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

  • Site Administrators

(salam)

http://www.shariati.com/

ali1.jpg

Dr. Ali Shariati was born in Mazinan, a suburb of Mashhad, Iran. He completed his elementary and high school in Mashhad. In his years at the Teacher's Training College, he came into contact with youth who were from the lower economic strata of the society and tasted the poverty and hardship that existed.

At the age of eighteen, he started as a teacher and ever since had been a student as well as a teacher. After graduating from college in 1960, on a scholarship he pursued graduate studies in France. Dr. Shariati, an honor student, received his doctorate in sociology in 1964 from Sorbonne University.

When he returned to Iran he was arrested at the border and imprisoned on the pretext that he had participated in political activities while studying in France. Released in 1965, he began teaching again at Mashhad University. As a Muslim sociologist, he sought to explain the problems of Muslim societies in the light of Islamic principles-explaining them and discussing them with his students. Very soon he gained popularity with the students and different social classes in Iran. For this reason, the regime felt obliged to discontinue his courses at the university.

Then he was transferred to Teheran. There, Dr. Shariati continued his very active and brilliant career. His lectures at Houssein-e-Ershad Religious Institute attracted not only six thousand students who registered in his summer classes, but also many thousands of people from different backgrounds who were fascinated by his teachings.

The first edition of his book ran over sixty thousand copies which were quickly sold-out, despite the obstructive interference by the authorities in Iran. Faced with the outstanding success of Dr. Shariati's courses, the Iranian police surrounded Houssein-e-Ershad Institute, arrested many of his followers and thereby put an end to his activities. For the second time, he underwent an eighteen month prison term under extremely harsh conditions. Popular pressure and international protests obliged the Iranian regime to release Dr. Shariati on March 20, 1975. However, he remained under close surveillance by the security agents of Iran. This was no freedom at all since he could neither publish his thoughts nor contact his students. Under such stifling conditions according to the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), he realized that he should migrate out of the country. Successful in his attempt, he went to England but was martyred three weeks later on June 19, 1977 by the ubiquitous SAVAK.

Dr. Shariati studied and experienced many philosophical, theological and social schools of thought with an Islamic view. One could say that he was a Muslim Muhajir who rose from the depth of the ocean of eastern mysticism, ascended to the heights of the formidable mountains of western social sciences, yet was not overwhelmed, and he returned to our midst with all the jewels of this fantastic voyage.

He was neither a reactionary fanatic who opposed anything that was new without any knowledge nor was he of the so-called westernized intellectuals who imitated the west without independent judgment.

Knowledgeable about the conditions and forces of his time, he began his Islamic revival with enlightenment of the masses, particularly the youth. He believed that if these elements of the society had true faith, they would totally dedicate themselves and become active and Mujahid elements who would give every thing including their lives-for their ideals.

Dr. Shariati constantly fought to create humanitarian values in the young generation, a generation whose values have been defaced with the help of the most scientific and technical methods. He vigorously tried to re-introduce the Quran and Islamic history to the youth so that they may find their true selves in all their human dimensions and fight all the decadent societal forces.

Dr. Shariati wrote many books. In all his writings, he tried to present a clear and genuine picture of Islam. He strongly believed that if the intellectual and new generation realized the truth of this faith, attempts toward social change would be successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
  • 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

  • 1 year later...
  • Advanced Member
Some even say that Shariati was the real source of revolution, and Imam Khomeini (as) was just one of his campaign ads :huh:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true ... Dr. Ali Shariati was the REAL engine for the revolution. Unlike many Ayatollahs who were hiding outside Iran (including R. Khomeini), Dr. Ali Shariati was teaching inside Iran; something that made him extremely unpopular among the ruling royalists.

Dr. Ali Shariati was killed by the Shah, some time later the democratically elected prime-minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was removed by the CIA ("operation ajax"), and the SHah was reinstalled.

This made the Iranians very angry, and they hoped that Dr. Ali Shariati's Islam could change the country.

However, today, the majority of the Iranians are disappointed by the Iranian regime ... this kind of Islam was not what they hoped for. Today's regime is not what Dr. Ali Shariati wanted.

