Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Dr. Ali Shariati [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

you all are right about Ali Shariati --- but I think you should understand the context within which he was speaking. At the time, Iran, and indeed most Muslim youth were infatuated with many of the non-Muslim thinkers that Shariati discusses. He managed to appeal to that youth, and bring back those folks towards Islam - that was his contribution, and to a large extent that remains his appeal for many Muslims. It is different if you actually have good exposure to, and understanding of Muslim/Islamic scholars (as is the case for most who frequent shia chat) in that respect, Shariati will not be very appealing.

At the same time - Shariati, as much as he was critical of some of the apolitical ways of some scholars, as was Imam Khomeini - he did not talk about giving up the tradition of Islam, and adopting something else --- or mixing things up... he used his training to understand and present Islam in a way that the more westrenized Muslim youth could understand Islam, and specifically the Shi'a way. And his criticism of the "west" was very clear - and he never sounds apologetic (unlike most of our present day "modernist" "progressive" and what not so-called Muslim "scholars.")

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He wasn't a marxist at all. He was similar to Bazargan. They kind of wanted a western oriented form of theocracy in Iran. I think if both men ran Iran today, hijab would be optional for women. It woul

For sure , BIBI Fatima(sa) is a role model for all mothers, daughters, and wives...She was Rehmat(Blessing) for REHMATULIL ALAMEEN(SAWW), as daughters are blessing for fathers. SHe was "Nisf Emaa

  • Veteran Member

I completely agree with this scholar's disposition on that point of the topic. Islam is about comprehension, and to understand the profound sense of Islam, we must seek to learn about both the internal and external religons and sentiments, as to see if the challenges can expand our thoughts.

Of course one that ponders his religon without using his intellectual capacity to collect more knowledge from various point of views would be considered self centered and arrogant. God has provided us with the intellect, and the beauty of Islam is about comprehension, and insha'Allah by expanding one's thoughts, we are opening our hearts.

Edited by Wise Muslim
Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Christian knights who hanged up 'portraits' of Imam Ali (as) . I doubt Amirul Mumeneen would have much regard for this 'love' based on false ideas, which is not a true love or reverence to begin with. Would he intercede for the man who had such a horrid opinion of his master, the Holy Prophet (S) ? Lol, talk about ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Greatly impressed by this great man, the likes of whom I have not witnessed through my extensive study both of Shi'ite and Western thought and philosophy, I want to make a web page tribute to him.

I bow to this man for he has truly reached the pinnacle of excellence by true awareness of the AhlulBayt. His awareness of the AhlulBayt was unrivaled in modern times and very enviable.

He discovered secrets in philosophy that nobody had known before, and he laid the foundations for great changes in the world.

I want people to help me with this cause so we can tell more and more people about this very noble man who was probably the greatest modern Shi'ite thinker of all time.

Sadly, most Shia people do not even know who he was.

Edited by IWN
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
About the Christian knights who hanged up 'portraits' of Imam Ali (as) . I doubt Amirul Mumeneen would have much regard for this 'love' based on false ideas, which is not a true love or reverence to begin with. Would he intercede for the man who had such a horrid opinion of his master, the Holy Prophet (S) ? Lol, talk about ridiculous.

OK! I never said "love" or used it. I said "respect" and it is different than "love". respecting someone does not mean loving him. They respected Ali (as) because of what he did in his life time. The righteous and just actions moved people heart and made them respect this man. There are other example of such situations. For example the ancient Greeks used to call Persian barbarians but greatly respected "Cyrus The Great" because of his acts of benevolence and justice. One of the most famous Greek historians wrote a book on him call Cyropedia which you can find online.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Much of the Muslim world today suffers from an inferiority complex. Scholars like him are much needed in today's time.

There's a story about a Pakistani man who was encouraged by his father to study the works of Muhammad Iqbal. The young man shrugged of his father's request and asked him why does he pay heed to outdated, irrelevant people.

The Pakistani man later got his education in Britain, and when he came back to Pakistan, he asked his father whether he had read the works of Muhammad Iqbal.

