Shias Against Self-Mutilation

[guest050817]

This practice [Tatbir Tatbeer] has caused people to turn away from shi'ism, be disgusted, mock islam as a whole, and class religion and Islam as a superstitious and barbaric practice. Forgetting the infeciton one can get , especially from the scalp route, there is no way a verdict for this act can be given except that the logical and plausible verdict should be that it is has no rational nor lexical basis, and is among the worst of practices.

It breaks my heart when the brave stand of Hussain a.s, his family , and his sahabah r.a is distorted , and every year ashura is defined by blood-filled, gruesome pictures. Whoever practice this ought to know they are causing more damage on us than even our enemies. 

I acknowledge some do it out of love, rather than following cultural norms, but sometimes love can become excess - ghuluw. I assure you , our Imams a.s will not appreciate it.

Ayatullah Mutahhari

“Blood matam in its present form does not have a rational or religious basis. It is a clear instance of deviation. At least, in the present day it causes Shi’ism to be questioned. Activities that do not have any relation to the goals of Imam Husayn Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are razors, blades and locks. Striking the head with a blade is the same. This is a mistake. Some people take blades and strike their heads making blood flow – for what? This action is not mourning.”

Howzah va Ruhaniyat, v.3

In his book “Al Malahama Al-Husainiya”, Ayatullah Mutahhari adopts Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin’s opnion.

[Iskandarovich]

This is one of the practices of some shia muslims that non-shia muslims will not even consider shia islam to be the true islam unless they know the fundamentals of shia islam. 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Iskandarovich

[guest050817]

This is one of the practices of some shia muslims that non-shia muslims will not even consider shia islam to be the true islam unless they know the fundamentals of shia islam. 

 

It is one of the worst tragedies. May Allah swt rid us of this.

 

Shimr and Yazid and the accursed group killed Imam Hussain a.s in the flesh.

 

But what about those who ignorantly, perhaps naively and unknowingly, distort and kill his real message?

 

 

 

Peace be with you,

 

You often see people taking swords and slitting their heads, and the heads of children - forming scalp wounds. This is a dangerous practice that can lead to infection going within the brain itself. 

 

 

Emissiary veins drain into the Venous Sinuses, and any cut or scalp wound or infection - popular and common among the tiny minority who perform blood-mutilation rituals- can lead to infection spreading within this circulation in the Brain.

 

 

Stop this barbaric practice

 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Tawheed313

[Iskandarovich]

This is fuel for salafi propaganda.

What is the opinion of Imam Khamenei about this practice?

[guest050817]

This is fuel for salafi propaganda.

What is the opinion of Imam Khameini about this practice?

 

Grand Ayatullah Khamenei

Ayatullah Khamenei, in his position as the Hakim Al-Shari’i has given a Hukm forbidding blood flagellation. A hukm is binding on all Muslims, unlike a fatwa.

 

 

Question 1450:

Is hitting oneself with swords halal if it is done in secret? Or is your fatwa in this regard universal?

Answer:

In addition to the fact that it is not held in the common view as manifestations of mourning and grief and it has no precedent at the lifetime of the Imams (a.s.) and even after that and we have not received any tradition quoted from the Infallibles (a.s.) about any support for this act, be it privately or publicly, this practice would, at the present time, give others a bad image of our school of thought. Therefore, there is no way that it can be considered permissible.

 

 

Question 1449:

In commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) on the tenth of Muharram, some people hit themselves with a machete, or walk bare-footed on fire. Such actions defame Shi‘ism and put it in a bad light, if not undermine it. They cause bodily and spiritual harms on these doing it as well. What is your opinion in this matter?

Answer:

Any practice that causes bodily harm, or leads to defaming the faith, is haram. Accordingly, the believers have to steer clear of it. There is no doubt that many of these practices besmirch the image of Ahlul Bayt’s (a.s.) School of Thought which is the worst damage and loss.

 

 

Question 1451:

What is the shar‘i criterion in determining physical or psychological damage?

Answer:

The criterion is noticeable and considerable harm judged by common sense.

Practical Laws of Islam.

