Source: https://fa.abna24.com/story/1492997
The Ahl al-Bayt News Agency (ABNA) recently organized an academic discussion, critiquing the book “Cursing and Condemnation in the History of Islam and the Confrontation of the Ahl al-Bayt with It” in collaboration with the Research Institute of the History and Biography of the Ahl al-Bayt.
In this session, Dr. Ibrahim Salehi Haji Abadi, the author of the book, presented his viewpoints. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili and Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami participated as critics, and the session was moderated by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani, who was the academic secretary of the event. The full translation of the transcript of this discussion follows below:
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
We extend our condolences on the martyrdom of the great fighter of the Resistance Front, a beloved figure among anti-Zionist Muslims, and a member of the Supreme Council of the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly. His loss is a great tragedy for us, but a reward for his struggle. We offer congratulations to him and express our condolences for his loss, as well as our regret for our own indifference and negligence. God willing, his soul and the souls of his companions will be gathered with the saints of God and Imam Hussein (a).
We will now begin the critique of the book Cursing and Condemnation in the History of Islam and the Confrontation of the Ahl al-Bayt with It, published by the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, from the History and Biography Research Department. The book was released in the spring of 1403 (2024). This critique session was proposed and organized by the Ahl al-Bayt International News Agency – ABNA. We thank those who suggested this session and followed up on it. Once again, we appreciate those who worked to organize this session, and we thank our friends from the History and Biography Research Department.
Mr. Ibrahim Salehi Haji Abadi, the author of the book, is a seminary student from the Qom Seminary and a PhD graduate in Islamic history from Baqir al-Olum University. His doctoral dissertation, defended last year, dealt with a jurisprudential and historical topic. However, his master’s degree is in Quranic studies, with a thesis titled Mechanisms of the Proximity of Islamic Sects Inspired by the Holy Quran, which was recognized at the International Conference on the Proximity of Islamic Sects. He has also written other works on the sources of Ashura and the martyrs of Karbala, including two books titled The Martyrs of Nineveh and The Rival’s Taunt, which examine the identities of the martyrs of Karbala. He has published over 60 articles and 4 books, and several more are awaiting publication. The proposal for the project on cursing and condemnation, which was one of his concerns and a topic of discussion in recent decades, was put forward by the Ahl al-Bayt Biography Group in 2017. It took about six years for the project to be completed and published due to various back-and-forths, reviews, evaluations, and meetings. We will also use the feedback from esteemed critics to advance and improve the book and address its shortcomings in future editions. Now, we turn to Aqa Salehi to present a summary of the book.
Dr. Ibrahim Salehi Haji-Abadi:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
I would like to extend my gratitude to the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly, the Biography and History Research Institute, and the ABNA News Agency for organizing this session. I also thank the esteemed scholars and all the dear participants attending this session in person and virtually.
Since this book was initially conceived as a project, I will attempt to present a summary by highlighting various points scattered throughout the discussion so that we can benefit from the perspectives of the esteemed critics.
Contrasting Views on Insulting and Cursing (Sabb and La’an)
Regarding the topic of sabb (insulting or swearing) and la’an (cursing), our main concern revolves around the cursing of the two revered figures (Shaykhayn). There are two completely different and opposing views regarding cursing the senior figures of Sunni Islam:
1. The first viewpoint emphasizes the necessity of specifying the individuals who should be cursed. Proponents of this perspective provide arguments to support their stance, including adherence to the practices of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) and a number of narrations that justify the use of curses and insults by name and specific details. The second justification stems from the obligation of tawalli (supporting the friends of God) and tabarri (disavowing the enemies of God), which must involve the rejection of enemies, including specifying their names based on certain narrations. The third reason is that due to the oppression suffered by the Ahl al-Bayt (a) and the need to revive religious rituals, cursing and disavowal of the enemies should be done openly, as demonstrated by events like the Eid al-Zahra, which is a prime example of this viewpoint.
2. The second viewpoint argues that it is not only unnecessary but also prohibited to specify individuals for curses. According to this view, while cursing and disavowing the enemies of God as part of tawalli and tabarri is necessary, specifying individuals is impermissible based on certain evidence and in some cases, forbidden. The first reason given is the need to respect sacred figures, supported by the verse: “And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge” (Al-An’am: 108). If you curse others, they will respond by cursing your sacred figures. Commentators such as Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Rashid Rida have pointed out that some common Shia believers curse the two revered figures by name, and in response, Sunnis insult Shia sanctities, particularly Imam Ali (a).
The second reason involves narrations that prohibit insulting the sanctities of the opposing group. An example is a narration from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (a) in which he said, “May Allah curse him! Why does he expose us to the enmity of our enemies?” When asked about someone who mentioned and cursed the enemies by name in the mosque, Imam Sadiq (a) expressed disapproval.
The third reason is that, considering the presence of internal tawalli and tabarri (in the heart), there is no need for outward cursing with specific names. The fourth reason is that the obligation of tawalli (loyalty) and tabarri (disavowal) can be fulfilled with general phrases such as, “O Allah, curse the oppressors” without specifying individuals by name. The fifth reason, which unfortunately has not been given much attention, is the negative consequences that specifying individuals for cursing can bring. During the time of Muhaqqiq al-Karaki, the scholars of Mecca sent a letter to the scholars of Isfahan, complaining that because of the public cursing of the two revered figures in Isfahan, the Shia living in Mecca were subjected to persecution and suffering. These are some of the reasons provided by those who hold the second viewpoint.
Structure of the Book
The book is structured into three chapters. The first chapter covers concepts and general principles, in which we have outlined five sections. The first section explains and examines key concepts. An important point raised in this chapter, specifically in this section, is the discussion on tawalli and tabarri. Seven issues are presented here, the most significant of which is the place of tabarri in jurisprudence. The question is how extensively the issue of tabarri has been addressed in Islamic jurisprudence. The religious obligations we have are not limited to tawalli and tabarri alone; there are other obligations as well. However, the shortest discussion in jurisprudence is about the position of tawalli and tabarri.
The second section deals with cursing and condemnation (sabb and la’an) in the Quran, focusing on verse 108 of Surah Al-An’am, which is the verse concerning cursing. It also mentions some of the groups that have been cursed in the Quran.
The third section addresses the historical background and causes of sabb and la’an, exploring the factors that led to the spread of these practices in Islamic society from the early days of Islam and after the Prophet’s (p) passing.
The fourth section discusses the rulings related to sabb and la’an, such as the ruling on cursing the Prophet (p) or the Companions, and whether such actions are permissible or not. The fifth section covers the concept of “enemy-making.”
A key point in the fourth section is the issue of how, today, some Sunni scholars have issued fatwas calling for the killing of Rafidha (a derogatory term for Shia) because they curse the two revered figures (Shaykhayn). These fatwas claim that it is obligatory to kill Shia because they insult and curse the first two caliphs, despite the fact that Sunni sources clearly mention that during the time when Abu Bakr was caliph, someone insulted him and disrespected him. One of Abu Bakr’s companions wanted to kill this person, but Abu Bakr said, “No one should be killed for cursing me; only those who insult the Prophet (p) should be punished.” This ruling, which is mentioned in Sunni sources, is unfortunately overlooked, intentionally or unintentionally, by some Sunni scholars today, and this oversight has led to the issuance of fatwas calling for the killing of Shia over sabb and la’an.
The fifth section of the first chapter discusses some of the social consequences and impacts of sabb and la’an. For instance, when someone engages in cursing by specifying individuals, they inevitably open the door for disrespecting their own sacred figures, as Fakhr al-Razi and Rashid Rida pointed out. Additionally, this leads to the creation of enemies, violence, and even the issuing of harsh fatwas between different Muslim sects.