One of Dr. Shariati's supporters, Ayatollah Ali Hussein Montazeri who was the 2nd most important character of the revolution after Ayatollah Khomeini, is now in prison because he openly criticized the new Islamist government.

I think one thing is for sure: if Ali Shariati was alive today, he would have been one of the most radical opponents of the Iranian regime.

As for his works: Abu Dhar, the BEST of his works.

www.shariati.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I think one thing is for sure: if Ali Shariati was alive today, he would have been one of the most radical opponents of the Iranian regime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if thats the level of your 'thoughts' i would kindly ask you to stop posting them on forums.

You're free to think whatever you want, but not to come and express some personal opinion and say it is 'for sure'.

May God's peace be upon the soul of our martyred master Ali Shariati and may He (swt) let his thoughts and deeds live for ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

btw

with all my respects to martin luther, Shariati was much more than 'islam's martin luther'.

Shariati was one of those few persons that managed to change this world politically, philosophically and religiously.

And if you want to compare him to an american personality anyway i dunno why you didnt chose Malcolm X. According to me that would be a bit closer to a comparison already.

But in fact the only think you can really say is 'Shariati is Shariati'.

es salamu ala shehada el islam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

A - I am living in a free country and I can post my thoughts and opinion whenever and wherever I want. You do not have to read them or to reply if you do not like them.

And here again: ALL of Dr. Ali Shariati's friends and early supporters OPPOSE the present regime of Iran. Even certain Ayatollahs oppose Iran, INCLUDINg Ayatollah Montazeri AND even Ayatollah Ali Sistani (to some degree)!

It's your problem if you do not like it ... Maybe you should talk to a few Iranians inside Iran what they think of the government. Take the last "election" in Iran as an example ... 80% of Tehran's population refused to "vote". Is that really what Shariati wanted?!

B - I was not talking about the American human-rights activist Martin Luther King, but about the German schollar Martin Luther ... you know, the very first "protestant" in history :wacko: :lol:

558px-Luther46c.jpg

" ... Martin Luther (originally Martin Luder or Martinus Luther) (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German theologian of the Christian religion and an Augustinian monk whose teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines of Protestant and other Christian traditions (a broad movement composed of many congregations and church bodies). ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Edited by Abu-Sayed
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

You have some wrong information:

Dr. Ali Shariati was killed by the Shah, some time later the democratically elected prime-minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was removed by the CIA ("operation ajax"), and the SHah was reinstalled.

Dr. Mossadeq was not alive at that time. So he obviously wasn't prime minister after Dr. Shariati's death.

You should also not speak for Ayatullah Seestani (ha) since obviously you're not him.

One of Dr. Shariati's supporters, Ayatollah Ali Hussein Montazeri who was the 2nd most important character of the revolution after Ayatollah Khomeini, is now in prison because he openly criticized the new Islamist government.

At what prison is Ayatullah Montazeri being held?

wa salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
B - I was not talking about the American human-rights activist Martin Luther King, but about the German schollar Martin Luther ... you know, the very first "protestant" in history  :wacko:  :lol:

comparing shahid shariati to martin luther is nothing less than an insult. One of the corestones of Martin Luthers beleives was the total belief in predestination and the fact that a human being should accept whatever situation 'God put him in'.

This is totally contradictory to the revolutionary message of Shahid shariati. For this i quote from his book 'mohamad iqbal' :

***

The greatest criticism that humanism and liberal intellectuals have leveled and continue to level against religion is that religious beliefs have been interpreted as being founded on absolute determinism or Divine Will, and thus the absolute subjugation of human will, so the human being is logically reduced to being weak in terms of free-choice in relation to the Absolute. If this were true, it would be a disgrace. It would be servitude and a means for the negation of power, freedom, and responsibility. It would be to submit to the status quo, to 'whatever will be, will be', to accept any fate which is imposed upon the human being in this world and to admit to the futility and uselessness of life. As past, present, and future events have been and will continue to be dictated by fate, in this view, any criticism or objection, then, or efforts to attain our hearts' desires or to change the situation, must be subjugated to "whatever has been pre-destined for us". In this way, the human being's attempts to change, convert, and amend the status quo become impossible, unreasonable, and ill-advised.

