SHARIATI

Conclusion

 Dear Kooshan 

Thank you for your response and sorry for the delay in mine

First of all I would like to emphasize that I am so glad that we could agree on the mutual  but very important point of keeping Religion out of politic.

In a way this was the best result that I could hope for.

Firstly because this means that our debate did not go to waist and we both learned the art of compromise and secondly because it reinforced my point that “you and I and many other Iranian have  already far passed the thresholds that Shariati and his like never could”.

Secondly I think our point of deference over Shariati is the fact that you are trying to defend the integrity, character and efforts of the man(messenger) while on the other hand my problem is not with the man but with his works and approaches (the message).

As I told you before I have never questioned Shariati’s character, integrity, effort or intension. But my attempt was a cold, calculated, logical and non-bias look through his work and assessment of its value and hence I came to the conclusion that his work was erroneous dangerous or at the best obsolete, regardless of who he was or what his intentions were.

But at the end of the day every one has to come into their own conclusion.

On another note however,  I would like to emphasise that this was an interesting and informative exchange and the fact that we both managed to keep it within the lines civilised  and logical debate gives me hope.

So as I find you to be a man of logic who is interested in the truth I would like to leave you with two legacies.

First would be a link to the BBC Reith lectures 2012. This years lecture is given by Prof. Neil Ferguson and it is on the apects of civic society, the role of institutions in such society, social contract between the generations, the rule of law and the way forward.  (these are five lecture the first of which is ready to download and the rest will be available every Tuesdat evening).

The second one is two books.

The first of which is named Why Nations Fail as the name is the self testament to the content of the book.

And the second it’s a book by the same Prof. Ferguson called Civilisations. In this book he talks about democracy, social prosperity and the right or wrong way to pursue it.

May be in a few months time when our paths crosses again we can discus the content of these books and the lectures and then compare them with the works of Shariati to come into a mutual conclusion.

In the end I would like to leave you with a word from prof. firgeson who states:

"The rule of law has got many enemies but amongst its most dangerous foes are the authors of long convoluted laws"

All the best

Secularity vs. theocracy

Dear Areyo Barzan

I surely agree that government is a worldly entity and must stay out of religion and vice versa. There is no question about it; However, religion is a major force in society whether we want it or not and I'm not just talking about specific religion since to me atheism is also a form of religion.

The issue I see is that in this day and age we fight religion with the stick of secularity and we fight secularity with the stick of religion. This is wrong. Major part of our unsuccessful shot at democratizing Iran is the fact that we think we are fighting for democracy if we trash and take a stab at religion. Of course, this will have an opposite effect, since we are dealing with belief of a nation. I do not want to judge whether their believes are right or wrong but no one, even an atheist, takes humility and disrespect lightly.

I truly believe in changing a nation thru educating them. Shariati did it as best as he could. I expect the same from opposition abroad. Have you noticed that the opposition inside have better vocab and their approach is more professional and less destructive and abusive? In a way I like people who fight democracy more than those who abuse and take advantage of democracy. Maybe I'm wrong but that is just me!

PEACE

Democracy vs. Religion.

Dear kooshan

I believe one point that we need to be clear on here is the nature and role of religion and democracy in the modern human society.

When you state “Democracy alone is not good” I do not know what you exactly mean. If you are implying that dictatorship or religious theocracy is actually better than democracy then I am afraid we have fundamentally different points of views which make it impossible for us to continue with this discussion

However if as I suspect you are implying that “democracy is not perfect” then I can not agree with you more.

No! Of course not, democracy is not perfect at all and it will never be. In fact as one Winston Churchill put it so elegantly:

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”.

However in my view this characteristic not only is NOT a weakness but it is the biggest strength of democracy and that is what separates it from let’ say… religion.

It is exactly for the reason of “democracy not being perfect” that you see millions of theorisians university students, social scientists, academic, parliamentarians and politicians and many others around the world are working day in day out to evolve and move it forward and to make it better while accepting the fact that it could never be perfect.