Some people, whether they realize it or not, hold Western Non-Muslim Scholarly opinions to be of more significance than Eastern Muslim opinions. Rather than ignoring this reality and alienating this group, it's important that we express the beauty and strength of Islam by citing Western Scholars, those that are generally objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Veteran Member

He was a great scholar and unfortunately his ideas are abused for political purposes by a lot of people (on all sides)

I am not well versed and I often have trouble understanding parts of the Quran or Hadith (even the Farsi translations), so his works taught me a lot about Islam. A lot of people say he was a socialist or that he combined socialism with Islam; I disagree with that completely. Firstly, because he wrote a essay called 'Marxism and other Western fallacies.' And secondly, because we Muslims have the problem that we tend to try to find modern, non-Muslim parallels to ideas which are embedded within Islam long before the Europeans wrote about them and gave them a fancy name. How can you call Shariati a socialist for advocating collectivism over the hyper-individualism found in liberal societies? Islam is collectivist in its nature; he just emphasized it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

I guess i don't know. There are reasons to agree. That is good. Kindness and devilery are both ex-cuzes to look onto evil stuff. Which you have to do, and it would be better do it out of kindness instead of anything else. We already master the art of keeping our word, lets seek the mastery of keeping a good word. Or it keeping us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an iranian and i can surely assure you he has a lot of friends and also enemies here. He has a book called "shi'ism of safavid shi'ism of Alavi". And its full of none sense. He tries to prove that the shia belief with have today was created by the safavid empire in iran some 300 years ago. His other books also have some correct things in them and some nonesense too. In all he's belief about shi'ism were not correct and most of his followers in iran today are people who are not very religious. He's daughter who follows his beliefs dosn't have much respect for the veil and dosn't wear a chador. She only puts on a scarf and leaves out parts of her hair.

i've read that book years ago , what i understand- though not totally can recall all points nor im defending all points- but generally what i understand is the emphasis on the practical religion without considering self improvement much as the true religion

as going to ma'tam and litsting about imam hussain and crying being all that one is to achieve from karbala , no lessons there

that what he call tashayue safawi ,safawi shiasim , i think it is a phenomenon that affect everyone indivisually or socially , not critizing the hard core of shiasim and religion but how it interacted with its environment

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Much of the Muslim world today suffers from an inferiority complex. Scholars like him are much needed in today's time.

There's a story about a Pakistani man who was encouraged by his father to study the works of Muhammad Iqbal. The young man shrugged of his father's request and asked him why does he pay heed to outdated, irrelevant people.

The Pakistani man later got his education in Britain, and when he came back to Pakistan, he asked his father whether he had read the works of Muhammad Iqbal.

Some people, whether they realize it or not, hold Western Non-Muslim Scholarly opinions to be of more significance than Eastern Muslim opinions. Rather than ignoring this reality and alienating this group, it's important that we express the beauty and strength of Islam by citing Western Scholars, those that are generally objective.

how come you have 2 names ?

other wise i totally agree , but i guess that is a positive point is that we alwyas look and read without prejduce

i was once always want to read western thought -part due to shallow modern books written in weak way, part of due to questioning waht thought bring this civilization and what we are missing , part of is looking for islam in non muslim tounges-

at some point i reached into the state -this is trash, trash and another trash- and i back to islamic studies again , not saying that western thoughts have not influenced me sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gods Name

how come you have 2 names ?

You will only have one! Do not disobey. I believe that lowers his eyes to look upon what is, instead of looking unto the empty sky in which there is nothing but good as a consequence of him being a Shia. Never trust him not having an excuze to disobey your God however desirable it is. Don't even look at it so you should not fall victim for the pleasures of heaven. Just believe that God has made it perfect and that in it there is no error. Believe that. He is not confused, you need to cover the gap of the lack of understanding which separates you from him if you doubt him. Otherwise you will be suprised by what he will do and he'll excel over you in seeking Gods grace. ... Now now. I won't be too greedy in my quest for pleasing God, and i don't know what i have to do now. Write, not write. Damn, or not damn. Lower my gaze, or raise it. ... I am doing well even when i don't know. Damnit!

Peace

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I'm an iranian and i can surely assure you he has a lot of friends and also enemies here. He has a book called "shi'ism of safavid shi'ism of Alavi". And its full of none sense. He tries to prove that the shia belief with have today was created by the safavid empire in iran some 300 years ago. His other books also have some correct things in them and some nonesense too. In all he's belief about shi'ism were not correct and most of his followers in iran today are people who are not very religious. He's daughter who follows his beliefs dosn't have much respect for the veil and dosn't wear a chador. She only puts on a scarf and leaves out parts of her hair.

I agree with him.

Safavid-thinking has corrupted Shi'a Islam

not only in Iran. Remember he was writing

pre-revolution.

