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