41 replies to this topic

[baradar_jackson]

Since there have been recent accusations against Dr Shariati, I would like to share with you all an article I read. It is a summary of the writings and statements of the leader of the revolution -- Seyyed Ali Khamenei -- regarding Dr Shariati. You can find the article here: http://www.seapurse.....x=109&Bot1.y=3

Since it's in Farsi and it's rather long, I will give you a very brief summary.

First it shows Emam Khomeini's opinion of Dr Shariati. Emam once commented: "How can someone write a book as beautiful and as gripping as 'Niayesh' but at the same time criticize 'Mafatih al-Janan' (when it is clear that such criticisms only help the enemy)?"

He also commented: "When reading Shariati's works, his love of Ali (A.S.) hits you like a wave!"

So we have established that Emam did NOT have all that negative of a view toward Dr Shariati (as some wish to assert). He was familiar with his works and admired them.

Now we move to the leader's opinions. The leader acknowledges the two lines of criticisms used against Shariati: (1) His contact with Savak officials, and (2) Shahid Motahari's negative opinion of him in his letter to Emam.

He says that #1 was not done out of collaboration but out of efforts to undermine the Pahlavi regime.

He says that #2 was due to an exaggeration on the part of Shahid Motahari (citing that Shahid Beheshti had made similar accusations against Motahari himsef).

Ultimately, none of these people are masoom. They will have disputes and infighting. But all of them were loyal to Islam and the Islamic revolution. So I advise all of you brothers on here to refrain from using pejorative terms like "Marxist," or "socialist," or "crypto-Marxist" to describe Dr Shariati (especially considering that the leader has expressed disagreement with these accusations). There is no fitna worse than the fitna of historical figures that we try to revive (and exaggerate) today.

Ya Ali

Edited by baradar_jackson, 22 April 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[thecontentedself]

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

Since there have been recent accusations against Dr Shariati, I would like to share with you all an article I read. It is a summary of the writings and statements of the leader of the revolution -- Seyyed Ali Khamenei -- regarding Dr Shariati. You can find the article here: http://www.seapurse.....x=109&Bot1.y=3

Since it's in Farsi and it's rather long, I will give you a very brief summary.

First it shows Emam Khomeini's opinion of Dr Shariati. Emam once commented: "How can someone write a book as beautiful and as gripping as 'Niayesh' but at the same time criticize 'Mafatih al-Janan' (when it is clear that such criticisms only help the enemy)?"

He also commented: "When reading Shariati's works, his love of Ali (A.S.) hits you like a wave!"

So we have established that Emam did NOT have all that negative of a view toward Dr Shariati (as some wish to assert).

Now we move to the leader's opinions. The leader acknowledges the two lines of criticisms used against Shariati: (1) His contact with Savak officials, and (2) Shahid Motahari's negative opinion of him in his letter to Emam.

He says that #1 was not done out of collaboration but out of efforts to undermine the Pahlavi regime.

He says that #2 was due to an exaggeration on the part of Shahid Motahari (citing that Shahid Beheshti had made similar accusations against Motahari himsef).

Ultimately, none of these people are masoom. They will have disputes and infighting. But all of them were loyal to Islam and the Islamic revolution. So I advise all of you brothers on here to refrain from using pejorative terms like "Marxist," or "socialist," or "crypto-Marxist" to describe Dr Shariati (especially considering that the leader has expressed disagreement with these accusations). There is no fitna worse than the fitna of historical figures that we try to revive (and exaggerate) today.

Ya Ali

salam
thanks for this. what kind of exaggerations on the part of Mutahhari towards Shariati did the Imam mean?

[baradar_jackson]

thecontentedself, on 22 April 2010 - 03:06 PM, said:

salam
thanks for this. what kind of exaggerations on the part of Mutahhari towards Shariati did the Imam mean?

He accused Shariati of being a Marxist and of wanting to eradicate the ulema.

[thecontentedself]

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

He accused Shariati of being a Marxist and of wanting to eradicate the ulema.

wow, harsh. did he use a specific topic to back his claim? i've heard that he invited Shariati to give lectures at the mosque in Tehran...forgot what it was called...to encourage the youth to listen to him and educate them on the islamic revolution.