Read this:

Red Shi'ism: The Religion of Martyrdom

Black Shi'ism: The Religion of Mourning

By: Dr. Ali Shariati

Islam is a religion which made its appearance in the history of mankind with the cry of "No!" from Mohammad (pbuh), the heir of Abraham, the manifestation of the religion of the Unity of God and the oneness of mankind; a "No" which begins with the cry of "Unity", a cry which Islam reiterated when confronted with aristocracy and compromise.

Shi'ism is the Islam which differentiates itself and selects its direction in the history of Islam with the "No" of the great Ali, the heir of Mohammad and the manifestation of the Islam of Justice and Truth, a "No" which he gives to the Council for the Election of the Caliph, in answer to Abdul Rahman, who was the manifestation of Islamic aristocracy and compromise. This "No", up until pre-Safavid times, is recognized as part of the Shi'ite movement in the history of Islam, an indication of the social and political role of a group who are the followers of Ali, known for their association with the kindness of the family of the Prophet. It is a movement based upon the Quran and the Traditions; not the Quran and the traditions as proclaimed by the dynasties of the Omayyids, Abbasids, Ghaznavids, Seljuks, Mongols and Timurids, but the ones proclaimed by the family of Mohammad.

The history of Islam follows a strange path; a path in which gangsters and ruffians from the Arab, Persian, Turk, Tartar and Mongol dynasties all enjoyed the right to the leadership of the Muslim community and to the caliphate of the Prophet of Islam, to the exclusion of the family of the Prophet and the rightful Imams of Islam. And Shi'ism begins with a "No"; a "No" which opposes the path chosen by history, and rebels against history. It rebels against a history which, in the name of the Quran, Kings and Caesars, follows the path of ignorance, and in the name of tradition, sacrifices those brought up in the house of the Quran and the Traditions!

Shi'ites do not accept the path chosen by history. They deny the leaders who ruled the muslims throughout history and deceived the majority of the people through their succession to the Prophet, and then by their supposed support of Islam and fight against paganism. Shi'ites turn their backs on the opulent mosques and magnificent palaces of the Caliphs of Islam and turn to the lonely, mud house of Fatima. Shi'ites, who represent the oppressed, justice-seeking class in the Caliphate system, find in this house whatever and whoever they have been seeking:-

Fatima:

the heir of the Prophet, the manifestation of the "rights of the oppressed" and, at the same time, the symbol of the first objection, a strong and clear embodiment of the "seeking of justice". In the ruling system, these are the cries and slogans of subject nations and oppressed classes.

Ali:

the manifestation of a justice which serves the oppressed, a sublime embodiment of the Truth who is sacrificed on the altar of inhuman regimes, and which lies hidden in the layers of the formal religion of the rulers.

Hassan:

the manifestation of the last resistance of the garrison of "Imamate Islam", who confronts the first garrison of "Islamic Rule".

Hossein:

bears witness to those who have been martyred by the oppressors throughout history, heir of all the leaders fighting for freedom and equality and the seekers of justice, from Adam to himself, forever the messenger of martyrdom, the manifestation of bloody revolution.

Zeinab:

bears witness to all of the defenceless prisoners in the system of executioners, and is the messenger left after martyrdom, and the manifestation of the message of revolution.

Shi'ites take their slogans from the embodiment of the tribulations and hopes of the masses of the oppressed. Aware of the rulers, and in rebellion against them, they cry out:-

"Seek the leadership of Ali and flee from the leadership of cruelty. Choose Imamate, and stamp 'cancelled,' 'disbelief' and 'dispossession' upon the forehead of the Caliphate.

Choose justice, and overthrow the system of paradox and discrimination in ownership.

Choose the principle of being ready to protest against the existing conditions, where the ruling government, religious leaders and aristocracy try to show that everything is in accordance with the Will of God, the Divine Law and the satisfaction of God and his creatures. Such things, to the ruling government, included their conquests, their plundering of mosques, associations, schools, gifts, trusts, and charities and the observance of religious ceremonies and practices.

Choose religious leadership for the central organization of the movement.

Choose the concept of imitation of your betters so as to properly organize your energies and bring order, discipline and direction.

Choose the vice regency of the Imam so as to have a responsible leader.

Give a share of the funds to provide for the socio-political struggle, for educational foundations and for teaching, in a system where all religious funds are forcibly collected by the government acting as a government of the Law.

