Beyond Emotion: The Ethics and Limits of Laʿn

Debate, and at times confusion, often intensifies around the subject of laʿn (cursing), particularly during the commemoration of emotionally charged religious events. These occasions evoke strong sentiments due to their association with revered figures and unforgettable historical incidents. One such event is the tragedy of Karbala in the year 61 AH, where the Prophet’s grandson, Imam Hussain ibn Ali (p), the Master of the Youth of Paradise, was brutally killed alongside seventeen members of his household, including children, one of whom was an infant, and approximately seventy of his loyal companions.

Following the massacre, the surviving women and children were taken captive and forced to journey across the barren lands from Karbala to Kufa, and then to Damascus via present-day Turkey, paraded before the public to incite fear and submission. This atrocity was carried out under the orders of Yazid ibn Muʿawiyah and Ibn Ziyad, and executed by ʿUmar ibn Saʿd, Shimr ibn Dhi al-Jawshan, and others. The tragedy of Karbala became a focal point for mourning, lamentation, sympathy, and prayers for Hussain and his followers, while curses (laʿn) were directed toward Yazīd and his accomplices, a practice renewed annually during the commemoration of this grievous event, and often remembered throughout the year.

Given the depth of sorrow and emotional intensity surrounding the injustice, oppression, and violence inflicted upon Hussain, his family, and his companions, and considering the presence of authentic religious texts from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt that guide us in commemorating this tragedy and visiting Hussain, which include laʿn upon his killers, some among the lovers of Hussain, and indeed of the Prophet and his family in general, may at times express reactions that go beyond the intended scope. Under certain conditions, such reactions can lead to unintended consequences, which should be thoughtfully addressed and avoided along with their underlying causes.

For this reason, it is necessary to shed light on the topic of laʿn with a clear, objective perspective—to clarify its original meaning, distinguish it from other related concepts, define its scope and appropriate usage, and ultimately determine when, under what circumstances, and with which conditions it may be considered fruitful, constructive, and religiously sound.

The Meaning of Laʿn in Islam

As demonstrated by the Quran and the traditions and heritage of the Ahl al-Bayt (p), the concept of laʿn is a precise and regulated expression. It must not be confused with other terms or labels such as sabb (insult), shatm (abuse), or personal insults. When correctly understood, laʿn is a doctrinal proclamation, stemming from allegiance to truth and dissociation from falsehood, injustice, and deviation from God’s path, by taking a negative stance against it.

Laʿn is defined as “a supplication for a person to be removed from the mercy of God due to his explicit enmity toward God or toward any matter of truth.” By contrast, sabb is the use of insulting words intended to demean the other party, while shatm is foulness, vulgarity, and aggression.

Accordingly, laʿn is not a reflection of personal hatred and is not manifested by emotional or psychological motives. It is a principled stance that differentiates between justice and injustice, guidance and misguidance—just as God Himself practiced it and affirmed it in the noble Quranic text. The term laʿn appears in the Quran forty-one times (based on the root letters ل-ع-ن). 

For example:

• Against Iblis when he refused obedience and submission: [God] said, “O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My own hands? Were you arrogant, or were you among the exalted?” (15:75) [Iblis] said, “I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.” (15:76) [God] said, “Then get out of it, for indeed, you are accursed. And indeed, My curse is upon you until the Day of Judgment.” (15:77–78)
• Warning of the danger of hypocrisy and those who practice it: Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely (33:61)
• For persistent aggression: Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and were [habitually] transgressing (5:78)
• For persistent disbelief and atheism: Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers—upon them is the curse of God and of the angels and of all people (2:161)
• For deliberate murder: And whoever kills a believer intentionally—his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and God has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment (4:93)

Cursing the Deed or the Doer? The Boundaries of Laʿn in Islamic Ethics

Reflecting on these Quranic texts, along with Prophetic traditions and narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt (p), it becomes clear that a necessary distinction must be made between the person committing an act and the act or conduct itself. Not every condemned or evil act automatically warrants cursing the person who committed it; different cases require different approaches and degrees of judgment.