But in the philosophy of Islam, although the One God has Absolute Power and is Almighty and although for Him is the Creation, Guidance, Expediency, and Rule over the universe, "His is the Creation and the Command." (7:54), at the same time, the human being, in this extensive universe, is considered in such a way that while one cannot dissociate oneself from the rule of God and from Divine Sovereignty, one can live freely. A Muslim has free will and the power to rebel and surrender. Thus, he or she is responsible and the maker of his or her own image. "Every soul is held in pledge for what he earns" (74:38). "And the human being shall have nothing but what he strives for" (53:30).

In his mystic journey with the Quran, Iqbal described

*****

so that are two insults already you made against shahid shariati :

1 you compare him to somebody who is one of the most ardent supporters of a thought shariati was against completely

2 you come and say in his (ra) name who he would be againt or in favor of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
You have some wrong information:

Dr. Mossadeq was not alive at that time.  So he obviously wasn't prime minister after Dr. Shariati's death.

You are correct, I mixed something up. But the point I was trying to make was correct:

Iran's Islamism was mainly based on what happened to Mohammad Mossadeq. If the US had not replaced him, there would have never been a need to attack the US embassy or whatever that took place after his death.

Iran tried the democratic way, but - ironically - their democracy was humiliated by the country that claims to be the "protector of democracy" :dry:

Ali Shariati tried to find a solution using Islam ... and he had a very special view of Islam and Shiism. You probably know his book "Red Shiism vs. Black Shiism" in which he denounces the wrong and fundamentalist Shiism of the Saffawid Shahs (which, btw, is the official religion of Iran today!).

- Ali Shariati was not necessairily a supporter of "Hijab" for women

- Ali Shariati was not Anti-Israel

- he was educated in Europe and he was supporter of what we today call "Euro-Islam", a very modern and moderated interpretation of Islam (do you know Dr. Öztürk? Or. Imam S. Bencheikh?)

You should also not speak for Ayatullah Seestani (ha) since obviously you're not him.

I am not speaking for him, but what I know about him. It is no secret that the "Najaf school" is opposing the "Qum school" ... While Tehran supported al-Sadr in his radical fight against the US army, Ayatollah Ali Sistani (who, btw, is not Arab but Persian) opposed any kind of violence against the US.

At what prison is Ayatullah Montazeri being held?

Ayatollah Ali Hossein Montazeri is being held at his home ... he is arrested in his own house. The Iranian government can not afford killing him or imprisoning him, because he is very popular - most of all because of his criticism against Khomeini and the rest of the Mullahs in Iran. He is the TRUE spirit of the revolution.

5M.jpg

6M.jpg

These are students and other people demonstrating for his release ... will you deny these pictures, too? :angel:

Sepass ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
comparing shahid shariati to martin luther is nothing less than an insult. One of the corestones of Martin Luthers beleives was the total belief in predestination and the fact that a human being should accept whatever situation 'God put him in'.

I was not comparing Shariati's ideology with that of Martin Luther, but rather what they effected in the world.

Both were revolutionaries who changed world history, and both of them were facing prosecution and intollerance ... both of them were hunted by an overwhelmingly powerful enemy (the catholic church in case of Martin Luther, and the Shah and orthodox Islamists in case of Dr. Shariati).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam Alaykum,

Bro Abu, thankyou for your posts however they are contradictory in my opinion.

Modern Iranian Islam, and the Qum school were very much more toward Shariati's Red Shiism.

It was the Najaf school that was more inclined towards the Black Shiism, and Imam Khomeini went through so many frustrations trying to highlight this in many of his speeches.

In Imam Khomeini's early speeches you can constantly see him trying to light to touch paper so the fire of najaf could emerge, but every time it was put out. In his early speeches he calls for help from Najaf, from the Ulema.

Take from Imam Khomeini's speech dated Oct 27th 1964 (14 years BEFORE the revolution!)

"Scholars! Students! Centres of relgious learning! Najaf, Qom, Mashhad, Tehran, Shiraz! I warn you of danger"

AND

"Leaders of Islam, come to the aid of Islam! Ulama of Najaf, come to the aid of Islam! Ulama of Qom, come to the aid of Islam! Islam is destroyed." [islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, p.184-185]

But just before the revolution, almost before the revolution, roughly 14 years later, 14 years of speeches and calling, his speeches changed.

