Question 1B: I have seen one more translation online which does not mention the word ‘Zarar’ in translation and also your words in bracket- (excessive harm) is not mentioned there. In fact, it states “if done without any harm”. Are you changing the translation to fit your concepts? In fact, even in some Urdu translations the word ‘Zarar’ is mentioned without the bracket. We all know that ‘Zarar’ literally means ‘Harm’. Pls explain.
Answer: one of the major problems that happens which the reader may even gather an opposite meaning (actually Halal to misunderstand as Haraam) from it is the meaning & translation of word ‘Zarar’ mentioned in the Fatwa. Ayatullah Naini has also used the word ‘Zarar’ and people have wrongly meant merely ‘harm’ from it. This problem also comes in fatwas of other Mujtahideen like that of board of Isteftaat of Ayatullah Sistani, Allah protect him.
Now if a person wants to say that tatbir is Halal will say that see Ayt. Naini specifically says that it is Halal.
If a person wants to say that it is Haraam, then he will say see Ayt. Naini is bringing a condition “-if no harm-” and it is obvious that Matam on face or on head with swords causes harm in literal sense so actually he is saying ‘not allowed’!
This has happened too frequently in case of Maraje like Ayt. Khui, Ayt. Sistani, Ayt. Bashir, etc. who have their Muqallideen spread across the globe in great numbers. (Agha Waheed e Khorasani, who also is a great accepted Marja of our times has not been easily misinterpreted as above because his students have done a great work to spread his words & meanings across.)
This is how list of 70 Mujtahideen is prepared and put online by misinterpretation of the term ‘Zarar’ in a literal sense ‘harm’ instead of keeping it in its original meaning of ‘Fiqh terminology’.
‘Zarar’ is a fiqh term and not supposed to be meant/ translated in literal sense. There is a difference between ‘term’ and ‘literal’ meanings in almost all technical texts including the Holy Quran, Holy Ahadees, Fatwas of Mujtahideen. It cannot be taken merely in literal sense at all.
Example: In the Holy Quran the term ‘Salaat’ is used specifically for a set of actions like 4 Rakaat of Zuhr. The literal sense means ‘Attention/ Invocation’. Now it is wrong to mean this word of Holy Quran in literal sense and if somebody starts paying attention through Yoga or like the Ismailis, replace Salaat with Dua then they are not following the Holy Quran. Rather it is a term and it must mean what the term is defined as and not in literal sense.
This is true also in all technical documents of the present world. Those who are lawyers, judges, etc. who have knowledge of our law of land will understand it better that how wrong it is to change the meaning of a technical term into literal meaning. The whole constitution/ law of our country would fall in mess with such an approach.
Let us read the text of Ayt. Naini carefully. He is saying “It is permissible to hit oneself on the face & chest, even if it causes the body to turn red or black. Likewise, the use of chains (bladed or non-bladed) on the shoulders and back causing the body to turn red or black or even blood to emerge is permissible. With regards to striking oneself with a sword on the head causing blood to emerge, if the person – while doing it -feels safe from Zarar, it is permissible.”
Now whatever he is saying like hitting face red & black, blood, swords, etc. are themselves ‘harm’ in literal sense. Will it then make sense to say cause all these ‘harms’ if you feel safe from ‘harm’!!
The very definition of Matam starts with literal ‘harm’ to self in zikr of Imam Hussain alayhessalam. How do we do Matam without hitting ourselves??
It is like saying “it is allowed to walk to Masjid if you don’t have to move your legs”! Is it possible? Moving legs is an integral part of walking without which walking is not possible.
‘Zarar/ Izrar’ is not haraam only in Maatam as Unwaane Saanvi rather it is haraam in many Ahkamaat like in Roza, Haj, etc. So if we take it in literal sense then almost the entire Shariat gets suspended, Allah protect us from such thoughts.
If somebody goes walking say 200-300 Kms. for Haj or cycling 2000kms for umra or if a young boy of say 9yrs. keeps Roza then all of us get happy.
Is this not Zarar in literal sense? In fact, I have also seen parents stopping their 20Yr. son from Roza saying it will ‘harm’ you or your interests like studies! Can we accept this literal ‘harm’ as an excuse? No, we cannot.
Then how are these Halal and Matam Zarar is Haraam? No, rather all these mentioned are halal and very good rather our definition of Zarar to simply mean ‘Harm’ in literal sense was wrong.