For instance, when God addressed a stubborn enemy who persistently rejected truth, namely Iblis—He issued an unequivocal curse upon both the act and the perpetrator in a single, irreversible declaration, “Indeed, My curse is upon you until the Day of Judgment” (15:78).

Similarly, in the case of Abū Lahab, who arrogantly persisted in corruption and rejection, God said:

“Perish the hands of Abū Lahab, and perish he!” (111:1).

In such cases, when guidance, admonition, and warning have failed to reform an individual, and they persist in sin and aggression, both the person and the act are condemned with laʿn—as in the verse:

“Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and were [habitually] transgressing” (5:78).
And:
“Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance… they are cursed by God and cursed by those who curse” (2:159).

On the other hand, when a wrongful act is committed without deliberate intent—due to ignorance, negligence, or misunderstanding—then laʿn may apply to the act itself, without extending to the individual. A clear example appears in cases of false accusation in matters of family or morality. In such cases, God provides an oath procedure and warns:

“And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of God be upon him if he should be among the liars” (24:7).

Likewise, with regard to those who take a human life unjustly, “And whoever kills a believer intentionally—his recompense is Hell… and God has cursed him” (4:93).

Therefore, when the subject of condemnation is clear and indisputable, such as Iblis, Pharaoh, or others explicitly identified by the Prophet (pbuh), the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (p), or even by common public consensus due to the absolute and evident nature of their evil, then laʿn is rightfully directed at both the act and the actor. Figures such as Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah, Ibn Ziyād, Ibn Saʿd, and Shimr ibn Dhi al-Jawshan fall into this category. They are outcasts from divine mercy, and public interest requires their exposure as deceivers, tyrants, or misleaders so that the general population, especially the simple and unsuspecting,are not influenced by their legacy or drawn toward their path.

However, when the objective is instructional, educational, or cautionary, the laʿn may be directed toward the act itself. At the same time, references to the actor are kept general, avoiding personal targeting unless clarity and necessity demand it.

A perfect example of both approaches can be seen in the well-known Ziyarat Ashura, narrated from Imam al-Baqir (p). In it, laʿn appears in both specific and general forms:

• Specific curses include statements such as:

 “O God, curse the one who founded the foundation of oppression and injustice,”
“O God, curse the group who pledged allegiance and supported the killing of Hussain.”

These refer directly to both the deeds and their perpetrators, explicitly naming Ibn Marjāna, Ibn Ziyād, Shimr ibn Dhī al-Jawshan, and others.

• General curses include statements like:
  
  “May God curse the nation that heard of this and was pleased with it,”
  “Curse … the last of them who followed in that [path].”

These address later individuals who may not have been present at the time, but who align themselves with the ideology and actions of that satanic group—one which embodied absolute evil. These general references serve as a powerful warning not to fall into the traps of their propaganda, media, and narrative framing, lest one be counted among them and share their fate in Hell.

Thus, laʿn is not mere verbal abuse or emotional outburst; it is a principled stance, a moral and theological declaration of disassociation. It is a divine tradition practiced by the prophets and the righteous as a means of expressing clear rejection of injustice and separating oneself from those who have fully clothed themselves in falsehood—in intellect, spirit, body, action, and speech.

Laʿn of the Non-Believer

When we affirm that laʿn expresses a stance and is not abuse or insult, and that it is a divine practice carried out by the prophets and the righteous to dissociate from oppression, it becomes clear that it is not limited to disbelievers or sinners. Indeed, a disbeliever or a sinner might be exempt from laʿn, and the act of a believer might itself be cursed if he persists in it. David and Jesus (p) cursed a group of disbelievers from among the Children of Israel, as the Qur’an says: Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and were [habitually] transgressing (5:78). 

Here, God makes the reason clear: their disobedience and their aggression. On the other hand, in another place, God forbids hostility against disbelievers and even encourages kindness and fair treatment toward peaceful non-believers: God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes—from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly (60:8)

Therefore, not every disbeliever is cast out from God’s mercy. A disbeliever or non-believer may be excused due to ignorance or heedlessness of the truth. God does not withhold His mercy except from those who are aggressive, obstinate, and deliberately negligent after willful intent and premeditation.

