By: His Eminence the Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah
Translated by: Manal Samhat
The tragic aspect of Ashoura blurs the struggle and the person overshadows the symbol, in a way that its commemoration has turned into rivers of tears instead of triggering storms of revolution. Moreover, the broad cause of Ashoura has become a personal affair instead of the opposite, where the movement of the self became a product of the cause.
This atmosphere has made the commemoration acquire a kind of tradition in the popular and historical reality, turning it into a mere popular tradition of emotional tragedy, pride in heroism, and absorption in excitement. In each period, the emotion has been nurtured with new tidings and analyses till the truth has got lost in a flood of lies, and imagination has been set off without restraint that the emotions have formed the significance of the tragedy. Moreover, a new context has been added to the intellectual content, which neither applies to original Islam nor does it relate to the main issue.
|The tragic aspect of Ashoura blurs the struggle and the person overshadows the symbol, in a way that its commemoration has turned into rivers of tears instead of triggering storms of revolution|
In this discussion, I would like to limit myself to some main points related to the significance of the commemoration and its influence upon both the intellect and the feelings. This is meant to go deeply into the Islamic context within this cause based on our need to enrich the Islamic experience currently through the liveliness of the experience in the past; it should be enriched here where the legal extension of the Islamic truth is available through the practices of the Imam apart from the personal characteristic.
In addition, some concepts should be corrected as they are misrepresented in the commemoration, something that does not fit the Islamic concept in the human sense, while a struggle is going on.
The limits of legitimacy in Ashoura
A question is asked repeatedly: Could not Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) have foreseen his tragic end once he set off to Karbala? If he did, how was it justified to set out and end up in getting killed, bearing in mind the Quranic deterrence about willfully giving one's life to mortality?
The answer is: The Hussaini tragedy has several indications, which tell that Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) had known about his fate through the reported sayings of the Messenger of Allah (p.) and through his conversations with those who asked him to change his decision of traveling to Iraq, and through what he said to those who accompanied him to Mecca and whom he told of the inevitable end of his trip. Maybe this was due to the balance of powers, particularly in the middle of the trip when he learned about the killing of his envoy, his cousin, Muslim Bin Aqil in Al-Kufa after people failed him. In the light of the above, how can we interpret the issue jurisprudentially?
Perhaps it is based by some people on the characteristics of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) and his religious duties stated by his title in what he is allowed to do while others are not, because his role is different from the role of others.
Thus, it is considered by those that he assumed the duty because he knew better what Allah has chosen for him; here it is not meant to study the matter in terms of the religious duties. However, I ask what is the problem in this issue? Why can not the principled revolutionary move against those who are trying to muffle Islam in its movement, its strength, and its propagation whenever they are in danger and jeopardized? And does this fall under willfully giving one's self away to mortality?
The answer is that there is a difference between individual cases that end in death and Jihad cases which move in dangerous areas, for Allah has authorized and allowed the Mujahideen to move in situations that may lead to their killing as individuals or as groups, and thus, it is an obligation dictated by Islam. Therefore, the circle of Jihad differs from the circle of willful killing of oneself.
|There is a difference between individual cases that end in death and Jihad cases which move in dangerous areas, for Allah has authorized and allowed the Mujahideen to move in situations that may lead to their killing as individuals or as groups, and thus, it is an obligation dictated by Islam|
|In the light of this, Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) had identified for himself and for his companions and family members his assumed responsibility. He considered it a religious obligation, which represented the supreme interest for Islam. It is exactly similar to what used to happen to the Mujahideen at the time of the Prophet (p.) when they would encounter danger. They used to hope that through Shahada (Martyrdom) they can gain paradise as promised by Allah. The Mujahideen would give up both their wealth and their lives "that they will gain paradise by fighting for God, so they either kill or get killed" (09:111), as it was stated in the Holy verse.
||Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) had identified for himself and for his companions and family members his assumed responsibility. He considered it a religious obligation, which represented the supreme interest for Islam|
Even if this were the case, why can not the behavior of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) represent a religious evidence for an exception of such cases of deterring people from getting rid of their lives.
It is necessary to pause at a point here, which is that his family and his companions who started out took the broad meaning of Jihad into consideration having obtained his permission and following his guidance. This suggests that the issue has nothing to do with the individual; but rather, it has extended to the masses. It is jurisprudentially deduced that any similar case of similar conditions and situations can acquire its religious legality for its movement from Ashoura, bearing in mind that it is totally excluded from the circle of religious deterrence of willful killing of one's self.