"The institution of learning of Najaf is in danger and I am worried and distressed over it. The personality and dignity of this institution of learning, which is nearly 1000 years old, are fading away to nothing in front of Muslims. Take note of all the discussions current in Iran and read all the publications from beggining to end, whether they come from the pious sector, the university educated sector, or the sector of religious scholars, and do you find the name of Najaf mentioned? Sirs, the centre of learning in Najaf is forgotten! Save Najaf!" ["Durus fi al-jihad", Imam Khomeini, p.309]

Even in these last moment he was calling upon "black shiism" of Najaf to return to "red-shiism" of Qom.

When Qom was compared to Najaf, and described in detail, it is far far from Black shiism, and more in the red-shiism camp.

"The centre of learning in Qom is ALIVE. It is giving up its MARTYRS, and it is able it will also KILL. Despite the fact that it now lives in a state of SUPPRESSION and OPPRESSION, it is nevertheless ALIVE and DEFIANT. The students of Qom are DEFIANT. The city of Qom is DEFIANT, despite all the blows it has recieved. The students of Qom are DEFIANT, despite the MARTYRS which they have surrendered, for they are ALIVE. Qom is eternal in the MINDS OF THE PEOPLE. I am a Qommi, but I am distressed for Najaf. We all love the centres of learning. We love this centre of learning, which is nearly 1000 years old. Do not let this centre of learning perish, do not let it be forgotton". ["Durus fi al-jihad", Imam Khomeini, p.309-310]

That description bro is far far from the black Shiism that Ali Shariati speaks of, and one must ask ourselves who was Imam Khomeini constantly referring to when he was speaking of Najaf, "dont let is be forgotton" etc etc. It is clear even from the early days he was calling to rise the Ulama of Najaf.

If you read his speeches he kept highlighting that it was time to speak out, to rise, in many cases he begged Najaf to rise and make its stance clear. But Najaf was always less involved politically and ultimately the effects of that are felt today.

Imam Khomeini then began (in my opinion) to realise the Prophecy within hadith, about the fall of Najaf and the rise of Qom as the centre of Islam, but his love for Najaf wouldn't let him keep calling upon it right up until the revolution, and sadly you could see the emotion in his speeches towards the end that he felt an almost inevitability that Najaf would not be able to respond. In fact, it is said Ayatollah Haieri was convinced of a duty towards running Qom as its place in Islamic history was to replace Najaf.

One of the Hadiths were as follows:

Imam al-Sadiq(AS) said, "Al-Kufa will be emptied of believers, and learning will disappear from it like a snake descending into its burrow. Learning will come forth in a town called Qom, which will become of source of learning and virtue" [Abbas Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar, vol. 2, p.445]

Even Hizbollah's Ideology is more toward Shariati's vision of Red Shiism than most other Shia Muslim political parties. Shariati's view of Islam was a moving, fluidic, and alive ideology that brought about change. Take a look at the Iranian backed Hizbollah's efforts.

However I agree with you Iran is far from perfect, but even a fluidic Islam doesn't flow like a perfect stream or a raging river ALWAYS, there are periods where it wanes, it slows, it crashes, but water always flows, be is slowly or quickly.

Wasalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam Alaykum,

Ali Shariati tried to find a solution using Islam ... and he had a very special view of Islam and Shiism. You probably know his book "Red Shiism vs. Black Shiism" in which he denounces the wrong and fundamentalist Shiism of the Saffawid Shahs (which, btw, is the official religion of Iran today!).

Bro I am finding it hard to consolidate your view of Red Shiism=Najaf and Iran + Al-Sadr + Safavid Iran + Qom = Black Shiism??

Here is a small snippet from Shariati's website on Red Shiism VS Black Shiism, look particularly at the parts in bold and tell me which modern personalities come to mind in their descriptions. While I dont agree with everything Shariati wrote, and it is clear some of his conclusion in my opinion were incorrect, but as far as Red Shiism and Black Shiism goes, read this. Remember Najaf and Qom, remember Khomeini, remember Hizbollah, remember Al-Sadr and Fadhlullah and his projects and many others when reading the section of the article.