Choose mourning, to continue the constant historical struggle of the Shi'ites against usurpers, treachery, cruelty, and the sources of fraud, lying and degeneration, and especially to keep alive the memories of the martyrs.

Remember Ashura, to humiliate the ruling group who call themselves the inheritors of the traditions of the Prophet, for the remembrance of it will prove that they are the inheritors of the killers and murderers of the Prophet's family. It will show you a path of action, and provide an answer to the recurring question "What should be done?". It will help you to decide on the best agenda for the struggle against the rule of tyranny. It will avoid allegiance to cruelty. It will provide a pattern for the unbroken continuity of history. It will declare an unending struggle between the inheritors of Adam and the inheritors of the devil. Ashura reminds us of the teaching of the eternal fact that the present version of Islam (in1972), is a criminal Islam in the dress of tradition, and that the real Islam is the hidden Islam, hidden in the red cloak of martyrdom.

And finally, concealment; creating a clever camouflage for the organization, and its activities, affiliations, leadership, personalities and plans, to protect the leadership, people and groups from being harassed by the rulers of the day and from the hard-heartedness of the religious organisation associated with them, who might either slander the Shi'ite movement through excommunication and rouse the ignorant masses against them, or destroy it through persecutions, or weaken it through wholesale murders, imprisonment and deportations, and thus to create the best conditions for the struggle and its continuation; to practice, carefully, the principle of secrecy, and maintain the distinctive conditions of an underground movement."

We can see that for over eight centuries (until the Safavid era), Alavite Shi'ism was more than just a revolutionary movement in history which opposed all the autocratic and class-conscious regimes of the Omayyid and Abbasid caliphates and the kingships of the Ghaznavids, the Seljuks, the Mongols, the Timurids and the two Khanids, who had made the government version of the Sunni School their official religion, and it waged a secret struggle of ideas and action. Like a revolutionary party, Shi'ism had a well-organized, informed, deep-rooted and well-defined ideology, with clear-cut and definite slogans and a disciplined and well-groomed organization. It led the deprived and oppressed masses in their movements for freedom and for seeking justice. It is considered to have been the rallying-point for the demands, distress, and rebellions of the intellectuals seeking to gain their rights, and for the masses in search of justice.

Because of this, throughout history, as the power of the rulers grew, the difficulties, injustice, dispossessions, and the denial of the rights of the people, and the exploitation of the farmers, increased. Inequality became more pronounced because of the system of aristocracy, class-inequalities, brain-washing, ideological prejudices, the connection between the theologians and the temporal rulers, the poverty and privation of the masses, and the power and wealth of the rulers. When this occurred, the Shi'ite front became stronger, the basic slogans of the movement more powerful, and the struggle of the Shi'ites more intense and more important. It changed from a School of thought, a way of study and religious sectarianism reserved for the intellectuals and the chosen few, to a way of correctly understanding Islam and the culture of the people of the house of the Prophet, when confronted by Greek philosophy and oriental Sufism, to a deep-rooted and revolutionary, socio-political movement of the masses, especially the rural masses. It caused greater fear among the autocratic rulers and the hypocritical religious bodies who rule the people in the name of the Sunni sect.

It is for this reason that the pseudo-intellectual and free-thinking rulers, at whose courts the Jews, Christians, Magians and even the materialists enjoy freedom, honour and influence, talk of the Shi'ites with such anger and vexation that a massacre of all of them would not quench the thirst of these rulers. They flay them alive, pass iron rods through their eyes, pull out their tongues and burn them alive. These are all current practices of the day. It reaches the point that the historians, theologians and even philosophers and men of piety of the court considered it to be part of their prayers to invent any false accusations, forgeries and falsified records that they could against the Shi'ites! It is in such circumstances that Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazni declares "I search the world over for a Shi'ite". It is his government which sponsors the Sunni theological decree that marriage of a Muslim man with "people of the Book" i.e. Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, is legal, but it is illegal to marry a Shi'ite woman.

With the coming to power of the Seljuks, prejudices and bias become stronger against the world of thought and religion. From the social point of view, the feudal and guardianship system accentuates the degree of the exploitation of the masses, especially the farmers, to an unbearable degree. In order to maintain the policies of the state, floggings and torture are necessary, resulting in the construction of many piles of skulls and eyes.