In the same jurisprudential frame of the Ashoura issue, another question is raised… Through the Hussaini movement, can we understand the legality of armed struggle when Islamic reality calls for such an act of enjoining good and forbidding evil?
Is it possible for the precepts among the Muslims to motivate the Islamic leadership and the Muslims in the direction of confrontation, especially if the Islamic reality reflects the reality of a deviating leadership which undermines the intellectual and the practical Islamic path and weakens it?
Was the revolutionary movement in Ashoura active enough and up to the level of the Hussaini initiative or was it a mere reaction to the pressure due to the siege practiced by the Umayyads against Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) and his companions that they had to rebel to defend themselves?
Misbalanced powers and the legality of the movement
Such points of concern could be suggested by some people to confirm that Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) revolted because he felt, through the communications he was making with the influential figures in Al-Kufa, Basra and other cities, that he had a lot of followers tending to form a big power. Thus, he was convinced that he had the ability to face the situation from a strong position and reinstall legality back to its powerful position.
This would enable him to encounter the illegally gained authority on the basis of new principles that might develop from his movement. He could demand all the powers, including the tyrant rulers, to give up their authority. Consequently, in case the ruler refused to comply, Al-Hussein (a.s.) would fight him for being a dissident who rejected the pledge of allegiance, which is based on Islamic legality.
Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) was confident that he was able to turn Al-Kufa into a center for the legal authority, and this was similar to what his father, Imam Ali (a.s.), believed in. He believed that he could do it without fighting had his messenger, Muslim Bin Aqil, succeeded in controlling Al-Kufa. Some say that had Al-Hussein (a.s.) known about the fight ahead, he would not have started in that forceful and revolutionary form. Moreover, enjoining good and forbidding evil do not command a Muslim, whether a leader or a soldier, to follow such a style in his movement, because the issue may worsen and develop into a bloody or deadly violence.
However, in my study of the Hussaini account, through the words of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) in his conversations with the persons who tried to make him change his decision and stay instead of starting out in his expedition; they were warning him from the danger he might face due to the disappointment that the people in Al-Kufa could bring forth, and due to the pressure practiced by the Umayyads… we find that Imam Al-Hussein was conscious of the hard results his movement could end up with, regardless of the extent of losses.
|However, in my study of the Hussaini account, we find that Imam Al-Hussein was conscious of the hard results his movement could end up with, regardless of the extent of losses|
The researcher may feel from his words that certainty and conviction were so solid, especially if we know that the nature of such a situation, where he was intending to topple down the head of the authority, was expected to lead to what happened. His brother, Imam Al-Hassan (a.s.), who began from the same position where it was impossible, to a great degree, for the conflict to end without a violent fight; however, it is noteworthy to say that Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) refused any sort of reconciliation. His refusal was due to the current phase he was going through, which denied any reconciliation for the sake of the Islamic interest. This was totally different from any previous phase he survived together with his brother Imam Al-Hassan (a.s.) in his conflict with Mu’awiyah. Thus, the dangerous consequences turned out to be very natural.
Furthermore when Imam Al-Hussein knew about the killing of Muslim Bin Aqil and that the people of Al-Kufa had failed him and that the Umayyads were in control of Al-Kufa through Ibn Ziad, he had not reached a point of complete siege that would prevent him from returning to Al-Madina or fleeing to somewhere else. If it had been a matter of belief in the supremacy of his power, Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) whould have retreated upon learning that the balance of power was weighing more for the interest of his enemies.
Thus, we notice a decisive and determined attitude in insisting on the revolution until martyrdom. For this reason, Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) refused all the proposals of Ibn Ziad through the Imam's followers, such as securing safety for him, his family and his followers on condition that Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) would give way for Yazid and hold a truce; something similar, more or less, to what happened between Imam Al-Hassan (a.s.) and Mu’awiyah.
Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) put the issues of reform and enjoining good and forbidding evil as an introduction for his movement. He wanted to remind those Muslims who chose to be with him of the religious goals that urged them to move with him. He wanted them to know that his cause was not a matter of looking up to authority as a source of conceit and tyrannical dominance. For him it was not a personal cause; but rather, a suggestion that those titles do impose on people to respond to any leadership that works to convert those titles into live reality… as it does impose on the leadership to move for the sake of those titles.
|Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) put the issues of reform and enjoining good and forbidding evil as an introduction for his movement. He wanted to remind those Muslims who chose to be with him of the religious goals that urged them to move with him|
Were the aims personal or public?