The second chapter, which consists of five sections, deals with the phenomenon of sabb and la’an in Islamic history. The first section discusses the prophetic era and how the Prophet (p) dealt with the issue. The second section covers the era of the first three caliphs, spanning from the 10th to the 35th year of the Islamic calendar. The third section focuses on the era of the presence of the Imams (a). The fourth section is about the Umayyad era, which is divided into three periods: the period of promoting sabb and la’an (from 41 A.H. to 99 A.H.), the period of opposing sabb and la’an during the reign of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and the third period, which saw a resurgence of sabb and la’an after the death of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, when the Umayyad caliphs resumed these practices. The fifth section covers the Abbasid era, where the Abbasids adopted two different policies towards sabb and la’an. Initially, to consolidate their power, they supported sabb and la’an, with their slogan being the cursing of the two caliphs. However, once they secured their power, they began to oppose sabb and la’an.
The third and final chapter of the book is titled sabb and La’an in the Tradition and Conduct of the Imams (a). This chapter contains three sections. The first section discusses the reactions of the infallible Imams to the issue of sabb and la’an, where we mention seven or eight cases. The second section addresses the effects and consequences of sabb and la’an from the perspective of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The third section is a critique and examination of some of the narrations attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt (a).
As I mentioned at the beginning, there are two completely opposing views on this issue. Some argue that we must specify individuals when engaging in sabb and la’an, and one of the reasons they cite is the narrations found in our historical and narrational sources. In this chapter, we have examined several narrations, including the curse in Ziyarat Ashura, the narration regarding Eid al-Zahra and the 9th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, the cursing by Imam Sadiq (a) after every prayer, and the supplication known as Sanamay Quraysh, as well as the recommendation of the Banu Hashim to engage in cursing. This summarizes the content and structure of the book.
Cursing and Condemnation Should Be General
In conclusion, besides critiquing and examining the narrations that specify individuals, if we want to reach a collective conclusion, it is that, as mentioned in some narrations, cursing and condemnation should be general, without specifying individuals. Even if some narrations or pieces of evidence suggest that specific individuals must be cursed, and we have authentic narrations that support this, from the perspective of secondary rulings and the consequences that follow from cursing, it is not permissible, and it becomes both legally and socially prohibited.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani, the session moderator: Now we turn to Aqa Masaili. Aqa Mehdi Masaili is a PhD student at the University of Religions and Denominations, specializing in Islamic denominations with a focus on Islamic unity. He is the author of more than 15 books, which address topics such as self-flagellation (Qameh-zani), the 9th of Rabi’, impious cursing, and extremism in Shia Islam. Aqa Masaili is also active in discussions on Islamic sects in online spaces.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
First, I would like to highlight the strengths of the book. The topic it addresses is extremely important. There has been significant caution surrounding this issue, and it is rarely discussed. Even scholars may have opinions on the matter but are unable to express them openly due to the sensitivities involved, especially when it comes to discussing both cursing and condemnation. If the book only focused on sabb, it might not provoke as much sensitivity, but when the term la’an is included, it triggers much stronger reactions. I have personally observed in the lessons of some high-ranking religious authorities and scholars of Quranic exegesis that, when they approached the topic of la’an and intended to present their opinions or establish rules and limitations around it, they faced pushback from certain individuals.
This is an extremely important issue, and the book delves into it. The conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) also carries its own sensitivities because those who want to promote la’an often appeal to the seerah of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). On the other hand, those who aim to bring reform within Shia Islam must also base their arguments on the seerah of the Imams (a). Another strength of the book is its use of historical sources. If we categorize historical sources, we can see that the citations in the book have been appropriately made, and this is one of the book’s strengths. The approach of the book is also one of Islamic unity and proximity, which in my view is a positive and commendable approach. In other words, the book seeks to reduce divisions and hostility among Muslims, and this is another merit of the book.
Criticisms and Ambiguities of the Book
The book also has some criticisms and ambiguities. The title, Cursing and Condemnation in the History of Islam, is broad, and perhaps the addition of “the confrontation of the Ahl al-Bayt (a)” limits the scope in terms of time and discussion. However, when we use the title Cursing and Condemnation in the History of Islam, it might imply that the discussion extends up to the present day. This creates some ambiguity and requires further specification in this regard.
From a foundational perspective, some of the principles in the book have not been clarified or refined, leading to contradictions. In the introduction, the book provides a bibliography of works on sabb (insulting) and la’an (cursing). I have written two books on these topics, one in 2007 titled The 9th of Rabi’, Ignorance and its Damages, and another published in 2015. It seems these books were not referenced or consulted. I was surprised as to why my books were not mentioned—not for personal reasons, but because I notice that some of the discussions in the book have problems. I mention this because I had clarified these issues in my own works. Additionally, the book Impious Curses was not referenced in the introduction, even though it was published in 2015 and is directly related to this topic. Its full title is Impious Curses: Explaining the Laws and Limits of Disavowal. My book might have its own flaws, but it would have been good if it had been referenced in the introduction.
Similarly, there are some books that absolutely should have been consulted for certain discussions. For example, when the topic of Ziyarat Ashura is mentioned, reference should have been made to the book Ziyarat Ashura in the Balance by Hussein Al-Radhi. Or, its counter-argument book, Ziyarat Ashura from the Beginning to Today, should have been consulted. I believe the failure to refer to these works introduces some problems, and I will read a portion to illustrate this: The author states in one part of the book that “the curses at the end of Ziyarat Ashura are taken from Sheikh Tusi’s al-Misbah.” This seems to imply that there is no dispute over the versions of Misbah, which is incorrect. The author continues: “In Mafatih al-Jinan, the same passage from Sheikh Tusi is cited. However, some have claimed that the scholars assert that the curses mentioned in Ziyarat Ashura were added during the Safavid period, and that they do not exist in Sheikh Tusi’s Misbah or in Kamil al-Ziyarat, which was edited by the late Allama Amini, which is untrue.” This statement is correct. The claim from the other side is that in the versions of Misbah from the Safavid era, these curses were added, and prior to that period, they did not exist in the earlier versions of Misbah. The debate is that the book Ziyarat Ashura in the Balance argues that the manuscripts without the curses are the original versions, while Ziyarat Ashura from the Beginning to Today discusses issues of taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation) and removal. Because these works were not referenced, such content-related issues have infiltrated the book.
While the research has been done well in terms of reviewing sources, the researcher should have also taken into account the investigations and challenges beyond these primary sources and offered more guidance in this regard.
What is the Relationship Between Cursing and Insulting?
In my book Impious Curses, we discussed the various aspects of tabarri, including tabarri of the heart, tabarri in behavior, and tabarri in speech. We stated that tabarri in speech is merely an expression of disavowal, but it is not the essence of disavowal itself. Just as when you verbally declare monotheism, it is an expression of tawhid, but the true essence of tawhid lies in the heart and actions. In this book, the author did not differentiate between tabarri in speech and the essence of tabarri, which leads to contradictions. One of these contradictions is that the author equates la’an with tabarri itself. However, in some parts of the book, the author separates la’an from tabarri, making la’an seem acceptable and logical, while portraying sabb as illegitimate. Therefore, if at the beginning of the book, la’an and sabb are treated as the same, later on, it should not be permissible to allow la’an while claiming that sabb is wrong and la’an is right.
Moreover, the author uses an incorrect classification. On page 33, he states: “In other words, the relationship between these two terms is one of partial overlap, meaning that every la’an is sabb, but not every sabb is la’an.” This, however, is an incorrect relationship; it should be an absolute, not a partial, overlap. The author claims that the relationship is one of partial overlap, but the relationship he describes is an absolute one, which is problematic. In the classification presented in Impious Curses, if the author had paid attention to this partial overlap, it would have been more accurate. While there may be criticisms of our work as well, that book clearly explained this relationship. More details on the distinction between absolute and partial overlap were needed.
Another important point is that the author wanted to argue that Sunnis should not declare Shia as unbelievers because of the sabb of the Shaykhayn, yet in some parts, the sabb of the Shaykhayn or Aisha is justified and even validated. For example, on page 62, the author states: “This argument is worth considering, as someone who is related to the Prophet (p), but whose actions make them deserving of being cursed…” This means that the author is effectively saying that we curse the Prophet’s wife (Aisha) because her actions warrant it. On the one hand, the author says that she should not be cursed, but on the other, he justifies and validates the actions of those who curse her. In several instances, sabb is justified. The author aims to criticize the Sunni fatwas of takfir, but at the same time, he provides justification for sabb.