In a way this is no different to the PC on your desktop. Just imagine 30 years ago we could only dream of such technology and even compared to five years ago the technology is still fascinating. However you can bet your bottom dollar that in a couple of years time the most advanced PC today would become so absolute and that it would not even be worth the materials used to build it. Democracy is no different 

That is why I would like to think of democracy as a vibrant river roaring through the valley of human history and civilisation, evolving and picking new materials while sheding the old redundant ones in every corner turn.

Just like that river democracy is only alive and healthy while it is moving and evolving. But the moment when we  stast to believe that what we got is perfect and we have arrived, that would when we stop moving and evolving and hence that very same alive and vibrant river will change into a stationary and deadly swamp which could only breath and be host to dangerous predators such as the IRI, Asad and Ghadafi..

And that brings me to my point about religion which is the opposite of democracy. Exactly because the followers of all religions think of them as absolute perfect indubitable words of God and final.

Hence there will remain no room for manoeuvre, challenge and evolution. For example if you could show me a single verse in Quran or line in bible or Toraat that have been allowed to be challenged let alone to be accepted as wrong or even obsolete and not in line with the social circumstances and international climate of the world today. So instead of trying to evolve the rules to best suit the time and climate we leaving it we tend to change our way of life to suit the rules of 1300, 2000, or even 3000 years ago and that is why you get phenomenon such as Taleban and IRI or evangelists or even Zionism.

And that is why I believe religion should kept away from politic

With regards to character assassination although I am not in favour of it but as I told you that is a fact of life. We are always responsible for what we say in the public arena and should be prepared to bear the consequences and I will assure even character association is not without consequence for those who resort to it instead of engaging in a civilised debate.

I would have personally preferred that people challenged each others words and views rather than launching personal attack on each other and to be optimistic that might also come in time through our social, cultural and political evolution

Finally with regards to judging Shariati’s work in the context of the time he was living in, I still regard his work as damaging and misguided.

Even in his times Shariati had access to perfect  historical examples such as medieval Europe or the misdeeds of Othman Empire, let alone the problems of our own Safavi and Ghajaar dynasties and should have known better than mixing religion with politic.

Furthermore even in that time I can point you to a few other revolutionary visionaries like Ahmad Kasravi, Shojaoddin Shaffa, Ali Dashti or Sadegh Hedayet who were not afraid of breaking the norms and taboos of the society that they were living it, in order to enlighten the masses and promote another way thinking, especially as their work still remains valuable after all these years, while the work of Shariati need to at best be left to his own era as it is not only irrelevant but even dangerous to our time.

I admire your fairness in discussion dear areyo barzan

and appreciate your views. The only point I beg to differ is our responsibility for what we say. That responsibility should lie within us not something that is imposed on us by eaither society. If we knew how immense the effect of our words are, I wonder if we would swallow 90% of what we say and never let it out.This Applies to Shariati who is dealing with social issues and he is in public domain and fully exposed. This also applies to me, you or someone who wants to assassinate someone's charater. The point is we are all equally responsible but my understanding is that the person who does character assassination has a full right to do so without any payback. I believe character assassination is analogous to physical assault in causing harm in society; However, in a society that values "personal liberty", there is no punishment for it. Another example is leaving Hollywood free to come up with movies that promote violence and mayhem but not finding them guilty even if there is a proven incidence of a killing directly related to those movies. So who pays for the crime? The one that carried it out nit th emovie maker that motivated and instigated the criminal!

So, in my mind, Democracy alone is not good. It is just another era in human experience until it matures and turns into another social system. But then again it is the best damn system we currently have.

The point it that Shariati's thoughts belong to 30-40 years ago. Social metrics and parameters change and that changes social views. I'm sure that Shariati would have had different views in this day and age if he was alive. But he is not. So, we should only judge his social views as in the context of that era. His objective was to awaken people. I think he was successful but then someone else cropped the fruits of the tree he planted.

Heath and kitchen

Dear Kooshan

Justice is an arbitrary thing and to my view is always in the eyes of the beholder. What might seem as barbaric savagery to you and I might be seen as pure justice to another person with different set of values. That’s why I always try to stay clear from serving justice and leave that to the professionals.

