Every year, Shiites mark the anniversary of Ashoura. This usually brings up many discussions, mostly about the ways people celebrate. But there are deeper questions too: Is it truly necessary to celebrate an event from hundreds of years ago from a religious standpoint? How can we use this commemoration in a positive way for today's political and social realities? And there are more questions about where the Husseini story comes from and how accurate it is, especially because its details can differ. Most of these celebratory traditions started from popular initiatives and later became so entrenched that even religious scholars sometimes hesitate to criticize them.
However, Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, who had previously faced strong backlash for publicly stating that striking heads with swords and backs with chains was forbidden, didn't limit his criticism to just these methods this time. He also questioned the accounts within the Husseini narrative, given that Husseini gatherings are a key part of the commemoration. He did this by rejecting any distortion or exaggeration in retelling historical facts, calling for a scholarly and unbiased review of these texts to make them as realistic as possible.
To some, Sayyed Fadlallah seemed to challenge sacred beliefs by stating: "It is not civilized for people to fall into an overwhelming, almost frantic, state of weeping." He was referring to intense emotional reactions to the occasion, though he still stressed the importance of revisiting history to draw lessons from it.
While he emphasized the significance of Ashoura's objectives, which he saw reflected in achievements like the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, he also urged against exploiting the occasion to ignite sectarian tensions.
These were some of the ideas Sayyed Fadlallah discussed in his interview with a Lebanese "Al-Safir" newspaper reporter on May 27, 1996:
Sources of the Husseini Narrative
Q: Each year during Ashoura, the Husseini narrative forms the core material for remembering this event. What are the sources for the text of the Husseini narrative?
A: Perhaps two of the most reliable sources that discussed the Husseini narrative are Tarikh al-Tabari and "Al-Luhuf fi Qatla al-Tufuf" by Sayyed Ibn Tawoos. When you examine these two texts, you find a reasonable balance in how they present the event, considering its natural circumstances and inherent possibilities.
However, since this event, from its very beginning, stemmed from profound grief, that sorrow became a stirring element in how this tragedy has moved through time. This naturally made the profound grief a central part of how many generations throughout history understood this commemoration.
It's natural that profound grief needs many elements that can stir emotion to deeply affect feelings and senses, drawing attention to various stories and compelling the conscience to react intensely to the event.
That's why we saw those who stir up mourning began to compete in methods of emotional arousal. Naturally, such competition created an environment ripe for many fabricated stories and narratives. The late Sayyed Muhsin al-Amin realized this, which led him to write "Al-Majalis al-Saniyah" as an attempt to address these flaws. His book contains Ashoura gatherings, which he offered to reciters of mourning sermons based on what he considered reasonable narrations. Though some felt this attempt wasn't perfectly successful, it was still a step forward.
And we also saw that Martyr Mutahhari, in his book "Al-Malhamah al-Husayniyyah," raised many questions about numerous narrations in his lectures on this subject. We believe that presenting the narrative now runs into problems with many issues, stories, and atmospheres that can raise questions.
Many who resist an objective and scientific look at these stories often argue that the goal is simply to stir up emotion and that there's no religious or behavioral problem involved. They also worry that criticizing these accounts could spark strong public backlash, especially since many of these ideas are deeply embodied in popular sentiment.
However, we disagree with this view. We believe it's essential to examine the Husseini narrative critically, just as one would examine the Prophet's honored biography (Sira) or any other historical text. Even though history happened long ago, it has become deeply woven into our culture, our faith, and our political movements. Therefore, when we present unrealistic portrayals as if they are true—especially since they're linked to Imam Hussein (a.s.), whose words and actions are seen as the true religious path—this risk mixing legitimate and illegitimate elements into our revolutionary struggle.
I think it's crucial for this criticism to be objective and scientific. This way, we can achieve a balanced account that, even if not the absolute truth, is as close to reality as possible, while still preserving the deeply tragic essence of the events.
I also believe that reciters of mourning sermons, if they have a strong literary and artistic way of expressing themselves, and can stir emotions skillfully, can convey the tragedy of Imam Hussein (a.s.) effectively without the need to invent new stories or tales.
Reviving History is a Civilized Act
Q: Perhaps the main issue you mentioned is related to how people interact with the commemoration, meaning that some Muslims get carried away by emotion and zeal, which makes them interact with it significantly, while others don't feel the credibility of what is narrated and told, which causes a somewhat negative reaction?
