The Role of Ritual

in Shi’ite Muslim Community of Iran

Ahmad Kazemi Moussavi

Ritual has been defined generally as “repetitious and stylized symbolic bodily actions that are centered on cosmic structures and/or sacred presence.”[i]  It may be said that ritual brings the individual and his cultural identity to encounter the transcendental realm.  Although to a certain extent, ritual may be considered as “non-rational or formalized symbolic behavior,”[ii] nevertheless it plays a very important role in molding the cultural identity of a community.  Some scholars such as Heinz Halm place ritual at the core of any religion.  He states that the community “is created not by the profession of belief in dogma but through the process of performing rituals.”[iii]  William P. Alston states: “It is generally supposed that a given ritual has a point only if certain theological doctrines are objectively true.”[iv]  With a different outlook,  Emile Durkheim considered ritual as “the means by which individuals are brought together as a collective group.”[v]

In this essay, I attempt to see how Shi’ite ritual as a cultural phenomenon interacted and harmonized with the social system of Safavid period of Iran.

The Safavid period in Iran from 1499–1720 CE witnessed the emergence of several theological and traditionalist schools of thought which affected the course of the expansion of writings and practices on ritual.  Traditionism (Akhbarism) was revived in the mid–Safavid era due to the circumstances created by Safavid political dominance and its non-doctrinal extremism that made it possible for the Safavid polity to triumph in Iran.  In many respects, the Safavids owed their political success in Iran to the new wave of Shi‘ite extremism (ghuluww) of messianic inspiration that developed particularly among the Turkish tribes in the areas of eastern Anatolia and NW Iran.  The adherents of these ideas often sought to externalize their devotional attachment to the person of the Imams (saints) from the Household of the Prophet.  This attitude paved the way to foster a stronger set of ritualized behavior within the Islamic practices of collective pilgrimage and ritual commemoration.  As a result, there emerged a new function and scope for the Shi‘ite practice of visitation to the tomb-shrines of their Imams as well as for the practice of commemorating the anniversaries of their deaths especially the battlefield martyrdom of Imam Husayn b. ‘Ali at Karbala in lower Iraq (Muharram 61 H /October 680) celebrated in the Muharram ceremonies of ‘Ashura.  By the end of the Safavid era, key notions of seeking the intercession of the Imams and of otherworldly salvation were incorporated by the ‘ulama’ (jurisconsults) into the shrine visitation rites and mourning observances.[vi]

An important aspect of the Muharram observances of the Safavid era is the expanded scope of people’s participation in the performance of this ritual.  In Muslim law, collectivity is required in several specific performances such as the Friday prayer and the Two ‘Id prayers, as well as the ‘Arafa walk during the Hajj pilgrimage.  Except for military campaigns (jihad), self-initiated Muslim gatherings—such as the tarawih or night prayers in the month of Ramadan and Sufi recollection practices (dhikr)have no legal designation in the Shari‘ah.  But collective funeral and memorial services are approved of advisedly in fiqh.  Nevertheless, at least since the fourth/tenth century Shi‘ite commemoration practices during Muharram exceeded normal levels of Muslim collective devotional practice.  The historian Ibn al-Athir (d.632/1234) when reporting the events in Baghdad for the year 352/963, describes the occurrence of a public lamenting demonstration by men and women dressed in black garments who struck their faces.   

This description reveals many characteristics of the Muharram procession of that era.  However, there is no indication of banners and standards or of grouping people within the crowd, which are peculiar to the Safavid period.  Illustrations given by European travelers demonstrate that most elements of the “dasta gardani ” rituals existed during the reign of Shah ‘Abbas I^st (rgn. 996-1038).  Dasta gardani requires preparations to form factions (dasta) and involves rallying the grieving volunteers of a special quarter or of a professional group in a city, who then walk and parade with special banners and standards.  Jean Calmard, the contemporary French author,  provides us with enough evidences from the accounts of European travelers to suggest that it was during the reign of Shah ‘Abbas that “the mourning ceremonies dedicated to the Imam ‘Ali and Imam Husayn had become a big communal feast comprising an increasing number of dramatic elements—often very realistic—in pageants incorporated into processional rituals.”[vii]  Furthermore, Shah ‘Abbas encouraged visitation to the Imams’ tombs by his own frequent practice of pilgrimage to their tomb-shrines and by building roads and hospices for the visitants to these shrines.

The Italian traveler Pietro della Valle, who visited Isfahan in 1025/1616, describes the ‘Ashura observance as the largest ceremony in which huge factions were present with special banners and standards.  Each faction was equipped with several horses and camel-litters surrounded by a group of mace-bearers to protect them from the intrusion of rival factions.[viii]  The question remains, however, why the Muharram observance should form such organized processions during the reign of Shah ‘Abbas.

The celebrations of Muharram along with its Shi‘ite ideology traveled to Northern India during the first decades of the seventeenth century.  An Indian model of the celebration of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Ima>m H{usayn was reported by the traveler Amir Wali at Lahroe around 1045/1635, giving a similar description of the Muharram processions.