“Blood matam is a part of the culture that was made up. It is an issue that has no relation to religion and, without doubt, Allah is not happy with it.”

“It is an incorrect action which some people perform – taking a blade in one’s hand and hitting themselves on the head with it spilling their blood. What do they do this for? How is this action considered mourning? Of course, hitting one’s head with their hands is a form of mourning. You have seen over and over again, a person who has had something bad happen to them, hit themselves on their head and chest. This is a normal sign of mourning. But, have you ever seen a person who has had something bad happen to their most loved (ones) hit themselves on the head with a sword until blood flows down? How is this action considered mourning?”

A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372

 

 

 

Not to backbite, but as it is a religious public issue, i warn everyone against listening to Bassim Karbala'i. Yes, he is a popular nasheed and latmiyat reciter, but you only spread such incorrect views by promoting him.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the people i have debated this with, on a whole, follow more what their culture tells them to. It's a shame.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Tawheed313

[Iskandarovich]

Alhamdulillah!

[Musa Sadr]

Grand Ayatullah Khamenei

Ayatullah Khamenei, in his position as the Hakim Al-Shari’i has given a Hukm forbidding blood flagellation. A hukm is binding on all Muslims, unlike a fatwa.

 

 

Question 1450:

Is hitting oneself with swords halal if it is done in secret? Or is your fatwa in this regard universal?Answer:

In addition to the fact that it is not held in the common view as manifestations of mourning and grief and it has no precedent at the lifetime of the Imams (a.s.) and even after that and we have not received any tradition quoted from the Infallibles (a.s.) about any support for this act, be it privately or publicly, this practice would, at the present time, give others a bad image of our school of thought. Therefore, there is no way that it can be considered permissible.

 

 

Question 1449:

In commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) on the tenth of Muharram, some people hit themselves with a machete, or walk bare-footed on fire. Such actions defame Shi‘ism and put it in a bad light, if not undermine it. They cause bodily and spiritual harms on these doing it as well. What is your opinion in this matter?Answer:

Any practice that causes bodily harm, or leads to defaming the faith, is haram. Accordingly, the believers have to steer clear of it. There is no doubt that many of these practices besmirch the image of Ahlul Bayt’s (a.s.) School of Thought which is the worst damage and loss.

 

 

Question 1451:

What is the shar‘i criterion in determining physical or psychological damage?Answer:

The criterion is noticeable and considerable harm judged by common sense.Practical Laws of Islam.

“Blood matam is a part of the culture that was made up. It is an issue that has no relation to religion and, without doubt, Allah is not happy with it.”

“It is an incorrect action which some people perform – taking a blade in one’s hand and hitting themselves on the head with it spilling their blood. What do they do this for? How is this action considered mourning? Of course, hitting one’s head with their hands is a form of mourning. You have seen over and over again, a person who has had something bad happen to them, hit themselves on their head and chest. This is a normal sign of mourning. But, have you ever seen a person who has had something bad happen to their most loved (ones) hit themselves on the head with a sword until blood flows down? How is this action considered mourning?”

A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372

 

 

 

Not to backbite, but as it is a religious public issue, i warn everyone against listening to Bassim Karbala'i. Yes, he is a popular nasheed and latmiyat reciter, but you only spread such incorrect views by promoting him.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the people i have debated this with, on a whole, follow more what their culture tells them to. It's a shame.

Wow that's disappointing , I thought Bassem Al karbalai was better than that. Didn't expect that from him.

[mina]

Indeed time of insanity has come...

Edit:@ Musa,the video is not new,it's a few years old.

Edited May 25, 2015 by mina313

[guest050817]

Let us rid the school of Ahlulbayt a.s against such ghuluw! 

 

I ask Allah swt, and rely only on him, for the sake of Muhammed and his progeny, help us eradicate this during our own life-times!

Peace be with you

 

 

[Iskandarovich]

Tawheed313

You are right about Google but honestly ..

Every reasonable human being will find the selection of shia muslim images biased to the core unless one seeks for confirmation of his prejudiced belief. 

On the other hand .. Wasn't it for negative propaganda I would never be tiggered to find out was Islam is really all about.