Taken from "www.shariati.com"

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, honor 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 Moslem 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, expecially 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 A'shura 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, disatisfied 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 Ghengis Khan and Hulaku, when the rule of the Mongols had reduced the Iranian masses to submission, depression, humiliation and weakness; when the revenge of Ghengis 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-Moslem rulers who continued to be replicas of Ghengis Khan. They circumcised themselves only to please the religious sentiments of the Moslems, at the cost of the spread of the culture, faith, morality, society and of the very existence of the Moslems!

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 defenseless 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 Moslem masses, as a Moslem 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 rumors 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", andïž  "This Sheikh confuses the religion of the people".

ïž 

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 rumors 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 kilometers 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 Moslems 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 center 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 neighbor to the Palace of 'Ali Qapu in the Royal Mosque.

ïž 

Red Shi'ism changes to Black Shi'ism!

ïž 

The Religion of Martyrdom changes to The Religion of Mourning.

Wasalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • Basic Members

http://www.shariati.com/

His ideas seem like they would be very controversial, but his intellectual integrity and deep spirituality cant be denied. Also his central role in the Islamic Revolution must be acknowledged.

So what do those of you familiar with his works think about him? Criticisms of him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.shariati.com/

His ideas seem like they would be very controversial, but his intellectual integrity and deep spirituality cant be denied. Also his central role in the Islamic Revolution must be acknowledged.

So what do those of you familiar with his works think about him? Criticisms of him?

(salam)

Shariati was one of the finest exponents of Islam thrown up by the 20th century. Its a pity he wasn't understood in his time, and still isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sister

I hope you are well.

It may be an English idiom but it sure ain't Amurcan. LOL LOL

Peace

Satyaban

With so many here wishing me well, how could I be anything but well.

Where have you been hiding all these days?

Trust the One above has bee taking good care of you and yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Salamaat,

Thanks generally for those replies. I see Shariati as a man certainly born out of his context. He was well aquainted with Western thought and I think being from both east (and in some senses) the west he was able to see things from a very interesting perspective. His contribution to the Revolution and Islamic revival is undeniable and it makes me wonder if he had lived until the revolution what would his relationship be with Khomenie? It seems to me that being a lay man and an individual oppossed to taqlid (what ive gleaned from the spirit of his writings so far) that he would eventually butt heads with Khomenie and others especially since there is such a strong taqleedy strain in official Shiaism. I might be incorrect about this, if so is there anything to prove this wrong from his writings, as of yet I havent found anything from his site or works.

I think Shariati couldve been a bridge between the Sunni and Shia revival strands. Its unfortunate he was martyred before we had a chance to find out.

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

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???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I've only read "Fatima is Fatima" and there were constant references to non-Muslims' views but hardly any Shia ulema's views. I do agree with him to some extent about appreciating your own religion through external views, but we shouldn't be ignoring our own scholars' views as well IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I've only read "Fatima is Fatima" and there were constant references to non-Muslims' views but hardly any Shia ulema's views. I do agree with him to some extent about appreciating your own religion through external views, but we shouldn't be ignoring our own scholars' views as well IMHO

The Man is a genius. You should read his book on sociology and the one on Abu Dhar and Salman. Absolutely stunning. But I have his point of view. I became a better muslim and a shia when I started to learn about my prophet through non_Muslims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced 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 nonsesense too.

Um sorry to tell you this, But there is some truth to this. I am not saying so much as created. But some doctrins were actually made up in time of safavids. Specially shah Ishmail I was a fanatic. This is history man. If you want to know about the history of shiism you should read books from shia sources then you read from sunni sources and the you read from non-muslim sources. After all these you would have a better and more complete view of history. You should read both sides and weight them yourself using intellectuality not by belief.

I also know enough about him to say that he did not accepted something or belief without good historical and intellectual reason. If you

Did you know?

That the Christian knights whom fought muslims and called them infidels and satanic. they use to hang in their home a portrait of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) as a symbol o chivalry, justice and righteousness. They denied the prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh) but had a great respect for Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) in all aspects. You never find this is Islamic (shia or sunni) historical works, but find it in Christian works.