A: The other perspective, not necessarily from Muslims, might not approve of keeping this commemoration alive in such a popular, overly emotional religious way. They might argue there’s no real reason to stir up a historical tragedy, since any history will contain many sorrows based on its circumstances—whether it's a conflict between two sides or the powerful suppressing the weak. From this viewpoint, stirring up tragedy to move people's emotions, influences their lives, and make them live an overwhelming, almost frantic, state of weeping.
Some Muslims, on the other hand, might approach this issue by saying that Ashoura is directed against a group representing the Sunni Islamic line in history, because Sunnis respect the Umayyads. Therefore, speaking negatively about the Umayyads could negatively affect Islamic unity, peace, and cohesion. From this angle, they see stirring up Ashoura every year as re-stirring historical tensions that feed into existing sectarian sensitivities among Muslims, based on what each side considers sacred. But I'd like to make two points regarding these ideas:
First, I believe that reviving a historical memory isn't an inhuman or uncivilized act. We see the entire world, regardless of its political leanings, celebrating anniversaries every year. These might be linked to a national or ethnic victory in a battle hundreds of years old, or to a tragedy resulting from a specific conflict or political situation that also dates back decades or centuries.
Furthermore, the present in no way lives separate from history. A person trying to affirm themselves, give legitimacy to their current stage, and focus their steps toward progress and development, still finds bright spots in history. These spots remain relevant for any time of darkness, or they offer lessons not tied to a specific period but to life itself, making them lessons for the past, present, and future. Sometimes, there's a need for a type of inspiration that people can't find in the present, so they draw it from history.
The Quran on History
The Holy Quran speaks about history in two ways:
The first way: "There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding." Surah Yusuf (12:111). This means that the purpose of a historical story is to provide a lesson, serving as guidance that intelligent people can take from history to benefit the present.
The second way: "That is a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do." Surah Al-Baqarah (02:141). This verse emphasizes that history isn't the responsibility of the present generation, but rather of those who made it. So, we shouldn't burden ourselves with history as if we, or others, are responsible for it, simply because some are linked to one part of history and others to another. There's no point in me bearing responsibility for a history I didn't create or blaming others for a history they didn't create. What our ancestors lived belongs to them. The issue is that we are asked about making our own history: "That was a nation that has passed on. It will have what it earned" of good or evil, "and you will have what you earned" of good or evil. "And you will not be asked about what they used to do," so don't dwell on your responsibility for that history!
The second observation is that we can learn from this not to blame today's Shiites for some of the past negative issues between Sunnis and Shiites, nor to blame today's Sunnis for past wrongs against Shiites. Shiites and Sunnis now live in one era and one stage. Differences in understanding Islam, its dynamics, or in revering certain figures remain viewpoints we can discuss. But historical facts are not our responsibility, and we shouldn't throw accusations at each other based on them.
The Mission of Hussein (a.s.) and Yazid's Deviation
From all of this, we say that the cause of Imam Hussein (a.s.) has several dimensions. When we study Al-Hussein, we study a human who embodies magnificent spiritual human values, profoundly open to God and living the deepest essence of Islam. He engaged with people openly and lovingly, moving forward on issues related to Islam's role in society. In contrast, Yazid, in his historical portrayal, represents the corrupt individual with no religious commitment, who commits forbidden acts like drinking alcohol and unlawful killing. He possessed no spiritual, moral, or human values in his rule and lacked any competence, the differing views on legitimacy between Sunnis and Shiites notwithstanding.
So, there are two personalities: the ideal, noble personality, and the tyrannical personality, as Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad describes in his book "Abu al-Shuhada'."
Then we find that the matter relates to the broader Islamic reality. There was a kind of deviation imposed on this Islamic reality due to the chaos that resulted from strife and the Islamic world moving away from the true line of Caliphate, turning it instead into a tyrannical monarchy. Many narrators or Hadith scholars then began fabricating stories to praise certain figures or concepts, leading to differences in understanding and deviations in behavior.
Weeping: A Civilized Human Emotion
As for weeping, it is not an uncivilized act because it's connected to the human emotion stirred by tragedy in the life of someone you love or highly appreciate. This is especially true when faced with savage massacres against humans and children, in a profoundly disturbing way.