The Author Did Not Critically Assess the Historical Sources
The author delves into theological and jurisprudential discussions in places where it is inappropriate, given that the book’s approach is historical. Another issue is that the author did not critically assess the sources or verify the authenticity of the historical reports. Some passages seem to imply accusations of profanity towards the Prophet (p) or the Ahl al-Bayt (a). It is possible that only part of a report was taken, while other parts indicate the offensive nature of the report. For example, there is a report about Imam Hasan (a), and at the end of it, some vulgar insults are attributed to Imam Husayn (a). The vulgar insults mentioned are not even appropriate for street talk, so one cannot take part of the report and accept it as credible. Clearly, this report was intended to defame Imam Husayn (a) and portray him as irrational while portraying Imam Hasan (a) as rational. Therefore, historical reports should not be accepted without scrutiny, and they should be carefully examined.
Sometimes the translations of reports are incorrect and need more work. For example, in interpreting historical reports, the term “la’aan” (one who curses frequently) from Amir al-Mu’minin (a), who says, “I do not like that you are those who curse often,” or in Nahj al-Balagha, where it is stated, “I dislike for you to be those who insult excessively (sabbabeen),” has been interpreted as if “sabbabeen” (one who insults) is an intensified form, and that the Imam (a) does not mind if we insult occasionally, but just not excessively. Similarly, it is said that “la’aan” means excessive cursing, and the Imam (a) does not like too much cursing, but a little cursing is fine. Such interpretations have been made, but this understanding is not correct.
The Qur’an also states: “Indeed, Allah does not wrong people in the slightest” (Aal-e Imran: 182)—can we interpret this to mean that Allah does not commit a lot of injustice, but a little injustice is acceptable? In the book Waqa’at al-Siffin, it is narrated from Amir al-Mu’minin (a) that he does not approve of people being “shattaam” (those who insult) or “la’aan”. The Imam (a) says, “Do not do these things; instead, describe the evil deeds of your enemies.” Say what their actions are and what our path and approach are. Therefore, if you clarify the truth, it is the best speech. Amir al-Mu’minin (a) continues by explaining that the terms “shattaam” and “la’aan” refer to the basic form (active participle) and not an intensified form, so this kind of misinterpretation should not be made.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: I would like to thank Aqa Masaili for accepting the invitation of the organizing committee.
Next, we are joined by Aqa Abdolmajid Etisami, a seminary student from the Qom Seminary, who holds a Master’s degree in Hadith Sciences with a focus on theology and a PhD in Shia Studies from the University of Religions and Denominations. His doctoral dissertation focused on the evolution of the concept and instances of tabarri in the first century. Due to his interest and work on this subject, we invited him to this session. Additionally, his Master’s thesis, titled The Thought of Zayd ibn Ali, has been published, and he has written articles on the subject of tabarri. He is also a colleague of ours in the Encyclopedia of Ahl al-Bayt (a).
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask Almighty God for support for the Muslims of the world and for the speedy destruction of the enemies, especially the criminal Israel and the criminal United States. I would first like to express my gratitude to the organizers of this great center, the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly, and the Biography and History Research Institute of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), as well as to the esteemed director of the institute, Dr. Motahhari, and Dr. Sadeghi, for their efforts in organizing this session. I would also like to extend a special thanks to the honoured guests, Hujjat al-Islam Masaili and Aqa Salehi.
The Confusion of Historical, Theological, and Jurisprudential Discussions in the Book is Very Clear
Since Aqa Masaili has already mentioned the positive aspects of the book, I will not repeat them. I will also try not to repeat the criticisms he raised unless there is something that requires special emphasis. To begin, I would like to present four or five general critiques to the esteemed author.
Aqa Masaili’s point was accurate: the confusion between historical, theological, and jurisprudential discussions in this book is very clear. However, the fundamental flaw in the book is that, due to caution around cursing a few specific individuals, the core culture of authentic la’an and tabarri has been portrayed in such a way that the reader might perceive that, in essence, la’an and sabb are inherently reprehensible. The author explicitly states this in the book, suggesting that wherever la’an is mentioned in the Qur’an, by the Ahl al-Bayt (a), or by the Prophet Muhammad (p), it is rare, exceptional, and isolated. However, the fundamental ethical, rational, and religious principle is that sabb and la’an are intrinsically vile. The book is written in such a way that when the reader finishes it, even reciting la’an after salawat seems like a burdensome task.
The author explained their intentions at the beginning of the session, but we are discussing the content of the book itself. Aqa Masaili pointed out the confusion between the conceptual definitions of sabb and la’an and insults, but there is also the merging of all these terms—violence, insults, sab, and la’an—into one category, which is presented as entirely condemned. This stance is incorrect and has led the author to take a general position against all these practices, which is repeated in several parts of the book, not just in one instance where we could attribute it to a simple mistake.
So, What is the Ruling on sabb and la’an in the Shia School?
The next issue is the contradiction, part of which was already mentioned by Aqa Masaili. On one hand, there are many examples of la’an and even sabb—both in historical reports and narrations—that the author mentions. But it seems as if the author is struggling to reconcile the practice of sabb and la’an in the Shia Imamiyya school. In some parts, the author clearly states that yes, the Qur’an and narrations emphasize it. He categorizes examples from the Qur’an and narrations where certain individuals or groups are cursed, and he even gives examples of sabb from the Qur’an, such as the comparison of someone to a donkey as a type of sab. All of this is presented, and yet, at the same time, the author repeatedly states that even if we consider sabb permissible and not forbidden, reason dictates that it is vile and should not be practiced. This is a significant point of confusion.
Another major issue is the excessive reliance on sources from opponents. While sabb and la’an are theological issues, and we can certainly benefit from Sunni sources when discussing them, the primary focus should be on drawing from authentic Shia sources. For historical accounts, we can consider them as reports that do not necessarily need to be exclusively Shia. However, when it comes to narrations, the author often references Sahih al-Bukhari and other Sunni sources, attributing statements to the Prophet (p) to argue that sabb and la’an are condemned, citing general instructions from the Prophet that suggest, “It is better if you avoid cursing anything.” Or where the Prophet says in some cases: “Try not to curse at all.” This kind of generalization and positioning gives the reader the impression that sabb and la’an, even in general, are inherently reprehensible.
I am merely presenting my interpretations of the book’s content, and I am certain that the esteemed author did not intend to convey this message.
Cursing the Enemies of God and the Ahl al-Bayt (a) is a Qur’anic Discourse
It is clear that sabb and la’an have both differences and similarities. However, public disavowal (barā’ah) is not necessarily tied to sabb and la’an to the extent that we constantly condemn them due to some negative consequences and claim that public disavowal is not advisable. Who has said this? Public disavowal does not inherently mean this. It has its own specific meaning. There are several articles on this subject, and my thesis and book also discuss it, as well as the works of other scholars. Public disavowal is a broad concept, and one of the possible signs of disavowal may or may not involve sabb and la’an. During the period of seclusion, Amir al-Mu’minin (a) disavowed his opponents, and there is no doubt about this. In essence, rejecting any leadership besides divine leadership is the primary declaration of disavowal.
Our claim is that the discourse of cursing the enemies of Almighty God and the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a)—since they are also enemies of God—is fundamentally a Qur’anic discourse. It is entirely Qur’anic, and the Prophet (p) clarified it by cursing the enemies in a general sense. The author also alludes to this in parts of the book and brings forth good evidence. No one disputes that in certain cases, specific instances of cursing have been criticized, and everyone agrees on that. Even those who are cautious accept that in some cases, specific individuals have been condemned, or there are narrations advising against cursing certain individuals. This is not up for debate. However, why should we, due to caution around two or three individuals, abandon this cultural discourse that is central to Shia Islam? Shia Muslims were known by this identity—by their rejection of any leadership other than Amir al-Mu’minin (a) and their belief in his divinely appointed caliphate. Why should we turn this discourse into something detached and borrowed from the Safavid era? No, it is not like that. The Imami Shia were identified by two main features: the rejection of the Shaykhayn (the first two caliphs) and the belief in the divine appointment of Amir al-Mu’minin (a). I am not saying that rejection (rafdh) equates to sabb and la’an; rejection and disavowal have their own specific and broad meaning. But the fundamental practice of cursing the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) is a discourse that has a Qur’anic and narrational foundation.