This Safavid court policy to vulgarize the Shi‘ite lamentation rituals was combined with the ‘ulama’s tendency to incorporate a wider range of the rituals into the applied law or fiqh.  The ‘ulama of this period were certainly close to both the Safavid power and to socio-economic influence.  Most of the ‘ulama either introduced or legitimized a larger ritual groundwork which resulted in the increasing practice and larger scale for the Muharram ceremonies and ritual mourning rites.  The French traveler Charden recorded that: “Camel sacrifices were introduced (or re-introduced?) in Persia by ‘Abbas I, acting on the advice of a Shi‘i doctor [ie. religious scholar].”[ix]  Yet there were also certain religious scholars who were not close to the power possessors, and who disagreed with such an expansion and elevation of the Muharram processions, and some even outlawed the self-inflicted mortifying measures that often occurred during these processions.

The picture that one may draw from the juridical accounts is that the leading Shi‘ite ‘ulama of the late Safavid period went out of their way to lay emphasis on the importance of ziyarah to the Imams, especially that of Imam Husayn on the day of ‘Ashura.  They tried their utmost to popularize the cult of the Twelve Imams by employing almost all available rhetoric to stylize and reinforce the salvational value of visitation and mourning rituals.  Their rhetoric, which we surveyed above, placed a high value upon the sanctuaries necessitating frequent visitations, commemoration of the sufferings of the Imams, weeping and lamenting for them by identifying with their sufferings (especially on the day marking the tragedy of Karbala), paying charitable alms, reciting elegies (marathi), earnest supplications (munajat) and frequent prayers while fasting.  In this manner, they sought to create an ambiance in which ziyarah and commemoration of selected events in the religious calendar of the Shi‘ah should occupy a central place in Safavid social life.  This ambiance tended to generate and enforce attitudes from which the ‘ulama benefited the most.  The popular rites of visitation to the tomb-shrines of the Imams and the mourning rites of the month of Muharram on a new and more imposing scale, are the two most outstanding sets of rituals that changed the socio-religious character of the Shi‘ite community from the late Safavid period onward.  Neither of these rituals were new to Islamic societies or even to Shi‘ah cultic practice; but the increased scope and depth of impact they mustered in the post-Safavid era produced a unique feature peculiar to Shi‘ite Iran and its ‘ulama, providing Shi‘ism with several of its most distinctive features.

We now turn to the question of how the popularization of these two ritual practices contributed to increasing the power of the ‘ulama.  This problem can be dealt with from different view-points.  Here, I will try to sketch some of the psychological and economic impacts of the expansion of these rituals on the status of the ‘ulama.

     1 – The ‘Atabat in lower Iraq became almost at the same time in the post-Safavid era both the seat of the Shi‘ite ‘ulama’ and the object of organized pilgrimage.  The highly meritorious act of visitation made travel to Najaf and Karbala a routine practice for most Shi‘ite generations of this era.  The rise of a new range of sermon-sayers (rawdah khwani) disseminated the obligation of this observance as has been suggested by authors such as al-Majlisi himself.[x]  New psychological dimensions were attached to this practice which gave the ‘Atabat visitations a more intense emotional aura than even pilgrimage to Mecca.  The act of pilgrimage, in the words of Nakash, “meant a movement from a mundane center to a sacred periphery which suddenly became central to the individual.”[xi]   

In such sacred ambiance, the first requirement from a pilgrim is to renew his covenant (‘ahd ) with the Imams in their position as the Divine Guides.  This demand is usually fulfilled by the visitant reading the visitation-guide or by repeating what the attendants of the sanctuary instruct.  After performing all parts of the ziyarah, the pilgrim would naturally seek a live personality in which the authority of the Imam may be crystallized.  Here, the supreme mujtahid of the ‘Atabat appears as the representative of the Imam who can satisfy certain psychological requests of the pilgrim.  The supreme mujtahid can be met either during the sunset prayer in the shrine courtyard, or at his house if the pilgrim has some khums or voluntary alms-money to pay.  The guidance of the sanctuary attendants or of the sermon-sayers usually paves the way for meeting the grand mujtahid.  Therefore, the attitude of the pilgrim to the status of the supreme mujtahid will be shaped in an ambiance created by ziyarah as well as the mourning processions.

      2 – The centrality of ziyarah and Muharram processions in Shi‘ite social life increased the ‘ulama–bazaar ties giving them a new scope.  Before the Safavid period, the ties between merchants and Sufis were quite strong in the form of networks of associations.  By the late Safavid period, ‘ulama such as al-Majlisi had checked the Sufi influence on the one hand, and had succeeded in building a new range of socio-religious relations with the bazaar classes, on the other hand.  These relations included: i) new jobs created by the expansion of the rituals, ii) increased payment in charities (particularly the khums), and finally iii) devotional attachment to the position of the supreme mujtahid which eventually gave birth to the institution of the marja‘ al-taqlid in the mid-nineteenth century.

