Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

The Morgue Is Karbala, Mourning in Each Other’s Skin. Part I: The Lexicon in Exile

In the first part of her contribution, Mina Khanlarzadeh examines the Karbala narrative— the Shiʿi story of Hossein’s martyrdom, which for decades served as a public grammar for naming injustice in Iranian political culture.

In the aftermath of the January 2026 massacres in Iran, this blog contribution asks how grief and political refusal find a voice when inherited idioms can no longer be fully trusted.

Vor dem Hintergrund der Massaker im Iran im Januar 2026 geht dieser Blogbeitrag der Frage nach, wie Trauer und politischer Widerstand Ausdruck finden können, wenn man den überlieferten Sprachgewohnheiten nicht mehr uneingeschränkt vertrauen kann.


Author’s note: This blog contribution was substantially completed before the late-February 2026 U.S.–Israeli war against Iran. Its archive focuses on the January 2026 killings and the commemorative practices that emerged in their immediate aftermath, and it does not engage with the war or what followed from it.


In the aftermath of the January 2026 massacres in Iran, I kept returning to the way people reached for words and found the old ones no longer fit. Since the 2009 Green Movement, expanding state violence and unmet demands have produced not only anger, but a deep repulsion toward the world the state has built—its rituals, imagery, and inherited idioms. As the state repeatedly captures those forms and saturates them with the memory of its violence, shared political vocabularies have become unreliable. This blog contribution asks how grief and political refusal find a voice when inherited idioms can no longer be fully trusted. To pursue that question, I turn to the Karbala narrative—the Shiʿi story of Hossein’s martyrdom, which for decades served as a public grammar for naming injustice in Iranian political culture.

For decades, the story of Hossein—the third Shiʿi Imam—served as Iranian society’s public grammar for naming injustice. Hossein refused to pledge loyalty to Yazid, the Umayyad ruler, and was surrounded and killed in Karbala; his death became the central Shiʿi story of shahādat (martyrdom). In the years leading to the 1979 Revolution, Karbala circulated as a widely legible idiom of resistance. The pre-revolutionary Iranian thinker Ali Shariati crystallized this by distinguishing between a “Red Shiʿism” of protest and a “Black Shiʿism” of state ritual, in which mourning for Hossein is absorbed into institutional order. In 1974, the Marxist poet Khosrow Golsorkhi identified himself with Hossein before a military tribunal, casting the Shah’s court as Yazid’s tyranny (see section 7). These episodes show that Karbala could function as a shared political language even for the nonreligious.

After the Revolution, the Islamic Republic claimed Karbala as official property, and after 2009 that capture made the idiom increasingly unreliable as a shared language of refusal. As former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei put it in 2013, “Military war, intellectual war, spiritual war, social war: the combination of these is called mujāhadat [struggle]. Whoever is devoted to Imam Hossein is devoted to political Islam… Islam is muqātila [combat].” In official discourse, attachment to Hossein is thereby fused to a condition of permanent struggle. In February 2026, in his final public address, Khamenei invoked Hossein’s declaration at Karbala—“someone like me does not pledge allegiance to someone like Yazid”—conscripting the sacred grammar of resistance into the state’s confrontation with the United States. After his death, state media declared him shaheed, saying he would be gathered in the hereafter with Hossein. The state’s Islam invokes familiar idioms, which is precisely what makes this capture so dispossessing.

When Karbala is invoked by those who kill, its vocabulary can no longer serve unambiguously as a grammar of resistance. In a recent video, the sister of Reza Naseri, who was killed in June 2025 by the state’s paramilitary Basiji forces, sits beside his grave and says: “My brother was killed by someone who goes on pilgrimage to Karbala every month, who constantly invokes the name of Hossein.” Under such conditions, symbolic abandonment is not always a sign of total rejection of faith; it can also be a refusal to inhabit a political vocabulary now compromised by its association with violence.

The rupture also surfaces in mourning rituals for people. In one account, as mourners stood to recite namāz-e mayyit, the traditional prayer for the dead, a veiled aunt shouted: “Don’t pray… There is no God… my son… his stature… his big colored eyes… he was 23 when they killed him… don’t pray, there is no God.” The accompanying line—Sūg-ash az īmān obūr kard-e būd—is stark: her grief had passed through faith, and faith could no longer hold it. In many such funerals, the dead were buried without Islamic prayers, their send-off carried instead by greetings and slogans. Even ritual had become unevenly inhabitable.

Portrait of Sepehr Shokri, by Aylene Fallah, from the Javidnam series, 2026.

When Sepehr Shokri’s father wanders through the morgue to find his son, he calls out, Sepehr-e bābā, kojāyi? (Daddy’s own Sepehr, where are you?) and Bābā Sepehr (Daddy Sepehr). In the emotional grammar of Persian, calling the child bābā collapses the distance between parent and child, making the father’s own sense of self inseparable from his son. His kojāyi? is both lament and protest, naming the violence that has imposed an absolute absence where a beloved should be. In the cold of the morgue, with nameless bodies stacked on the floor and labeled “rioters” or “foreign agents,” this familial language becomes an authoritative register for naming injustice and refusing the state’s final word on who his son was. Yet if Karbala has become unreliable as a vocabulary of resistance, devastation can still force its return. As Sepehr’s father passes among the bodies, he cries, “Karbala injāst, mardom” (Karbala is here, people). In that cry, sacred ground is relocated from the state’s staged rituals to the cold floor of the morgue. Unlike Shariati’s “Red Shiʿism,” this is not a political program but an unscripted reflex, a fragment of an older idiom returning under pressure.