I will point to a few specific examples. The title of the book reflects a general stance: Cursing and Insulting in the History of Islam and the Confrontation of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) with It. This title implies that the Ahl al-Bayt (a) have always opposed these two practices! Such a broad statement could perhaps be clarified with some explanation in the introduction or elsewhere, indicating that the title does not mean the Ahl al-Bayt (a) always opposed them, or the title itself could have been amended.
Contradictions in the Book
An example of conflating everything together can be seen on page 19, where the author states: “In the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), the path of criticism, protest, and seeking justice without resorting to insults, cursing, or violence was clear and evident, as seen in the practical and verbal conduct of Imam Ali (a) and Lady Fatima (s).”
On page 40, in the discussion about public disavowal, the author says: “If tabarri is done publicly today, it not only harms the individual and the Shia school but also, in some cases, affects the interests of the Islamic community.” Why should we equate public tabarri with sabb and la’an and make readers think that public tabarri should not be practiced? We have not properly conveyed the concept of tabarri and disavowal.
A clear example of conflating all these concepts is on page 92, where the author writes: “The culture of sabb and la’an (notice that the author even questions the culture of sabb and la’an)—insults and curses in society—not only reflects ignorance and societal disorder (he is not just referring to specific individuals but is questioning the entire culture of la’an) but also indicates cultural decline in society.” He then continues: “Thus, the primary approach of the Prophet (p) was to confront all forms of vulgarity, insults, sabb, and disrespect.” Here again, the author lumps la’an, sabb, and everything together.
Regarding the contradiction I mentioned earlier, in some parts of the book, the author clearly states that sabb and la’an exist in the Qur’an and narrations, while in other parts, he denies it. On page 92, he writes: “The culture of sabb and la’an reflects ignorance.” Then, on page 93, he states: “It should be noted that it is not the case that sabb and la’an are entirely condemned in the Qur’an or the Prophetic tradition. Rather, depending on time, place, and audience, sabb and la’an exist in the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition, just as there are instances where it is prohibited.” So, if the Qur’an does, in fact, contain instances of sabb and la’an, why do you then categorically describe the culture of sabb and la’an as one of ignorance and societal disorder?
Another point I made about reliance on Sunni sources is evident in the middle of page 95, where the author narrates: “The Prophet (p), in one situation, instructed not to insult anything.” But if the instruction is not to insult anything, why on pages 97 and beyond do you discuss the Prophet’s (p) confrontation with sabb and la’an? On the first line of the next page, under heading number 1, the author writes: “As stated, from the perspective of the Qur’an, the primary ruling on sabb is its inherent vileness.” A few lines later, the author writes: “The primary ruling is the inherent vileness of sabb and la’an.” This means that the author believes the inherent ruling on both sabb and la’an is that they are vile acts. The discussion here is not about specific instances of la’an directed at certain individuals, but the author repeatedly questions the very principle of la’an with several redundant statements.
On the following page, the author attributes to the Prophet (p) a narration from Sunni sources, where the Prophet is said to have advised: “If you can avoid cursing anything, do so.” The Prophet himself would also have to follow this advice, meaning that if possible, he should avoid cursing anything. Yet, in other pages, the author categorizes groups that the Prophet (p) cursed. If the Prophet (p) in some instances advised against cursing anything, there are also cases from the Qur’an and narrations where sabb and la’an were practiced!
At the bottom of page 96, the author states: “At the same time, there are cases where both the Qur’an and narrations include sab.” He then concludes that la’an and sabb are relative actions, meaning that in some cases, they are good and praiseworthy, and in other cases, they are bad. This is a correct statement, but if something is relative, it makes no sense to assert that the primary or rational ruling is that sabb and la’an are inherently vile. It is fundamentally illogical to establish a primary ruling for a relative matter. It’s like asking whether the phrase “may God’s mercy be far from them” is good or bad. The other person would ask: “To whom are you referring—polytheists or Muslims?” If it’s directed at polytheists, it’s good, but if it’s directed at Muslims, it’s condemned. To collect so many narrations and argue that although sabb may be permitted in some cases, reason dictates that it is vile, and to present narrations from the Prophet (p) saying, “If you can avoid sabb and la’an, do so,”—this leads to such confusion that we struggle to reconcile reliable narrations from both Sunni and Shia sources regarding sabb and la’an of the enemies.
Summary
If we wish to justify the public cursing of a few specific individuals due to ethical, social, or narrational reasons, claiming that it does not belong in Shia society and is distant from the Imami school, we should not use this pretext to call into question the fundamental culture of cursing the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) or the practice of sabb and la’an in the Qur’anic discourse. It becomes very difficult to reconcile and justify the large body of narrations and historical evidence on this topic. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: I would like to thank Aqa Etisami. At this point, if Aqa Salehi has any comments, please feel free to share.
Dr. Ibrahim Salehi Haji-Abadi:
I would like to thank Dr. Etisami and Aqa Masaili. Some of the points they raised are valid and should certainly be addressed in the revised and new editions of the book. However, the issue at hand is that since this book was developed as a project, although I am considered the primary person responsible for it, I am not the only one involved. For instance, one of the criticisms was regarding the reliance on Sunni sources. My approach has always been that when I reference a narration, whether it is a historical report or a narration, I consult Sunni sources wherever possible. That is, I begin with the earliest available sources, including Sunni ones, and then I review Shia sources as well. Some narrations appear only in Sunni sources because we were obligated to omit certain sources, but in the original version, Shia sources were also included.
Another point raised by the two esteemed critics was the mixing of historical, theological, and jurisprudential discussions. While the title of the book is about the history of Islam and we discussed historical matters, there are times when theological and jurisprudential issues inevitably come up. For example, tabarri is a jurisprudential issue. In our jurisprudence, many other topics are discussed at great length, but when it comes to tabarri, there is little discussion.
A very important point that Aqa Etisami made was this: “Due to caution and avoiding sabb and la’an of the Shaykhayn, are we undermining the entire practice of sabb and la’an?” From the title, the chapter divisions, and the sections of the book, it is clear that we are not undermining the practice of sabb and la’an. Some narrations we mentioned may have been misreported—yes, we agree that they need to be corrected—but the main issue we are addressing is the tension between Sunnis and Shias, especially regarding the primary obstacle to the proximity of sects, which is the sabb and la’an of the Shaykhayn. If you open the Qur’an, it’s difficult to find a chapter without the word la’an appearing seven or eight times. La’an appears in most chapters, while sabb occurs only once, and even that is discouraged. Aqa Etisami mentioned that there are authentic narrations permitting sabb and la’an with specific references. I doubt there are any truly authentic narrations supporting this.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Not only the Shaykhayn, but also other figures like Abu Hanifa.
Dr. Ibrahim Salehi Haji-Abadi:
Our discussion is specifically about the Shaykhayn. Why? Because it relates to the issue of the proximity of Islamic sects. When figures like Qaradawi issue a fatwa to kill Shias, and others like Afandi also issue fatwas saying that it is obligatory to kill Shias, what is their reasoning? They claim that Shias are infidels. And why do they consider Shias infidels? Because Shias curse and insult the Shaykhayn. We are not concerned with other individuals like Abu Hanifa or Shafi’i. Our focus is on the Shaykhayn because the cursing and insulting of the Shaykhayn has real-world consequences. You mentioned that we have authentic narrations, and even if we do, as both esteemed critics pointed out, the intertwining of other discussions is due to this reason: we argue that cursing and insulting the Shaykhayn has repercussions. In our jurisprudence, whether due to prudential considerations or other reasons, this issue is either not discussed or only mentioned in very general terms. What is the result? The result is that today, our neighbours are hosting events for Eid al-Zahra. More than a thousand people gather in a large hall, and they engage in various inappropriate actions. I have explicitly mentioned in several places that by sabb, I don’t mean verbal insults, but rather an expression of disgust or aversion toward certain figures, whether it is expressed in words, actions, or even attire—it makes no difference.