The Ethics of Laʿn in the Contemporary World

The stance toward oppression and oppressors does not change from past to present, regardless of the change in names, individuals, or titles. What is required is that the Muslim be knowledgeable, aware, and discerning in identifying the matter before taking a stance or uttering anything.

Many people repeat certain phrases without full awareness or understanding of their meaning; it is therefore unwise to rush to judge their actions—or them personally. Some confuse historical figures who committed oppression and deserved laʿn with contemporary individuals who know nothing of historical details, political manipulation, or propaganda and deception.

An illustrative example comes from the words of Amir al-Muʾminin ʿAli ibn Abi Talib (p) to Hujr ibn ʿAdi and ʿAmr ibn al-Hamaq, when they went out cursing the people of al-Sham. He said: “I disliked for you to be cursers who abuse and declare disassociation. Rather, if you were to describe their misdeeds and say of their behavior such-and-such, and of their actions such-and-such, that would be more correct in speech and a stronger excuse. And if, instead of cursing them and declaring your disassociation from them, you were to say: O God, protect their blood and our blood, reconcile between them and us, and guide them from their misguidance so that the one among them who is ignorant of the truth may come to know it, and the one who is obstinate in error and aggression may turn back—then that would be more beloved to me and better for you.” This is clear evidence of the misunderstanding that can occur in the use of laʿn, and a sign of the potential for fitnah (discord) that an enemy might exploit to cause division among Muslims.

Cursing (laʿn) is not meant to deepen sectarian divides or incite hatred within the ummah, but rather to serve as a moral and theological stance—an invitation for Muslims to reflect on the character and legacy of certain historical figures. It is a means of distancing ourselves from those whose actions were harmful to Islam and its foundational principles. However, this practice must be approached with utmost care and responsibility. We must be attentive, aware, and fully discerning in determining whether laʿn is warranted, lest we harm a people out of ignorance, prejudice, or blindness, thereby causing division within the community. The Muslim community has a sanctity in life, dignity, honor, and property that, if violated, replaces brotherhood with enmity. 

Mutual cursing among Muslims tears apart the unity of the ummah, fragments it, and undermines the efforts of scholars and jurists working to strengthen the bonds of unity. There is no doubt that there are always those lying in wait for Muslims, seeking to ignite sectarian strife through the misuse of the principle of laʿn. Therefore, laʿn should not be used in just any context, against any person, or for any matter. The subject must be precisely identified, fully understood, and then addressed within the legal framework and moral guidelines, with complete awareness of the consequences. The best advice, in the contemporary context, comes from the jurists (fuqahaʾ)—in understanding, applying, and acting according to their rulings, and learning from their practical example—for they are the most knowledgeable, the most pious, and the most concerned for the interests of religion, the people, and social security.

The Scholars and Their Role in Regulating Laʿn

Shia jurists, past and present, have emphasized the necessity of wisdom and consideration of circumstances when using sensitive expressions and taking difficult stances in critical times. They have sometimes advised and sometimes issued rulings to avoid public statements that could be perceived as provocative or that could lead to fitnah in mixed or tense communities.

They have also narrowed the scope of laʿn to what is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an, what is authenticated in the noble hadith and the reliable narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (p), or what is determined by the jurists themselves during the occultation of the Twelfth Imam, or what is agreed upon by trustworthy believers from among the people of expertise in social and public interest matters. Laʿn must not be left as an unrestricted tool for the general public to use however they wish.

Conclusion

We affirm that laʿn, in Islam and according to the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (p), is not merely an emotional or expressive act. It is a principled declaration of disassociation from falsehood and from those who deliberately and knowingly embody falsehood, oppression, and tyranny. Laʿn has its roots in divine texts, was practiced by the prophets and the saints, and is exercised within specific doctrinal, legal, and moral frameworks.

In our time, laʿn must not be reduced to a slogan we repeat, but must remain a moral and doctrinal stance we understand and practice with responsibility—just as our jurists and scholars guide us, combining the necessity of establishing truth with the importance of unity; practicing justice with exercising wisdom; and showing courage while upholding compassion, pardon, and mercy.