Some may claim that the issue was merely related to the Imamate which turns this movement into a personal cause limited to the responsibilities of the infallible Imam and that it had nothing to do with a general agenda that could apply to any other leadership.
An Imam never sets out to his movement from certain hidden responsibilities that are unknown to the Muslim followers… because the cause is the cause of Islam which commands him to urge the nation to realize strength, dignity and honor for Islam. This can only be done through the broad titles and objectives. Thus, an Imam sets out from the causes of Islam and its titles which the Muslims feel concerned and responsible for, and not due to blind obedience for the Imams (a.s.), despite the fact that their obedience is a must.
|An Imam never sets out to his movement from certain hidden responsibilities that are unknown to the Muslim followers… because the cause is the cause of Islam which commands him to urge the nation to realize strength, dignity and honor for Islam|
Thus, the style of the Quran used to describe the battles that the Muslims wanted to fight or the battles that the Muslims fought before the verses were inspired used to come as goals selected by Allah for the Muslims to strive till they accomplish them. Allah wanted the Muslims to be aware of the objective, and not to react blindly. This observation was traced in the verses, which spoke about the batters of Badr, Honain, Al Ahzab, and others.
Thus, we could see the broad objectives as headings for the battles that the Muslims waged against the nonbelievers. They were the same titles that Imam Ali (a.s.) started out with in the internal war in order to confirm the power of a legal authority, regardless of the characteristics of infallibility in the leader or in his distinguished rank. The Imam used to address the whole nation within the limits of his legitimate leadership-any leadership-and that was based on the needs of the battles regardless of their time and place.
In Karbala, Imam Al-Hussein justified the legitimacy of the battle on the basis of the general Islamic principles and not the particularity of his Imamate. It is exactly what we read in his speech with which he started his expedition: "Oh people! The Messenger of God said: Whoever saw an irreligious and unjust ruler who breaks the promise and reverses the teachings of the Messenger of God, a ruler who does harm to the believers unjustly and aggressively, and he never attempts to deter him by saying or by doing, God will consider him as bad as the ruler. Do not you see that those people have quit obeying God and stuck to the obedience of Satan, shown corruption and violated the limits of God, taken everything while I deserve it more than them?"
|In Karbala, Imam Al-Hussein justified the legitimacy of the battle on the basis of the general Islamic principles and not the particularity of his Imamate|
On another occasion, Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) said, "I have come out neither for arrogance, nor for vanity, or for injustice, nor for corruption, yet I have come out seeking reform in the nation of my Grandfather. I intend to enjoin good and forbid evil. Thus, those who approve of my choice should know it is the choice of Allah, while those who do not will leave me no other choice but to be patient till Allah decides on the matter. He is the best to judge".
In the light of this, we can go through a similar experience on the basis of the legality of the standing, if the situation were similar to the period during which Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) lived with all the conditions, attitudes and positions. For this reason the problem in its broad titles is affected by the reality of the nation in terms of time, politics and the extents of positive results that those titles will secure for the highest interest of Islam, or one can choose to shock the nation politically and psychologically, which prepares the nation for a new stage or prepares a long term plan to encounter the immense challenges of the tyrants. The case may either require the Karbala method, or it may require the cool method which opens up to peace on the basis of flexibility which represents bowing before the storm till it passes by, so that the movement can be resumed in an appropriate and natural atmosphere. A third choice could be a blend of both methods; amity and violence.
The movement of the Imams (a.s.): The variation of the subjective conditions:
This is what must the observed in the methods of the Imams … The problem was not a matter of difference in viewing the nature of the reaction, whether to be violent or flexible, whether to be military or peaceful. However, it was a matter of variable subjective conditions, which made a certain method a necessity at that point of time in connection with the major goal.
This is the general Islamic approach in its broad lines. There is not one violent line in all situations all the way through, neither there is a meek line in all the situations all the way either. It is the final and important result that requires this method or the other.