The religious body of the Sunni sect, which had from the beginning become 'the government's Islam', becomes a conglomeration of the most debased and prejudiced beliefs and harsh rules. It turns into a tool for the justification of the inhuman ways of the rulers. It compromises with the autocratic regimes of the Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks and the Mongols. It becomes an opiate for the masses, and an instrument for murder to be used to prevent any thought or action that jeopardizes the interests of the strong and harms the landlords and feudal chiefs.

This is what causes Shi'ism, during this period, to appear as the fountainhead of the rebellion and the struggle of the downtrodden and oppressed masses, especially the rural people. It flourished wonderfully, in multiple facets, and in different directions, moderate or extreme, in the form of various movements of the masses against the powers of the day; movements like the terrorism of Hasan Sabbah, the communal living of the Qaramateh, the extremist cultural and religious beliefs of the Ghalat, and the rebellion for free-thinking of some of the Sufi sects of the revolutionary and Shi'ite School of thought, against the harsh prejudices and the souless, petrifying censorship of the theological and legal system attached to the ruling group. Finally, the intellectual, moderate and rich School of the Imamate, as the greatest flow of thought and culture, rebels when confronted by the religion and culture of the government.

The rousing call and the possibilities for learning in this School of thought are based upon the twin principles of imamate and justice. It produces the revolutionary cries of Ashura and the aggressive mobilization of the masses against existing conditions. It invites people to await the hidden Imam who is in occultation. It raises the critical problems of the 'signs of appearance' and the 'end of time'. It keeps alive the hope of 'redemption after martyrdom'. It promotes the idea of revenge and revolt, faith in the ultimate downfall of tyrants and the decrees of destiny against the ruling powers who dispense justice by the sword. It prepares all the oppressed and justice-seeking masses who are waiting to participate in the rebellion. In some towns like Kashan and Sabzevar, where the Shi'ites are strong, they saddle a white horse on Fridays, and all the people of the town, the protesting, dissatisfied and expectant Shi'ites, follow the horse out of town, despite the opposition of the government and the ruling religion. They await redemption and freedom from tyranny, and the beginning of a rebellion. They discuss questions which cause fear among the ruling group.

During the first half of the eighth century, following the wholesale massacres of Genghis Khan and Hulaku, when the rule of the Mongols had reduced the Iranian masses to submission, depression, humiliation and weakness; when the revenge of Genghis Khan was law; when the sword and the hangman were enforcers of the law; when the Mongol Khans and nomads and the officers and chiefs of Mongol tribes each ruled as a feudal lord over various regions and estates, and had enslaved the peasants in the most cruel manner; when, in the towns as well, the men of religion were mostly in the service of the Mongol rulers, they called upon the masses to submit in the name of 'the true Sunni religion' to the pseudo-Muslim rulers who continued to be replicas of Genghis Khan. They circumcised themselves only to please the religious sentiments of the Muslims, at the cost of the spread of the culture, faith, morality, society and of the very existence of the Muslims!

Some of the religious men, whose piety made them abstain from co-operating with the rulers and tyrants, had crept into the oblivion of piety in the monasteries of the Sufis, thereby indirectly becoming the means by which the path is paved for oppression and the ground is prepared for murder. They had left the people defenceless against the floggings of the Mongol executioners and robbers, and the fraudulent men of religion.

It is under these circumstances that a religious preacher sets out in search of the truth in the way that Salman did. Salman approaches all those with claims to religious faith. First he approaches the pious Balu to seek the path of salvation in his School of piety and freedom. There, he sees piety remaining silent against tyranny. What a shame! What heartlessness and selfishness, that a man should be surrounded by the screams of prisoners, the shouts of executioners, the poverty of the hungry, the whips of the cruel over the bodies of the helpless, and, instead of volunteering to defend them, that he should simply seek his own redemption and try to gain paradise for himself! Salman flees from this man in disgust and goes to Semnan to see Rukneddin Emad-od-Dowleh, whose piety and leadership in Sufi practices is well-known. He finds Sufi practices also, like piety, a means of escape from reality and responsibilities, turning away from the fate of the masses, and ignoring cruelty and tyranny. Salman finds the Sufi to have a tender heart, tender feelings and a sublime soul. But, how is it that the rivers of blood shed by the Mongols in this country, and that the decline threatening Islam and the masses of the people, do not in any way disturb the peace of his soul and the tenderness of his heart? Salman flees from him in hatred, and goes to the Sheikh ol-Islam, Imam Ghiasuddin Habibollah Hamavi in Bahrabad, to gain knowledge of the religious laws and the theology of the true Sunni sects from him, and to find his way back to the original spring of truth. Here, he sees a theology that discovers and discusses a thousand problems in bathroom etiquette, but has a total lack of any awareness of the evil destiny facing the nation.

