In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Hoseyn,“ThePrinceofMartyrs” By the 1960s and 1970s, Moharram rituals had become effective means for critiquing the shah’s regime and for expressing alternative social and political views. Lectures, often the centerpieces of these rituals, became increasingly politicized. Their use for this purpose was an important development within the oppositional discourse under Pahlavi rule. As many historians of the Iranian Revolution of 1978–79 have pointed out, the religious leadership surrounding Khomeini used religious symbols effectively to motivate the Iranian masses to rebel against the shah’s regime.1 One of the most important sets of symbols used in the oppositional political discourse was the Karbala Paradigm. In the 1960s and 1970s this narrative was cast in a new light. The shah and his followers were labeled as followers of Mo’aviyeh and Yazid, and the Iranian masses were equated with the martyrs who died with Hoseyn in 680 in the deserts of Karbala. This recasting can be seen in mass media, political pamphlets, books, political slogans, posters, and stamps, as well as in Khomeini’s speeches and the political literature of various revolutionary groups in Iran. It is not surprising that the Karbala narrative was used in this way, because it is based on a historic rebellion against what was perceived to be corrupt leadership. In addition, since it has traditionally been the symbolic event most central to Shiªi rituals and beliefs, it was easily comprehensible to most Iranians. However, Hoseyn’s martyrdom has not always been interpreted in such an overtly revolutionary way. This symbolism, depending on the context, has been used both to defend and to fight the political status quo. As the different ideologues set about reinterpreting the Karbala Paradigm in more revolutionary terms, some of them encountered a great deal of resistance or even hostility from other religious scholars, who attacked them on grounds of heresy and who set out to systematically refute their arguments. This change is best understood as a complex process of revision of the narrative, fol87 lowed by critiques of these revisions, and ending with a synthesis of a new “Karbala narrative.” These competing narratives were accepted, rejected, or modified based on a series of factors related to contemporary political and social discourse. Several issues were contested in this discourse on the “appropriate ” understanding of the Battle of Karbala: the relative importance of the soteriological dimension of the Karbala Paradigm, the issue of whether or not to rebel actively against unjust rulers like the Pahlavi regime and what is characterized as the oppressive international imperialist order, the nature of jihad and martyrdom, the nature of the “self” and the “other,” and, finally, the construction and propagation of different conceptions of gender roles in society. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, Karbala narratives tended to stress the soteriological dimension of the symbolism. This view did not, however, preclude the use of these narratives as a means for challenging or promoting the legitimacy of the state, as was frequently the case. During times of political crisis or upheaval, such as the period of the tobacco protests, the anti-Baha’i campaigns in the nineteenth century, the period of the Constitutional Revolution, and the revolutionary activities of the 1960s and 1970s, these narratives were used for more explicitly political purposes. However the narrative was not fundamentally reformulated until the 1960s and 1970s. Two basic terms are used below to illustrate how the Karbala narratives were debated. The “core-narrative” is defined as the basic narrative of Hoseyn and his movement, including such things as the moral qualities and infallibility of the imam, loyalty to the imam, courage, honor, and a willingness to be martyred, with the battle dominating the drama. The term “meta-narrative” is used to refer to the broader narrative context in which the core-narrative is situated and from which it gains relevance to social and political discourse.2 The core-narrative, which is relatively universalistic and static in meaning, includes the ideals of justice and piety that are embodied in the person of the imam. An example of the meta-narrative in the Karbala narrative is the representation of the “self” and the “other,” which was transformed during this period. In earlier narratives the just and righteous self tended to be defined as consisting of the pious and loyal followers of Hoseyn (i.e., the Shiªis), whereas the corrupt and oppressive other was defined as consisting of the Sunnis and the hypocritical followers of...

Share