Screenshots from Shahmir’s rap clip, provided by the author.

A rap song by Shahmir, circulating on Instagram in February 2026, invokes Sepehr’s father: “Nonstop, his voice echoes in my head, asking where Sepehr-e bābā is.” The artist then names the consequence of this grief: “Tasuʿā and Ashura”—the two peak days of ritual mourning for Hossein—“no longer have meaning.” In declaring those days meaningless, Shahmir suggests that the inherited religious frame has been overtaken by the present. He re-pins grief to the specific dates of recent state killings: “18 and 19 Dey [January 8–9, 2026] have become tāsiān and dāghiyān.” By displacing Tasuʿā and Ashura with these Gilaki terms, Shahmir reroutes grief away from a distrusted religious idiom and into vernacular speech. Tāsiān names the hollow cold of a home emptied by loss; dāghiyān names a restless, burning agitation. As Gilaki is tied to Gilan, these words, paired with the allusion to burning, gesture toward the violence and fire in Rasht’s bazaar. In this new chronology, the inherited calendar loses its authority, unable to contain the magnitude of the present. What follows is not the disappearance of the sacred, but its dispersal: the inherited idiom splinters into a plurality of vernacular names, times, and languages.

Nehayat Rahimi’s chehelom.

At the chehelom (the fortieth-day mourning commemoration) of Nehayat Rahimi in February 2026, her mother adopts the physical grammar of a taʿziyeh (a ritual play centered on Hossein’s martyrdom), pacing in circles with her daughter’s photograph. She begins by invoking the foundational treachery of Shiʿi memory—Imam Ali struck from behind by Ibn Muljam—only to subvert it. Because Nehayat, too, was attacked from behind by the state’s security forces in Gorgan’s Kaj Square, her mother declares, “Compared to Ibn Muljam, you are the coward,” recasting those forces through a foundational scene of Shiʿi betrayal. “Who is the Yazid of this era? The ones who martyred and turned forty thousand dead into everlasting ones.” She then reassigns Karbala’s coordinates: the sahrā-ye Karbala (desert of Karbala) is no longer a distant site, but the pavement of Kaj Square, just as Tasuʿā and Ashura are reattached to the dates of the 2026 killings. This is not an isolated gesture. Other bereaved mothers, such as Kamelia Sajadian, whose son, Mohammad Hassan Torkaman, was killed during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom movement, similarly reattach Ashura and Karbala to the time and place of their children’s deaths, prying the idiom from state custody and turning it into a vernacular geography of loss.

What this archive reveals is not the disappearance of Karbala, but the damage done to it as a public idiom. Victor Klemperer’s account of poisoned language helps explain how states damage public language from within, as ideology enters everyday speech through repetition until words begin to carry the force of the state’s violence. Like the “tiny doses of arsenic” he describes, swallowed unnoticed until a toxic reaction sets in, poisoned words eventually come to feel dangerous to use.[1] In contemporary Iran, the inherited idiom of Karbala as resistance and refusal has been marked by the memory of state violence and absorbed into the state’s ritual theater. Yet damaged idioms do not simply disappear. At times, people refuse them, as when families reject the namāz-e mayyit and instead send off their dead with slogans. At other times, they displace them, as when Shahmir replaces the inherited sacred peaks of Tasuʿā and Ashura with the vernacular of tāsiān and dāghiyān. In Bakhtinian terms, these acts reconfigure Karbala’s chronotope: the fused time-space that determines, in narrative, what happens, where, and to whom. Borrowed from physics and adapted to literature, the chronotope names the way time and space are bound together in narrative form.[2] In this archive, the chronotope helps clarify how shifting these coordinates makes their suffering narratable and their dead nameable. By relocating Karbala from inherited ritual settings to the morgues, pavements, and graves of the present, and from liturgical recurrence to the dates of state killing, the bereaved pull the sacred into the immediate reality of their own lives. They decide anew when Karbala happens, where it unfolds, and who—in the face of the state’s dehumanizing labels—has the final right to name its dead. Yet given the unreliability of inherited idioms, political grief also migrates into embodied and vernacular forms—not as a retreat from language, but as its reinvention. Part II follows that movement into rhythm and the body; Part III follows it into the vernacular infrastructures through which belonging is rebuilt.


[1]: Victor Klemperer, The Language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook, trans. Martin Brady (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 15–16.

[2]: Mikhail Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel,” in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 84–85.


Mina Khanlarzadeh is a historian and visiting faculty member at Deep Springs College in California. She holds a PhD from Columbia University and has held postdoctoral positions at Northwestern University and the Forum Transregionale Studien in Berlin. Her research focuses on modern intellectual and cultural history and the history of science, with a particular focus on the Middle East. In 2025 she was a Value of the Past Fellow at ZfL Berlin.


Title image: “Sepehr-e bābā” (“Daddy’s own Sepehr”). Image courtesy of Women Life Freedom Art (@womenlifefreedom.art), Instagram.

All images in this contribution are shared here with consent of the creators.


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Leibniz-Fellows (24. März 2026). The Morgue Is Karbala, Mourning in Each Other’s Skin. Part I: The Lexicon in Exile. Value of the Past. Abgerufen am 17. April 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/15xnw


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.