There Are No Authentic Narrations of Cursing and Insulting the Shaykhayn
There are no authentic narrations supporting the cursing and insulting of the Shaykhayn, and even if we assume there are, such narrations would conflict with secondary rulings. Why? Because these actions have consequences. If you engage in sabb and la’an, it might be recorded and shared in the media, as has happened. I mentioned that the very reason given for the fatwa to kill Shias is precisely this. Why must Shias be killed? Because they curse and insult the Shaykhayn. We see this in virtual spaces, where portions of Eid al-Zahra ceremonies are broadcast, showing what Shias do against the Shaykhayn. What is the outcome? The result is the same as when scholars in Mecca wrote to scholars in Isfahan, complaining that because of the insults and curses against the Shaykhayn on the pulpit, they were being persecuted in Mecca. In 2007, I went to Mecca and met a Shia from Qatif. He told me he had pretended to be a Sunni to work in a certain place, but once they discovered he was Shia, he was fired. I asked him why he was dismissed, and he laughed and said, “Because of what you Iranians do.” I asked, “What do we do?” He replied, “What you do during Eid al-Zahra, with your dancing, celebrations, and costumes.” This is the outcome.
Based on Jurisprudential Principles, Cursing and Insulting the Shaykhayn is Forbidden
I will repeat again that yes, some criticisms of the book are valid, and they will be addressed in the second edition, but these do not affect the overall argument. The main issue we raised was the identification of specific cases of sabb and la’an. Based on jurisprudential principles and secondary rulings, sabb and la’an are not only disliked (makruh), but they can also be considered forbidden (haram), because they impact the lives and property of Shias in other countries. We are sitting comfortably in Qom, cursing and insulting, while in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Shias are facing problems. Why? Because the scholars there watch videos of Eid al-Zahra. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Rashid Rida have explicitly mentioned this. I repeat this because it is very important and is the hypothesis of our discussion. They say that the common Shias curse and insult the Shaykhayn, and in retaliation, the Sunnis insult and curse our sacred figures. I ask them: “You claim to love Ali (a), so why do you curse and insult?” They reply, “Yes, I love Ali (a), but they insulted us first, so I insult them back. They cursed, so I curse back.” This is exactly the point of the Qur’anic verse: “Do not insult those whom they invoke besides Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge.” This is a clear verse of the Qur’an. Yes, there may be issues with certain narrations—this, we acknowledge—but it does not affect the overall argument.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: Once again, I would like to thank Aqa Salehi. His main concern is to clear the accusations against Shias and to emphasize avoiding the identification of specific individuals in order to protect the lives of Shias, which is a matter that requires significant juristic effort. Now, we will return to Aqa Masaili.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: Aqa Etisami’s criticism was that he questioned why you undermined the sabb and la’an that are attributed to the Prophet (p). My question is why you justified them. My critique is that the Prophet (p) did not engage in sabb and la’an. This was not part of his conduct.
Insults Are Incompatible with Human Nature
I have no doubt that sabb is an unethical behavior and is incompatible with human nature. What I am saying is that you acknowledged this and then justified instances of sabb attributed to the Prophet (p). My critique is from that angle, whereas Aqa Etisami was arguing from the opposite perspective. For example, there are narrations where Amir al-Mu’minin (a) says: “Foul language and vulgarity have no part in Islam.” This phrase is also attributed to the Prophet (p) and Amir al-Mu’minin (a): “Indeed, foul language and vulgarity are not from the morals of Islam.” This is a part of Islamic ethics.
There is a story mentioned in both Shia and Sunni sources that is undisputed: a group of Jews came to the Prophet (p) and disrespected him by saying, “As-Samu ‘alaykum” (death be upon you). The Prophet (p) replied, “And upon you.” Aisha, who was present, became angry and responded, “And upon you be death, wrath, and curses, O group of Jews, brothers of apes and pigs!” Aisha used Qur’anic insults, which are not considered vulgar street insults. The Qur’an did not intend to insult but rather to clarify and convey truths, but Aisha used it as an insult. The Prophet (p) rebuked Aisha, demonstrating the repulsiveness and ugliness of sabb. The Prophet (p) said, “O Aisha, if vulgarity were to take a form, it would be a form of evil.” This expression from the Prophet (p) is also found in the sayings of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), such as this one from the Imams (a): “Indeed, gentleness was never applied to anything except that it beautified it, and it was never removed from anything except that it made it ugly.”
One of the Meanings of La’an is Sabb
Our problem is that insults have been attributed to the Prophet (p) that either lack authenticity or the interpretation that considers them as insults is incorrect. Similarly, in the book, sabb has been attributed to the Qur’an. We argue that the Qur’an does not engage in sabb. Our Imams did not engage in sabb in response to insults. The Qur’an states: “And when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace” (Furqan: 63). When the ignorant speak to them, they do not respond in kind but instead forgive and say words of farewell; they do not use insults. They do not respond to insults with insults. You are attributing initial insults to them, which is contrary to good manners and ethics. Even if we put aside the narrations, when have insults and curses ever been a means of effective propagation or influence to the extent that we would say the Imams (a) used them as a method of preaching or social interaction? That is our objection. It’s not that we are questioning why insults are problematic in the conduct of the Prophet (p). The same applies to la’an. I am saying that the equation of la’an with insults has not been clearly explained.
If you say that la’an is not sabb and is permissible, then, God forbid, could someone curse Amir al-Mu’minin (a) and you would say that although he does not deserve it, let him be cursed, and we will just ignore it? Personally, I would tear such a person to pieces for cursing Amir al-Mu’minin (a), so how can you expect the la’an of the Shaykhayn or the caliphs to happen, and they should simply let it go, saying that based on your beliefs, they are condemned to hell, but we do not believe that and will just ignore it? No, this is an insult, and it is offensive. One of the meanings of la’an is sab. I am saying that you have equated la’an with sab, and you have presented la’an in places for the Imams (a) where its authenticity or context is questionable.
By context, I mean that the Imams (a) never engaged in public la’an of individuals considered sacred by the other side. There may be weak reports suggesting that after prayers, they cursed four women or four men, but even the Dua of the Two Idols of Quraysh, which lacks a reliable chain of transmission and is mentioned in later sources, where did Amir al-Mu’minin (a) say these curses? It is reported that they were said during the night prayers and the qunoot of the witr prayer. According to the report, Ibn Abbas was in the mosque, and Amir al-Mu’minin (a) did not know that someone was there. Ibn Abbas secretly overheard it and reported it. According to the narration, Amir al-Mu’minin (a) concluded by saying: “This is one of the secrets of Allah; do not disclose it to anyone except the Ahl al-Bayt (a).” This report is mentioned in the book Rashh al-Wala’ fi Sharh al-Du’a.
The Imams (a) Neither Endorsed Nor Recommended Public La’an
You claim that there is a report that the Imams (a) used la’an as a means to express Shia beliefs. Please tell us where they said this. Yes, there may have been instances of personal la’an. God forbid, I can privately curse even the saints of Allah, but that curse will only affect me. However, if I curse the saints of Allah in public, I could be prosecuted for sabb al-nabi or any of the Imams (a) because it has social implications. Yes, la’an may have existed in a private, personal context in the conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). By context, I mean that the Imams (a) did not favour or recommend public la’an, nor did they seek to promote it. Public la’an is equivalent to insults.