The uncivilized aspect lies in emotional harshness, indifference, and coldness in the face of tragedy. If a person isn't affected by historical tragedy, they won't be affected by present-day tragedy, which leads to a passive relationship with reality. We don't believe that Shiites live in a constant state of weeping crisis. Instead, they embrace Al- Hussein, whom they love, and they love his household and companions, driven by their love for what these figures represent in terms of the message. They see in him a revolution and a lesson, just as they experience the tragedy that draws their tears from their human and spiritual core, as the poet said:
"My eye weeps for you not for reward, but only for you my eye weeps."
The Connection Between Ashoura and the Present
Q: In this context, a crucial question arises: Is the main idea behind celebrating Ashoura to link the present with history?
A: Imam Hussein (a.s.) summarized the political approach in leadership with these words: "O people, verily the Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sees a tyrannical ruler, making lawful Allah's prohibitions, breaking his covenant, violating the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, acting among the servants of Allah with sin and aggression, and does not rise against him with action or word, it is fitting for Allah to admit him to his abode. Behold, these people have adhered to the obedience of Satan, and abandoned the obedience of the Most Merciful, and have manifested corruption, and nullified the laws, and appropriated the public treasury, and made lawful what Allah has forbidden, and forbidden what Allah has made lawful, and I am the most worthy to change that.'" [Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 307].
When we consider all these points, we find that we can draw inspiration from the personality of Imam Hussein (a.s.) in our current reality, comparing him to Yazid, and seeing how these two personalities are mirrored in various figures today. We can also compare the conceptual and practical deviations in that historical Islamic society with our own society today. Then, we can look at the leadership approach that Muslims consider—how a leader should be—and the revolutionary spirit of rising against an unjust, corrupt leader.
If we recognize that these principles, which connect to every aspect of our political and social Islamic reality, became inseparably linked with the blood of the Household of the Prophet (p.) in a profoundly human tragedy, then it means that if we present this to any generation, they would feel that human impact and be filled with a revolutionary spirit against such oppressive figures.
We always emphasize that when we recall the tragedy, we must maintain its emotional element through balanced, heartfelt methods. When the cause is infused with tragedy, its impact on the human soul is deeper. This ensures that evoking the Karbala tragedy becomes a revolution against all those who create tragedies in the present.
As for the Islamic aspect, I believe that when we engage with the Sunni Islamic tradition, we don't think that the story of the Umayyads represents anything sacred to Sunnis. While Sunni Muslims might have a different view of the Umayyads compared to Shiites, we believe that when the issue moves beyond the matter of caliphate—which is viewed as sacred positively by one side and negatively by the other—then the rest of Islamic history is open to any interpretation, positive or negative, without affecting any Islamic sacred value. Therefore, we don't consider Yazid to represent a sacred Sunni Islamic figure, such that opposing him would be seen as opposing a value.
Hence, commemorating this event doesn't represent an Islamic drawback, or an uncivilized human drawback. However, it's true that some who mark Ashoura may drift into overly emotional expressions that could stir sensitivities.
This is what we reject, fight against, and work to correct whenever possible.
The Truthful Word and the False Word
Q: Your Eminence, Sayyed, you once said: "We drain people's tears with both truthful and false words." We started discussing this subject earlier, and your previous answer clarified the statement. But the question from a religious perspective is: Is lying permissible in this context?
A: Lying is prohibited in every situation, except in cases where it protects major causes. As I always say: "If an enemy interrogates me and demands secrets about my people—political, economic, or resistance secrets—and asks me to swear by Allah, we believe that lying is obligatory in this situation and telling the truth is prohibited. Similarly, if someone is pursuing an innocent believer or innocent people, and asks me to reveal their known location, that's when the famous Islamic saying applies: "Swear by Allah falsely and save your brother from death." However, lying is not permissible in distorting history, even if it's meant to stir tragedy, especially if it's a lie that puts words into the mouths of sacred figures that they never said.
Methods of Celebrating Ashoura
Q: Have the methods of celebrating Ashoura evolved over the years?
A: I believe there are two aspects: there's a positive development, which is that the celebration of Ashoura has incorporated a cultural element. Scholars (especially religious ones), thinkers, and intellectuals now stand to address people's issues, drawing inspiration from Ashoura. They also analyze the Husseini cause to benefit from it more deeply and to raise contemporary issues, making Ashoura gatherings a forum for enhancing people's awareness.
We consider this a positive element, because celebrating Ashoura represents a movement that enriches society when it draws from history. This is what we observed in the elements that sparked the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) referred to when highlighting the vital elements in his movement's popular success. He said: "Everything we have is from Ashoura." We also believe that Ashoura plays a significant role in mobilizing young people who commit to resistance in confronting the enemy.