As for the first element, there were increased demands for a series of new equipment such as chains (zanjir), standards (‘alam), poniard (qammah), and couch (nakhl) to be deployed in the Muharram processions.  In addition to the equipment manufacturers, the mourning services demanded professions such sermon-reciter, mourner, and sanctuary attendants on a very large scale.  All these artisans and servicemen naturally sought the words or rulings of the grand mujtahids in the ‘Atabat for the legitimacy and expansion of their professions.

Secondly, the weight given to the ziyarah and Muharram rites, encouraged most ritual perfomers to purify their personal records by settling their due taxes with the high ranking ‘ulama of the ‘Atabat.   Among the religious taxes, the khums which now encompasses a fifth of any income, played a significant role in financing the Shi‘ite institutions of the ‘Atabat.  One-half of the khums, called ‘shares of the Imam (sahm al-imam) must be directly assumed by the supreme mujtahid in his capacity as the vicegerent of the Ima>m.  This money was usually spent by the mujtahid to finance the stipends of the students at Shi‘ite learned institutions in the Iraqi ‘Atabat and sometimes in Iran (eg. in Qumm).  Concerning the remaining one-half, the tax payer should either prove that he had spent it to help needy people in the proper way, or deliver it to the same mujtahid. 

Thirdly, the devotional attachment of Shi‘ites to the figures of the Imams was symbolized in the person of the supreme mujtahid.  The contemporary Ayatollah Mut}ahhari> rightly observed: “The courtesy and devotion performed by the khums payers to the person of the marja‘ (the supreme mujtahid) gave a double value to the implementation of the law regarding the three shares of the Ima>m.”[xii]  This attitude was developed in an ambiance dominated by ziyarah and the Muharram lamentation rites.  The charisma derived from the vice-gerency of the Ima>m was actually crystallized in the mourning rites during the shrine visitations.

      3 – The emergence of the institution of marja‘ al-taqlid, or the supreme model for emulation, in the mid-nineteenth century is due to the increased centrality of ritual practices.  The above mentioned elements not only contributed to the strength of the ‘ulama’s power, but also gave rise to a hierarchical structure within the body of ‘ulama.  There emerged many occasions for which the final opinion should be declared by a single supreme mujtahid.  Determining the special dates and what occasions when businesses should be closed was an important matter that required the fatwa (juristic opinion) of the leading mujtahid.  Suspension of work for different reasons is a universal phenomenon; nevertheless, closing the shops in the bazaar in modern Shi‘ism was closely connected with religious sentiments as determined by the leading ‘ulama.  These dates include the beginning day of each lunar month according to which the exact timing of ‘Ashura (10^th Muharram), of 20th Safar (40^th day after the event of ‘Ashura), of 21^st of Ramadan (the martyrdom of Imam ‘Ali), and of the moon sighting for ‘I<d al-Fitr (the feast of completion of the month of fasting), as well as the date of memorial services for any deceased marja‘ or exemplary authority.

Closing the shops of the bazaar functioned as a prerequisite for the Muharram ceremonies due to the public processions (dastah gardani) which had become an essential part of mourning rites since the mid-Safavid period.  The same public processions were now employed in the death and memorial days of the grand marja‘ ever since the demise of Shaykh Murtada Ansari in 1281/1864.  Such commemorations functioned as the last recognition of the status of the deceased marja‘ by the emerging maraji‘.  We know that the houses of grand maraji‘ of the ‘Atabat and of Qumm in Iran were among the main stopping points of the Muharram processions where they would pay tribute to the status of the vicegerents of the Imam.  In this manner, such public processions and the closing of the shops, which were originally parts of the Muharram rites, were also employed for establishing the authority of the new emerging maraji‘ .[xiii]

As we saw in the first part of this survey, the juridical works of the Late Safavid ‘ulama connected individual Shi‘ite piety to the visitation of the shrines, and this bore its fruits in the Qajar era.  The expansion of the ziyarah and Muharram rites made the ‘ulama the focal points of the society not only for spiritual guidance but also for mercantile and communal settlements.  Public processions were beyond the approach of most juristic minded ‘ulama.  Nevertheless, they expanded in the post-Safavid era in spite the fact that some mujtahids refuted self-flagellation and any kind of self-mortification resulting in injuries.  The use of public processions for political purposes in the Tobacco and Constitutional movements, and then especially during the Islamic Revolution of Iran, proved that these may also serve the interests of the ‘ulama effectively.  The social esteem and influence which the ‘ulama gained from this development of Shi‘ite ritual surpassed the ‘ulama's scholarly achievements during the same periods.  It is no surprise, therefore, that both the charismatic authority of the ‘ulama (their status of vicegerency of the Imam), and their hierarchical position (marja‘iyyah) emerged with a new orientation when the performance of the rituals was at its peak during the Qajar era.