it not allowed to attend such a majlis. Let it be clear that attributing false traditions to the Aimma violated their rights. It is the duty of every mo’min to refrain from such acts. Wallaho alam

 

 

http://www.islamic-laws.com/azadari.htm

[theshiatoday]

why would you do this please come to your senses. It is pointless to make yourself bleed. A simple slap is sufficient.

DO NOT SAY that, you may disagree with tatbir, but don't go attack the holy ritual

 

we are not jurists to give fatwas here....the fatwa of Ayatollah Ali Khamnei about Qama zani and Zanjer zani is that it is haram and innovation and we should avoid it...Rehbar also says that neither Allah nor Imam Hussain like these acts.....now think

khamanei is more of a politician then to deal with these types of topics, that is why he does not care about tatbir

 

1- Qama zani is one of the innovations that harmed Shia a lot and some, due to Qama Zani, accuse Shia of being insane. We clearly declare that people must refrain from doing Qama zani. In other word, harming body is Haraam whether it is done with Qama or by bladed Zanjeers or hard slaps which cause serious harm for body.

^this is what Ayatollah Makram Shirazi's office said.

who is makaram shirazi to deny the holy ritual of imam hussayn?

 

Please read the articles here and check the fatawas on the site:

 

http://www.tatbir.org

 

ma salam

that website is a site made just to attack the holy ritual, everyone knows its a stupid and fake site

[repenter-gone4awhile]

DO NOT SAY that, you may disagree with tatbir, but don't go attack the holy ritual

 

khamanei is more of a politician then to deal with these types of topics, that is why he does not care about tatbir

 

who is makaram shirazi to deny the holy ritual of imam hussayn?

 

that website is a site made just to attack the holy ritual, everyone knows its a stupid and fake site

 

1. You apparently can't distinguish between attack and disagree. How is he attacking it?

2. Let's not go into what Sayyed Khamenei is or isn't shall we ;)

3. He is a marja just like your marja. You keep calling it holy as if it was some universal truth. Many shias don't look at it as holy but rather deviant. 

4. So the poster you claimed is all over karbala is not stupid but a website refuting it is? 

 

Generally you don't seem to be a person that is debatable in general, just keep calling it holy and awesome and that is your case.