What I do is looking at the evidence and analyse the good and bad consequences of an action or rather lack of it. And I do that, not in order to look for the escape goats and playing the blame game, but to identify and accept the errors of the past, learn from then and move on by preventing their recurrence.

On another note I understand your point about the people’s right to holds a point of view and as I said in my previous posting I not only do not have any problem with that point but I do fully embrace it.

However, when someone sets foot in a public arena by trying to promote his/her point of view as one of if not the only way forward then he/she should be ready to take any harsh criticism awkward questions or even character assassination from the intellectually less superior sections of the opposition. This is happening all over the public arena.

From the so called “God’s profits” to the Kings and presidents to theorisions and  scientists and even artists and philosophers are going trough the same scrutiny and that is called life.

Even in case of yourself and I, when we put our hands on the keyboard to promote our point of view we will inevitably put ourselves, our points of view and even our intensions under the lens of scrutiny by others.

Shariati is no exception to this universal rule. In the end history would be the best judge and a few hundred years from now when historians have a non-bias look to the events of the past 60 years (for the purpose of research) I assure you that they will pass a fair judgment on all of us including Shariati, Shah, Khomeini and even ordinary people like you and I. Not because they favour me over you or favour Shariati over both of us, but to first and foremost preserve their own integrity and credibility by giving an accurate account of the history.

Now if as you say this mans work has not been as damaging as the rest of us think it was, then you have noting to fear as the truth will prevail in the end.

However in case you are interested I can recommend a few good books on social  and political aspects of a healthy democracy written by none Iranian to increase your knowledge about democracy and social prosperity or the right and wrong way to peruse it. Then by having a look at the evidence on the reason behind the success of some countries and failure of others you can judge for yourself if Shariati was right or wrong.

Also as you might have noticed in my previous posting I never questioned Shariati’s motives and intentions as none of us know what they were and we can only speculate according to our own point of view and I do not find that satisfactory or sufficient.

To me however, what is under scrutiny here is the man’s actions or rather lack of it and the effect and consequences it had over the past present and future of this nation.

For all I know he might have had the best intentions in the world in his hearth, but that still would not lessen the burden of his responsibility for the current mess.

As the say

The road to hell is paved with good intentions  

Mr Dolatshahi ...

May I suggest you write another blog about Shariati's stone age positions on "Hejab" also?

It is my opinion that people like Shariati, Mohammad Khatami, Akbar Ganji, Soroush, Seyed Hosein Mousavi, etc. are more dangerous than even the core of the IRI (Khamenei, Ahmadi Nejad, IRGC, Basij, etc), because with them at least you know they are the enemy.  In other words Shariati, etc. are like "Kachal Hamzeh" of "Kor Oghlo va Kachal Hamzeh" of Samad Behrangi.

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

Dear Areo Barzan

I also believe that we should serve justice, be fair and see all the goods and bads whether it is a political system, a person or a phenomena. The issue is when we talk about good and bad we talk about value systems. The only value system that serves all humans equally is the human rights. But even this human rights mandated by UN is beautiful and "good" in paper but it's realization is very different depending on who is applying it and for what purpose. For example, human rights is made a chomagh by America and allies to serve their political games against countries at odds with them. In the meantime, the same human rights turnd blind to the friendly countries.

So, my point is "death to this" & "character assassination" is not the appropriate way to critique something. Unfortunately, in our culture, critique means smashing litter on someones face. In actuality, it should be a fair analysis that points out the goods and the bads and the ugly and the weaknesses. If I do not do this, I am being considered as unfair mind and I trash my own character first. 

I believe Dr Shariati is under fire from left an dright because he was independent. As he said, he had a free spirit - He was well versed with Western and Eastern idealogies but he remained free pirit just like Rumi. Hi sgoal was to enlighten the masses and he did. And guess what, 95% of masses were Muslim, so naturally he had to talk with them based on their belief. Of course he had weak points in his thoughts. That is what I expect from a free spirit. He was a sociologist and his expertise was on the 1320's-1350's era. If he was alive now, he most certainly had different thoughts as you and I have compared to 40 years ago. 