Sometimes Personal Intra-sectarian Discussions Are Confused with Religious Debates
One issue that is confused in the book is that sometimes personal intra-sectarian matters are mixed with religious discussions. For example, I may have cursed or insulted someone who is in the same sect as I am; these instances get mixed up with religious discussions and are used to justify the idea that the Imams (a) or the companions of the Imams (a) also used insults in religious matters, and the Imams (a) remained silent or tacitly approved. If there was ever a case where cursing was overlooked by the Imams (a), it was not in relation to religious issues but rather personal intra-sectarian matters. Additionally, we must consider the status of the person being cursed or insulted—whether that person holds a sacred position and whether there is any religious respect due to them or not. If the Imams (a) cursed the ghulāt, it was because these individuals gained value through the Imams (a) themselves, not because they deserved any special respect; in fact, the Imams (a) distanced themselves from such individuals. We have discussed these issues in the book Impious Curses, and I mentioned it because it could have been helpful to your discussions if you had categorized the curses of the Imams (a).
The Primary Principle is that sabb is Incorrect, Unethical, and Insulting
I couldn’t reconcile one argument, which is that sabb is a secondary principle. The primary principle is that sabb is incorrect, unethical, and an insult. We had a discussion with someone who initially brought up the insults and curses of the Imams (a), justifying that the Imams (a) and the Prophet (p) used insults, and even the Qur’an uses insults. He said, “In some cases, we shouldn’t insult, and in other cases, insulting is not good.” My argument is that you must first prove the inherent, primary vileness of sabb and insult, and avoid using examples of la’an that are equivalent to sabb. Although la’an is not synonymous with sabb, in some instances, they overlap; in those cases, you should explain that it was used as a secondary measure, not that we have a primary principle of insulting, where we must insult, but there are some situations where insulting is bad. My issue is that insulting doesn’t have a secondary designation. The primary rule is that it is wrong, which you have correctly pointed out in some parts by saying that insulting is contrary to human nature and ethics, but then you say that Aqa Etisami interprets this as a relative matter. Truly, treating insult as a relative matter is incorrect. If you do this, then there is no standard to say that the Prophet (p) sometimes used insults and sometimes forbade them. How are we supposed to interpret this? What is the criterion for determining where insult is forbidden and where it is permissible? Or is the time and place a justification for insulting? If we open that door, it will mean anyone can go ahead and insult as much as they want!
Sabb and La’an Cause Significant Damage to the Logic and Doctrine of Shia Islam
It’s not right to focus solely on the killings of Shias as the consequence of sabb and la’an. I do not agree with that. The damage sabb and la’an inflict on the doctrine and religion is far greater than the loss of lives. Yes, due to sabb and la’an, some Shias are killed, but the harm it causes to the logic and school of Shia Islam is immense. If we want to convey the virtues of the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) to a Sunni scholar or the general Sunni public, they are already disillusioned because they view Shias as those who insult and curse their sacred figures. This attitude is worse, in the words of the Imams (a), than killing an Imam. Why? Because the Imams (a) sacrificed their lives so that their teachings and knowledge could be promoted and spread. When you obscure the teachings of the Imams (a) and the doctrine of Shia Islam, you are disregarding the efforts and the blood of the Imams (a), and this act is worse than killing an Imam. What these people do is worse than what a Nasibi does when he draws his sword to fight the Imams (a). The Imams (a) said: if you misquote or misrepresent our words, even if you convey a correct statement in the wrong way, it is worse than killing an Imam or someone who has deliberately killed the Imams (a). I argue that it would have been better if the author had included these discussions in the book.
The last point Aqa Etisami raised is that the book is historical in nature, so why should we only rely on Shia sources? Both Sunni and Shia histories have their own methodologies and approaches. If you want to follow a historical method like that of Sayyed Jafar Murtada Ameli, there are parts you would accept, and you could reference Sunni sources. It seems selective. But in parts where you disagree, you refer to Shia hadiths. He defends his approach by saying that his method is theological. However, if your method is not theological, and your approach is purely historical and academic, without the intent to promote Shia Islam from within history, then Sunni sources should be presented and evaluated.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: Thank you, Aqa Masaili. Now, Aqa Etisami, we turn to you.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami:
The idea of practicing dissimulation (taqiyya) and considering the potential for bloodshed if we engage in la’an—is anyone here saying that if there is a narration, it’s okay to curse and insult certain individuals? That’s not the issue at all, so why are we confusing these matters? The discussion isn’t about Farhat al-Zahra. The discussion is about the book. I’ve read several sections where the book questions the very culture of cursing the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). If we argue that sabb and la’an have inherent intellectual vileness, then this isn’t just about the sabb of the Shaykhayn. You refer to verses and narrations saying that the Prophet (p) said not to insult or curse anyone, and I responded that there are cases where cursing is found. I’m not talking specifically about the first or second caliphs. In fact, I am challenging your general claim because it leads to writing a book in such a way that the reader, as Aqa Masaili said, will mistakenly believe that the primary principle is that cursing is inherently bad, in any context or form.
Let me clarify one point. When did I ever say that sabb is a secondary principle? I actually reject the idea of primary and secondary principles in this case. It depends on who the curse is directed at. Cursing the polytheists is highly praiseworthy, and there is no inherent vileness in it. Insulting the polytheists, in its Qur’anic sense, which I mentioned earlier, is absolutely praiseworthy. If insulting the opponents causes harm, then it is condemned. We have no dispute about this. We are not sitting around this table to debate whether we should curse publicly or not.
Zaydis Were Opposed to the Rafidah
In conclusion, regarding Aqa Masaili’s comments, I will share a few points. Although our discussion is mainly about the book, I will address this issue in a general sense, and perhaps later, if time allows, we can have a separate session on the topic of sabb and la’an.
I will continue pointing out the contradictions and mistakes found in the book, particularly regarding the incorrect blending of the cultures of la’an and sabb. I initially thought there was a specific error related to the case of Zayd ibn Ali, but I noticed that the mistake is repeated several times. Essentially, the Zaydis were one of the deviant sects that promoted la’an. How? They demanded that Zayd renounce and curse certain figures, but he refused, and thus, they became known as the Rafidah. However, Zaydis were actually opposed to the Rafidah. If you look at the categorizations, Zaydis are not considered part of the Rafidah. On page 18, the author writes: “It was during this time that the Zaydis were first called Rafidah.” Who called the Zaydis Rafidah? Where is this written? The text continues: “Because Zayd not only refrained from renouncing and disassociating from the Shaykhayn, but he also distanced himself from those who did.” This is one example.
The same discussion is repeated on page 141: “Some of Zayd’s followers pledged allegiance to him on the condition that he would renounce and curse the Shaykhayn, but when Zayd refused to do so and did not insult or curse the caliphs, his followers abandoned him. Thus, the extremists of this sect, and those who insulted and cursed the caliphs, were called Rafidah.” This entire claim is incorrect, regardless of whether the proposal was approved or not. I looked at the three sources the author references, and in none of them did these people ask Zayd to curse or insult. They only asked for disassociation, not cursing or insulting. Disassociation has its own specific language, and the term bara’ah carries a particular meaning.
Who said that those who asked Zayd for disassociation were extremists? Additionally, the extremists were not Zaydis and had no connection to the Zaydi movement. In fact, the Zaydi movement did not exist during Zayd’s time but emerged after him. It was the Imamiyyah who requested disassociation from Zayd, and when he refused, some of them distanced themselves from him, while others, understanding that Zayd was practicing taqiyya, cooperated with him, including Abu Hamza al-Thumali.
I have written a book about Zayd ibn Ali, where I extensively discussed Zayd’s position on bara’ah. I even noted that Zayd himself was associated with disassociation. I am unsure whether you have included this in your book, but in Kashi, it is mentioned that several individuals came to Imam Baqir (a) with Zayd present and said: “O son of the Messenger of Allah, we recognize the authority of Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a).” The Imam confirmed this. They then added: “We also recognize the authority of so-and-so.” When Zayd heard this, he responded: “Do you disassociate from my mother Fatimah (s)?” He then said: “May Allah abandon you.” This reflects a completely different language.
