Is the Clerical Institution's Survival Dependent on Mourning and Grief?

The third Imam of Shiites and the mourning rituals of Muharram have gained special significance and status for Iranians. Is Shiism grief-centered and mourning-oriented? Have Iranians chosen to mourn for Ashura and Tasua, or is it the clerical institution that owes its survival to mourning and grief? Abdolali Bazargan, a Quran researcher, and Sajad Nik-Ayin, a religious researcher, discuss this topic in this week's taboo. Mr. Nik-Ayin, some argue why should Shiite Iranians mourn so intensely for an event that occurred 1400 years ago among Arab tribes? What is your response to this group? Sajad Nik-Ayin: I think this question is fundamentally not valid because if we base mourning on narratives, nowhere in the narratives are Iranians specifically mentioned or asked as a nationality to come and mourn. What has been recommended is for believers who believe in these matters to mourn, and there has been no imposition. After Shiism entered Iran, Iranians joined the ranks of mourners, and this mourning in Lebanon, Iraq, and wherever Shiism has gone has taken on the cultural color of that region. Mourning is not something that can be imposed on people. Take the 14th and 15th of Khordad, which is a governmental occasion in our country. The system wants to force people to mourn, but people instead go on vacation because what does not resonate with people's hearts and lacks roots cannot be imposed. Therefore, I see mourning for the Lord and Master of Martyrs, Imam Hussein, in this context. We will discuss the issue of mourning more in this program, but I want to continue this question with Mr. Bazargan, considering the points that some questioners may raise. Mr. Bazargan, we heard Mr. Nik-Ayin's remarks. He said that mourning is not imposed, but some ask how Iranians react to this issue in this way; if mourning for Imam Hussein is a Shiite issue - and Shiites exist in other places, although they are considered a minority - the question is why this issue has persisted so much among Iranians - an issue that could perhaps be evaluated outside the history and land of Iranians - how has it become so important for Iranians? Abdolali Bazargan: As you know, Iran has been at the crossroads of history. Two-thirds of our history has been governed by foreign invaders; whether Mongols, Tartars, Genghis, or Turks. Two-thirds [of Iranian history] has been foreign, with bloodshed and massacres, and the one-third that had Iranian kings brought calamities upon the Iranian people that were no less than foreign rule. Therefore, we have a bloody history; Iranians have a sense of empathy with the martyrs of Karbala and feel a kinship with these martyrs. Values are not related to ethnicity. You notice that Jesus was from Palestine and spoke Hebrew, not German, English, or French. Yet none of the Westerners think about why they follow a Palestinian figure. When the black African Mandela passed away, all the important political leaders of the world attended his funeral. Tutu, a black Christian leader from Africa, sent a message during the Green Movement for 'Neda Agha Soltan.' In today's world, at least these racial superiorities are condemned, and human value is based on thought. 'O brother, you are but a thought; the rest is just bone and root.' Gandhi spoke the best words about the Ashura movement, Karbala, and Imam Hussein, even though he was not a Muslim. To say that we are Iranians and why we should mourn in the disputes and wars of Arabs is not acceptable or heard in today's world. In fact, values must be examined. This movement that has occurred, although it had a geographical distance from us, was still a symbol of resistance against individual tyranny - naturally, since Iranians have experienced this issue in flesh and bone, they welcomed it and saw it as their current situation, intertwining their history and destiny with this historical movement. Mr. Bazargan, here a question arises for me regarding the mourning rituals of Muharram that we witness every year in Iran - we will talk about their changes over time - in other words, when did the mourning rituals of Ashura, Tasua, and the months of Muharram and Safar become so important in Iran, and was there such significance and identification before the Safavid era when Shiism became the official religion of Iranians? Bazargan: The beginning of these matters started right after the massacre of the Prophet's household in Karbala and during the time of Imam Zain al-Abidin and the blatant tyranny, because they (the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs) dealt harshly and easily beheaded. They (the Shiites) had no choice but to preserve this message in the form of mourning. In Iran, in those early centuries when they became familiar with this issue, especially in Khorasan, movements emerged - the Umayyad government was overthrown by Khorasani movements and figures like Abu Muslim Khorasani - and even the fervor and interest in this matter among Iranians exceeded that of others. That is, the second and third generation of Shiite Imams sought refuge in Iran, and there was readiness for these messages in Iranian cities. Thus, this issue became established in Iran even more than in Arabia at that time, and I think Iran has a longer history in this regard. Shiism was considered a minority and the opposition of that time. The oppressive governments of the Abbasids and Umayyads saw that a minority did not regard them as the symbol of Islam and the symbol of their Prophet's tradition and resisted against them, being killed, tortured, and imprisoned. Therefore, a tradition and investment of martyrdom remained in this fighting and protesting minority throughout history, and thus the Karbala massacre became a flag; a raised flag that indicated the identity of this opposition - just as in our revolution, when someone was killed, it was as if their blood boiled, and people held mourning for the seventh, fortieth, and annual remembrance - and it became