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

Rate this topic


Aabiss_Shakari

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

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

 

My brother in faith, you follow Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Najafi (HZ), so i will  not ask you to act on Fatawa of Ayatullah Ali Sistani (hz). Therefore, i asked a direct question and got direct answer from brother Nadar Zavari so now I have option to do this year and Inshalah I shall do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

 

Here are some benefits of Zanjeer:

 

-Showing your semi-Naked body among women

-Making your self Najis which often leads to Miss Prayers on Time.

-Harming yourself to such extent that one may collapse and die.

-Creating scene such that one may look and say what barbaric religion is this?

-Instead of doing amaal/prayer which is recommend by Imams,we doing zanjeer.

 

 

I Imagine sometime how our Imam would have look like standing semi-naked among women and children and doing Qamah and Zanjeer all day.

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

My brother in faith, you follow Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Najafi (HZ), so i will  not ask you to act on Fatawa of Ayatullah Ali Sistani (hz). Therefore, i asked a direct question and got direct answer from brother Nadar Zavari so now I have option to do this year and Inshalah I shall do...

can you please show me the fatawa of Syed Ali sistani where he allows ?

anything which force you to miss your obligations (such as prayer) on time is haram.. because you cannot offer prayer with blood on your clothes or body..others things too video games,cricket football match etc

 

nader rizvi , in his blog he intend to prove that hazrat umme kulsoom married  umar...wah wah....infact umme kulsoom was also the daughter of abubakar..but nader rizvi is strict that it was Ali's a.s daughter....

Edited by aqeelfair4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

سیستانی نے بھی رہبر معظم کی طرح حالیہ دنوں پوچھے زنجیر کے سلسلے میں پوچھے گئے سوال کے جواب میں فرمایا ہے کہ ان اعمال سے دشمن مذہب تشیع کو بدنام کرنے کی کوشش کر رہا ہے لہذا ان چیزوں سے پرہیز کرنا واجب ہے۔رہبر معظم نے صریح طور پر زنجیر زنی کو حرام قرار دیا ہے اور رہبر معظم کا اس سلسلے میں نہ صرف فتویٰ ہے بلکہ حکم ہے اور آپ کو معلوم ہونا چاہیے کہ ولی فقیہ کا حکم تمام شیعوں جملہ علماء کو شامل ہے اور سب پر اس کی اتباع ضروری ہو جاتی ہے۔ولی فقیہ کا حکم فتوے پر اولویت رکھتا ہے لہذا ایسے میں اگر کسی مرجع کا اس کے جواز میں فتویٰ بھی ہو تو مقلدین پر ضروری ہے کہ وہ اس مسئلے میں بجائے اپنے مرجع کی تقلید کے ولی امر مسلمین کے حکم کی اطاعت کریں۔ چونکہ اس میں کوئی دورائے نہیں ہے کہ حکم فتوے پر فوقیت رکھتا ہے۔مزید تفصیلات جاننے کے لیے رجوع کریں:http://ahlulbaytportal.ir/ur.php/page,Unit17393.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Al-Salam 'Alykom

"...Tatbir displays a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims, therefore it's Haram to perform"

But is that even valid reasoning to use in order establish such position of declaring a certain act to be Haram? Again, what is the the criterion that is used to decide whether an act to perform is Haram or Halal? Simply it's strictly the noble Quran and Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt and if a certain act has a bases in those, then it's valid in the Shari'a regardless if non-Muslims and non-Shi'as do not find it appealing.

I am not going to argue further as to whether Tatbir has a foundation or not in the Quran and Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt(as) as that has been discussed in the previous posts. I'm simply wanting to point out the false and at the same time problematic reasoning that Shi'as tend to use in order to make Tatbir Haram just because it doesn't tend to look appealing to non-Muslims. And so what if they don't find it appealing? It's not like western secularists and their likes have only attacked the Shari'a just for Tatbir. Will they stop attacking us and the Shari'a when we continue to firmly believe in Rajam or the stoning of an adulteress women until her death, the beheading of a Murtad who deliberately leaves Islam, the beheading of Homosexuals guilty of the act, or the cutting of the hands of a thief guilty of stealing. If we start to denounce Tatbir based on such reasoning, then I really don't see how this would not open the doors of Kufr for Shias to begin rejecting Rajam, Hudud and other acts valid in our Shari'a just because they see that these acts "give a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims". These acts are all part of the Shari'a of the prophet(saw) sent to him directly from Allah(swt) and will continue to be firmly held by Muslims until the hour is established whether non-Muslims like it or not and like wise for Tatbir considering that after being shown it's roots in the Shari'a. Therefore it really shouldn't matter what non-Muslims think about what our Shari'a advocates. At the end of the day, no matter how much we would attempt compromise our beliefs to try and please them, they will continue to find new excuses to fight Islam regardless if we rejected Tatbir or not, as Allah(swt) explicitly confirmed in Surat Al-Baqara, Ayat 19-20:

"Indeed we have sent you,[O Muhamed] with the truth as a bringer of glad tidings and a warner, and you will not be asked about the companions of the hellfire. And never will the Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, indeed the guidance of Allah is the[only] guidance. If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no helper"

Finally, it's worth to mention that for a non-Muslim to reject Islam entirely just because they do not find Tatbir or other acts in the Shari'a appealing is not a valid approach towards understanding it to begin with. In other words, for them to reject Islam by judging it through a secular lens only from it's apparent face while completely ignoring to see what it has from the inside; such as the undeniable miracles of the Quran, the wisdom and knowledge of the prophet(swt) and Imams(swt) or how Islam's concept of morality is the best way of life when applied, is not a sincere approach to understand Islam. An analogous comparison to this would be say for a person to oppose and reject education by judging it solely from it's apparent face like saying "..schools can punish you, give you lots of homework enough to stress you out mentally ect.... therefore, I will enjoy my youth instead and not acquire an education ", but at the same time, completely dodges the hidden wisdom in acquiring an education and seeing it's importance in the long run. The same applies for understanding Islam, and that is, one who rejects it based solely on his opposition to Tatbir or other acts in the Shari'a, while remaining completely ignorant and not bothering to understand how and why Islam is the divine truth from an unbiased approach is the foolish one and loser at the end.

Wa'alykom Al-Salam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

reading this site we have two contrary positions. On the one side we have the argument that Ayatullah Sistani has not expressed his opinion on blood letting and it is suggested that he has directed people to ask other Marje

 

On the the other side we have the position that Ayatullah Sistani has prohibited blood letting.

 

It strikes me as strange that Ayatullah Sistani is widely touted as the most knowledgeable Marje of this time and yet on this position he is said to be claiming that  I have no knowledge , go consult others.

 

Secondly the tatbir.org is being villified as being full of lies citing the 'proven narration of Hz Bibi Zainab hitting her head'.

 

I would ask has anyone gone back to read the original narration in full. Let me pick the major points and you can tell me whats wrong with the narration.

 

Markets of Kufa

Severed heads of the Shaheed on poles

Hz Bibi Zainab veiled

Hz Bibi Zainab strikes her head

Hz Bibi Kulthum riding in a veiled Howdah.

 

Either accept all the narration or none of it stop cherry picking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Al-Salam 'Alykom

"...Tatbir displays a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims, therefore it's Haram to perform"

But is that even valid reasoning to use in order establish such position of declaring a certain act to be Haram? Again, what is the the criterion that is used to decide whether an act to perform is Haram or Halal? Simply it's strictly the noble Quran and Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt and if a certain act has a bases in those, then it's valid in the Shari'a regardless if non-Muslims and non-Shi'as do not find it appealing.

I am not going to argue further as to whether Tatbir has a foundation or not in the Quran and Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt(as) as that has been discussed in the previous posts. I'm simply wanting to point out the false and at the same time problematic reasoning that Shi'as tend to use in order to make Tatbir Haram just because it doesn't tend to look appealing to non-Muslims. And so what if they don't find it appealing? It's not like western secularists and their likes have only attacked the Shari'a just for Tatbir. Will they stop attacking us and the Shari'a when we continue to firmly believe in Rajam or the stoning of an adulteress women until her death, the beheading of a Murtad who deliberately leaves Islam, the beheading of Homosexuals guilty of the act, or the cutting of the hands of a thief guilty of stealing. If we start to denounce Tatbir based on such reasoning, then I really don't see how this would not open the doors of Kufr for Shias to begin rejecting Rajam, Hudud and other acts valid in our Shari'a just because they see that these acts "give a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims". These acts are all part of the Shari'a of the prophet(saw) sent to him directly from Allah(swt) and will continue to be firmly held by Muslims until the hour is established whether non-Muslims like it or not and like wise for Tatbir considering that after being shown it's roots in the Shari'a. Therefore it really shouldn't matter what non-Muslims think about what our Shari'a advocates. At the end of the day, no matter how much we would attempt compromise our beliefs to try and please them, they will continue to find new excuses to fight Islam regardless if we rejected Tatbir or not, as Allah(swt) explicitly confirmed in Surat Al-Baqara, Ayat 19-20:

"Indeed we have sent you,[O Muhamed] with the truth as a bringer of glad tidings and a warner, and you will not be asked about the companions of the hellfire. And never will the Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, indeed the guidance of Allah is the[only] guidance. If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no helper"

Finally, it's worth to mention that for a non-Muslim to reject Islam entirely just because they do not find Tatbir or other acts in the Shari'a appealing is not a valid approach towards understanding it to begin with. In other words, for them to reject Islam by judging it through a secular lens only from it's apparent face while completely ignoring to see what it has from the inside; such as the undeniable miracles of the Quran, the wisdom and knowledge of the prophet(swt) and Imams(swt) or how Islam's concept of morality is the best way of life when applied, is not a sincere approach to understand Islam. An analogous comparison to this would be say for a person to oppose and reject education by judging it solely from it's apparent face like saying "..schools can punish you, give you lots of homework enough to stress you out mentally ect.... therefore, I will enjoy my youth instead and not acquire an education ", but at the same time, completely dodges the hidden wisdom in acquiring an education and seeing it's importance in the long run. The same applies for understanding Islam, and that is, one who rejects it based solely on his opposition to Tatbir or other acts in the Shari'a, while remaining completely ignorant and not bothering to understand how and why Islam is the divine truth from an unbiased approach is the foolish one and loser at the end.

Wa'alykom Al-Salam

 

Many of those who say tatbir is bad for damaging the image of Islam go "Marg bar Amrika"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I suspect the only reason why Sayed Sistani (h) doesn't have a fatwa on Tatbir is because he doesn't want to make his opinion known - for fear of backlash of the general Shi'a population (because of it's cultural influence). This makes me think that he wants to prohibit it, but does not want to anger those who have done it or are planning on doing it.

 

Honestly, this tatbir, zanjeer zani, and the walk on hot burning coals makes Shi'a Islam seem like such a cult. I wouldn't have any problem with these mourning practices if there was actually a standard way of performing it. Instead we have people cutting their backs in the Indo-Pak-Afg region, or hitting their backs with chains in Iran, or slicing open their heads with swords in the Arab world. Why not have something standard so that it isn't so messy and glaringly innovative?

 

One thing I absolutely cannot agree with is when the Fajr adhan for the 10th of Muharram is being recited, some Shi'i have their zanjeers prepared so that right when the adhan is over, they can start hacking away at themselves instead of doing Wudhu` and praying first. Does this make any sense? It is known that if you're reading the Qur'an and you hear the adhan, you should stop reading the Qur'an and read your Salaah first because of how important it is. But in some places, doing these other practices are even more afdhal?!

Edited by Jaabir ibn Hayyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 My question is that if it is not declared absolute haram by Ayatullah Sistani (hz), then i will like doing this year. 

 

Even if Lahore is predominantly Muslim, your "matam" can be seen on video by millions of non-Muslims and pictures flashed in newspapers and magazines all over the world.

 

Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The most relevant post is of Nadar Zaveri brother. As now it is clear that there is no Fatwa of Prohibition of Zanjeer Zani by Ayatullah Ali Sistani (hz), i have decided to do Zanjeer Zani this year....

 

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.

 

Regarding tatbeer, the Sayyid was rather evasive and initially said 'it is under review, but the fatwas given previously should be acted upon'. When I asked him to clarify the issue of damage to the view of Islam (the damage to personal health is obvious), he said 'anything in which the bad outweighs the good is not permissible'. Again, I asked if Tatbeer had this effect but he replied 'it is to be judged by the people'. So, I really couldn't get a straight answer.

 

 

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.

