This action has not been
mentioned anywhere in the Holy Shariah. Not only that, but in any case
it causes damage and becomes a source of mockery for the others, it is Haraam. [here]
What is Tatbir?
Tatbir (Arabic) is amongst a set of bloody rituals that are performed by
some Shia Muslims in commemoration of the great tragedy of Karbala,
when the family of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was massacred by a
group of corrupted Muslims. Tatbir is performed by striking the head with a sword
or knife until blood gushes out. In the Persian language Tatbir is
called Qama Zani.
Some Shias in the Indian subcontinent also perform an act called Zanjeer
Zani (usually called Zanjeer). It involves repeatedly striking the back
with a chain of blades with the intention of cutting the skin and
causing blood to flow. Tatbir and Zanjeer are the two most widely practised of the blood shedding rituals. Other rituals include injuring
oneself with a stone, padlock or chain.
Although these blood shedding rituals are historically not a part of
Shia Islam, for some Shia Muslims they have become a central part of
their religious practice.
It was Never Practiced or Recommended by the Ahl-ul-bayt (pbut)
Blood mourning rituals were never practiced by the founders and
teachers of Shia Islam. There is not a single shred of evidence that the
latter Imams (a) performed blood rituals. The modern day proponents of
these damaging rituals shy away from mentioning this glaring fact.
If these rituals had any inherent merit in the eyes of Islam then
they would have been practiced by the Holy Prophet (s) and the Twelve
Holy Imams (a).
The Ahlulbayt (a) are divinely guided role models for Muslims and it
is an obligation upon us to try and emulate them. Therefore it could be
argued that the best way to mourn Imam Hussain (a) is by emulating the
mourning of Ahlulbayt (a). Since they (a) did not perform these rituals,
then the Shia should walk in their footsteps and refrain from
performing them. A Shi’i who keeps away from blood rituals is closer in action to the Ahlulbayt (a) than one who performs them.
Considering the very controversial nature of the rituals, it wise to
refrain from them and to carefully follow the practices of Ahlulbayt (a)
in the manner that has been recommended by Imam Ali (a):
“Look at the people of the Prophet’s family. Adhere to their
direction. Follow their footsteps because they would never let you out
of guidance, and never throw you into destruction. If they sit down, you
sit down, and if they rise up you rise up. Do not go ahead of them, as
you would thereby go astray and go not lag behind them as you would
thereby be ruined.” – Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 96.
Some proponents of blood flagellation argue that the
Imams (a) may have performed the rituals in private, and that may be the
reason why we have no evidence that they (a) performed these rituals.
Therefore we should not deny the fact that these rituals are Islamically
recommended.
Any sincere person with a working intellect would not fail to see the
flaw in that argument. If the argument were valid then it could be
applied to a whole range of actions that have no Islamic backing. Any
given Muslim could innovate a ritual and claim that we should not deny
that it is Islamically recommended because it may have been performed by
the Ahlulbayt (a) in private. For example we could innovate a new
prayer with sixty four rakats and justify it by saying: “Don’t say it is
not mustahab, maybe the Imams (a) did it in private!”
The lack of evidence in this case is sufficient to justify the proposition that the Imams (a) did not perform those rituals.
The History of Blood Mourning Ceremonies
For about a millennium after the tragedy of Karbala, the Shia did not
practice blood shedding when mourning the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a)
or any of the Ahlulbayt (a). Instead they mourned in a traditional and
more natural manner, which included the methods used by the Imams (a)
and their families. However this changed when blood rituals were
introduced into the mourning gatherings of the Shia.
Historians have shown that blood rituals were foreign cultural
practices that were introduced to certain elements of the Shia community
relatively recently in the history of the religion.
Quoting Professor Werner Ende in
“The Flagellations of Muharram and the Shi’ite ‘Ulama’”:
Muhammad Mahdi al-Qazwini, however, in a work finished
in the month of Ramadan 1345 H (March 1927), claims that the use of
iron, i.e. of chains and swords for flagellation, was initiated “about a
century ago” by people not well versed in the rules of the shari'a.
Source.
Below is an excerpt from the book
“A Hidden Hand” which describes how these cultural practices entered the Shia community via external sources.
There are differences of opinion as to when blood matam started.1
The most reliable opinion is that the cutting of the head was a
practice performed by the Turks in Azerbaijan which was transferred to
the Iranians and Arabs.2
The Iraqi author of the book The Tragedy of Karbala also believes
that such practices were not common in Iraq before the nineteenth
century. At the end of this century they started to gain popularity in
this country. Therefore, blood matam started elsewhere and came to Iraq
which means it is not rooted in Arab heritage.3 Shaykh Kazim
Dajili also accepts this view and says: “Iraqis did not participate in
these processions until the beginning of the twentieth century. This
practice was first seen amongst the Turkish Iraqis, Sufis, and Western
Iranian Kurds.”4 A report by English sources covering Ashura
in Najaf in the year 1919 shows that 100 Turkish Shias performed blood
matam that year.5
Memories of Sayyid Muhammad Bahr al-Ulum support this claim as well:
“When I was in Najaf around 50-60 years ago there were only a fewTurkish
mourning groups. They would come to Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum’s house on the
days of mourning and with his permission they would recite emotional
poems about Imam Hussayn (a). Some of them would slightly injure
themselves while listening to the poems in order to try to feel what
Imam Hussayn felt. Slowly this type of action changed and spread until
it reached its peak when it was outlawed in 1935 by Yasin Hashimi, the
prime minister of the time. In reality, this oppressive action had an
opposite effect1 – in such a way that the number of mourning groups tripled.”2
Hajj Hamid Razi (d.1953) was a police man in Karbala and lived to be
about 110 years old. He told his memories regarding the mourning of Imam
Hussayn (a) – about blood matam which he says was not normally
practiced in Najaf or Karbala when he was young.3 There
has been no recollection by elder people of Najaf and Karbala saying
that there were these processions before the middle of the nineteenth
century. These processions where first performed by Turkish visitors
from the Qizilbash Tribe. When they would perform a ziyarat to Imam
Hussayn (a) they would strike their heads with special swords.4
The full book can be purchased
here for a nominal price.