As for the negative aspects, they are the emergence of elements that represent backwardness, such as striking heads with swords, striking backs with chains, and so on. We consider these to be backward practices in commemorating this event.
Legitimacy of the Celebration
Q: Is the annual celebration of Ashoura based on a clear religious text?
A: There are narrations from the Imams of the Household of the Prophet (a.s.) that encourage and call for holding these gatherings. Perhaps they themselves used to hold them to keep the memory alive and to revive the authentic Islamic path. This is what we observe in some narrations that say: "Revive our cause; may Allah have mercy on whoever revives our cause" referring to these gatherings. And we know that the Imams of the Household of the Prophet (a.s.) have no specific matter separate from Islam; rather, their cause is Islam itself.
Q: Is listening to or attending Husseini gatherings recommended or obligatory?
A: It is not obligatory in the religious sense of the word. However, when we study the Islamic benefits that Islam and Muslims can gain through this, and through some of the words attributed to the Imams (a.s.), we can say that attendance is strongly recommended.
Newly Introduced Customs
Q: As you know, independent reasoning in Islamic law (ijtihad) is constantly evolving. Could you tell us about the old and new approaches to understanding Islamic law concerning the commemoration of Ashoura?
A: We believe that independent reasoning hasn't differed on the common practice of past and present celebrations—which is holding mourning gatherings. The past also included self-beating, but in a calm manner that expressed grief. What has changed is the emergence of certain popular customs, like striking heads with swords and backs with chains. These customs didn't come from a jurisprudential interpretation that helped create them or turn them into popular traditions. Instead, these habits began as distinct popular initiatives that stirred people's emotions, leading others to imitate them. Then the emotion grew, and the habit became so deeply rooted and they became sacred that even religious scholars hesitate to challenge them. In fact, those who oppose these customs are often labeled as being against Hussein and the Household of the Prophet (a.s), accused of trying to undermine this commemoration and remove it from popular consciousness.
The common people, and even some religious scholars, rebelled against His Eminence, the Grand Marja’ Sayyed Muhsin al-Amin (may his soul be sanctified), when he declared these customs forbidden in his book "Al-Tanzeeh fi A'mal al-Shabih” (Purifying the Ashoura Reenactment Practices.) He suffered greatly, was insulted, and even poems to denounce him were composed.
But some might argue that certain very prominent religious scholars and Hadith experts, fifty or sixty years ago, issued rulings permitting these rituals, stating they are not forbidden in themselves unless they lead to disaster(Tahluka).
Between Prohibition and Permissibility
Here we ask: Why these rulings?
The issue began with a jurisprudential debate: Is it forbidden for a person to harm themselves if the harm isn't severe, like cutting one's hand or head, or other actions that don't pose a life-threatening risk? In other words, is harm totally forbidden, or is what's forbidden only harm that leads to destruction or a serious health condition?
There are two main jurisprudential opinions on this matter:
Some argue that harming oneself is fundamentally forbidden, except in cases where there is a more important benefit. This is similar to a person exposing themselves to harm during travels or staying up late nights to gain material or spiritual profit. Here, there's a balance between the harm and the benefit. This human principle states that if the benefit outweighs the harm, it overrides the harm. Religiously, this is called "the principle of competing obligations" (bab al-tazahum), meaning if a prohibitive ruling conflicts with an obligatory or permissible one, and the benefit in the first is greater than the harm in the other, it suspends the permissible ruling. Based on this, these scholars say it's forbidden for a person to wound themselves, even to express grief or love.
Another legal opinion, adopted by many scholars, is that it's not forbidden for a person to harm themselves if the harm doesn't lead to a significant negative health state or destruction. According to this view, these scholars ruled that striking the head with a sword out of grief or sympathy is not inherently forbidden, but it becomes forbidden if the harm leads to a very significant negative consequence (tahluka).
Some scholars who permit these acts in principle still have reservations. They say that even if permitted in principle it might become forbidden due to secondary considerations. This was the answer given by the great late Grand Religious Authority Sayyed Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei (may his soul be sanctified) when asked about striking with swords and chains. He replied that it's not permissible if it leads to dishonor and humiliation. When asked a second time how he defined "dishonor and humiliation," he said: "Whatever causes disgrace and humiliation to the school of thought in the eyes of prevailing custom."