Disgusted with all these robes of piety, and satisfied that these religious teachings are all the weavers of the clothes of piety to be worn on a body of oppression, then with a heart filled with hatred towards the cruel Mongol rulers, and reeling with pain because of the evil destiny of the Muslim masses, as a Muslim responsible for the people and knowledgeable about the times, and as a protestor against the existing system, having lost all faith in the sellers of religion, Sheikh Khalifeh chose the Islam of Ali, the School of protest and martyrdom.

In the dress of a simple darvish, he goes to Sabzevar as a lonely stranger, takes up residence in the great mosque of the town, and begins preaching there. This marks the beginning of the Sarbedaran liberation movement. He is a preacher who is in revolt against everything that teaches people to bow to ignorance and oppression, a revolt backed by a faith, a School of thought and a "Red" history: Shi'ism. Slowly, the deprived masses begin to understand, to find their way, and as a result, to become a threatening force. The official pseudo-clergy start their usual game of spreading rumours and then issuing religious decrees, and at last, calling for authorised murder, saying:-

"This Sheikh discusses worldly affairs in the mosque",

"This Sheikh conjectures in the mosque and defiles the house

of God", and "This Sheikh confuses the religion of the people".

The pseudo-clergy try to turn the people against him, and prepare the ground for his downfall. They help the Mongol ruler to take his life. They write to the Mongol ruler saying that the Sheikh has strayed from the true Sunni Religion, and is not prepared to repent and retract in spite of their best efforts. They say he is propagating worldly ideas in the mosque, and spreading the work of the protesters (Shi'ites)! They continue "His behaviour calls for the death penalty, and it is up to Sultan Saied to rid the religion of this pestilence". The spreading of rumours and the rousing of people against him increases but the Sheikh's call to understanding, faith and salvation, continues to attract the hearts of the deprived and suffering rural masses more and more to him. Until early one morning, when his admirers go as usual to see him, they see his dead body in the mosque.

After the Sheikh's assassination, his disciple Sheikh Hasan Juri continues his work. He gives an immediate call to arms, organizes his disciples and goes underground. He starts roaming the towns and sowing the seeds of understanding and revolt wherever he goes, on the basis of Shi'ism. The minds of the people are prepared. The hearts of the enslaved masses are throbbing for revolt under the curtain of secrecy. One spark will be sufficient.....

A nephew of the ruler enters the village of Baashteen, a village about thirty-six kilometres south of Sabzevar, as he normally does. With his followers, he enters the house of Abdul Razzaq, one of the pious and honourable villagers who is still reeling under the devastating influence of the religious propaganda of the ruler. The retinue asks the villagers for food, and are duly served. Then they ask for wine! For the villagers, who are Muslims and Shi'ites, who have been deeply influenced by the words of Sheikh Khalifeh, the bringing of wine for such rascals, and that, too, under compulsion, is too much. However, they serve it! The guests become intoxicated! They ask for women! This was the beginning of the explosion, very simple and rapid! The host goes to the people and calling the Shi'ite masses, exclaims that the Mongol ruler is asking for their women. What is their reply? They say "We are prepared to die rather than be so defiled! Our women for the enemy shall be our swords". The result is inevitable. The masses have made up their minds. They kill the whole group at one attempt. As they know that there is no turning back, as they know that they have already chosen death, they stop wavering. The choice of death gives them such energy that their single village revolts against that bloodthirsty regime and is successful. The villagers overrun the town, fighting against the Mongol army and the decrees of the pseudo-clergy of the religion of the state. They are victorious. Their cry: "Salvation and Justice!" and "The destruction of the power of the ruling Mongols and the influence of the priests of the religion of the rulers and the big landowners of the ruling class". The victims of the ignorance of the pseudo-clergy and the prisoners of the oppression of the Mongols continue joining the ranks of the rebels. Sabzevar becomes a centre of power; like a fire that spreads through dry brush, the Shi'ite revolutionary guards, who enjoy the backing of the rural warriors and champions of the masses, and have the ideology of Sheikh Khalifeh and Sheikh Hasan and similar kinds of well-informed, righteous and missionary men of learning, engulf the whole of Khorasan and northern Iran and even inflame the south of the country. And for the first time, a revolutionary movement based on Alavite Shi'ism, against foreign domination, internal deceit, the power of the feudal lords and wealthy capitalists, had an armed uprising, led by peasants seven hundred years ago, under the banner of justice and the culture of martyrdom, for the salvation of the enslaved nation and the deprived masses.