 

[Aidan]

How can anyone think that cutting a baby's head is desired by God?

[StrugglingForTheLight]

How can anyone think that cutting a baby's head is desired by God?

Satan and his forces inspire people with llogical innovations that has nothing to do with the light of God and his chosen ones. That's how.

[guest050817]

Tawheed313

You are right about Google but honestly ..

Every reasonable human being will find the selection of shia muslim images biased to the core unless one seeks for confirmation of his prejudiced belief. 

On the other hand .. Wasn't it for negative propaganda I would never be tiggered to find out was Islam is really all about.

 

 

I agree with this brother, but there are some whom negative propaganda can only assist them with spreading hatred towards shia's.

 

It is also known that some shia's are actually supportive of these acts - a notable minority, and hence people seeking truth feel it is part of shi'ism when meeting these shias.

How can anyone think that cutting a baby's head is desired by God?

 

Indoctrination, twisting vague verses of the Quran out of context, appealing to authority and fatwa's:

 

And this Quranic verse:  ": And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?"

[Al-Englisi]

Let us rid the school of Ahlulbayt a.s against such ghuluw! 

 

I ask Allah swt, and rely only on him, for the sake of Muhammed and his progeny, help us eradicate this during our own life-times!

Peace be with you

 

 

 

Bismillah

 

How is this Ghluww? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

 

Are you trying to attack the act in and of itself? or because of the image it gives Shias? If, hypothetically speaking, it gave Shia Islam a positive image, and attracted more people then it deterred and was generally considered for example an act of deep love and courage, would you still hate it with such passion?

 

Just want to see how well and deep you've actually thought this through, if at all. 

[guest050817]

Bismillah

 

How is this Ghluww? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

 

Are you trying to attack the act in and of itself? or because of the image it gives Shias? If, hypothetically speaking, it gave Shia Islam a positive image, and attracted more people then it deterred and was generally considered for example an act of deep love and courage, would you still hate it with such passion?

 

Just want to see how well and deep you've actually thought this through, if at all. 

 

In the name of Allah, the most beneficent the most merciful,

 

Salamunalaikum,

 

I have thought about the subject of tatbir from a young age. Having been part of a community where some members supported this act,(though many also did not) i recall a conversation i had when i was young with a friend of mine, who told me about the rituals in pakistan, where they used zanjeer's and swords. I had already in the past logically concluded it could not be something acceptable to and in the religion of Islam. I, and many shia's living here in Britain not only find the act repulsive on a number of accounts, we have also been bullied because of it, ridiculed, mocked. The message of Hussain a.s to many is simply a shia-cult engaging in barbaric religious superstition. 

 

However, in terms of a serious argument against tatbir, i will write it in bullet points:

 

1. A religious act that gives off a bad image  does not necessarily imply that that act should be forbidden. For instance, some people do not like the Hijab and consider it oppressive. Others consider the Islamic stance towards homosexuality as a barbaric thing. One must therefore not see whether or not an act gives off a bad image, but understand what makes one think of an act as having a bad image in the first place.

 

To elaborate, are people disliking tatbir due to an ignorance of the act, and if an unbiased mind is educated on its tenants, will they then, if they are truly seeking the truth , have more favorable views to that act in question - such as Hijab,and certain islamic views. Would an unbiased mind , upon researching, still reach a conclusion that that act is barbaric and against the nature by which man should act? - Such as tatbir. I therefore will argue that tatbir in itself is an act which gives off a bad image - not due to the ignorance of people with regards to it, but even among the learned and well informed, coupled with the human psychology, repulses many.

 

As for the point that had tatbir been seen in a good light, as an act of bravery, would it justify it? I think for tatbir to be unanimously viewed at that, it would mean a total overhaul of reality, human ethics, human psychology, rationality and Islamic principles. That argument is raised by proponents of tatbir and self-mutilation, and i argue that it is indeed a sign of great devotion, a sign of being willing to sacrifice, but pure intentions do not justify the act.

 

When i get time, i will present many arguments against the act, from medical, psychological, religious, theological etc upon freeing up time inshAllah. I do not disagree with it based on 'image' itself, but a range of very pertinent elements which lead me to consider this act Haram at the very worst, and better to  avoid at all costs at the very best.