As for our view on the matter, we have issued a ruling of prohibition. We believe that it's forbidden for a person to harm themselves, except in cases of necessity. Therefore, we stated that striking heads with swords or backs with chains is forbidden, and even violent self-beating that causes harm to a person, even if not dangerous. We derive the prohibition of harming oneself from the texts available to us. Furthermore, we find that common sense agrees with this; people condemn anyone who harms themselves if there isn't a more important and deserving reason for such harm. Thus, we believe this is religiously forbidden, even if it's done out of grief and sympathy.
I have another point here: those who strike their heads with swords or backs with whips often say they want to sympathize with Hussein (a.s.) in his wounds, or with Zainab (a.s.) and her sisters when they were whipped, so they whip their own backs and wound their heads.
Sympathizing with Hussein (a.s.) Through Jihad
But I say: Sympathy demands that you be wounded in the same place Hussein was wounded, and whipped where Zaynab was whipped. Hussein (a.s.) was wounded while striving for his cause (jihad). Therefore, those who truly sympathize with Hussein are the young men of the resistance who fight the Israeli enemy. They are wounded in the same way Hussein (a.s.) was wounded. And those who sympathize with Lady Zainab (a.s.) are those who are whipped in enemy prisons, whether men or women, because she was whipped while standing firm for the revolution and the cause.
Therefore, I believe these customs must be eliminated from a religious standpoint. They are forbidden by the primary considerations according to our view, and also by the secondary ones due to the many negative impacts on individuals and on the image of the Shiite Islamic community worldwide. That's why we have called them a form of backwardness.
Weeping in Ashoura
Q: There's a saying that has spread in recent years: that if the reciter who narrates the Husseini biography doesn't cry, affected by the events of this biography, and then he should seem to be crying to affect people. Is this true?
A: The narration encourages people to cry or to make others cry by “acting” (Tabaki). However, this isn't actually about acting. It refers to a person whose grief is overwhelming but who can't express it through tears. So, his crying comes from an inner emotional state of grief that doesn't burst forth as tears. Therefore, the goal is to show the expression of sorrow; if tears don't come, one should simply appear as if weeping.
Q: To what extent is weeping recommended for the audience?
A: Weeping is an emotion, so it makes no sense to tell a person if it's recommended to cry or not. It's natural for a person to react when faced with tragedy.
Q: We observe that in the annual celebration of Ashoura, speakers often focus on the tragedy and suffering that the Household of the Prophet (a.s.) endured, overlooking a positive aspect: the triumph of the message under which we live. The proof of this is that we remained Muslims thanks to the triumph of the Household of the Prophet... Why do they always overlook this positive aspect?
A: Historically, the Ashoura gatherings have traditionally focused on the tragic aspect. We always advocate for moving towards highlighting the positive aspects, even if it's a moral victory rather than a material one, because this is what can inspire real progress.
Art in the Service of Ashoura
Q: Among your suggestions, Sayyed, was to introduce Ashoura to modern theater and dramatic artistic works. Do you have any other suggestions?
A: I believe it's essential to use all the tools modern humans have developed to depict history or current events, whether through cinematic films, theatrical plays, or other mediums. These tools, through artistic touches and the rich artistry that a storyteller, director, or actor can bring, can convey the profound meanings and the deep tragedy that Ashoura holds, perhaps more effectively than a thousand reciters. They can also influence the entire world. For instance, the film "The Message," despite some debates about it, managed to become a global call to Islam in a way many preachers could not achieve.
Therefore, we believe that if we want to promote the cause of Ashoura globally, we must present it through plays, films, or any other modern means of expression.
Some people might criticize this, arguing it could lead to deviations from Islamic religious guidelines. To them, we say that theatrical or cinematic representation doesn't necessarily have to stray from these guidelines. The key is to maintain religious standards in how the story is written, how it's directed, and how the actors portray their roles.
Employing the Commemoration
Q: To what extent, in your opinion, have Muslims, through the annual commemorations, succeeded in conveying Ashoura's Islamic message and drawing lessons from it?
A: I believe that if we look at some of the successful experiences of the commemoration, we see that it has managed to shed light on this issue and to stir human emotions in rejecting all similar (falsehood) contemporary figures. This is what we referred to regarding the Islamic Revolution in Iran, because the Iranian people have deeply embraced the Husseini revolution for a long time. Similarly, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon is also considered one of its results.