We often come across discussions related to cursing the wrongdoers among the people of religion. So, is cursing really allowed in religion? Will it come under righteous morals or far from that? Let’s understand this more from the following excerpts:
“As for cursing and insulting, this is not from our manners. I ask God that He bestows upon me and make me among those who forgive the ones who have offended them. I seek refuge in God from being tough and vicious, and I have forbidden the believing brothers and the believing sisters from [having] bad manners which would offend them firstly and would offend the Islam which Muhammad has come with secondly, considering [the fact] that they are affiliated with him (peace be upon him and his Family). I have asked them to possess the morals/manners of the Qur’an. And many of them know how many times I have asked them to read some chapters that show the Divine Morals/Manners and work by them. So mocking, cursing, insulting, name calling, offending the honor of people, and every manner by which God is not pleased, is unacceptable and is absolutely completely rejected according to us, we do not accept it, and we do not accept that any believing brother or sister posses it.”
And peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
Ahmed Alhasan
Dhul Q’ida 1430 Hijri
Quranic Verses Against Slandering
“The Almighty said, {And the vegetation of the good land emerges by permission of its Lord; but that which is bad does not emerge except sparsely, and with difficulty. Thus do We diversify the signs for a people who give thanks.} the Quran 7:58
O Beloved ones, visitors of this blessed page, accept it as a divine, Quranic and blessed wisdom: You know them by their fruit.
You might say you are a simple person who cannot recognize how to know that Ahmed al-Hasan is true, and that those who fight him are false and are leaders of misguidance. So the Quran says it to you with simplicity: look at the fruit, it will tell you the type of the tree even if you are not experienced in knowing the types of the trees by their branches or leaves. So who cannot recognize an apple tree when seeing the apples hanging from its branches? The same goes for the tree that produces poisonous or bitter fruit; when you see its fruit, you recognize it by its fruit. {Thus do We diversify the signs for a people who give thanks}.
You know them by their fruit.
The righteous Imam brings forth good and blessed knowledge, and a commitment to his knowledge results in bringing forth righteous servants who speak with wisdom. As for the Imams of Hellfire whom Satan disparaged, and thus they followed him, they bring forth foolish and corrupt words, and as a result, they bring forth followers who speak the language of Satan: offenses, insults, obscene and filthy words, lies and slander.
You know them by their fruit.
The good land produces good plants and good fruit, and the bad land produces bad fruit.
The land is the Imam in whose knowledge and thesis his supporters and followers are raised. So you recognize the Imam of guidance by his thesis and fruit, {And the vegetation of the good land emerges by permission of its Lord}.
And you recognize the Imam of misguidance by his thesis and fruit, especially if there is something to clearly show that he and his corrupt thesis are the reason for this corrupt fruit. This is where every reasonable person should stop and wonder how a person like this deviated one, who has corrupt morals and uses obscene words, or who calls to using obscene words, actually finds people to follow him and accept his speech. But it is the wisdom of God that if He wishes to make the truth appear with clarity, He shows you the bad, one layer upon another, to make the bad appear with clarity.
{But that which is bad does not emerge except sparsely, and with difficulty}.
Setting the proof against Shirazi on slandering
“And to complete the proof for the ones deceived by Sadiq al-Shirazi and his brothers, I will discuss for you his evidence for what he and his brothers do whether directly or by inciting others to offend and insult using the filthiest words that the humane, righteous soul rejects.
This is a recording of Sadiq al-Shirazi justifying what he does, either directly or through his brothers and deputies, that of using obscene and inappropriate words which humane and righteous morals reject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKWgt0nzjnk
And this is a recording of his brother by the name of Mujtaba al-Shirazi, applying this deviated method and offending, insulting and using words that disgust the righteous souls, let alone the people of manners and religiosity. The catastrophe is that he lies, slanders and falsely attributes some of these insults to the Prince of Believers Ali bin Abi Talib, the pure one, son of the pure one, out of whose mouth not a single word came out to offend Aisha. While he was at the height of pain, in the battlefield and before the blood of beloved ones whom he lost therein dried, he did not insult Aisha, although he saw that Aisha caused a great genocide that weakened the Islamic State.
Below is a recording of Mujtaba al-Shirazi applying the method of offending and insulting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd2vAkR2McI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48GfC0TvNsE
By your Lord, do those people you see in these recordings, Sadiq al-Shirazi and Mujtaba al-Shirazi, represent a religious or moral thesis? By your Lord, are they fit to present Islam to billions of Buddhists, Christians and Atheists around the world?
In the recording above, and in order to justify his deviated method of using obscene words, offenses and insults which you heard from his brother in the other recording, Sadiq al-Shirazi accuses God of offending and insulting, and accuses Him of using obscene words in the Quran.