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Al-Salam 'Alykom

"...Tatbir displays a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims, therefore it's Haram to perform"

But is that even valid reasoning to use in order establish such position of declaring a certain act to be Haram? 

 

Apparently it is. Seyyid Sistani has stated wearing Niqab in countries where it would bring a negative image to Islam is not permissible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

so whoever attributes to him ( دام ظله) at times from its permissibility or its prohibition, do not express his viewpoint

 

 

The only other option is that he doesn't know. I really doubt that he doesn't know the ruling. The alternative to him not knowing is that the the quote is fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Apparently it is. Seyyid Sistani has stated wearing Niqab in countries where it would bring a negative image to Islam is not permissible.

Is there Ijma' between the other respected Maraji' in establishing such position on Niqab or similar ones like on Tatbir based on the same reasoning that Sayed Sistani uses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I know that the mujtaheed which I follow allows it, ie. Ayatollah Eshaq Fayyadh.

 

But why would one wanna do zanjeer? OP, I bet you it's because everyone else around u does it and u don't wanna feel left out right? or u wanna show off and give it a try? cause what other reasons could there be?  since non of our imams and even mujtaheeds have done it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I know that the mujtaheed which I follow allows it, ie. Ayatollah Eshaq Fayyadh.

 

But why would one wanna do zanjeer? OP, I bet you it's because everyone else around u does it and u don't wanna feel left out right? or u wanna show off and give it a try? cause what other reasons could there be?  since non of our imams and even mujtaheeds have done it. 

 

Brother, i understand what you want to ask. I did not care of the people around me for two years. I did not do Zanjeer Zani for two years because i had the suspicion that Ayatullah Sistani (hz) has prohibited it which he does not. Why i want to do is an interesting question. The answer is that since the times i started Zanjeer Zani i never did it for show off alhamdulillah. Even i wear black Kameez when i do zanjeer zani to avoid giving perception that i have done Zanjeer Zani. The reason is something you may not understand. I have spiritual pleasure in doing Zanjeer Zani. I do it at Asar time after offering Zoharain and immediately after this i go home take bath and offer my maghribain. The spiritual pleasure in doing this is so immense that i do not like leaving my prayer after doing Zanjeer Zani. I say to myself "You did Zanjeer Zani because you want that may you sacrifice your life at the feet of Imam e Zaman a.s as you were not in Karbala. How you can leave the regular obligatory prayer then?". So how i can make you understand the spiritual pleasure i get?

When we do it at Asar time. We do it as reply to "Istaghasa" of Imam Hussain a.s. In reply to his (a.s) Istighasa we mark our attendance that we were not there at that time but we show our intention that we are ready for our Imam a.s. It is a sort of promise to Imam e Zaman (a.s) that we are ready to reply his "istighasa" on his reappearance. (May Allah hasten his a.s appearance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Brother, i understand what you want to ask. I did not care of the people around me for two years. I did not do Zanjeer Zani for two years because i had the suspicion that Ayatullah Sistani (hz) has prohibited it which he does not. Why i want to do is an interesting question. The answer is that since the times i started Zanjeer Zani i never did it for show off alhamdulillah. Even i wear black Kameez when i do zanjeer zani to avoid giving perception that i have done Zanjeer Zani. The reason is something you may not understand. I have spiritual pleasure in doing Zanjeer Zani. I do it at Asar time after offering Zoharain and immediately after this i go home take bath and offer my maghribain. The spiritual pleasure in doing this is so immense that i do not like leaving my prayer after doing Zanjeer Zani. I say to myself "You did Zanjeer Zani because you want that may you sacrifice your life at the feet of Imam e Zaman a.s as you were not in Karbala. How you can leave the regular obligatory prayer then?". So how i can make you understand the spiritual pleasure i get?

When we do it at Asar time. We do it as reply to "Istaghasa" of Imam Hussain a.s. In reply to his (a.s) Istighasa we mark our attendance that we were not there at that time but we show our intention that we are ready for our Imam a.s. It is a sort of promise to Imam e Zaman (a.s) that we are ready to reply his "istighasa" on his reappearance. (May Allah hasten his a.s appearance).

 

 

For a person who seeks to understand religion and fatwas and rulings it appears that you are very guillable. You asked about Zanjeer Zani Indo Pak style. You were provided 'proof' that Ayatullah Sistani has not expressed opinion about tatbir with no mention of Zanjeer Zani. From this you deduced Ayatullah Sistani has not expressed an opinion about Zanjeer Zani.