Like, even simply performing Haj has so many ‘harm’ in literal sense involved. In fact, there is ‘harm’ to our efforts, time, money, etc. in literal sense to whatever we do for Allah Ta’ala like education, charity, Namaz, Haj, AmrBilMaaroof, Nahi, business, etc. All these have sawaab even if we are apparently causing harm to our interests for the sake of sacrifice for Allah Ta’ala. These cannot be imagined as Haraam rather they have lot of sawaab based on the sacrifice that we make of our personal interests for Allah Ta’ala. Then why do we turn the tables in case of Tatbir?
Even in Matam literal Zarar has sawaab and according to many Mujtahideen the fiqh term Zarar is not allowed.
Pls check the translations available in Urdu, English or other languages and correct your own concept of this meaning and also correct other’s concept on it.
‘Zarar’ in Matam which some Mujtahideen like Ayt. Naini have disallowed means the following in fiqh:
Reply to Question 1B paused:
Doubt regarding Mahmil on which Janabe Zainab salamullah alayha hit her head:
There is a question that has come up that needs to be answered and then we move ahead with our discussion.
Question: when we say Janabe Zainab Salamullah alayha hit the Mahmil with her head which started bleeding. How is it possible when it is known that she was not given honour by the enemies. Hence, when no honour means no Mahmil. When no Mahmil then no bleeding?
Answer: As we go deeper into the facts of Karbala then only further pain & sufferings of AhleBait Alayhemussalam come to light.
Mostly the type of Mahmil used for travelling or Arabs use for their families is called ‘هودج ‘. This is a cushion based covering on top of the camel which makes the traveller comfortable.
But there is another type of Mahmil used by oppressors to extremely torture someone. This is called ‘قتب‘.
Qatab is a small wooden hump which does not have a surface and is so small that it keeps the camel back bare. This keeps hurting the traveller besides not allowing any solace from the bare rough skin of the camel. The traveller remains unsettled, pained, tortured, restless on top of it.
As a proof of usage of such a qatab we quote about torture of Hazrat Abuzar alayhessalam when it was said:
أخرجوه من بين يدي حتى تركبوه قتب ناقته بغير وطاء،
Take him away from my front till you make him climb a camel with Qatab without a surface,
(أمالي المفيد ص164)
Also, there are numerous proofs available in hadees regarding usage of Qatab for the caravan of Janabe Zainab salamullah alayha.
We quote some here:
ه (صلوات الله عليه) على أحلاس أقتاب الجمال، بغير وطاء ولا غطاء
……and carried his (salwatullahe alayhe) women on the Qatab placed on the camels, without surface and without covering.
(اللهوف لابن طاووس ص170)
Also,
ومنها ما رُوي عن سهل بن سعد الشهرزوري في وصفه لما رأى: ”وإذا بنسوة على أقتاب الجمال بغير وطاء ولا ستر، وقائلة منهن تقول: وامحمداه! واعلياه! واحسناه! واحسيناه! لو رأيتم ما حلَّ بنا من الأعداء! يا رسول الله بناتك أسارى كأنهن بعض اليهود والنصارى! (…) قال: فتعلّقتُ بقائمة المحمل وناديت بأعلى الصوت: السلام عليكم يا آل بيت محمد ورحمة الله وبركاته. وقد عرفتُ أنها أم كلثوم بنت علي، فقالت: من أنت أيها الرجل الذي لم يسلّم علينا أحد غيرك مثل سلامك منذ قتل أخي وسيدي والحسين عليه السلام؟ فقلت لها: يا سيدتي أنا رجل من شهرزور، اسمي سهل، رأيت جدك محمد المصطفى صلى الله عليه وآله. قالت: يا سهل! ألا ترى ما صُنع بنا؟! أما والله لو عشنا في زمان لم ير محمداً ما صنع بنا أهله بعض هذا! قُتل والله أخي وسيدي الحسين! وسبينا كما تُسبى العبيد والإماء! وحُملنا على الأقتاب بغير وطاء ولا ستر كما ترى“!
….”and when the women were on the Qatabs of camels without a surface or covering, and someone from amongst them said: WaaMuhammadaho! WaaAliyaaho! WaaHasanaho! WaaHussainaho! if you would see what the enemies have done to us.
O RasoolAllah! Your daughters are treated like prisoners from the Jews and Christians!……
Sahl said: “I was engaged in fitting the Mahmil and then….”
Umme Kulsum said: “…. and we are carried on Qatabs that have no surface and no covering.”
(مدينة المعاجز للبحراني ج4 ص132)
Sahl says that he was engaged in fitting the Mahmil and then in the same hadees Janabe Umme Kulsum alayhassalam calls the Mahmil as Qatab. Mahmil was a generic name used by Sahl and Qatab was a specific name used by Janabe Umme Kulsum salamullah alayha which shows their interchangeability in usage as above.