Dear Azarbanoo

Thank you for your kind words and your support.

It is always reassuring to know that my efforts to walk the straight and narrow path of non-bias fairness to all and telling the truth like it is or at least as (to the best of my knowledge) I believe it to be, has not gone unnoticed.

I hope one day we can all be brave enough to have a fair look at our past not to find escape goats and play blame games but to identify our errors learn from them and move forward

I Believe in Areyo Barzan

He is very rational thinker and has said about Shah & Mosadegh without prejudices in his different articles. I believe also this article is very thruthful about this Sharlatan Shariati.

ali shariati is a traitor to his fatherland

Ali shariati is a traitor who prefered islam to Iran and shia cult to patriotisem and cannot be considered as an Iranian. He was a shia fanatic who happened to be born in Iran.

Talk is cheap and prayer is even cheaper

Dear kooshan 

Khomeini and his like have done much more beautiful talks than Shariati has ever done  as talking is their profession.

Just go and listend to his interviews while he was residing in Paris or read his account of interviews with one Oria na Falachi.

The fact of the matter is that with his misguided illusions on political Islam and his refusal to accept the principals of a secular Government, Shariati has done lots of damage to this country.

Even if at the most optimistic look he was not a traitor then as put so elegantly by our own Shazdeh he was an eluded self centered and misguided man who refused to recognise the most basics of a secular democracy which was separation of religion and state by believing that Islam is diferent to other relogions..

The fact of  the matter is that Shariati and his like put an acceptable mask over the ugly and disgusting face of the monster that is now known as political religion, without even bothering to read the history of the world and especially history of one midevil Europe to see what disasters will be born from the unholy union between religion and politic.

Now! if other people still prefer to keep their head in the sand while their bare ass is pointing high to the sky, ready for foreign imperialist powers to take advantage of, by believing that there was actually some merit in the illusions of this (to put it the best way) misguided idiot then they are free to do so. After all I am a believer in democracy and hence although I do not agree with what they say I will give my life for them to be able to say it

However the majority of Iranians and especially our younger generation have already passed that threshold  long ago and will not touch Shariati or his BS of a works. Not even with a ten foot long stick.

Furthermore the fact that IRI did not become another Taleban has noting to do with Shariati and his like and every thing to do with the 50 years effort by one Reza Shah and his son  to bring this country out of the dark ages and push it into the 20th century. so my suggestion to you is to go and read about history and social scince.

Now! before the Mosaddegh-ollahis start crying foul  and calling me names, I must emphasize that I am NOT a blind supporter of Pahlavi or even The Monarchy but I am fair enough to recognize the goods that they have done along with their errors or even as some would like to put it acts of treason

شهریار عزیز

لطف بفرمایید و دعا های او را بخوانید و ببینید آرزویش برای ملت ایران چیست!

او مرد شجاع بود. لطف بفرمایید و گوش بدهید و قضاوت کنید:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo6i7ZPNmo0&feature...

Truth is comming up

Finaly some one with a guts is exposing this contemporary charlatan who managed to fool thousands of  misguided youth who knew nothing better.Glad truth is finally coming out despite extreme  effort by islamo communists of various colors and shades in protecting the image of these
kind of people. Keep up the good work sir.

کشوری با چنین فرهنگِ غنی، ثروتی عظیم و دستاوردهایِ ارزنده

What blossoming culture? What immense wealth? What worthy contributions?

Enough with the self-satisfying fairy tales, already! Your whole premise is wrong, hence, you can't ever find the answer.

Look into the mirror ... straight ahead ... face the truth. It will set you free.

Otherwise, you will be doomed as Shariati was, as Arani was, as Shah was, as Khomeini was ... as all of us failed.

Do you know why? Because we believed the worst kind of lies ... our own lies ... different versions of self-satisfying illusions of grandeur!

Stop the mental masturbation! Open your eyes and see the world.

You just remind me of those

You just remind me of those on this site who have written similar baseless articles about another great. historical character, Dr  Mossadegh. 

I am and I will remain a loyal fan of Dr Shariati. You are lecturing us on something that you have no knowledge of. 