The same issue is repeated on page 163: “A number of Zayd’s supporters gathered around him and pledged allegiance to him on the condition that he disassociate from the Shaykhayn, but when Zayd refused to do so and did not insult or curse the caliphs…” There was never any discussion of cursing or insulting. “…they abandoned him. Thus, the extremists of this sect (once again, the author attributes this to the extremists) and those who insulted and cursed the caliphs were called Rafidah. Zaydis were among the extremist groups that promoted cursing and insulting the Shaykhayn.” In reality, Zaydis were not part of the disassociating group, except for a specific faction like the Jarudiyyah, who had a history of disassociation before becoming Zaydis. In fact, the Zaydis were opposed to the Rafidah. As I mentioned at the outset, the Imamiyyah Shia were recognized by two main characteristics: rejecting the Shaykhayn, denying the legitimacy of their leadership, and recognizing the legitimacy of those appointed by Allah.
The Ahl al-Bayt (a) Had a General and Even Social Language of La’an
Attributing the promotion of the culture of la’an solely to the ghulat during that time is not entirely accurate. Yes, there is no doubt that many among the extremists promoted it, and the Imams (a) condemned them, but it was not the case for everyone. It’s possible that an Imamiyya Shia made a mistake and was corrected, but we do not label such a person as an extremist. There are many examples, and I’ve cited them with references. For instance, Sayyid Himyari, whom the author mentioned, although he became a follower of the Imams, continued to engage in la’an. I do not endorse this, and the Imam did correct him, but he was not considered an extremist. Others like Aban bin Taghlib and Abu Hamza al-Thumali are similar cases, and even Umm Salama engaged in cursing implicitly. Jabir bin Abdullah and the family of Ayun were also involved. I’m not saying they explicitly used the word, but there was la’an, and the audience understood who the cursed individuals were.
The Ahl al-Bayt (a) intentionally used a general language of la’an, even socially, and cursing the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) was socially promoted (of course, not in a way that led to bloodshed). A clear example of this is found in the supplications and ziyarat. Fundamentally, a ziyarat represents a social interaction between the Imam and the pilgrim. You may argue that 90% of the narrations are weak, but we have many ziyarat that contain la’an and promote the culture of la’an—where the enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), by virtue of being an enemy, is cursed, and this culture should be propagated. Yes, in terms of identifying specific individuals—those familiar with the context know who is being referred to. We have a responsibility not to give the enemy a reason to attack us, and of course, no one disagrees with this. Who would oppose avoiding direct mentions and stating explicitly that we mean so-and-so? In the Sahifa Sajjadiya, in Du’a 48, verses 9 and 10, you will see that during the era of Imam Sajjad (a), one of the most repressive periods for the Ahl al-Bayt (a), and while living under intense taqiyya, the Imam uses a supplication to emphasize the social culture of la’an against the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a).
I am saying in general terms that la’an was a social practice. Yes, you might say that Imam Sajjad (a) did not publicly declare in the middle of a gathering, “I curse so-and-so.” This did not happen, and no one has made such a claim. But Imam Sajjad, in Du’a 48, verses 9 and 10, after expressing beautiful statements about the divine status of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), continues with: “O Allah, this position belongs to Your successors, Your chosen ones, and the places of Your trusted ones in the high rank that You have specifically assigned to them, but they have been usurped.” Who took these positions from the Ahl al-Bayt (a)? Did the Khawarij do it? Did people come from the West or Europe to seize these positions? “Until Your chosen ones and successors were left defeated, oppressed, and usurped… O Allah, curse their enemies from the first to the last.” Were those who fought against Amir al-Mu’minin (a) among these first and last enemies, or not? Yes, the Imam used a particular language to ensure that the enemy would not take advantage of this and say, “You cursed so-and-so,” but the Imam had foresight and ensured that the message was clear to his followers: the general cursing of our enemies must exist among the Shia Imamiyya community. “O Allah, curse their enemies from the first to the last, and those who were pleased with their actions, as well as their followers and supporters.” How else should the Imam express this? He clearly says, “O Allah, curse those who opposed us, even those who were pleased with their actions.” Then how can I claim that la’an has an inherent vileness except in rare cases and that the primary rule is that it is inherently wrong? What kind of statement is that? There is so much la’an in the Qur’an. Are we to say that the primary rule is that it is inherently wrong, and the Qur’an’s usage is an exception? That is fine, but let’s follow exactly those exceptions from the Qur’an and the narrations—no more, no less. No extremism, no neglect—let’s not go beyond that. Aqa Masaili, you mentioned sabb and brought up narrations about insults. Yes, insults, vulgarities, and bad language are clearly prohibited.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: “O brothers of apes and pigs” is Qur’anic vulgar language. Aisha said, “O brothers of apes and pigs,” and this is a phrase from the Qur’an.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Bravo, I wanted to say just that. God willing, we can discuss the concept of sabb and la’an in another session. If you claim that the fundamental principle of sabb is that it is inherently wrong, yet you bring counter-examples yourself. You mention the phrase “like a donkey.” If calling someone “like a donkey” is considered sabb, then you cannot make a general claim that sabb is inherently wrong. I still maintain that sabb is conceptually different from vulgar language. Sabb has a broad meaning, and yes, there are instances where vulgarities fall under the category of sabb, which we do not accept.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: Is that your view, or have the linguists defined it as such in specific cases?
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Yes, indeed I have researched this, and the author also mentioned it, and it’s correct. Every form of abusive language, including la’an, is sabb. Abusive language that the Qur’an and narrations do not endorse, which is considered vulgar, is 100% forbidden, and there’s no debate on that. The derogatory terms the Qur’an teaches us are praiseworthy. The Qur’an teaches us this, so why should we go beyond it? If calling someone a donkey is intended to provide clarity, then we seek to clarify matters about the enemy. Our issue is not with the words themselves but with the attribution.
When did I ever say that only Shia sources should be used? On the contrary, I asked why only Sunni sources are used. If sources are to be omitted in the proposal, why only remove Shia sources? Sunni sources should have been omitted as well, and there should have been two Shia and two Sunni sources. Interestingly, at the end of the book, the author engages in analyzing the authenticity of Shia narrations, but they bring so many narrations from Aisha, from sources like Sahih Bukhari, and attribute them to the Prophet (p), without any discussion of their authenticity—whether these narrations are weak or not! You admit that, yes, I also agree, the narrations generally say not to engage in sabb and la’an. But why didn’t you say these narrations are weak? Why don’t you analyze their authenticity there? You analyze Shia narrations and dismiss them, but this is a contradiction. Now you say your intention was… I don’t concern myself with your intention—your intention is noble and commendable. You accept general and even personal and social la’an, but this book goes against the pure Shia culture regarding the true meaning of la’an and sabb. I have no issue with the general scope of sabb, the part where you agree with me on the Qur’anic meaning, and the narrations you accept.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: I never said that sabb is mentioned in the Qur’an. I said in that case it was informative, not sabb. Sabb is an imperative.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Informative about what? When the Qur’an says, “The example of those… is like the example of a donkey” (Jumu’ah: 5), it is drawing a comparison to a donkey. What information is being conveyed?
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: It is a simile, an example; it applies a degrading attribute.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Exactly, that’s what we also want to do—compare enemies to donkeys as a simile.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: Informative statements can be true or false, but when you call someone a donkey, they will say, “I am not a donkey.” There is no truth or falsehood in that. Insults do not have truth or falsehood. When you insult someone, they don’t respond by saying whether they are or aren’t what you called them because you are not making an informative statement, it’s an imperative.
The Principle of the Culture of La’an is Accepted
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: I was not discussing terminology. I am repeating again regarding the book, based on the good evidence you have provided in it, that we should not restrict ourselves. First: the principle of the culture of la’an toward polytheists, the enemies of God, and the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) is accepted. Second: There are instances where the Ahl al-Bayt (a) and the Prophet (p) have cursed specific individuals—not referring to the first and second caliphs. Sabb in its correct sense, as mentioned in the Qur’an, with differences in interpretation, is also accepted. In some instances, the Ahl al-Bayt (a) and even the companions of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) used certain phrases to imply that the usurpers of the rights of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) were cursed. Yes, in specific cases of openly cursing particular individuals, we must observe certain considerations, but that is unrelated to the topic at hand. For instance, if you go to Syria, it may be necessary not to curse Yazid in public. We are not discussing these matters. That is why I said this book can be critiqued.
