Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi
This is the third in the series on devotional practices of ‘Āshūra.
For Twelver Shi’i Muslims, Karbala is not merely a historical catastrophe but the defining struggle between truth and falsehood. Alongside profound love for Imam Husain and the Ahl al-Bayt, therefore, developed an equally essential principle: repudiation of those who persecuted them. This is tabarrā, expressed most forcefully through la’n (invoking Allah’s curse upon the conscious oppressors of the Prophet’s family).
To understand why this practice became a religious duty, one must locate it within the broader framework of Shi’i theology, specifically the Usūl al-Dīn (roots of faith) and the twin obligations of amr bil ma’rūf (enjoining good) and nahī anil munkar (forbidding evil). These are not separate ethical exhortations but interconnected pillars that give tabarrā its moral and spiritual weight.
The Theological Framework: Usūl al-Dīn
Twelver Shi’ism identifies five roots of faith: Tawhīd (divine unity), ‘Adl (divine justice), Nubuwwa (prophethood), Imāma (divine leadership), and Ma’ād (resurrection). Each bears directly on the duty to curse the oppressors of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Tawhīd affirms that sovereignty belongs to God alone. To oppose His chosen representatives is to rebel against His authority. ‘Adl demands that justice be upheld and oppression condemned; if God is just, then those who perpetrate injustice cannot be treated with indifference. Nubuwwa establishes the Prophet as the final messenger, and to harm his family is to assault his mission. Imāma asserts that the Prophet’s successors are divinely appointed guides; opposing them is therefore opposing God’s will. Ma’ād ensures ultimate accountability; those who escaped earthly justice will face divine judgement, and the believer’s prayer for that judgement (i.e., la’n) is an act of faith in that final reckoning.
Thus tabarrā is not an optional extra but flows necessarily from each root. To believe in God’s justice is to repudiate injustice. To believe in prophethood is to defend its legacy. To believe in the Imamate is to dissociate from those who sought to destroy it.
The Active Obligations: Amr bil Ma’rūf and Nahī anil Munkar
The Qur’an commands believers to “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” (3:104; 9:71; 31:17). In Shi’i jurisprudence, these are not merely recommended but obligatory upon every believer, according to their capacity. They form the ethical engine of the community, ensuring that faith is not passive but actively engaged in shaping a just society.
Amr bil ma’rūf enjoins love, loyalty, and support for the Ahl al-Bayt; this is tawallā. It affirms their righteousness, upholds their example, and perpetuates their teachings. Conversely, nahī anil munkar forbids the evils they opposed, which necessarily includes condemning those who persecuted them; this is tabarrā. The two duties are inseparable. One cannot genuinely enjoin good without also forbidding evil; one cannot authentically love the Ahl al-Bayt without repudiating their enemies.
Imam Husain’s stand at Karbala was itself the supreme act of nahī anil munkar. He did not rise for political power but to “revive the command of enjoining good and forbidding evil,” as he declared in his famous address. His martyrdom was the ultimate testimony that some evils are so grave they must be opposed even at the cost of life. To curse his killers is therefore to affirm the principle for which he died. It is to say that the evil he opposed remains evil, and that the moral clarity he embodied must not be blurred by time or expediency.
The Meaning of La’n within This Framework
In Islamic theology, la’n does not mean abuse or vindictiveness. Classical Arabic defines it as exclusion from divine mercy. When a believer prays, “O Allah, curse the killers of Husain,” he is not usurping judgement but beseeching God to withhold mercy from those who committed the gravest betrayal. The judgement remains entirely with Him. Within the Usūl framework, this prayer is an acknowledgement of divine justice (‘Adl) and an anticipation of the final judgement (Ma’ād). It is also an act of nahī anil munkar, forbidding evil by calling it by its name and refusing to normalise it.
The Qur’an firmly establishes this principle: “Indeed, Allah has cursed the disbelievers” (33:64); “Upon them shall be the curse of Allah, the angels and all mankind” (2:159); “The curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers” (11:18). Divine mercy is not unconditional; persistent oppression may place one beyond it. Prophetic tradition reinforces this: the Prophet invoked curses upon land-grabbers, those who cursed parents, usurers, and corrupt innovators. In each case, he did not engage in vulgarity but prayed for divine justice. Notably, early Sunni tradition contains numerous such instances. Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Umar both reportedly invoked curses upon those who oppressed the Ahl al-Bayt, and the famous hadith, “Whoever wrongs ‘Alī, may Allah curse him,” appears in Sunni canonical collections too. The divergence lies not in the principle but in the historical scope of its application.
Applied to Karbala
Imam Husain was the Prophet’s beloved grandson, a Master of the Youth of Paradise, and the third divinely appointed Imam. His murder, alongside the slaughter of his infant son, nephews, and companions, the denial of water, the desecration of bodies, and the captivity of women and children, constituted an assault upon the Prophet himself and the moral foundations of Islam. To remain silent about such crimes would violate nahī anil munkar; to fail to uphold his example would weaken amr bil ma’rūf.