 

You claim you are a Muqallid of Ayatullah Sistani but instead of asking the man what his rulings you chase around asking other people.

 

Seems like you dont really want to know the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I am not going to argue further as to whether Tatbir has a foundation or not in the Quran and Sunnah of the Ahlulbayt(as) as that has been discussed in the previous posts. I'm simply wanting to point out the false and at the same time problematic reasoning that Shi'as tend to use in order to make Tatbir Haram just because it doesn't tend to look appealing to non-Muslims. And so what if they don't find it appealing? It's not like western secularists and their likes have only attacked the Shari'a just for Tatbir. Will they stop attacking us and the Shari'a when we continue to firmly believe in Rajam or the stoning of an adulteress women until her death, the beheading of a Murtad who deliberately leaves Islam, the beheading of Homosexuals guilty of the act, or the cutting of the hands of a thief guilty of stealing. If we start to denounce Tatbir based on such reasoning, then I really don't see how this would not open the doors of Kufr for Shias to begin rejecting Rajam, Hudud and other acts valid in our Shari'a just because they see that these acts "give a negative image of Islam to non-Muslims". These acts are all part of the Shari'a of the prophet(saw) sent to him directly from Allah(swt) and will continue to be firmly held by Muslims until the hour is established whether non-Muslims like it or not and like wise for Tatbir considering that after being shown it's roots in the Shari'a. Therefore it really shouldn't matter what non-Muslims think about what our Shari'a advocates. At the end of the day, no matter how much we would attempt compromise our beliefs to try and please them, they will continue to find new excuses to fight Islam regardless if we rejected Tatbir or not, as Allah(swt) explicitly confirmed in Surat Al-Baqara, Ayat 19-20:

 

Bismillah.

 

Salaam brother.

 

The issues you've mentioned regarding Rajm, beheading homosexuals and etc. is totally different from Tatbir;

 

- firstly we have explicit verses and narrations for those actions unlike Tatbir.

 

- Secondly those rules for adultery, steal and etc. must be performed after very strict conditions that some of those conditions are almost impossible to be proven and those actions have been done very rarely and not very publicly. But tatbir is totally different issue for which we don't have any explicit verse or narration and it should be done in memorial ceremonies of martyrdom of the Imam (p) and public sight.

 

- The third point is that we have lots of narrations according to which, Masoom (p) had executed Hudood (legal punishments))  - for adultery and etc. - for some people but we don't have any narration that accordingly a Masoom had done Tatbir or even recommended it.

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

i don't think anybody is saying there is something wrong with crying tears or mourning.

 

it is the first time for me to see the above hadiths, especially the ones of imam hussain breaking his own nose and opening his head, which i find hard to believe. i simply can't imagine an intelligent man, who has surrendered himself to Allah, and realizes that his destiny is from Allah, that such a man would lose control of himself and do zulm to his own body like that,

 

but i don't want to go to far off from evidence. i'm no hadith expert, so others will have to decide for themselves how accurate they are.

 

to me personally logic and quran are in line in this issue. To hurt ones body or damage it, is to do zulm/wrong to it. The opposite of healing and nurturing it. And the quran talks very clearly about doing zulm to oneself. 

 

However, i am very interested to see what hadiths there are and thank you for bringing them up Ibn Al-Ja'abi

 

 

والذين إذا فعلوا فاحشة أو ظلموا أنفسهم ذكروا الله فاستغفروا لذنوبهم ومن يغفر الذنوب إلا الله ولم يصروا على ما فعلوا وهم يعلمون
Sahih International

And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong themselves, remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins - and who can forgive sins except Allah ? - and [who] do not persist in what they have done while they know. 3:135

 

 

 

وما ظلمهم الله ولكن أنفسهم يظلمون

 

And Allah has not wronged them, but they wrong themselves. 3:117

 

ن الله لا يظلم مثقال ذرة وإن تك حسنة يضاعفها ويؤت من لدنه أجرا عظيما

Sahih International

Indeed, Allah does not do wrong/zulm,  as much as an atom's weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.  4:40