[hameedeh]

Thank you for the info, baradar. Never have I heard anyone call Dr. Shariati a socialist. He was a social scientist.
Dr. Shariati attracted many people to Islam through speech and books who were previously secular. I admire him for that.

[baradar_jackson]

thecontentedself, on 22 April 2010 - 03:22 PM, said:

wow, harsh. did he use a specific topic to back his claim? i've heard that he invited Shariati to give lectures at the mosque in Tehran...forgot what it was called...to encourage the youth to listen to him and educate them on the islamic revolution.

They had a very good relationship at first. I am not sure what caused Motahari to formulate a negative opinion of Shariati. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can enlighten us.

Hameedeh, on 22 April 2010 - 03:24 PM, said:

Dr. Shariati attracted many people to Islam through speech and books who were previously secular. I admire him for that.

This is true. He was very effective at this.

[Photi]

it has been a while since i have read any Shariati.  i particularly enjoyed his Red Shiism vs. Black Shiism, and there was one book/lecture on humanity that i enjoyed (it was something like 'Reflections on Humanity').

what i noticed though, and what i am noticing now on trying to read Abdolkarim Soroush, is a certain longwindedness that make their writings seem unfocused.  am i running up against bad translations here?  are they interesting writers in farsi?  i have been reading Soroush's Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam and though i think there are many important ideas that he is discussing, those same ideas would be much more accessible if the lengths of each of his essays was trimmed down to about 50% of the word count.  i think this would force Soroush  to pinpoint in no uncertain terms exactly what he is talking about.  as it is he is difficult to read, not because his ideas are hard to understand, but because he is too wordy.  i felt the same thing when i was reading Shariati.

Anyone else experience this, or does it have something to do with sub-par translations?  How do each come across in Farsi?  

[thecontentedself]

Am I the only one who can't see his marxist tendencies? what is it? his critic in red shiism / black shiism? what more beautiful book is there on hajj than Shariati's? don't get me wrong, I respect Mutahhari much more as a scholar, he was a genious and an all round light of Islam and a great loss to our ummah, but I guess the truth about the difference of opinion died with both of them, and we better keep it that way and not speculate. they left us a legacy of inspirational material that we can use to promote true Mohammedan Islam in it's purest form.

[Mohammed-W]

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

Since there have been recent accusations against Dr Shariati, I would like to share with you all an article I read. It is a summary of the writings and statements of the leader of the revolution -- Seyyed Ali Khamenei -- regarding Dr Shariati. You can find the article here: http://www.seapurse.....x=109&Bot1.y=3

Since it's in Farsi and it's rather long, I will give you a very brief summary.

First it shows Emam Khomeini's opinion of Dr Shariati. Emam once commented: "How can someone write a book as beautiful and as gripping as 'Niayesh' but at the same time criticize 'Mafatih al-Janan' (when it is clear that such criticisms only help the enemy)?"

He also commented: "When reading Shariati's works, his love of Ali (A.S.) hits you like a wave!"

So we have established that Emam did NOT have all that negative of a view toward Dr Shariati (as some wish to assert). He was familiar with his works and admired them.

Now we move to the leader's opinions. The leader acknowledges the two lines of criticisms used against Shariati: (1) His contact with Savak officials, and (2) Shahid Motahari's negative opinion of him in his letter to Emam.

He says that #1 was not done out of collaboration but out of efforts to undermine the Pahlavi regime.

He says that #2 was due to an exaggeration on the part of Shahid Motahari (citing that Shahid Beheshti had made similar accusations against Motahari himsef).

Ultimately, none of these people are masoom. They will have disputes and infighting. But all of them were loyal to Islam and the Islamic revolution. So I advise all of you brothers on here to refrain from using pejorative terms like "Marxist," or "socialist," or "crypto-Marxist" to describe Dr Shariati (especially considering that the leader has expressed disagreement with these accusations). There is no fitna worse than the fitna of historical figures that we try to revive (and exaggerate) today.