The unrealistic concepts of grief
It is worthwhile to pause here to review the unrealistic concepts of grief, that is, the way the tragedy is raised which contradicts with the authentic Islamic concept, or the way some people upset the balance upon visualization, or the way the commemoration is thought of as tribal fanaticism far from the Islamic missionary intellect and feelings, all of which may negatively reflect on the layman's thinking. Then these concepts will be stored and they will infiltrate into the unconscious of man through tears and pains, resulting in excitement in both the intellectual context and the emotional one. To illustrate, one can refer to Hiddar Al-Hilli, a well-known poet in his poem arousing the coming of Imam Al-Mahdi (May Allah hasten his appearance), where he says: "Uproot even the infants of the Umayyads, whether boy or girl."
Clearly, it is a call for revenge from the Umayyads, even if from their infants; a request that contradicts with the Islamic values in the line of justice stated and called for by the Quran: "None can be made bear the responsibility for someone else." (17:15).
|It is worthwhile to pause here to review the unrealistic concepts of grief, that is, the way the tragedy is raised which contradicts with the authentic Islamic concept, or the way some people upset the balance upon visualization, or the way the commemoration is thought of as tribal fanaticism far from the Islamic missionary intellect and feelings, all of which may negatively reflect on the layman's thinking|
It is even reported in the Hussaini account that when Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) carried his infant boy, Abdullah, to the opposing army to give him a drink of water, some soldiers in the Umayyad army said: "If the mature were guilty, how could the infants be guilty?" How can the Muslims respond to a cry to kill the guiltless infants, which arouses the human feelings, while on the other side and in principle, the commemoration of Ashoura should be a reason to protest and condemn the whole reality that caused the tragedy of Al-Hussein (a.s.), his family members and his followers, and to crystallize the Islamic protest and rejection to such a reality and congregate collectively in the face of whoever wants to repeat the tragedy.
Another example can be illustrated from a poet who claims speaking for the family of the Prophet (p.):
"Masters we are, and others are but slaves. Ours are the singular qualities and the time-honored old possession. Muhammad is our father, the Master of all men, and his descendants deserve to prevail."
On the surface, the concept implied in the abovementioned poetic lines contradicts with the Islamic intellect, which rejects the slavery of man. Similarly, the Islamic intellect refuses looking at oneself in this way. Even prophets and Holy men kept away from this style in the way they addressed people.
Even the Quran spoke of those totally differently. In fact, not in the whole religious heritage could we find, particularly in the Islamic one, such haughtiness and arrogance over people as slaves and masters.
Although, through religious truth, we already know that those descendants are well loved by Allah, and that they are higher in rank than people, only because they are closer to Him in their good practices. We also know that obeying them is a must because the Message they carry is from Allah for all people.
|The descendants are well loved by Allah, and that they are higher in rank than people, only because they are closer to Him in their good practices|
They are legally delegated to represent religion in life. However, obedience differs wholly from slavery, because obedience ends up with responsibility but not with human subjugation.
Even if the literary style justifies humbleness to a noble person, like when somebody says, "I am your slave”, which implies degrading one's self, we find that the Islamic education considers this unsuitable for a noble man to speak like that of himself. Therefore, conveying such an image about the Prophet's family and claiming that they speak of themselves and of others in this way never agrees with their highly spiritual characteristics when it comes to humbleness before Allah while dealing with people.
A Third example that presents the situation in a poetic manner conveys an image of the struggle, as if it were between tribes, namely between the Hashemites and the Umayyads. Such a presentation was shown in the style that the famous poet, Abu Al-Alaa Al-Ma’arri, used when he said:
"A war was flared by AbdShams against the Hashemites for which the newly born may grow gray-haired; Muhammad (p.) was encountered by Ibn Harb, Ali (a.s.) was encountered by Ibn Hind, and AL-Hussein (a.s.) was encountered by Yazid".
|Conveying such an image about the Prophet's family and claiming that they speak of themselves and of others in this way never agrees with their highly spiritual characteristics when it comes to humbleness before Allah while dealing with people|
Many similar verses of poetry about Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) can be found and heard in the commemorative gatherings. They resulted in forming a popular mental image of tribal fanatical emotions drawing the Hashemites against the Umayyads, certainly overshadowing the real Islamic problem. Some people even feel that religion is a familial characteristic, but not a message to be assimilated and be completely open to the Islamic consciousness that they could meet with the main Islamic figures and leadership in a common unifying arena, and a correlation is made not through familial characteristics, but through Islam.