 

In terms of using the word 'Ghuluw' i used it not in a theological sense(i.e what constitutes ghuluw, tafweed etc), but more so the literal meaning of the word. An extreme show of devotion our Imams a.s nor the lord of All (Allah swt) to whom the imams a.s and ourselves are slaves, will not be pleased with. It's an extreme act of devotion, going against what is permissible in the religion of Islam. 

 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Tawheed313

[Al-Englisi]

In the name of Allah, the most beneficent the most merciful,

 

Salamunalaikum,

 

I have thought about the subject of tatbir from a young age. Having been part of a community where some members supported this act,(though many also did not) i recall a conversation i had when i was young with a friend of mine, who told me about the rituals in pakistan, where they used zanjeer's and swords. I had already in the past logically concluded it could not be something acceptable to and in the religion of Islam. I, and many shia's living here in Britain not only find the act repulsive on a number of accounts, we have also been bullied because of it, ridiculed, mocked. The message of Hussain a.s to many is simply a shia-cult engaging in barbaric religious superstition. 

 

However, in terms of a serious argument against tatbir, i will write it in bullet points:

 

1. A religious act that gives off a bad image  does not necessarily imply that that act should be forbidden. For instance, some people do not like the Hijab and consider it oppressive. Others consider the Islamic stance towards homosexuality as a barbaric thing. One must therefore not see whether or not an act gives off a bad image, but understand what makes one think of an act as having a bad image in the first place.

 

To elaborate, are people disliking tatbir due to an ignorance of the act, and if an unbiased mind is educated on its tenants, will they then, if they are truly seeking the truth , have more favorable views to that act in question - such as Hijab,and certain islamic views. Would an unbiased mind , upon researching, still reach a conclusion that that act is barbaric and against the nature by which man should act? - Such as tatbir. I therefore will argue that tatbir in itself is an act which gives off a bad image - not due to the ignorance of people with regards to it, but even among the learned and well informed, coupled with the human psychology, repulses many.

 

As for the point that had tatbir been seen in a good light, as an act of bravery, would it justify it? I think for tatbir to be unanimously viewed at that, it would mean a total overhaul of reality, human ethics, human psychology, rationality and Islamic principles. That argument is raised by proponents of tatbir and self-mutilation, and i argue that it is indeed a sign of great devotion, a sign of being willing to sacrifice, but pure intentions do not justify the act.

 

When i get time, i will present many arguments against the act, from medical, psychological, religious, theological etc upon freeing up time inshAllah. I do not disagree with it based on 'image' itself, but a range of very pertinent elements which lead me to consider this act Haram at the very worst, and better to  avoid at all costs at the very best.

 

In terms of using the word 'Ghuluw' i used it not in a theological sense(i.e what constitutes ghuluw, tafweed etc), but more so the literal meaning of the word. An extreme show of devotion our Imams a.s nor the lord of All (Allah swt) to whom the imams a.s and ourselves are slaves, will not be pleased with. It's an extreme act of devotion, going against what is permissible in the religion of Islam. 

 

 

 

Bismillah

 

Wasalam Alaykum wr wb

 

A major problem in your 'arguments' is that you rely heavily on 'numbers'. You do whatever you can to give the impression there are groups and people with the same view you hold, always saying thins like 'other members', 'other scholars/speakers', 'other believers/communities' etc, while oblivious to the face that if we want to use names and numbers, and make that our measuring stick, then you may as well give up arguing. THe opposing side is larger and the majority in most of these discussions (not speaking just about bloodletting), both among the scholars and people. You're in no position to give a ruling on the act or speak about it from a jurisprudential point of view, the most you can do is say what it makes you feel like and the impression some people you know get from it - and then state if you think it's an instance of those actions the jurists have not allowed (since the vast majority of Shia scholars have not given rulings against the act of tatbir in and of itself but rather because of secondary reasons - i.e. image). 