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.

Young people not praying and are distancing themselves from religion is not Shariaties fault. No they have lost faith in the government that promised them freedom of speech. The government whom uses religion and persecutes intelectuals elite of the country. Najaf Ulema are distancing themselves from Qum not because of politics and US. They are distancing themselves because Qum is becoming more and more corrupted. If you dont believe me watch this.

Tell me brother do you judge women by the covering. So an unintellectual woman whom cover herself every where like afghan women is considered higher then a women whom is intelectual and seeks to make herself better but does not cover her hair. I tell you a story to show you God's might.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Um sorry to tell you this, But there is some truth to this. I am not saying so much as created. But some doctrins were actually made up in time of safavids. Specially shah Ishmail I was a fanatic. This is history man. If you want to know about the history of shiism you should read books from shia sources then you read from sunni sources and the you read from non-muslim sources. After all these you would have a better and more complete view of history. You should read both sides and weight them yourself using intellectuality not by belief.

Some truth maybe but also untruth. He believes some of the shia beliefs were created in the safavid era while historical facts show otherwise.

Believe me brother i dont copy-paste my beliefs i do research.

I also know enough about him to say that he did not accepted something or belief without good historical and intellectual reason.

As you said before his works are full of citations from sunnis and non muslims which are easily disputed and dismissed. So i dont agree with you. And i am not saying this because i am a shia!!!

That the Christian knights whom fought muslims and called them infidels and satanic. they use to hang in their home a portrait of Ali ibn Abi Talib as.gif as a symbol o chivalry, justice and righteousness. They denied the prophethood of Mohammad pbuh.gif but had a great respect for Ali ibn Abi Talib as.gif in all aspects. You never find this is Islamic (shia or sunni) historical works, but find it in Christian works.

Can u prove this story plz?

Young people not praying and are distancing themselves from religion is not Shariaties fault. No they have lost faith in the government that promised them freedom of speech. The government whom uses religion and persecutes intelectuals elite of the country. Najaf Ulema are distancing themselves from Qum not because of politics and US. They are distancing themselves because Qum is becoming more and more corrupted.

I didn't say it was shariatis fault.

There are corrupt people every where so i don't see your point.

And i dont judge people by their covering!!! Shariati's daughter was just an example of non religious people following his thoughts.

By the way i know a lot of women who cover themselves and are much better than that lady you mentioned in your story who dosn't pray and hangs around with pants. So whats your point? I said i don't judge people by their covering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Some truth maybe but also untruth. He believes some of the shia beliefs were created in the safavid era while historical facts show otherwise.

Believe me brother i dont copy-paste my beliefs i do research.

As you said before his works are full of citations from sunnis and non muslims which are easily disputed and dismissed. So i dont agree with you. And i am not saying this because i am a shia!!!

So can you tell me the book you have read that he refuses some doctrines. I would like to read them myself and check their references. Thanks Brother.

Can u prove this story plz?

I do not remember Now. But I will try to find it and sent it to you.

Shariati's daughter was just an example of non religious people following his thoughts.

By the way i know a lot of women who cover themselves and are much better than that lady you mentioned in your story who dosn't pray and hangs around with pants. So whats your point? I said i don't judge people by their covering.

My point from the story was that being religious and clean mindedness is not about whether someone wears a veil or not. She was doing something, since God exalted her and made people say only good thing and good things only behind her. I have never seen such a athing in my life. There are thing which are far more inportant than wearing a veil.

I do not like to call people irreligious because they do not were veil. Who am I to call some one irreligious. Light of Islam comes from the heart brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam Alaikum,

Dr. Shariati's book on Hajj is quite amazing, though very deep.

I started reading that book, didnt finish it though. It was well written I must admit. He's well with description and what not. At one point in the book though, he called the Prophet (sas) an illiterate (which Shias do not believe, correct??). I was very surprised because I had always heard good things about Shariati, about how he wrote very well, and was a 'strict' Shia.

But I guess its debatable...since he apparently refers to non-muslim stuff. Hmm..

Wsalaams..

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...