"دین خویی" و بینش مذهبی غالب و مسلط بر فرهنگ کشور

با کمال احترام، ابتدا به عرضتان برسانم که تابه حال هیچ محقق تاریخی واژه "ولایت فقیه" را در نوشتارهای شریعتی پیدا نکرده است.
همانگونه که شما نیز "نایبِ عام" ایشان را برابر "ولی فقیه" میگذارید. که این بیشتر تفسیر و تحلیل شماست تا خوانش وقرائتی هرمونتیک از شریعتی.
اتفاقا یکی از دلیل محبوبیت شریعتی در میان جوانان"متجدد" مذهبی، به اصطلاح "نقد" وی از"شیعه صفوی" و کاست روحانی است. هر چند که وی هیچگاه از واژه یا مفهوم کاست روحانی استفاده نمیکند.
نکته ی اساسی که هیچ یک از منقدان شریعتی (نویسنده ی که بغایت متحجر، عقب مانده و گیج میبود) در برخورد با وی نمیتوانند پاسخ دهند (و این شامل تمامی منتقدین شریعتی از منتقدین چپ، ناسیونالیست، تا خشکه مذهبی، تا ...میشود) محبوبیت ادامه دار وی پس از تقریبا چهار دهه میباشد.
محبوبیتی که منطقا در کشوری مانند ایران با پشت سر گذاشتن تجربه جمهوری جهنمی اسلامی نباید چنان ادامه یابد.
که برای تحلیل در این مورد ما میبایست از تحلیل نوشتارهای وی فراتر رفته، و بپردازیم به جامعه شناختی مذهب و دین در ایران، و "دین خویی" و بینش مذهبی غالب و مسلط بر فرهنگ کشورمان.
با سپاس. 

Jenab-e Dariush Dolatshahi

Great blog. You may also like to view this

//iranian.com/main/blog/all-iranians-74

Rationalism

A very good article. Thank you.

*

Regarding the term "Rationalism" on your site:

//www.kheradgeraie.com/

please note my response to Ms. Shahegh's article:

//iranian.com/main/2012/jun-19

regarding the term "reason" or "rationalism."

جنابِ آقای زندانیان

دوست گرامی‌ جنابِ آقای زندانیان: هر چند که آقایِ خمینی از این واژه "
ولایت فقیه" سخن گفته است اما ایشان " تئوریزن" این دیدگه نیست، و این
آقایِ شریعتی است که این دیدگاه را تئوریک (= دیدمانیک) کرده و به صورتِ
نظری به آن می‌پردازد. ایشان این تئوری ( =نگره، دیدمان) را ( همانطور که
در نوشتار می‌بینید ) از بسترِ جامعه شناسی‌  ارزیابی کرده است و آن را به
گستره‌ی دینی بسط داده است که کاملا متفاوت با دیدگاهِ سطحی و بی‌ روح و
بی‌ اثرِ آقایِ خمینی است که صرفاً "  طرحِ ولایت فقیه" به عنوانِ یک
آرمانِ دینی بیان کرده است.

با مهر

داریوش

//www.kheradgeraie.com/

انصاف ؟ کدامین انصاف ؟

کوشان گرامی ، ایکاش معنای واژهای پرمحتوائی که بکار برده اید را بیجهت برای اشخاصی همچون علی شریعتی بکار نمیگرفتید، کوشان عزیز شما در مورد کدام مشاهیر نوشته اید ؟ چه کسی را بزرگ قلمداد کرده اید ؟ علی شریعتی را ؟ پایه گذاران جهل و جنون در سرزمین فرزندان کوروش را که تاریخ به قضاوت نشسته و ادامه خواهد داشت میدانید چگونه ؟ همین که جوانی  بادرایت مانند دولتشاهی را مجبور میکند با تحقیق و به استناد و مدارک روشنگری نماید ، نه با افکار پوسیده هزارچهارصد ساله و تعصب ، بازهم با تمام وجود از افرادی مانند داریوش دولشاهی سپاسگزارم بخاطر روشنگری  با انصاف و درایتش

