Question 1A: There is a condition mentioned in the fatwa- if the person – while doing it -feels safe from Zarar (excessive harm). When condition mentioned then how can you just say it is permissible?
- Mentioning such a condition is called Unwaane Saanvi. This takes the fact/ action from its origin to another fact/ action by itself. The original fact (unwaane awwal) fatwa is either already over or will proceed but now the Mujtahid is dealing with another fact/ action and its rule. The real need to mention the unwaane saanvi comes when the rule regarding unwaane awwal is different from unwaane saanvi otherwise it was not necessary to mention unwaane saanvi.For example:
- Even in fasting the condition of ‘La Zarar’ applies. In fact, it applies to too many of Ahkamaat of Islam. But we easily say that Roza is Wajib. We need not start adding all the multitude of unwaane saanvi while mentioning rule of Unwaane Awwal. But when the Mujtahid is writing a comprehensive document on fasting then he may add ‘if no zarar is caused’ with Roza. Even after adding of these words in detailed document, still we will simply say as ‘Roza is wajib’.
- When unwaane awwal of alcohol is Haraam then there is no real need to again mention a haraam unwaane saanvi. Like you will not find a fatwa like this:
‘Drinking alcohol is haraam – if at the time of drinking- the person feels that it is giving a bad name to our religion’!Since, drinking alcohol is Haraam then that’s it. Full stop. No real need to explain another haraam Unwaane saanvi. In fact, when conditional ‘if’ is there then the above will, Nauzobillah, mean ‘drinking alcohol is Halal’ which is so wrong.
- When unwaane awwal of eating sugar is Halaal then there may come up a need to mention unwaane saanvi based on someone’s question like:
Can I eat sugar if it will terribly cause harm to my health due to my diabetes?
Ans. Sugar is haraam if it causes Zarar.
This implies sugar is not haraam rather Halaal. Unwaane saanvi of Zarar is there then that zarar is haraam. In short:
- Sugar is halaal.
- Zarar is haraam.
These are 2 different rules applied on 2 different facts.
Hence, if someone says, Allah protect us from such thoughts ‘Don’t do Tatbir because these days ignorant people gather wrong image of our religion’ then it means:
- Tatbir is allowed
- Giving wrong image of our religion is not allowed.
- When Mujtahid is dealing with the original fact (unwaane awwal) and also separately dealing with Unwaane Saanvi then it obviously means that he is not deciding whether Unwaane Saanvi is applicable in a given situation or not applicable. If he has already decided then he would not have mentioned rule of unwaane awwal as it would be misleading.Example: if the Mujtahid says: “Roza is Wajib. If it is zarar then haraam.”.
Now if Mujtahid has already decided that Roza is zarar for everybody, Allah protect us from such thoughts, then there was no need to mention Unwaane awwal of Wajib as according to him it is not applicable at all. But when he is saying this unwaane saanvi separately then it means that he is not deciding whether applicable or not. By giving both the original Wajib fatwa and the Unwaane saanvi Haraam fatwa, actually he is asking us to decide whether unwaane saanvi is applicable.
If it is not applicable and we knowingly apply Unwaane saanvi as an excuse of not fasting then it is not the Mujtahid who is supposed to be blamed because ‘deciding unwaan’ was neither his role nor did he do it but he had left on us to decide sincerely. If we are not sincere in deciding the Unwaane Saanvi then we are the ones who will find ourselves in the fire of hell and the Mujtahid will be in heaven for giving the right fatwas and explaining for both situations.
- Actually, the ‘fact’ is different from ‘law’.
Example:
Law: Drinking alcohol is haraam.
Fact: the liquid in front of you is alcohol or it is water.Mujtahid decides the rule. You decide the fact for yourself.Mujtahid will not give Fatwa on a fact like above, say the liquid in front of you is water!!
Unwaane saanvi is a second fact and hence Mujtahid does not decide the Unwaane saanvi. Actually, he is not even concerned whether such a Unwaane Saanvi can ever be applicable in real life of any Muqallid or no. Deciding actuality/ probability of a fact is beyond the scope of a Mujtahid.
Example:
A muqallid writes to Mujtahid: when I take the name of Imam Hussain Alayhessalam on the roads of Karachi then I am sure to be killed. Can I take the name of Imam Hussain alayhessalam on the roads of Karachi?Mujtahid will reply in one of these lines given his scope:
- it is not allowed.