Most likely this emotional influence has left its traces on the popular consciousness development in some political phases rich in anxiety. This is noticed when the royal family of the Hashemites, the descendents of Sharif Hussein, obtained a lot of emotional support from the religious scholars and the good-hearted groups of people, only because they descended from the Hashemite family.
It was never verified whether the descendents were religiously principled in Islam, or even in sectarian terms where sectarianism has a great significance, both intellectually and emotionally. For this reason, King Faisal I obtained the Shiite enthusiasm that was mainly led by the religious scholars of Jabal Amel in Lebanon, once he was announced to be king of Syria. Similarly and maybe more of that enthusiasm was obtained when some Shiite scholars and Shiite crowds in Iraq gave him support. Such an emotional tendency towards the Hashemites paved the way for them to many governmental positions. Equally, that tendency kept the people verifying the political background of the Hashemites connected with the British colonialism which planned for them to be guards for its interests, a façade for its indirect control, and a means for its plots.
Thus, we have seen the unconscious connection to family but not to the Message causing confusion in the political arena even at the level of the Shiite rights in Iraq. Why? Because the Hashemites came to implement British plots in widening the discrepancy among the people of Iraq by creating a problem of unjustly treated majority against a minority so that the destructive complication would continue in Iraq as a factor of confusion for the whole reality there.
When I raise such an issue, it is not meant to pose the message as something abstract separate from the model.
In fact, individual leaders do have a characteristic in the depth of the movement of the message, and the organic correlation with the leadership is a must, so that the relation can be missionary but not personal.
Poetic imagination in the frame of the tragedy
Both prose and poetry may need some imagination in addition to some artistic glimpses for the emotions in a tragedy to be more affective in the inner consciousness of the Muslim. However, imagination has to be rather objective so that it does not create irrelevant dimensions or interpretations or produce a variant intellect. Actually, the artistic side in its suggestive, faith -related and expressive aspects should convey some of the real beauty to reflect the context, yet additional beauty should never be imposed on the idea or be given a non-existing characteristic.
|Both prose and poetry may need some imagination in addition to some artistic glimpses for the emotions in a tragedy to be more affective in the inner consciousness of the Muslim. However, imagination has to be rather objective so that it does not create irrelevant dimensions or interpretations or produce a variant intellect|
For the reason, I call for a Hussaini literary production nurtured by the Islamic vocabulary of the Hussaini movement in its spiritual, intellectual and active dimensions of Imam Al-Hussein's tragedy. Let the commemoration serve the cause through continuous suggestion all the way down in history.
Let it be the outstanding image, because Ashoura must be the launching ground, and not the end. It is meant to produce a new audience for its concepts at all times and places by stressing the never-dying elements in comprehending the future that opens up to man everlastingly.
|I call for a Hussaini literary production nurtured by the Islamic vocabulary of the Hussaini movement in its spiritual, intellectual and active dimensions of Imam Al-Hussein's tragedy|
Sometimes, we may come across some tragic Hussaini poetry that presents Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) in Karbala as weak and afraid, looking for a shelter. It is something similar to a wandering fugitive trying to evade his enemies. Such features can be noticed in a poem by Sayyed Ja'afar Al-Hilli when he says:
"Hussein departed from Al-Madina the way Moses did, silent and fearful…
He departed and never knew where to take rest. as if he has been denied to have shelter."
In this poetic image of Al-Hussein (a.s.) depicting him as if he was escaping from the Umayyads, afraid of the murderers, just as Prophet Moses(a.s.) who "left fearfully looking out for danger" was afraid of the Pharaoh's plot to kill him and his followers. We can notice here that Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) was lost with no sense of direction because he could not find any secure place, although it is known that he left Mecca and headed for Al-Kufa to revolt.
In this image, we cannot see the revolutionary who was moving against the deviating tyrant in order to change a corrupted reality in authority, behavior, and action. It contrasts with what he said when he introduced his movement and the title he made for his legal movement which relied on the words of the Prophet (p.).