And this is the last revolutionary wave of Alavite Shi'ism, Red Shi'ism, which continued for seven hundred years to be the flame of the spirit of revolution, the search for freedom, and justice, always inclining towards the common people and fighting relentlessly against oppression, ignorance and poverty.

A century later came the Safavids, and Shi'ism left the great mosque of the common people to become a next-door neighbour to the Palace of 'Ali Qapu in the Royal Mosque.

Red Shi'ism changes to Black Shi'ism!

The Religion of Martyrdom changes to The Religion of Mourning.

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Advanced Member

In the past 4-5 months I have read and studied nearly everything Ali Shariati has written and/or spoke, and to me, Shariati is easily among the greatest Islamic writers of all time. Easy!

Besides Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr and Khoei, I can't think of any other writer/speaker who has inspired and moved me more in my Islamic studies. His book on Hajj is an eloquent spiritual journey; I was overwhelmed by it. Fatimah is Fatimah changed the essence of my heart. Red Shi'ism vs. Black Shi'ism is a must read for EVERY Shi'i; I'm from Iraq and there has NEVER been a time more prudent for a Red revival.

I do not have enough words that could praise Shariati!

Edited by Superman4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally do not know a women that I have not heard something bad about her through gossiping. I hate gossiping but this is amazing. There were women whom cover themselves every where and women whom did not cover themselves at all. I was no different there was bad gossips behind all of them without exception. But One. She was not completely religious. She wore pants and T-shirts and sometimes put make up on. She was a kind women and had a very kind heart. She talked politely as well. To add to all this she was beautiful. I never saw or heard she did the 5 prayers though. But I never heard not even a simple bad coments behind her. Not even ONE. Not only that every person male or female young or old always said good thing about her. Every person that knew her respected her and admired her. Even the perverted people I know did not say a bad thing behind her and always said good things. I remember my male friends always said I hope i have a wife like her. I only heard good about her. Every time I remember her, I always say that truely God is all powerful. It was like God shut the people mouth when it came to he and filled their minds with her good deeds. he exalted her more then women whom covered themselves every where.

This is true and gets me every time I remember it. Truly amazing.

i don't want to take this off topic, but want to point out this is a flawed argument. so you know one lady who does not cover who is respected, probably because she acts respectably. i know many women who cover (and also women who don't cover) who also i don't hear anything bad about, and also i hope people are not saying bad things about me (and i do wear hijab also). so please don't use this is as a 'proof' to make hijab less important, as it is a wajib of our religion and it is something that is sometimes looked down on in our time.

yes, of course, as you say, the heart is what is most important.... but it is not as if covering somehow lowers a person or makes people gossip bad about them.

He was a great visionary man and he had lots of understanding of islamic thought and sociology. His works are legendary among the Iranian minds. He is still one of the most influencial thinker of Iran (29 after his death). But he was not very popular with the shia ulema of his time. He looked at Islam from a muslims eye but he also looked at islam through a non-muslim eyes.

His works are full of citations and references to non-muslim schulors and hardly use the work of shia ulema. He thought that we have reach an limit of our understanding of Islam and the prophets (pbuh) and Imam (as). He thought in order to expand our understanding beyond our current one is to look at the work of the non-muslims whom have done work on Islamic topics. It is through them that we can understand and appreciate our own religion more.

Do you agree or disagree with this???

our religion is big, and Allah is infinite, we can look at it from any number of perspectives and everyone has something unique to contribute. these were his contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first time got to know about this person and ironically he almost holds the same view that i do. I studied briefly other religions to get better understanding of our own religion. I meant Holy Quran does tell us Islam is the best religion, but when you research other religions and find that in fact Islam is the best religion it further strengthen your faith. Also I believe we should not get ourselves limited to Islam or particularly Shiaism and alienate from the rest of world including sunni/non-muslims etc . We must pay attention to religious rituals but this is not all about being a human being. Explore this World as much as you can with the aim to get more knowledge and better understanding of your religion and God. :)

Edited by Jaf
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.ir/download.php?Goo=290&Bot1.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
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.ir/download.php?Goo=290&Bot1.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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.ir/download.php?Goo=290&Bot1.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

(salam)

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...