 

I grew up in a community where  the minority practiced blood-letting, however very few people were actually against it. Among those who were against it, a large majority were so because of political reasons or the verdict of Sayyid al-Qaa'id, not because they opposed the action itself. A smaller number (quite small) were against it because they were repulsed by the action and did not want their sect to be associated with it - similar reasons to yours. A smaller group still, were not against the act in its essence, but did not like it because they did not know how to defend it to their non-Shi'i friends. This is the situation for most Indo-Pak and even Iraqi communities in London at least - where i grew up (with different ratios in different communities). 

 

Most Shias are not against blood-letting in mourning ceremonies of Imam Hussain (a), a lot of those who are, base their opposition on secondary factors. 

 

Personally the sight of it disgusts me, but i know that i represent only a smaller fraction of my south London community. 

 

You don't need to present any arguments for or against Tatbir, most people on this forum have seen the arguments and on a jurisprudential level we have to follow our marja'. To discuss how acts like this are seen in Islam, you can't just pick up a few narrations and random verses of the Qur'an. To examine Islam's view on it means to study the large corpus of narrations and verses that give us a general understanding of Islam's ideas on different issue. It is very easy arguable according to the standard Islamic Jurisprudential method that such acts are not problematic fi had nafsi (in and of themselves), but only because of external factors. In many issues the approach is to prove the impermissibility rather then permissibility and legitimacy - this leaves us quite free when it comes to many acts and practices.

 

It's better to avoid making yourself the cause of people amusement and not mention things like 'I will present many arguments against the act from... religious, theological'. That's a silly comment to make when some of our biggest scholars, or even most of them since the introduction of this practice into Shia mourning rituals, have supported this acts and even defended it so fiercely. 

 

Ghluww is a coined term in Islamic discussions. It is very misleading and incorrect to use it in meanings other than what most people would understand it to be, unless you clarify that in your post.  

[Kaaba_Hayder_Khayber]

Infections can take place in lots of ways. My whole family are doctors and I have to say what you've just said has to be is complete rubbish. Infections can take place in millions of ways. What about when muslims go on hajj? In 50 Celsius heat you are pushing your body to the limit but you do it out of love for Allah same with tatbir you do it out of love for Allah.

[Iskandarovich]

Christian monks also don't marry out of love for Allah.

[Haydar Husayn]

While I hate tatbir as much as anyone, and think it's quite frankly a ridiculous practice, I can't really approve of the video. It is reasonably well made, but it is also fundamentally dishonest. I'm sure this isn't intentional, and like many of us have done in the past, you may be going through a stage of thinking that approval of tatbir and what you would regard as ghuluw really are minority views. Well, they may be minority views among the general Shia populartion (although I doubt it), but they are absolutely mainstream among the scholars. It is therefore hopeless to try to argue against these things by simply quoting a few other scholars. It also becomes dishonest to give the impression that most scholars are against something (as I believe you do in that video), when most scholars would be in favour of it. This is also the problem with the Nakshawani lecture you show a clip of (although he really should have known better). Unfortunately, in the age of the internet it will never take long to debunk this kind of apologetic, and you just end up losing credibility. Here are a couple of videos which are more reflective of the status of tatbir among most Shia scholars:

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying you should change your views. Personally, I agree with them. However, in my opinion, you do need to change your style of argumentation. There is nothing wrong with quoting scholars who agree with you if it advances your argument, but you do need to acknowledge the fact that more scholars disagree with you, and engage with that problem. Otherwise, what sense does it make to be relying on scholars as authorities for your argument?

[Sword-Of-Flame]

The sky also rained blood in England on the martyrdom of imam hussein (as) according to GN Garmonsways anglo Saxons chronicles (which is a Christian book).

So if the skies rained blood what's the problem if blood comes out of your body since it already came out of the skies!!

YA HUSSEIN!!!

[Haydar Husayn]

The sky also rained blood in England on the martyrdom of imam hussein (as) according to GN Garmonsways anglo Saxons chronicles (which is a Christian book).

So if the skies rained blood what's the problem if blood comes out of your body since it already came out of the skies!!

YA HUSSEIN!!!

 

Is there anything you wouldn't be willing to believe?

[Ruq]

The sky also rained blood in England on the martyrdom of imam hussein (as) according to GN Garmonsways anglo Saxons chronicles (which is a Christian book).