Yitzhak Nakash in his article: “An Attempt to Trace the Origin of the Rituals of ʿĀshūrāʾ”, states the following regarding the origin of these practices:
The flagellations were introduced into central and
southern Iran, as well as into Iraq, only in the nineteenth century.
This proposition is supported by the data provided by Shi’i biographies
and Iraqi Shi`i oral history. The biographies identify Shaykh Mulla Agha
`Abidal-Darbendi (d. 1868/9) as the first to introduce violent acts of
self-flagellation into Tehran around the mid-nineteenth century.
Darbendi is said to include in this work uncommon
rituals, not to be found in other accepted Shi’i Imami writings on the
commemoration of ‘Ashura.54 The relatively late appearance of
flagellation in Iraq is also evident from Shi’i accounts. The Iraqi
Shi’i mujtahid Muhammad Mahdi al-Qazwini is cited by Werner Ende as
claiming around 1927 that the use of iron was initiated “about a century
ago” by people not well versed in the rules of the Shari’a.55
Indeed, Iraqi Shi’i oral history traces the appearance of flagellation
in Najaf and Karbala to the nineteenth century. It is related that the
practice was imported to these cities by Shi’i Turks, who came to
Karbala and Najaf on pilgrimage from the Caucasus or Azarbayjan.56
The author goes on to state that the Qizilbash, an extreme ghulat
Turkish sect, seemingly introduced blood rituals to Imami Shias. He then
points out that the Qizilbash took their flagellation rituals from some
Christians. Therefore the Shia blood rituals most probably have a Christian origin.
Sufi and Christian elements were fused in the rituals of the Qizilbash.62
As will be seen below, this was also evident in the flagellations,
which reenacted the shedding of Husayn’s blood in a manner similar to
the reenactment of the shedding of the blood of Christ among Christian
Catholics.
__________
1 An Article in a Shia media outlet entitled: Maruri bar Tarikh Takvin Majalis va Aeenhaye Azadari dar Iran by Mohsin Hassam Mazaheri, Akhbar Adiyan Magazine, number 18, Farvardin va Ordibehesht138
2 Abdullah Mastufi, Sharh Zendiganiye Man ya Tarikh Ijtemai va Idari Douran Ghajariyeh, v.1 and 3.
3 Ibrahim Haydari, The Tragedy of Karbala (tradjedi Karbala) translated into Farsi by Ali Mamouri,p.475
4 Kazem Dajili, Ashura fi al-Najaf wa Karbala, p.287; Mahmoud Darah, Jiyyat Iraqi min wara’ al-Bawabih al-Sawda’, p.24
5 Naqash, p.269 (quoting from: Administration Report of the Shamiyya Division, Great Britain)
1 Anytime an action is forbid with force without any kind of intellectual or cultural explanation given it will have an opposite effect.
2 Goftegu ba Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum piramoun Azadari Husseini, Nour Magazine, number 74, January 1997
3 Tradjedi Karbala, a conversation with Doctor Shakir Latif, 4,12,1996
4 Talib Ali Sharqi, al-najaf al-Ashraf Adatha wa Talidha
* * *
The Safest Course for Shia Muslims to follow
Considering all the arguments that are presented in favour of and
against blood flagellation, the safest course of action to take would be
to refrain from the rituals. Consider the following four scenarios*:
1, If a
person performs
blood shedding and if the act is detrimental
for all the reasons that have been given, then that person would be
committing some serious sins.
2, If a person performs blood shedding and if the detriments are not
real then the merit of performing the acts is very minimal since
Ahlulbayt (a)
would not refrain from a significantly meritorious act.
3, If a person refrains from the performance of blood shedding and if
the act is detrimental for all the reasons that have been given, then
that person would receive rewards for refraining from a harmful act that
was not practiced by Ahlulbayt (a).
4, If a person refrains from the performance of blood shedding and if
the detriments are not real then the merits lost due to non-performance
is very minimal since Ahlulbayt (a)
would not refrain from a
significantly meritorious act.
The argument can be summarized using the following decision matrix:
|
The rituals are detrimental |
The rituals are not detrimental |
| Perform blood shedding |
Commit serious sins |
Minimal rewards |
| Refrain from blood shedding |
Rewards available |
Avoid minimal rewards |