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly brother, let me just point out that it was Imam Zain Al-Abidin (as) who hit his head not Imam Hussain (as). Secondly, causing yourself pain while mourning is the same whether it's hitting your head when you see your father's severed head or slapping your face and fainting when you hear your brother reciting poetry about morality. I really don't see slapping yourself as any less worse than hitting your head, apart from bleeding in both cases you want to feel pain. Also, the first verse you have quoted is obviously not talking about self harming as it mentioned Fahisha before it mentioned wronging yourself so it's talking about a sin, however to prove it Mulla Fayz Kashani writes in Tafsir Al-Safi "{ أَوْ ظَلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ } بأن أذنبوا ذنباً أعظم من الزن" ("Or wrong themselves", by sinning by committing a sin greater than fornication), similarly the next two are also not talking about physically harming yourself (with all due respect brother, the one from Surat Al-Nisa isn't even talking about harming yourself but that Allah doesn't do injustice). And though I do not deny that harming yourself isn't okay, I don't think it's as general as you seem to think, from taking up arms in jihad to circumcision all these actions harm the body yet they were sanctioned by Islam so they are alright, similarly mourning for the Imams is as well, and just a reminder, beating your chest until it's bruised doesn't not count as hurting your body.

 

 

I did not find this Hadith in Major and authentic narration books. So I did not search for other Hadith you've mentioned.

 

 

Firstly akhi, even scholars as recent as Sheikh Al-Nuri had books with them which have become lost to us, such as some usul (as is discussed in the prefix of Mizan Al-Hikma), secondly this is a tradition of history so it can obviously be assumed it would be found in a work of history while most of our major sources are fiqhi and aqaid based. Thirdly akhi, even Allama Majlisi and Syed Shabbur say they found the tradition in some mutabar books, it can be deduced they might have been earlier books now lost to us. Wallahu Alam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I don't think Syed Ali Khamanei has jurisdiction to say what Allah or the Masum (as) would like. There are maraja who have allowed it, Ayatullah Rohani, Shirazi, Ayatullah Mirza Tabrizi, Ayatullah Waheed Khorasani, Ayatullah Khoei, Ayatullah Naeni, and the list goes on. There's an interesting incident about Ayatullah Sheikh Zain Al-Abidin in which he goes to Masjid Al-Sahla and meets the Imam and asks him about Tatbir, the Imam permits it and he gave a fatwa based on the fatwa of the Imam. Wallahu Alam, please don't make it seem so one sided.

 

 

(wasalam)

There are many who have opposed it. I can mention many, in fact more than your list. However, your statement that "What the Mas'umeen Would like" is false. There is no authentic narration that supports Tatb'ir. 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? hope not. 

Please note: Do not post any narration unless you are sure of its San'ad.

____________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

 
 

 

Firstly akhi, even scholars as recent as Sheikh Al-Nuri had books with them which have become lost to us, such as some usul (as is discussed in the prefix of Mizan Al-Hikma), secondly this is a tradition of history so it can obviously be assumed it would be found in a work of history while most of our major sources are fiqhi and aqaid based. Thirdly akhi, even Allama Majlisi and Syed Shabbur say they found the tradition in some mutabar books, it can be deduced they might have been earlier books now lost to us. Wallahu Alam.

 

So brother you have access to that lost books? Alhamdulillah. This is the first point. (I was joking) :D 

 

Secondly as you know every Hadith needs its own verification by every scholar and this is why you see that there is disputes regarding the same Ahaadeeth among scholars; some say that that Hadith is authentic while others deny it. Thus if we want to refer to and use a Hadith there is no way but to have access to that and verify it from different aspects; its chain of narrators, its content, its relation with other Ahaadeeth which are accessible in that issue (compatibility or incompatibility), and etc. So you see that jurists won't give verdict (Fatwa) based on a Hadith that is not accessible only because that scholars 800 years ago said that I saw the Hadith.

 

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Firstly brother, let me just point out that it was Imam Zain Al-Abidin (as) who hit his head not Imam Hussain (as). 

 

 

Can you give the full source of this highly doubtful narration. Seems very similar to the Hz Zainab narration which was narrated by a Sunni and contained a lot of inconsistencies in it. 