This accusation of his toward God is based on an understanding that he presented of the word zaneem that is in the Quran. Using his ignorance, he considered the meaning of this word to be explicit, and to have an insulting and obscene meaning. He then moved on to an explicit verse commanding not to insult as He said, {And do not insult those who invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made the deeds of every community pleasing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.} the Quran 6:108. Sadiq al-Shirazi said that this verse is specific and it does not command against insulting and obscenity at all. This is how this ignorant one restricted this verse due to an allegorical understanding of the word zaneem, whereas the appearance of the verse is clearly a command not to insult or use obscene words, for this is not a righteous, humane moral. And it is not possible for a well-balanced and righteous human to accuse God of offending, insulting and using obscene words. He is far above that; He is the Strong, the Capable and the Dominant One and He does not need to offend and insult, and He is the source of morals, values and good words.
It is He who says, {Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.} the Quran 16:125. So this is the general Quranic method. The divine commands must be understood within the framework of this method. O Beloved ones, Shia of the progeny of Muhammad, pay attention, may God support you. This is the explicit verse in which God commands inviting the opponent to the call with wisdom and good instruction, and not with offending, insulting and using obscene words. {Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.}
O Beloved ones, O Shia of the progeny of Muhammad, pay attention, may God support you. This is the explicit verse, in which God commands with all clarity not to offend, {And do not insult those who invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made the deeds of every community pleasing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do}.
This is what is explicit, O Beloved ones, O Shia of the progeny of Muhammad. {And do not insult those who invoke other than God … Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best}.
These are the explicit verses, and this is what reason and humanity dictates. And this is what we know of the supreme divine morals which we learned from Muhammad pbuhap.
As for the word zaneem, it is a word of allegorical meaning at its best. Here is its meaning narrated by Imam al-Sadiq, may the prayers of God be upon him. It is also mentioned in some books of the [Arabic] language, and its meaning is far from the incorrect interpretation made by Sadiq al-Shirazi. In Ma’ani al-Akhbar, Sh. al-Sadooq narrated, “My father, may God have mercy on him, said that Saad bin Abdullah narrated from Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Eissa, from al-Abbas bin Ma’roof, from Safwan bin Yehya, from Ibn Maskan, from Muhammad bin Muslim narrated, “I [asked] Imam Abu Abdullah pbuh about the verse, {Utullin; and moreover, a zaneem} the Quran 68:13.” He pbuh said, “Utillin is the one of great disbelief, and the zaneem is the one who takes his disbelief lightly.” Ma’ani al-Akhbar by Sh. al-Sadooq p. 149.
And it is mentioned in some books of the [Arabic] Language:
((Zanam [root word for zaneem]: a part of the ear.
Zaneem: one with a part of his ear cut off.
And concerning God’s saying, {Utullin; and moreover, a zaneem}, it is said that he is marked with evil because the cutting off of the ear is a mark.)) Lisan al-Arab Vol. 12 p. 275.
O Beloved ones, O Shia of the progeny of Muhammad, fear God and do not accept what this ignorant one, Sadiq al-Shirazi, says. It has been proven to you and with evidence that he is ignorant, referring the explicit in the Quran, which commanded against offending, to an allegorical understanding of a word that has more than one meaning, so at its best, it is allegorical. And the allegorical is referred to the explicit, determining for it the meaning which does not cause it to go against His saying , {Do not insult}, i.e. the meaning which Imam al-Sadiq pbuh said, “The zaneem is the one who takes his disbelief lightly.”
O Beloved ones, the allegorical is referred to the explicit, and the progeny of Muhammad are the ones who refer the allegorical to the explicit, and not the ignorant Sadiq al-Shirazi who overturned the matter for you and referred explicit Quranic words to a sick understanding that he adopted; thus he accused God of offending and of obscenities in order to justify to himself and to his brothers and supporters the offenses and uses of obscene words which no righteous person accepts, let alone a religious one.
I also invite Sadiq al-Shirazi to repent and abandon deceiving people with the ideology that it it is obligatory to imitate the non-infallible; he has been incapable of providing evidence for this ideology. So he does not present a verse with explicit proof, nor does he present a narration that is definitely from Ahlulbayt pbut with explicit proof supporting the ideology that it is obligatory to imitate the non-infallible. And the Usuli clerics themselves discussed these verses and narrations and clarified that they are not fit to be used as evidence. That is why they resort to what they call reasonable evidence, or that it is obligatory for the ignorant one to refer to the knowledgeable one. And I refuted this evidence by saying that they are supposers. So the knowledgeable one here is the one who presents certitude and not supposition. And some of them, including Sadiq al-Shirazi, have said that their reasonable evidence is returning to the specialized one. And I clarified that by presenting this as evidence, he exposed his ignorance and it was clarified that he does not know what he is saying. So on one hand, he says that it is obligatory to imitate the non-infallible or the cleric. And on the other hand, he presents his evidence proving only that is permissible and not obligatory at best. So referring to the specialized one is not obligatory. And I am still waiting for their response which will not come, because they know that after the refutations I presented, their ideology is over and there is nothing left of it.”
Ahmed Al-Hasan