In my final sentence, I also acknowledge that the cultural and ethical Shia community is completely opposed to any form of extremism in the matter of insults, sabb, and la’an. On the contrary, the distinction between deviants and those who do not want to guide people toward righteousness often requires these sacred forms of la’an and sabb—not unsanctified ones. I did not intend to make this a political discussion, but in today’s world, when we want to draw a clear distinction between the enemies, do we not have open la’an and sabb? We do. If it were inherently vile, it would be vile even in political matters.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: Thank you, Aqa Etisami.
One of the audience members: I have a point regarding Aqa Etisami’s remarks. I think his strongest argument concerning sabb and la’an was that sabb and la’an were part of Shia culture, and he emphasized this several times in his talk. My point is that just because something is part of Shia culture does not necessarily provide a strong and logical justification for sabb and la’an. First of all, we must look at what the culture of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) was, not just Shia culture, because oftentimes Shia culture has not been in line with the culture of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). For example, in Iraq, there is a culture of self-flagellation during mourning ceremonies. Does this mean qameh-zani is something praiseworthy and positive just because it is part of Shia culture? So, saying that something is part of Shia culture does not automatically make it correct.
Additionally, when you say that sabb and la’an were part of Shia culture, we need to ask: on what basis are you asserting that this was part of Shia culture? Perhaps it was not. Was Shia Islam historically identified by sabb and la’an? I believe this needs to be proven.
I would also like to address the author of the book and those working on unity and rapprochement. We all acknowledge that one of the criticisms levelled against Shia Islam is the issue of sabb and la’an. When we engage with Sunnis and the wider Islamic world, the first thing they point out is that Shias curse their caliphs. However, I don’t believe this should be the primary criterion in an academic discussion. In an academic session, I think we should critically examine the foundations of the permissibility of sabb and la’an. That is, we should question the narrations that allow us to engage in sabb and la’an and, as Aqa Etisami mentioned, we should question the foundations of this culture if it exists. If we adopt a Qur’anic approach, would we still face the same issue with the rest of the Muslim community regarding sabb and la’an, or would the problem be resolved? During the time when Dar al-Taqreeb was established in Egypt and there were exchanges between Ayatollah Boroujerdi and Sheikh Shaltut, two volumes of Bihar al-Anwar that contained slanderous content were banned from being published during Ayatollah Boroujerdi’s time.
What I’m suggesting is that we should examine these narrations to see how accurate or inaccurate they are. For example, in your statements, you referred to the cursing of Abu Hanifa and mentioned al-Kafi, where Imam Kazim (a) and Imam Sadiq (a) curse Abu Hanifa due to his use of analogy (qiyas). Shouldn’t this narration be scrutinized? Just because it appears in al-Kafi, does that automatically mean it is correct and accepted? Shouldn’t this narration be examined in terms of its chain of transmission and whether it aligns with the Qur’an? The narration says that the Imam specifically names Abu Hanifa and curses him. Just because it is mentioned in al-Kafi, does that make it valid? Personally, I do not accept this because the culture of Shia Islam—and indeed the broader Muslim culture—does not tolerate such behaviour. After all, Abu Hanifa was a prominent figure. How could Imam Sadiq (a) openly curse him, and then we reflect this in al-Kafi and publicly declare that Imam Sadiq (a) cursed Abu Hanifa? This needs to be examined in terms of both its chain of transmission and its conformity with the Qur’an.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: I explained the concept of Shia culture and said that the Ahl al-Bayt (a) passed this culture on to the Shia community. As I read in the ziyarat and duas, the Ahl al-Bayt (a) passed this culture on in a general sense. Cursing the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) dates back to the time of the Prophet (p), who cursed the opponents of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) in a general manner. There are numerous narrations that speak of cursing those who denied Imam Ali (a) or the Ahl al-Bayt (a), including the supplication I read from Imam Sajjad (a). Many duas and ziyarat have been disseminated in a social context so that the Shia can always use them, serving as a hallmark of Shia identity and helping to distinguish between the deviant camp and the righteous camp—while also observing taqiyya and the necessary considerations. These are indisputable.
You asked whether Shia Islam is identified by sabb and la’an. No, none of us ever claimed that Shia Islam is identified by sabb and la’an. I mentioned that Shia Islam is recognized by two characteristics: rejection of the Shaykhayn and acknowledgment of the divine appointment of Amir al-Mu’minin (a).
Regarding Abu Hanifa, I believe the issue of authenticity is a concern for the author to address—whether or not the narration should be verified. I would also like to point out that you mentioned that, as a Shia, you cannot accept this. In general, I will say that Sunni scholars have said much worse things about Abu Hanifa than Imam Sadiq (a) ever did. You need not worry; that can also be examined.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: You mentioned Sunnis—Hanbalis or the Ahl al-Hadith—yes, they have criticized Abu Hanifa. But do the followers of Abu Hanifa accept this?
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: We can discuss the authenticity of the reports.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Masaili: I’m not discussing the authenticity. When you say the Sunnis criticized Abu Hanifa, it’s the Ahl al-Hadith.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: What I meant is that you, as a Shia, should not worry; they insult each other too.
One of the audience members: My point was that if we look at this issue historically, we don’t accept this. You gave the example of Zayd ibn Ali. Zayd ibn Ali was one of those supported by Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa collected funds for him.
Dr. Abdolmajid Etisami: Yes, because Zayd was planning to rise against the Umayyads.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mostafa Sadeghi Kashani: As we conclude the session, we will now hear from Dr. Motahhari, the director of the Research Institute for the History and Biography of the Ahl al-Bayt (a).
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Hamidreza Motahhari:
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful. I would like to thank the Ahl al-Bayt News Agency for organizing this session and express my gratitude to the esteemed critics who carefully read the book. I also thank the honourable author, Dr. Salehi, who worked hard on this book, which took several years to publish. Naturally, we must always remember that an unwritten essay has no errors, and if any points were raised today, they are certainly valuable gifts from the esteemed critics. Please apply these suggestions for the next edition, and Dr. Sadeghi’s supervision as the group director is noted.
Dr. Etisami, you may have forgotten, but I noted down that you mentioned the “authentic culture of la’an and disassociation.” I accept the culture of bara’ah, and naturally, bara’ah is different from sabb and la’an. You are well aware of this.
I would also like to defend Dr. Salehi on two points. One is regarding the title, which some of the professors mentioned. Aqa Masaili said that the title is ambiguous. I believe that the title, given that it addresses the “confrontation of the Ahl al-Bayt (a),” clearly defines the historical and temporal scope. Dr. Etisami raised a different criticism from this side, which I believe is not valid. If we look at the Ahl al-Bayt’s (a) life history, their conduct was largely based on harmony. I believe that in promoting harmony, confrontation with the culture of sabb and la’an can be observed, even if you don’t accept it. This can be discussed in a future session. To give an example: when Imam Jawad (a) participated in debates with the Abbasids, how did he react? If we were in his place, what would we have done? Apparently, Yahya bin Aktham asked a question about the narration where God supposedly told Gabriel to go to the Prophet (p) and ask so-and-so if he is pleased with God, as God is pleased with him. If we were in that situation, we might have immediately hurled insults, and perhaps we wouldn’t have given a proper response. But the Imam (a) said: “I do not deny his virtue, but this doesn’t align with the Qur’an or the conduct of the Ahl al-Bayt (a).” The Imam’s approach was one of harmony. Or take Imam Sadiq’s (a) conduct, where he placed great emphasis on harmony. I believe if this point is taken into consideration, it would suffice.
Once again, I thank everyone who contributed.
Sayyid Ali studied in the seminary of Qom from 2012 to 2021, while also concurrently obtaining a M.A in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College of London in 2018. In the seminary he engaged in the study of legal theory, jurisprudence and philosophy, eventually attending the advanced kharij of Usul and Fiqh in 2018. He is currently completing his Masters of Education at the University of Toronto and is the head of a private faith-based school in Toronto, as well as an instructor at the Mizan Institute and Mufid Seminary.