Hence, we conclude that the camels of the caravan of Janabe Zainab salamullah alayha did have Mahmil but not the ones used for comfort & honour rather the small humped ones used for extreme torture.
It was this Qatab Mahmil that the hadees talks about here:
فالتفتت زينب فرأت رأس أخيها فنطحت جبينها بمقدم المحمل، حتى رأينا الدم يخرج من تحت قناعها
“Zainab (sa) turned and saw the head of her brother, then hit her forehead on the front part of the Mahmil, until we saw blood coming out from under her veil.”
بحار الأنوار 45: 115، الفردوس الأعلى: 19 – 22، المجالس الفاخرة: 298.
Moreover, our renowned Mujtahideen, Muhaddeseen, Ulama have quoted and relied on this.
They were not kids to say on one side that there was no Mahmil and on the other side say that Janabe Zainab salamullah alayha hit her head on the Mahmil! When we as kids know 2+2 = 4 then we should be rest assured that they too know such simple issues. Rather all of them believe that there was Qatab type Mahmil and hence they say that Janabe Zainab Salamullah alayha hit it with her head.
We should atleast give credit of more than basic understanding of Hadees to our Ulama of such high repute.
Allamah Majlisi a.r. has given his verdict on this hadees as reliable.
فإن هناك من حكم عليها بالصحة كالعلامة شيخ الشريعة الأصفهاني. كما قد رُويت هذه الرواية في مصادر أخرى كمنتخب الطريحي ج2 ص478 وجلاء العيون للسيد عبد الله شبر ج2 ص238 وعوالم الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام) للشيخ عبد الله البحراني ص373. واعتماد أعاظم الفقهاء على هذه الرواية قديما وحديثا يطمئن النفس إلى صحتها، فقد اعتمد عليها الشيخ محمد حسين كاشف الغطاء في كتابه الفردوس الأعلى وأفتى بها، وفي عالم الحوزات يكون اعتماد الأصحاب (أي العلماء) على رواية
Therefore, there is him who has given verdict on its correctness like Sheikh Shariati Isfahani as he has narrated it in another place ‘منتخب الطريحي ج2 ص478 ‘,
وجلاء العيون للسيد عبد الله شبر ج2 ص238
وعوالم الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام) للشيخ عبد
الله البحراني ص373
And Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Kashiful Gita has relied on this hadees and has given his fatwa based on this hadees.
Also, refer Nusratul Mazloom, Ayt. Sheikh Muzaffar, pg. 18 for some of the references.
Aqaed.com, working under the office of Ayatullah Sistani, has also relied on it and submitted it as a proof to all Muslims including Shia & Sunni:
http://www.aqaed.com/faq/2296/
We conclude the answer here and will IA continue back from where we took a pause.
Zarar – Explained further
‘Zarar’ in Matam which some Mujtahideen like Ayt. Naini, Ayt. Khui, Ayt. Sistani have disallowed means the following in fiqh:
قال السيد أبو القاسم الخوئي في مصباح الأصول (ج 2 ص 551) أنه يجوز للإنسان أن يضر نفسه (ما عدا القتل وقطع الأعضاء) إذ لا دليل علي حرمته.
Syed Abul Qasim AlKhoi states in Misbahul Usool (Vol. 2, Pg. 551) that it is allowed for a person to cause harm to oneself (except for killing or cutting away of an entire part of body) as there is no evidence of its hurmat.
| Hurmat of Zarar to oneself are limited to 3: |
حرمة الضرر في النفس هو ثلاثة فقط هي: |
| 1. Killing of a person as it is Haraam. |
1- قتل النفس فهو حرام. |
| 2. Cutting of an entire part of body (like the limbs) |
2- قطع عضو من أعضاء البدن. |
| 3. Destroying one’s abilities (like eyesight). |
3- إسقاط قوة من قوي النفس أو البدن |
The only evidence in Nass as to causing Zarar being Haraam is of causing meaningless death to oneself. Like the Holy Quran:
وَأَنْفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلَا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ
Sura AlBaqarah, 2:195
This Nass also is considered as irrelevant & incomplete by many.
Also Otherwise, there is Nass that states about Zarar in generic way or, as the Fuqaha believe, in an advisory manner and not as an order.
On the other hand, there is too much of mention in Nass of Istehbab/ wujoob of certain actions that are based on cutting body including bleeding.