- Given the situation, it is not allowed.
- Causing death to oneself is not allowed etc.
All of above mean the same.
The above Fatwa can be misused by anyone because we don’t understand the fatwa properly. Someone from amongst us can ask us to stop all Azadari on the roads including Julus, etc. based on above Fatwa. The problem is that we don’t understand the fatwa of our Mujtahideen and take wrong decisions.
It is like we go to a doctor and tell him lies that my head is paining whereas the fact is that my stomach is paining. In such a situation, when we get a medicine for headache then we cannot blame the doctor. We told lies to him and not that he decided the fact here.
If 2 persons go separately to a single doctor while having stomach pain. One person says the truth and gets his medicine. The other person goes and says lies that his head is paining and hence that doctor gives another medicine. Now, he cannot say, see the doctor is incapable that he gave a different medicine to me. Also, the liar cannot start giving the headache medicine to others with stomach pain.
When some local Karachi Alim comes to know about this fraud of a muqallid by abusing the concept of ‘Unwaane saanvi’ then he too writes to the same Mujtahid like this:
“When we take name of Imam Hussain alayhessalam on the roads then even non-Shias get attracted towards Imam Hussain alayhessalam.”
Reply will come in one of these lines:
- It is mustahab
- It is wajib
- It has more sawaab etc.
Now both the above fatwas of the same Mujtahid start circulating amongst the Momineen of Karachi. One says Haraam and the other says ‘Mustahab’ or ‘Wajib’.
This is happening in case of all the different fatwas regarding tatbir floating on social media of the same Mujtahid while one mentions ‘Jaez/ Mustahab/ Wajib’ based on original fact (Unwaane awwal) while the other mentions ‘Haraam’ based on Unwaane saanvi which fact may not at all exist in reality or is due to lies on fact of a mischievous person.
This is why when we give fatwa of 250 Mujtahideen from long/ recent past & present based on original fact then we also get in return list of fatwas of 70 Mujtahideen – from the same list above – who have said Haraam IF Unwaane saanvi. All of them actually mean ‘Halal’ but someone is playing mischief with the concept of ‘Unwaane saanvi’.
What we learn from above examples:
- The ‘law’ is given in fatwas by Mujtahideen.
- The fact is decided by us so that the rule can be implemented by us on a particular fact.
- Unwaane saanvi is a second fact. If we give a wrong second fact then rule will come according to that wrong second fact (unwaane saanvi).
- We should not implement such a rule that is based on a Unwaane saanvi that does not exist or is lies.
- Mujtahid or his office is not a fact finding mission. It is supposed to only give law to you without considering if a fact is possible or not possible.
[Note: Rule & Fact criteria have some further classifications and sub-classifications. Scope of this discussion is too brief to allow that.]
We continue with examples:
Many of the social media images, websites are giving lists of Mujtahideen that have given fatwa of ‘Haraam’ for tatbir. As discussed, they are all playing straight fraud on us either by changing text or meaning.
- On one of the anti-tatbir websites, the fatwa of Ayt. Sistani is quoted as ‘So those actions…..’ Which clearly imply ‘unwaane saanvi’. On another Anti-tatbir social media image, in the same fatwa having the same name of questioner & date but the words were changed to ‘so these actions’. This editing was done by some people & then forwarded so that the clarity of ‘unwaane saanvi’ in the previous statement can be hidden!!!
This is how some of these people who are telling us to stop doing Tatbir in the name of religion are lying! If it is really for religion then why this fraud & forgery?
Ayatullah Bashir Najafi fatwa is also quoted on some Anti-Tatbir websites & social media as stopping from tatbir!! Here the fraud is done on us in its meaning. Ayt. Bashir Najafi is a living Mujtahid and still how shamelessly they are changing even his Fatwa’s meanings. Can these people be called as people of any religion with such open fraud and lies? There are so many Zaireen that visit Ayt. Bashir Najafi and personally take the fatwa of Tatbir Halal from him. Yet this group is not afraid that their lies will be caught!
Now let us analyse his fatwa based on what we have previously learnt.
His Fatwa from his official website:
Is it permissible to do qama and zanjeer zani hitting yourself with sword and knives?