پاینده ایران

شهریار فتحی

اسلام سرخ ، دین ضد دین، و شریعتی بزرگ شارلاتان تاریخ

آقای دولتشاهی ،  با تشکر از   نوشته با ارزش و مستند. دلیل و سند، و برهان و مدرک برای کسی ارزش دارد که بتواند مستقل و آزاد فکر کند و توانأی رو برو شدن را با واقعیت ، اسناد ، و مدارک را داشته باشد،  برای انهأی که  با مغز متحجر شده و باور یک بعدی انعطاف ناپذیر با مسائل بر خورد میکنند این بمنزله خواندن یاسین در گوش خر است. علی‌ شریعتی شارلاتان و شعبده باز ماهر مثل یک سینتتیزر synthesizer، هر صدای را که می‌خواست از خودش در میاورد. به بیشتر از ۲۰۰ ساعت از گفته های عوام فریبانه او درحسینیه ارشاد گوش کنید. او مسلمان است، یک زمان صوفی میشود، یک  زمان یهودی، یک وقت مسیحی، ملی‌ گرا، ایدیالیست، و بیشتر اوقات ریرکانه مارکسیست از نوع اسلامی آن. این شعبده باز ماهر در زمان کوتاهی توانست به جنگ > آنچه بود  < برود   و > آنچه باید باشد < را به امت بخوراند. داستان شیعه سیاه و شیعه سرخ. چگونه این شیاد توانست مردمی را اغفال کند و یک دین جدید اختراع کرده و به خورد آنها دهد خودش جای بحث دیگری دارد. این عوام فریب به این امت یاد داد که “ هر روز یک روز عاشورا است، هر جا و همه جا یک کربلا است . “  از این شعار های تو خالی‌ ولی‌ تحریک کننده زیاد هست. معلم این شیاد ، فرانتز  فارون، به خوبئ به او یاد داد که چه گونه با تحریف و تعبیر دوباره شیعه  او راه انقلابی رسیدن به مدینه فاضله را هموار کند. شریعتی خودش را تولید کرد، خودش خودش را با زیرکی، به قول آقای دولتشاهی با “ اثر‌گذاریِ شگفتاور سخنانِ سطحی و یا قصارِ (گاه شیرین و موزونِ) ادبی‌اش” بر سر منبر نشاند. و با این زهر پاشی زیرکانه  باور ها، و آنچه را که  می‌خواست در جامعه ایرانی پیاده کند،  با ریشه بر اندازی و افراط گرأی و بنیاد شکنی و گرفتن کمک از امثال کسروی ، لاهوری، و حتا مولانا ، با شیرین کردن ظاهری افکار مسموم کننده و کشنده به خورد امت بیخبر  و نادان داد. شریعتی با کمک هم قطاران توطه گر خود مثال جلال ال احمد خائن وطن فروش ، عضو رسمی حزب توده، و کمونیست شناخته شده مکتب استالینی، زنده نماندند که معجون ساخته و پرداخته منجلاب در هم بر هم فکری خود را  - - معجون اسلام سیاسی‌ - - در عمل ببینند و خجالت و شرم داشته باشند از این بلأی که طراحی کردند و نقش بسیار مهمی‌ در پیاده کردن آن داشتند . این فتنه و این بلا را بر سر مردم بی گناه،  ساده لوح، و درمانده ای آورده شد که این شارلاتان ها در یک زمانی برایشان اشک تمساح میریختند.

جناب دولتشاهی.......یک مقدار انصاف

به نظر میرسد شما هم جزو این دسته از انسانهایی باشد که بر اساس منافع سیاسی عوض انتقاد منصفانه دوست دارند مشاهیر این مملکت را بدنام و بی ارزش کنند!

نوشتار این مرد بزرگ گویای عمق فکری و دغدغه های درون اوست. و هرگز ادعا نداشته که نظریه پرداز یا رهبر فکری بوده است. بسیار بی پیرایه خود را یک جامعه شناس و معلم میدانست. ایشان در بیداری فکری ملت ایران سهم به سزایی داشتند بیداری که ملت را از ارتجا ع راست و بی هویتی چپ میخواهد محفوظ بدارد.حرفهای شما ممکن است برای نسل دنباله رو ارتجا ع راست و بی هویت چپ قابل هضم باشد ولی برای اکثریت مردم آزاده این سوال را پیش میاورد که در این آب گل آلود چه ماهی را میخواهید بگیرید!