Now, if the poet chose to agitate emotions, then his choice is damaging the powerful Islamic attitude in the personality of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.).
|Let the commemoration serve the cause through continuous suggestion all the way down in history|
There are several images in which Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) is presented yelling for help and not getting it; yelling for protection but no one defends him; and he pleads for a drink of water, but no one responds. Towards the end of the battle, when Al-Hussein (a.s.) was dying, a soldier from the tribal army of Saad, whose name was Humayd Bin Musallam, noticed that the Imam's lips were cursing them, then he approached him and heard him say: "Oh people give me a drink of water. My liver is breaking apart because of thirst." And other narrators add to that: “By my grandfather, I am thirsty."
Clearly, such an image suggests weakness and not strength. It does not suit the image of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) who represents a rebellious person against all weaknesses and the elements of pain in the face of the tyrannical and deceptive powers.
They all put their forces together to defeat him, to shake his steadfastness, to force him away from his solid and distinguished attitude, and to impose on him submission to the authority of Yazid. Yet, he refused to retreat, give up or yield. He wanted to bear all the hard consequences in order to embody the great human values, which Allah wanted for man in life. It was not a personal conflict, yet it was the question of the Message against the big challenges, and a question of holding on and remaining intact and in balance during hard times when an earthquake shakes the ground underneath.
It was relayed that he said, "Now that this braggart, the son of a braggart, is forcing me to choose between death and dishonor; how impossible is it for me to accept disgrace. Neither Allah, His prophet, the faithful, the dead, or the ancestors would prefer obedience for the wicked to honorable death."
Again, he said, "No, by the name of God, I would never disgracefully surrender, or acknowledge you the way slaves do."
Such words never reflect the style of someone seeking sympathy as it was told in a previous narration, because they reflect powerful determination to bear the hardest consequences just to stick to his principles of dignity and the line of Godly inspiration.
It cannot be denied that even prophets or imams could grow weak being human, but Imam Al-Hussein had made up his mind to stand up and fight after he examined all the consequences. He had known about the bestial nature lying in the tyrannical personality of his enemies. He also saw in the battlefield how harshness is represented in the enemies’ attitude even towards a breast-fed infant, so how come he yelled for help or asked for a drink of water when his body was completely inflicted with wounds in the ugliest manner?! How come he would utter words that would be reason for disgrace and call for a look at him while breaking down? One time prior to his expedition he said to his sister Zeinab (a.s.), when she showed her fear of the destiny he described to her as for how he would die: "Never let our enemies rejoice at our misfortune.”
The true image of Imam Al-Hussein (a.s.) is the one produced by one soldier in Yazid's army: "By God, never have I seen someone whose children and family members are killed with firmer self-possession, nor more courageous fighter than Hussein. Every time the fighters drew close to him, he would charge at them and they would scatter before him like goats attacked by a wolf."
Similarly, we do not find the image of Zeinab in the Hussaini or the popular poetry as a heroine powerful and challenging in the manner she was when she stood firmly, surely, and forcefully before Ibn Ziad to challenge him, in Al-Kufa to point out the deviation and the frustration the people caused, and before Yazid when she scolded him. However, we see the image of a Bedouin female with feeble spirit speaking in a weak style being bereaved of her loved ones looking for the tribe that she did not find, nor did she find someone to support her; as a result she would face the cause by calling for tribal avenge…
It is an image of a feeble female stricken by calamity and taken a captive. Her worries were limited to her pains, her children, and other women with her without any interest in the main cause…
|I call for formulating the true content of Ashoura, whether by the Ashoura speakers, poets or writers, on the basis of the big goals of the Hussaini cause and by subjecting its events to objective criticism|
Nevertheless, I notice that such a style may impose a balance between emotions and the ideal image of a prototype which makes a perfect blend of the elements of revolution to serve the main cause. Therefore, I do not refuse the emotional excitement as long as the elements of the tragedy are kept in a real form. However, I refuse the content which carries the tragedy from the atmosphere of the cause in terms of power and vigor. I also refuse the style which does not make a match between the atmosphere and the idea.
In the light of the above, I call for formulating the true content of Ashoura, whether by the Ashoura speakers, poets or writers, on the basis of the big goals of the Hussaini cause and by subjecting its events to objective criticism, which takes into consideration all the circumstances surrounding it, in terms of the hero’s character, the kind of victory, the enemy’s nature and the circumstances in that stage. Actually, this would draw the reality that the nation is going through towards revolution and seeking change on the basis of Islam, so that the memory would extend throughout time and become a blessing and grace for the present and the future, just as it was for the past.