It is permitted unless Maula Imam Hussain’s (as) and the Ahl-ul-Bayt’s persecution are considered as propaganda or if he is not allowed by his doctor because it might result in death or losing of a body part. Matam-qama or matam-zanjeer should not be done if he is settled in a part of the world where people due to their ignorance or lack of knowledge about Imam Hussain (as) after watching such matam are turned away from Imam Hussain (as). Therefore it should be avoided in front of such people.
Reference: http://www.alnajafi.org/questions-and-answers/40-fiqh/58-question-on-qama-and-zanjeer-zani.html
Now the fatwa on it is short “it is allowed” then comes the unwaane saanvi in detail words to make the reader understand the ‘IF’ condition which may or may not be existent. The Mujtahid is adding these unaware saanvi not because he feels that such a unwaane saanvi exists but because some of the muqallideen may have posed in other questions or because some other Marja also have clarified this Unwaane saanvi. But such unwaane saanvi may merely be on a theoretical/ academical way and not as an actuality because it is not his scope.
This is how a list of 70 Mujtahideen is collected to lie to us that they say don’t do tatbir! Whereas the fact is that all of them say ‘Tatbir is actually allowed in itself’.
Here a supplementary question comes up:
Why unwaane saanvi concept so important. It is haraam so what difference does it make if it is Haraam due to Unwaane awwal or unwaane saanvi?
Answer: Unwaane Saanvi concept is important because it makes the difference between Halal and Haraam here.
If Tabir is considered haraam Fi nafsehi then what we are doing will be Haraam, Allah protect us from such thoughts.
But when it is Halal and a second fact (unwaane saanvi) is Haraam, then like in case of Ayt. Bashir fatwa the zarar or the condition where Tatbir gives bad image to ignorant people may not even exist according to the Muqallid.
It is an important point discussed already that Unwaane Saanvi’s fact will be decided by Muqallid and not by Mujtahid. The Mujtahid may give a viewpoint when he is posed with a supposition. He is giving a theory on an IF and IF we feel applicability of this IF with sincerity & without doubt THEN we will consider the Unwaane Saanvi.
Actually, there are other Unwaane Saanvi’s of Mustahab or of Wajib that can enter into ‘cutting of body’ and ‘letting out blood’ like Zikr of, restlessness, crying for Imam Alayhessalam.
As Ayatullah Millani puts it that the matter of fact is very crystal clear to us, those who are doing Tatbir do not consider it as ‘creating bad image for religion’ rather they are obviously considering it as unwaane saanvi of Zikr of Imam, becoming restless for Imam, etc. and hence they are doing it.
It will be so unwise to suggest otherwise.
Since, Muqallid is obviously considering the Unwaane Saanvi of Mustahab or of Wajib and not of ‘bad image’ then his understanding of the fact in this ‘Unwaane saanvi’ is credible/ applicable and not of the Mujtahid.
Hence, if the fatwa was on Unwaane Awwal then it would have become Haraam. When it is on a merely supposed Unwaane Saanvi which is not considered as applicable by Muqallid to his situation then given the acceptance of other Unwaani Saanvi by him then it is Mustahab or Wajib.
Also, to add, obviously their doctors or themselves do not feel that they will die or their limbs will be cut in Tatbir. We do not do Tatbir with such intention.
Also, even if any one of the Unwaane Saanvi’s of Zikr, Restlessness, crying for Imam Hussain Alayhessalam, which even individually carry lot of sawaab & Sunnat e Muakkadah, does not exist in an action then at least it will be a way towards all of these and all ways towards a Mustahab or wajib acts also carry sawaab in them. Like learning is Mustahab then going to a place of learning is also Sawaab. If while going to a place of learning a person is not able to reach the place due to some reason also gets sawaab of walking the way. Similarly, even if it is argued that a person may not reach any one of the goals of Tatbir as above still he gets sawaab for treading the way towards each one of them.
In fact, even Wajib actions may enter tatbir as Unwaane Saanvi’s, like if there are people who want to destroy a good Sunnat of Azadari/ Tatbir / zikr / restlessness/ crying as is the case according to many Muqallideen then it may even become a wajib e Kifai to establish/ explain/ promote so as to make it survive despite challenges. We will discuss this point further IA in detail if felt appropriate & if given opportunity.
Pls read & spread the message.