an asset for this minority. You go back more than a thousand years; my question is from what date did this issue gain ritual and religious importance for Iranians that we see it over the years? Bazargan: You see, Iranians did not just convert to Islam recently; this issue dates back to the early centuries of Islam. I have traced its roots back to that time (in Iran), and they viewed it as a matter of belief, but from the Safavid period - when the Safavids faced the Ottoman Turks - when Iran became a base for Shiism and the Ottomans became a base for Sunnism, this issue became intertwined with politics and exaggerated, and both sides excommunicated each other; they deemed Shiite blood permissible, and on the other side, Shiites deemed Sunni blood permissible - and the issue took on dimensions of identity, religious identity, and sectarian identity. However, historically, the roots of the matter are much earlier than the Safavid and Qajar periods. Mr. Nik-Ayin, a question many want an answer to is why Shiite Islam is so mourning-oriented and tearful? Mourning is considered virtuous in this view, and even the mention of tragedy is seen as beneficial. I think this mourning during Muharram is related to the mourning-centered nature of Shiite Islam. Nik-Ayin: Let me return to the subject of mourning. This misunderstanding that the roots of mourning go back to the Safavid era stems from the views of some of our intellectuals, while it is not like that at all. The Buyid dynasty, during its rule, Ibn Athir writes about the events of the year 352 AH - long before the Safavid era - stating: 'On the tenth of Muharram that year, people closed their shops and places of business and mourned. They wore black mourning robes, women disheveled their hair, tore their garments, wept in the city, and beat their chests and recited the lament of Hussein ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. People did all these things, and the Sunnis denied it because they had no power over the Shiites.' In any case, this report shows that the history of mourning in this land is much older than the Safavid era, and this historical misunderstanding that some of our intellectuals perpetuate is not very solid and is quite weak. Therefore, you say that mourning existed before the intensity that followed the Safavid era? Nik-Ayin: This is a historical report; this is a report that Ibn Athir gives in his book about the events of the year 352 AH. Because the discussion is not whether mourning existed in this form before the officialization of Shiite Islam in Iran; the discussion is about the intensity and prevalence that increased after the Safavid era... Nik-Ayin: Well, naturally, when the number of followers of a religion and the geographical spread of a religion increases, the symbols of that religion also expand. Just as if you want to compare, in the first year after Ashura, the number of those who mourned for Sayyid al-Shuhada (Imam Hussein) was limited to the Prophet's household. Naturally, when Shiites are present in Bahrain, Lebanon, and even Africa, their expansion increases, and naturally, when it enters different cultures, each culture interacts with the issue according to its circumstances, and the symbols also change. Today, the style of mourning practiced in Zanjan, Iran, is influenced by this cultural phenomenon on mourning and is very different from the style practiced in Lebanon, in Jabal Amel, in Sidon, in Nabatieh, in Bahrain, and in Kuwait because cultures are different. Yes, a political factor called the officialization of the religion has acted as a catalyst, but the idea that the roots of mourning and all [concepts] of mourning are derived from the Safavid or Qajar periods and that they can only continue with the help of the political system does not seem to have much credibility and does not have a rational basis. Mr. Bazargan, do you fundamentally agree with the proposition that Shiite Islam is very mourning-oriented, mourning-centered, and tearful? And is mourning considered virtuous? If so, why should it be this way? Bazargan: I must clarify that my statement was not that these mourning rituals started from the Safavid era. I said that after the Karbala massacre, they preserved this issue as a tradition. The intensification and specific form it took, especially its familiarity with various sciences and rituals of mourning among European Christians, gave it a specific and dramatic form. But why this happened in Shiism is because Shiism was an opposition, a minority against the ruling power. It was the Shiites who were arrested, imprisoned, and killed. Naturally, at a time when there was the slightest possibility to express their views and beliefs, they expressed them in the form of mourning. Just as Christianity mourned for centuries in Europe. Now, under Paris, those catacombs were places of mourning for Shiites and followers of Jesus. Even in some Christian countries, the types of mourning and self-harm they practice are much more than those of Shiites. Therefore, there has been a framework; the main discussion is that now that the government is entirely in the hands of the clergy, who are the custodians of these mourning rituals, should the tool of victimhood still be used? Should we still proceed with the factor of mourning? Well, if we go beyond this position that you mentioned, meaning setting aside the minority status of Shiites because this is not the case in Iran, where they hold the majority, my question may delve a bit deeper into the religion of Shiite Islam and Islam itself, which is inherently accompanied by crying and lamentation. This is a question raised by some: why is this mention of tragedy and mourning considered important, and we even see that mentioning tragedy is referred to as virtuous, and this religion is sustained based on lamentation and recitation of elegies? You mentioned other religions; for example, in Zoroastrianism, it does not seem to be the case; even in facing death, there seems to be a more joyful confrontation.