Ya Ali

Thanks !.....This is very good! A person who has just become muslim/Shia has a long hike to get up to speed with the Shia Islam, and that is why we join shia chat to learn.

This must have been a difficult choice to repeat things said, but I think you did this in the best manner.

Now  that I know he has been accused of such and such I can understand better.  I dont want to learn about figures to argue their arguments but I will be better off approaching their works when I know.......Just like a muslim who is not aware of the situation ofThe prophets (SAW) Daughter(SA)  trying to figure out. Getting to the bottom of these older matters are easier than recent.

Which is I ask you and Mahdaviat, first then investigate things.

Marx etc are disbelievers, if someone says this (to another muslim) it is true about either one of them, this takfir goes up and comes down, on the one it was said about or upon the speaker.

If someone knows/believes they know and can prove what they are saying thats one thing but if they are being flippant and mocking they are playing a dangerous game, which if they had knowledge and Fear of Allah (SWT) they would not play.

Edited by Mohammed-W, 22 April 2010 - 04:26 PM.

[kadhim]

Baradar, where do you see folks calling Dr. Shariati a crypto-Marxist or Marxist? A few people, myself included, have put you in that category, or said at least that you talk like one. But not Shariati, as far as I have seen. At least I certainly haven't done so. If I had to label Shariati, I'd slot him in more as a Liberation Theology / leftist oriented social scientist, with both the pluses and minuses associated with that.

Edited by kadhim, 22 April 2010 - 04:31 PM.

[baradar_jackson]

kadhim, on 22 April 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Baradar, where do you see folks calling Dr. Shariati a crypto-Marxist or Marxist? A few people, myself included, have put you in that category, or said at least that you talk like one. But not Shariati, as far as I have seen. At least I certainly haven't done so. If I had to label Shariati, I'd slot him in more as a Liberation Theology / leftist oriented social scientist, with both the pluses and minuses associated with that.

Bahadur Ali and Marbles both made this accusation toward Shahid Shariati.

[hameedeh]

from drshariati.org









Prison photo 1352 in time of the Shah 1973 or 1974

[kadhim]

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

Bahadur Ali and Marbles both made this accusation toward Shahid Shariati.

I see. Having read Dr. Shariati's works, I can vaguely see where they're coming from, but I think it's simplistic and not very accurate.
Shariati is not in the same league as the likes of Mutahhari, but his voice was important historically and still has something beneficial and relevant to bring to the table. Whenever I end up, God willing, going on hajj, his short book is one I'd like to take with me to refer to and reflect upon. Fatima is Fatima is also one of those works that are on my "to read" list.

[Muhammed Ali]

I don't know enough about this subject to comment but I do want to say something about the following:

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

Ultimately, none of these people are masoom. They will have disputes and infighting. But all of them were loyal to Islam and the Islamic revolution.

I know that their differences can't be compared to the differences between the sahabah, however I think we must be careful that we don't treat our leaders in the same way that the sunnis treat the sahabah.

[Gypsy]

Overall, Ali Shariati is not viewed negatively in Iran. In the past, some people did criticized him. I am uncertain if this is against his work or because of his western dressing style and demeanor.

People should definitely read Ali Shariti's book before condemning him.

You can start by reading "Fatima is Fatima" http://www.al-islam....fatimaisfatima/

[Mohammed-W]

I am reading it now.^^

Quote

Fatima is Fatima is also one of those works that are on my "to read" list

Thanks for mentioning it .^^

I got your hint and then the link...no excuse not to.

Edited by Mohammed-W, 22 April 2010 - 06:27 PM.

[The Persian Shah]

Shariati definitely did have some socialist inclinations (amongst several other slight perversions). You people should read more. I guess most of you are uninformed about him because you don't know farsi, which is fair enough (very few of his works have been translated).

Khomeini did voice his concerns about this issue as well. Unfortunately, I can't remember the source for this atm, but I think it might have been in his Hokomat-e Eslami. To the OP, what is the source of the article? Secondly, neither #1 nor #2 mention anything about his attraction to socialism, so it's completely irrelevant.