So if the skies rained blood what's the problem if blood comes out of your body since it already came out of the skies!!

YA HUSSEIN!!!

 

It seems likely the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain

[Bulgarian_Shia]

It seems likely the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain

Bismillah

How come it occurred in the same year as Imam hussein (as) martyrdom? Tatbir is a fundamental shia practice

Also the skies raining blood was also mentioned by the daughter of imam ali (as) at the court of yazid. So hadiths match with the historical NON Muslim accounts who have absolutely no reason to be biased and who were in fact talking about something else.....

Edited May 31, 2015 by Bulgarian_Shia

[Haydar Husayn]

Bismillah

How come it occurred in the same year as Imam hussein (as) martyrdom? Tatbir is a fundamental shia practice

Also the skies raining blood was also mentioned by the daughter of imam ali (as) at the court of yazid. So hadiths match with the historical NON Muslim accounts who have absolutely no reason to be biased and who were in fact talking about something else.....

 

It didn't happen in the same year (see http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235008559-anglo-saxon-chronicles-rain-of-blood-ashura/), and why would it have happened in England of all places?

 

By the way, how can tatbir be a fundamental Shia practice, when it only started being performed by Shias a few hundred years ago?

Edited May 31, 2015 by Haydar Husayn

[Sword-Of-Flame]

Is there anything you wouldn't be willing to believe?

It's written by a Christian so he has no reason to lie.....also it records it in 680 AD the same year as imam hussein (as) martyrdom.....

It didn't happen in the same year (see http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235008559-anglo-saxon-chronicles-rain-of-blood-ashura/), and why would it have happened in England of all places?

By the way, how can tatbir be a fundamental Shia practice, when it only started being performed by Shias a few hundred years ago?

That's not true tatbir is wajib.....it comes from the daughter of MAULA ali (as)

[Haydar Husayn]

It's written by a Christian so he has no reason to lie.....also it records it in 680 AD the same year as imam hussein (as) martyrdom.....

Look at the scan of the book that is contained in the thread I linked to. The year is 685 AD.

Throughout northern and western Europe there are many cases of rains of blood which were used by contemporary writers to augur bad events: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 685, "there was a bloody rain in Britain. And milk and butter were turned to blood. And Lothere, king of Kent, died".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain#History_and_use_in_literature

That's not true tatbir is wajib.....it comes from the daughter of MAULA ali (as)

Tatbir is wajib? Proof? You do realise that the practices of a non-infallible don't make anything wajib, right?

[Nuclear-Weapon]

Is there anything you wouldn't be willing to believe?

Asalam Alaykum,

Come on mate read his post carefully. He's stating a point reply to it otherwise stay quiet.

[Haydar Husayn]

Asalam Alaykum,

Come on mate read his post carefully. He's stating a point reply to it otherwise stay quiet.

If have replied to his point. Maybe you should have read the rest of the discussion before breaking your silence.

[Sword-Of-Flame]

Look at the scan of the book that is contained in the thread I linked to. The year is 685 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain#History_and_use_in_literature

Tatbir is wajib? Proof? You do realise that the practices of a non-infallible don't make anything wajib, right?

That's not true the daughter of MAULA ali (as) was infallible which is why tatbir is wajib.

Imam hujjat (as) is going to kill mostly SHIAS and your post is a proof of this.

Yes it was 685 AD.....not 680 AD

[Haydar Husayn]

I was going to continue replying, but it just feels wrong.

[peace seeker II]

what is the connection between blood raining down from the sky (whether that truly happened or not) and hurting oneself .. doing zulm to oneself ?? that is no proof.

 

proof is when we have a hadith of Imam zain al abedeen hurting himself for the love of his father every muharram ... oh well, that didn't happen, and we have no such hadith . interesting isn't it?

 

we have so many ahl bayt members tragically killed without having people stab or slash themselves, that it makes it truly ridiculous to say it's a shia belief. shia of what? ahlulbayt? i don't think so

 

what kind of Imam would want to see his followers hurt themselves?