 

Pro-blood letters of course gloss over the inconsistencies and just quote a single line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Sorry that I'm only able to reply on the weekends I'm really busy with school these days

 

(wasalam)

There are many who have opposed it. I can mention many, in fact more than your list. However, your statement that "What the Mas'umeen Would like" is false. There is no authentic narration that supports Tatb'ir. 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? hope not. 


Please note: Do not post any narration unless you are sure of its San'ad.

____________________

(wasalam)

 

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 (ra)). 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. Now going back to I don't care about what Khamanaei says, 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) 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, 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 (he even has a quote saying that he wishes to be resurrected with the youths who practice Tatbir).

 

In addition, for three reasons Sanad is impertinent here because:

 

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

2. 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

3. 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 - even Syed Al-Khomeini (ra) has attested to this in Adab Al-Salat as can be read in br. Nader's article).

 

So brother you have access to that lost books? Alhamdulillah. This is the first point. (I was joking) :D 

 

Secondly as you know every Hadith needs its own verification by every scholar and this is why you see that there is disputes regarding the same Ahaadeeth among scholars; some say that that Hadith is authentic while others deny it. Thus if we want to refer to and use a Hadith there is no way but to have access to that and verify it from different aspects; its chain of narrators, its content, its relation with other Ahaadeeth which are accessible in that issue (compatibility or incompatibility), and etc. So you see that jurists won't give verdict (Fatwa) based on a Hadith that is not accessible only because that scholars 800 years ago said that I saw the Hadith.
 

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

 

The point of Bihar was to preserve narrations in a source so they aren't lost and Al-Hamdu Lillah Majlisi was able to preserve this narration (which he says he found from a number of reliable books). And it's not at all unlikely that he actually did see books with this hadith in it seeing as he had access to books or books existed in his days which don't exist now (such as a copy of Ibn Sadhan's Ithbat Al-Raj'a which was in possession of one of his rivals), or Dua Tawassul Al-Muqaddas which he said he found in one of Saduq's books which obviously isn't here anymore. Also, (firstly before I go on, I don't deny the third Shahada and take back any of my previous stances denying it whether I said it publically or privately), I find the case of the third Shahada extremely similar to the case of Tatbir in terms of it's fiqhi Dala'il, there is nothing explicitly declaring it however it's dala'il can be found in implicit narrations, and chains are both disconnected and from later works (for Tatbir, it can be found in historical narrations taken from an earlier source now lost and found in Bihar, and for the third Shahada it's found in Al-Ihtijaj also from an earlier primary source delivered Mursal). Also please refer to the line of reasoning I provided above to Br. IslamicHistory.

 

 

Can you give the full source of this highly doubtful narration. Seems very similar to the Hz Zainab narration which was narrated by a Sunni and contained a lot of inconsistencies in it. 

 

Pro-blood letters of course gloss over the inconsistencies and just quote a single line

 

Please refer to the above comments if you want to put doubt into the narration because it comes in later sources, and as for the sources, there are two I know of:

1. Bihar Al-Anwar volume 41 pp. 242

2. (This book actually being in my possession and I found this quotation when reading it) Jila Al-Uyun by Syed Shabbur volume 2 pp. 290

 

And those who are anti-tatbir seem to prefer selected rijalism (or in some cases are just rijalists) over methods of deriving fiqh. Not to generalize obviously but just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

In general, I don't commit tatbir. In my opinion I think people should follow their marja. 

 

Well, here comes the problem. We have great scholars, who have allowed tatbir - so if these knowledgeable scholars allow it, then on what basis do they do that? There must be something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Well, here comes the problem. We have great scholars, who have allowed tatbir - so if these knowledgeable scholars allow it, then on what basis do they do that? There must be something.

 

And this is the difference between Ma'soum and non-Ma'soum. As you know no scholar is Ma'soum, so, it is possible for them to make error. When you see some one's action who is possibly doing mistake and compare it with Ma'soum's action (not doing Tatbir) and you know he will never make mistake, which way do you choose? What does your intellect rule?

 

With Duas.

 

Narsis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

And this is the difference between Ma'soum and non-Ma'soum. As you know no scholar is Ma'soum, so, it is possible for them to make error. When you see some one's action who is possibly doing mistake and compare it with Ma'soum's action (not doing Tatbir) and you know he will never make mistake, which way do you choose? What does your intellect rule?

 

With Duas.

 

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 (swt) knows best.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...