I personally don't think Motahhari [QS] was exaggerating at all. There was a nice book I read where it explained this all pretty well. It's the one that talks about the showdown that happened between Motahhari/Shariati in London, just before his death. Interestingly, all of Motahhari, Tabatabai and Shariati were in London at the same time!

I doubt Shariati will be best remembered for his actual views on topics, but probably rather be best known for his actual activities, cultural (such as the lectures twinned up with Mutahhari at the Hosseiniyeh Ershad (ÍÓیäیå ÇÑÔÇÏ)) and political (such as lectures and books against the Shah)..

As kadhim well said: "Shariati is not in the same league as the likes of Mutahhari"

Overall, I would say be more careful of the so called religiously uneducated "rowshan-fekrs" ("intellectual thinkers")..

Quote

Am I the only one who can't see his marxist tendencies? what is it? his critic in red shiism / black shiism? what more beautiful book is there on hajj than Shariati's? don't get me wrong, I respect Mutahhari much more as a scholar, he was a genious and an all round light of Islam and a great loss to our ummah, but I guess the truth about the difference of opinion died with both of them, and we better keep it that way and not speculate. they left us a legacy of inspirational material that we can use to promote true Mohammedan Islam in it's purest form.

Well, that's all nice, but over-glorification not conforming with reality is similarly not correct. An academic analysis of views uncovering reality does not imply fitna` either..

Quote

Whenever I end up, God willing, going on hajj, his short book is one I'd like to take with me to refer to and reflect upon. Fatima is Fatima is also one of those works that are on my "to read" list.

It's not bad, but don't get your hopes up too high about it. I tried the same. If you want something really deep on the philosophy of Hajj, read Hassanzadeh's [HA] risalah on it, or even the hadith by Imam Ja`far As-Sadiq [AS]: Spiritual Aspects of Hajj (The Spiritual Aspects of Hajj - Pocket-sized Version)..

Quote

Overall, Ali Shariati is not viewed negatively in Iran. In the past, some people did criticized him. I am uncertain if this is against his work or because of his western dressing style and demeanor.

!!

Quote

People should definitely read Ali Shariti's book before condemning him.

I don't think attributing him with socialist inclinations is the same as condemning him ..

Quote

it has been a while since i have read any Shariati.  i particularly enjoyed his Red Shiism vs. Black Shiism, and there was one book/lecture on humanity that i enjoyed (it was something like 'Reflections on Humanity').

what i noticed though, and what i am noticing now on trying to read Abdolkarim Soroush, is a certain longwindedness that make their writings seem unfocused.  am i running up against bad translations here?  are they interesting writers in farsi?  i have been reading Soroush's Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam and though i think there are many important ideas that he is discussing, those same ideas would be much more accessible if the lengths of each of his essays was trimmed down to about 50% of the word count.  i think this would force Soroush  to pinpoint in no uncertain terms exactly what he is talking about.  as it is he is difficult to read, not because his ideas are hard to understand, but because he is too wordy.  i felt the same thing when i was reading Shariati.

Anyone else experience this, or does it have something to do with sub-par translations?  How do each come across in Farsi?  

Well, agreeably the translations don't help, but the unnecessary floweriness, lacking substance and long-winded dribble is definitely a precisely well described feature of all their works (even in Farsi)..

And on another note, I would sincerely advise you to not waste your time with AK. Soroush..

[Bahadur Ali]

^^ Given that Sayyid Khamenei is a modernist himself I don't expect his opinion to be in full agreement of Hazrat-e Emam . So mentionning his opinion about Shariati won't change a iota about what I think of Shariati's writings. Sayyid Khamenei owes the articulation of his political thought to Shariati and Iqbal who were both modernists, Whereas Hazrat-e Emam argued his ideas purely from Tradition even though he had to make concessions to the modernist Shariatists who were numerous amongst student circles. The reason why I love Hazrat-e Emam's writings is precisely because there is not an ounce of modernism in them, nothing but Tradition. Politics wise Hazrat-e Emam was probably the most remarkable Realpolitiker of the 20th century. He knew fully well that the revolution was in danger of falling into the hands of the communists and hence Russia and that is why, and only why, he accepted political compromise with the Shariatists in order to absorb a political force that would have been used by Russia sooner or later had he not been there. His death was a huge loss and I am sorry to say but Iran will never have a leader like him. I look at the Iranian political landscacpe today and there is not a single man who can even be compared to his shadow.