[Sword-Of-Flame]

what is the connection between blood raining down from the sky (whether that truly happened or not) and hurting oneself .. doing zulm to oneself ?? that is no proof.

proof is when we have a hadith of Imam zain al abedeen hurting himself for the love of his father every muharram ... oh well, that didn't happen, and we have no such hadith . interesting isn't it?

we have so many ahl bayt members tragically killed without having people stab or slash themselves, that it makes it truly ridiculous to say it's a shia belief. shia of what? ahlulbayt? i don't think so

what kind of Imam would want to see his followers hurt themselves?

Zulm is what was done to the prophets family (saw).

When it comes to love for ahle bayt (as) no hadith are required just like when hazrat owais qarni (as) took his teeth out after mourning the prophet (saw) losing just two tee that ohud prophet (saw) commended this act of devotion. Even though there was no hadith at that time to prove what hazrat owais qarni (as) did but because it was done out of love no hadith was required. There are thousands more examples in this regard.

Unfortunately, the youth born in the west are coconuts, brown from the outside but white from the inside their idea of love is some stupid Hollywood movie. As my master SYED says "you have to love to hate and hate to love". He will be back tomorrow to further explain.....

[Ruq]

That's not true the daughter of MAULA ali (as) was infallible which is why tatbir is wajib.

Imam hujjat (as) is going to kill mostly SHIAS and your post is a proof of this.

Yes it was 685 AD.....not 680 AD

 

Isnt there a bridge you need to be getting back to.

 

[Bulgarian_Shia]

what is the connection between blood raining down from the sky (whether that truly happened or not) and hurting oneself .. doing zulm to oneself ?? that is no proof.

proof is when we have a hadith of Imam zain al abedeen hurting himself for the love of his father every muharram ... oh well, that didn't happen, and we have no such hadith . interesting isn't it?

we have so many ahl bayt members tragically killed without having people stab or slash themselves, that it makes it truly ridiculous to say it's a shia belief. shia of what? ahlulbayt? i don't think so

what kind of Imam would want to see his followers hurt themselves?

Here in Sofia we proudly do tatbir on the streets for the love of imam hossein (as). People watch but they can understand but they can also understand from the suffering of Jesus christ. Catholics also self flagellate in Italy. And some Catholics here as well.

As Sword of Flame rightfully said love nowadays is some perverse 21st century stupid concept. Just to give you guys an example in Hollywood films the hero is always the guy that's having an affair with the guys wife and the bad guy is always the poor guy whose getting cheated on take titanic for example. Slowly times are changing and real love is dying

LABBAYK YA HUSSEIN!!

Edited May 31, 2015 by Bulgarian_Shia

[peace seeker II]

Zulm is what was done to the prophets family (saw).

When it comes to love for ahle bayt (as) no hadith are required just like when hazrat owais qarni (as) took his teeth out after mourning the prophet (saw) losing just two tee that ohud prophet (saw) commended this act of devotion. Even though there was no hadith at that time to prove what hazrat owais qarni (as) did but because it was done out of love no hadith was required. There are thousands more examples in this regard.

Unfortunately, the youth born in the west are coconuts, brown from the outside but white from the inside their idea of love is some stupid Hollywood movie. As my master SYED says "you have to love to hate and hate to love". He will be back tomorrow to further explain.....

Arguing with someone who says there is no need for Hadiths, while ignoring the Quran being against Zulm of the self is useless.

We all know what happens to people who go with their own opinions .

Here in Sofia we proudly do tatbir on the streets for the love of imam hossein (as). People watch but they can understand but they can also understand from the suffering of Jesus christ. Catholics also self flagellate in Italy. And some Catholics here as well.

As Sword of Flame rightfully said love nowadays is some perverse 21st century stupid concept. Just to give you guys an example in Hollywood films the hero is always the guy that's having an affair with the guys wife and the bad guy is always the poor guy whose getting cheated on take titanic for example. Slowly times are changing and real love is dying

LABBAYK YA HUSSEIN!!

Same goes to you: talking without Quran and clear Hadiths as background is pointless in islam. Using some Christianity innovations or Hollywood bashing isn't gonna do it.