Thus tabarrā became inseparable from tawallā. In Twelver Shi’ism, both are pillars of faith alongside the Usūl. This dual obligation is rooted in the Qur’anic verse: “Say, ‘I do not ask of you any reward for it except love for my near kin'” (42:23). For Shi’i exegetes, that love necessarily entails enmity towards those who harmed them. Genuine loyalty requires moral dissociation from injustice, as the Qur’an also declares: “You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger” (58:22). This finds eloquent expression in Ziyarat Ashura, which invokes curses upon “the first wrongdoer who wronged the family of Muhammad and the last who followed him.” This is not out of personal hatred but moral accountability before God. The formula, “peace be upon you, O Abā ‘Abdillāh, and curse be upon the killers of you,” encapsulates this indivisible pairing.
Beyond theology, the practice functions as an oral historiography. Regular recitation of curses keeps the names, deeds, and genealogies of the oppressors alive across centuries. This is not mere rancour but a form of collective memory preservation, ensuring that the perpetrators of Karbala cannot be rehabilitated or forgotten, and that the moral lesson remains vivid for each generation.
Ethical Safeguards and Jurisprudential Nuance
Critics allege sectarianism, but Shi’i scholars distinguish la’n from sabb (vulgar abuse), which the Qur’an forbids (6:108). Moreover, classical manuals stress that la’n must be free from personal malice, uttered with humility before God, and directed only at those whose guilt is certain; it is not directed at living individuals or those whose inner state is unknown. It is a prayer for God’s justice, not a weapon for sectarian score-settling. As Shaykh al-Mufīd writes, “Cursing is an act of worship, not of temper.” While all Shi’i jurists affirm the permissibility of la’n, opinions diverge on its public expression. Some (for example, Ayatollah Khamenei) caution strongly against it in interfaith settings, prioritising unity and avoiding provocation. Others (for example, Ayatollah Khomeini) permitted more open expression within Muslim discourse. There is also a distinction between la’n as a devotional act (recommended) and as a judicial sentence (which only an infallible Imam may pronounce). Most believers confine themselves to the former.
Importantly, the duty of nahī anil munkar is itself qualified by conditions: it must be performed with knowledge, with the intention of reform, and without causing greater harm. This is why Shi’i jurists have always counselled wisdom in its application. La’n is one expression of forbidding evil, but not the only one. It is appropriate where historical evils are settled and beyond dispute; it is less appropriate where direct engagement or education might yield better results. The principle of amr bil ma’rūf, meanwhile, emphasises that love for the Ahl al-Bayt must be active and constructive, pursued through following their example, studying their teachings, and embodying their ethics in daily life.
The Eschatological and Universal Dimensions
In Shi’i eschatology, the final Imam (al-Mahdī) will, upon his return, exact divine justice and publicly curse the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt in a universal declaration. Believers’ present recitations are thus seen as anticipatory participation in that ultimate vindication: a way of aligning themselves with the forces of justice before the end of time.
Beyond history, Karbala symbolises universal moral responsibility. To curse Husain’s killers is to reject tyranny wherever it appears. Every Ashura renews the commitment to stand with Husain over Yazid, justice over oppression, and conscience over expediency. This is the living application of amr bil ma’rūf and nahī anil munkar: not static formulae but dynamic principles that demand moral engagement with the world.
La’n complements love. As believers ask Allah to bless the Prophet’s family, they also ask Him to withhold mercy from those who sought their destruction. Mercy without justice is meaningless. The same God who commands amr bil ma’rūf also commands nahī anil munkar. To fulfil one without the other would be to fragment the ethical vision of the Qur’an itself.
Ultimately, invoking divine curse upon the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt is not vengeance but moral clarity. It affirms that some crimes cannot be neutralised by time or convenience. Karbala endures because it establishes an eternal distinction between oppressor and oppressed. To bless one while indifferent to the other would empty the tragedy of its ethical force. Thus tawallā and tabarrā remain complementary dimensions of Shi’i faith, rooted in the Usūl al-Dīn and animated by the twin duties of amr bil ma’rūf and nahī anil munkar. Together, they preserve both the memory of Karbala and the universal struggle for justice which it continues to inspire.
Selected References
· Qur’an: 2:159, 3:61, 3:104, 9:71, 11:18, 31:17, 33:33, 33:57, 33:64, 42:23, 58:22
· Al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī
· Ibn Bābawayh al-Şadūq, ‘Uyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā and al-Amālī
· Shaykh al-Mufīd, Kitāb al-Irshād
· Ibn Ţāwūs, Mişbāḥ al-Zā’ir (early recensions of Ziyārat ‘Āshūrā’)
· ‘Allāmah al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-Anwār, vols. 44–45
· Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam (Yale, 1985)
· Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam (Mouton, 1978)
· Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Just Ruler in Shi’ite Islam (OUP, 1988)
ASHA: Blast From The Past 