Edited by Bahadur Ali, 23 April 2010 - 03:26 AM.

[The Persian Shah]

Quote

^^ Given that Sayyid Khamenei is a modernist himself

How'd you figure that?

Edited by The Persian Shah, 23 April 2010 - 06:01 AM.

[baradar_jackson]

Bahadur Ali, on 23 April 2010 - 03:24 AM, said:

^^ Given that Sayyid Khamenei is a modernist himself I don't expect his opinion to be in full agreement of Hazrat-e Emam . So mentionning his opinion about Shariati won't change a iota about what I think of Shariati's writings. Sayyid Khamenei owes the articulation of his political thought to Shariati and Iqbal who were both modernists, Whereas Hazrat-e Emam argued his ideas purely from Tradition even though he had to make concessions to the modernist Shariatists who were numerous amongst student circles. The reason why I love Hazrat-e Emam's writings is precisely because there is not an ounce of modernism in them, nothing but Tradition. Politics wise Hazrat-e Emam was probably the most remarkable Realpolitiker of the 20th century. He knew fully well that the revolution was in danger of falling into the hands of the communists and hence Russia and that is why, and only why, he accepted political compromise with the Shariatists in order to absorb a political force that would have been used by Russia sooner or later had he not been there. His death was a huge loss and I am sorry to say but Iran will never have a leader like him. I look at the Iranian political landscacpe today and there is not a single man who can even be compared to his shadow.

First of all, the leader was not giving a sweeping endorsement of Dr Shariati. He was just giving reasonable answers to the ridiculous accusations that some people (such as yourself) direct at him.

Secondly, "Shariatist" is a term you invented yourself and yet you act like these "Shariatists" were an actual group and were organizing an elaborate conspiracy against the government.

Edited by baradar_jackson, 23 April 2010 - 01:33 PM.

[Nima]

Zareen, on 22 April 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

Overall, Ali Shariati is not viewed negatively in Iran. In the past, some people did criticized him. I am uncertain if this is against his work or because of his western dressing style and demeanor.

People should definitely read Ali Shariti's book before condemning him.

You can start by reading "Fatima is Fatima" http://www.al-islam....fatimaisfatima/

Western dressing style ?

[Marbles]

baradar_jackson, on 22 April 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

Bahadur Ali and Marbles both made this accusation toward Shahid Shariati.

Pardon me?

When?

Where?

I had said that Shariati was a leftist intellectual who was influenced by and borrowed from Marxist/Communist thought.

Please don't misrepresent.

[baradar_jackson]

Marbles, on 24 April 2010 - 01:21 PM, said:

Pardon me?

When?

Where?

I had said that Shariati was a leftist intellectual who was influenced by and borrowed from Marxist/Communist thought.

Please don't misrepresent.

You called him a "pseudo-Marxist."

[bandekhoda]

Bahadur Ali, on 23 April 2010 - 03:24 AM, said:

^^ Given that Sayyid Khamenei is a modernist himself

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL nice one!

can i just add, if it wasn't for the likes of Dr.Shariati, many people wouldn't have supported the revolution.

Edited by bandekhoda, 24 April 2010 - 03:20 PM.

[Marbles]

baradar_jackson, on 24 April 2010 - 02:36 PM, said:

You called him a "pseudo-Marxist."

Since when did pseudo-Marxist = Marxist?

He incorporated bits and pieces of Marxist/Communist thought, put it in an Islamic garb and created a Leftist Shi'ism. Red Shi'ism vs. Black Shi'ism etc. Hence pseudo-Marxism. He equals Muhammad Iqbal [Eghbal Lahoori for you] who is another of Khamenei's favourites. The former borrowed extensively from Nietzsche and Bergson, yet he was a confessional Islamist. He, like Shariati, produced a confused amalgamation of traditionalism and modernity.

Edited by Marbles, 28 April 2010 - 01:58 AM.