Another miracle of comprehension - Taziyah of Shimr (l.a.)
After writing on the topic of ‘Killers of Husain were Shias’ (whose reply is already discussed in the previous pages), the editor of Rizwan has made another show of misinterpretation. He writes:
“You would be surprised to know that according to Shia faith there is no harm in taking out the Taziyah of Shimr (l.a.). It is written in Zakhiratul Ma’ad (page 618) that taking out the Taziyah of Shimr (l.a.) is not wrong; rather it is a preferable act.
Now the Shias please let us know that though they carry Taziyah of Imam Husain to express love towards him, how does taking out the Taziyah of Shimr (l.a.) become preferable and permissible?”
Let us first read the complete text of Zakhiratul Maad.
Question: What is the verdict regarding dramatizing of the Kerbala tragedy for the purpose of Azadari2 of Imam Husain (as) i.e. a person disguises as Shimr and another as Zainab, although one disguised as Zainab is (also) a male?
The query and its reply is more than sufficient to answer the objection of the Rizwan editor. I do not want to argue further. The word ‘Taziyah’ is nowhere found in this question and answer. The Arabic knowledge of the Rizwan editor was already exposed by the narration of Majalisul Muttaqin and now this one has portrayed his knowledge of Persian also.
Maybe due to this apprehension the Rizwan editor has not quoted the whole paragraph because if among his readers there happens to be an expert of Persian, this secret would be revealed and the editor would be badly disgraced. He took an easy step to avoid it and gave the reference (page number) of the book and invented a fiction by writing a part of the tradition from Zakhiratul Maad: ‘There is no harm in it, rather it is recommended’. Who cares to verify in the original book? He would think that taking out the Taziyah of Shimr is really praiseworthy (and ‘preferable’, in the words of the Rizwan editor).
The Rizwan editor has translated the Persian word ‘mamduh’ as ‘preferable’, while it actually means ‘praiseworthy’. What expertise in languages!
Possibly, ‘intentional deceit’ is more involved here than ‘miscomprehension’ because the meaning of ‘Taking out a Taziyah’ is mentioned clearly on the margin as ‘to mimic someone’. I am unable to understand that if the respected Maulana Syed Mahmud Ahmad Rizvi, the Rizwan editor, had himself seen Zakhiratul Maad, why he did not see this marginal note to find the meaning of it before writing this argument? Hence it not wrong for me to assume that the habit of deception has a greater role in this objection than ignorance.
Now in addition to the previous two thousand rupees, a thousand more rupees have become due from the Rizwan editor since he cannot, in his whole life, show the mention of ‘Taziyah of Shimr’ in Zakhiratul Maad or in any other book of Shias.
Let me invite your attention to one more issue before moving ahead. The editor of Rizwan has called Shimr as ‘the accursed one’ in about three places in this paragraph. The readers should note that from today onwards, respected Maulana Syed Mahmud Ahmad Rizvi has accorded the permission to curse those who are worthy of it. May Allah give him more Tawfeeq and also bestow him the ability to judge people correctly.5