Examples:
Most of these are taken from Aqaed.com which was earlier working under the office of Ayt. Khui and now under the office of Ayt. Sistani, Allah protect him.
http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/shaeaer/5.htm#4
- Circumcision:
إذا أسلم الرجل اختتن، ولو بلغ ثمانين
Whenever a person becomes a Muslim then he should do circumcision (Khatna), even if has reached 80 years.[الكافي 6/37]
- لا خلاف في استحباب ثقب أذني الغلام. وفي الجواهر [31/263] الإجماع بقسميه عليه، مضافاً إلى السيرة. والنصوص الكثيرة
And also acts like Hijamah as discussed earlier.
These & other Wajib & Mustahab acts are based on cutting of body and letting out blood. Hence, if cutting of body & letting out blood were from Haraam Zarar in themselves then these good actions cannot be based on bad deeds.
Then there are 100s of evidences from the life of Masoomeen Alayhemussalam that they allowed harming themselves in literal sense in the way of Allah Ta’ala. If harming oneself in literal sense was Haraam Zarar then Masoomeen Alayhemussalam would never had allowed harm to be caused to them even in distress, out-of-control or Ibadaat as they are Masooms at all times:
- كان – يعني رسول الله – يقوم على أصابع رجليه حتى تورم
RasoolAllah (Sallallaho alayhe Wa aalehi Wa sallam) used to do Qayaam on fingers of his feet to such an extent that he used to get swellings/ boils.[تفسير علي بن إبراهيم 2/58]
Similar meaning Hadees also in Bihar 17,257; الخرائج 2/917. م
- Imam Sajjad alayhessalam used to extensively exert himself in Ibadat that his color used to change to Yellow & eyes fluidic, and forehead injured, and nose slit due to excessive prostration, boils/ swelling of ankles & legs due to excessive standing in prayers.
المناقب [4/155]
والمفيد في الإرشاد [صفحة255]
- Imam HASSAN alayhessalam says: there was no one in the world more in Ibadat than Fatema (alayha salaam). She used to stand to the extent that the feet used to get boils/ swellings (بحار الأنوار 43/82.)
- AhleBait Alayhemussalam used to go without food for 3 days together which was praised by Allah Ta’ala through the Holy Quran. This starvation for 3 days has been at multiple occasions.
Sura Al-Insan, 76:7.
العلامة الفاضل الطبرسي في (مجمع البيان) [9/611- 612]
والزمخشري في (الكشاف) [4/670].
- Aimma (alayhemussalam) did many Haj on feet to the extent that their feet got boils/ swellings whereas they had the facility available to ride
(سيماء الصلحاء/ 80). Like Imam Sajjad’s Alayhessalam Haj on feet despite his illness and weak body 105 (المفيد وابن شهر آشوب [مناقب آل أبي طالب] أنه سار في عشرين يوماً من المدينة إلى مكة.) and Haj of Hassan (Alayhessalam) walking 25 times (بحار الأنوار 43/399.) and similarly Hussain (Alayhessalam) in riwayat (بحار الأنوار 44/ 192)
It has also reached us from them regarding enthusiasm to go for Ziarat of Imam Hussain (alayhessalam) walking even if with lots of difficulties.
- What has been mentioned earlier of Janabe Zainab Salamullah alayha hitting her head on the Mahmil, Imam Sajjad hitting the wall with head or crying so much so that eyelids get injured and blood starts pouring down. Rather this is the state of all Imams including Imam e Zamana alayhessalam as per reliable ref. given earlier.Furthermore,
- Abbas alayhessalam threw away the water from his hands refusing to drink from Furat despite being extremely thirsty merely in lieu of extreme thirst of his brother (سيماء الصلحاء / 80)
There are more than 100 instances and references narrated on this single page of Aqaed.com! And there are further 100s of references not quoted here. Which makes this concept of ‘causing literal harm to oneself for a good cause as good’ to be Mutawatir beyond doubt. With no stretch of imagination can these be considered as Haraam and of course there is no Shia Faqih who says that causing harm to oneself in literal sense is Haraam.
This concept of Zarar as per Fiqh is explained better in the Fatwa of Ayt. Bashir Najafi, Allah Ta’ala protect him:
Q. Is it permissable to do qama and zanjeer zani hitting yourself with sword and knives?
Ans. 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.
Hence, it is clear here that Zarar is loss of life or losing of a body part and it is not literal meaning of the word ‘Zarar’. Also, this Zarar is Mauzoo and not Hukum and hence will not be determined by Mujtahideen, Allah protect them, as mentioned clearly here.
Hence, let no one befool us that Ayt. Khui/ Ayt. Sistani/ other fuqaha have given fatwa against harming ourselves in literal sense.
Pls read & spread the message for the sake of Ishq e Hussain alayhessalam in our hearts.