متاسفانه در میدان سیاست افراد با انصاف و دوست دار ملت از دو طرف چپ و راست بنیاد گرا مورد هجوم قرار میگیرند.

یک مقدار انصاف به خرج بدهید و یک طرفه به قاضی نروید چون قبل از همه روح خودتان را خراش میدهید!

خداوندا به من آرامشی عطا کن که بپذیرم آنچه نمی‌توانم تغییر دهم و جراتی که تغییر دهم آنچه را که می‌توانم و علمی که تفاوت این دو را دریابم”

(سروده بسیار زیبای آزادی........آزادی از هر چیز که انسان را در تله بیاندازد، جهل، بلاهت، خود ستایی،......)

ای آزادی،

چه زندانها برایت کشیده‌ام و چه زندانها خواهم کشید!

و چه شکنجه‌ها تحمل کرده‌ام و چه شکنجه‌ها تحمل خواهم کرد.

اما خود را به استبداد نخواهم فروخت،

من پرورده آزادی‌ام ، استادم علی است، مرد بی‌بیم و بی‌ضعف و پر صبر،

و پیشوایم مصدق مرد آزاد، مردی که، هفتاد سال برای آزادی نالید.

من هر چه کنند، جز در هوای تو دم نخواهم زد.

اما، من به دانستن از تو نیازمندم، دریغ مکن،

بگو هر لحظه کجایی و چه میکنی؟

تا بدانم آن لحظه کجا باشم، و چه کنم؟

Thanks, great blog

Azarbanoo, the worst thing is that he is quite popular among the younger population in Iran...

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory (courtesy of Bavafa)

Mr. Doulatshahi, Great Informative Blog

I wish those who used to go to Ershad & listened to this Yaboo Shariati known the truth behind this backwarded anti-Irani Shariati.

ذوب شدگان در ولایت ظل الله و ذوب شدگان در ولایت روح الله

این که "سایه خدا" بزرگترین سهم در گسترش نهادهای مذهبی شیعیان در ایران، از حسینیه و مهدیه تا تکیه و مسجد، را داشت، واقعیتی است تاریخی و تردید ناپذیر.
پدیده ی که در مقال بالا تحت عنوان "درگیریِ دولتِ وقت در جنگِ سرد و مقابله با نفوذِ کمونیست‌ها" از آن نام برده میشود.
جالب تر از "دست آورد" سلطنت فاسد و جابر در تکثیر نهادهای مذهبی در ایران، تشابه موازی گستاخی و وقاحت گفتاری ذوب شدگان در ولایت ظل الله و ذوب شدگان در ولایت روح الله، در مقابله با مخالفانشان میباشد. تسلیت.     

عبارت "نظریه پر

دلیل انتخاب و اطلاق آن به آیت شیطان خمینی نیز پرواضح  و بدیهی. چونکه وی  شخصی بود که برای اولین بار چنین مفهوم، واژه و نظریه ی  را در ادبیات سیاسی ایران وارد کرد. در سال ۱۳۲۳، و نه شریعتی. مهمتر از خاستگاه و  نظریه پرداز  اولیه ی این مفهوم، چگونگی نهادینه شدن این مفهوم و فلسفه  در کشور ایران میباشد، که در این مورد نیز شخصیت  اصلی حسن آیت (دبیر سیاسی  حزب جمهوری اسلامی) میباشد. پیشنهاد شما برای ترجمان عبارت های  "تیوری تیشان"  یا "تیوریست" به زبان فارسی چیست؟ با سپاس ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- این هم چند خط از آقای محمد قائد (سر دبیر سابق روزنامه"آیندگان") در مورد علی شریعتی:  "جنبه‌ای از طرز فكر علی شریعتی كه مطرح كرده‌ام این است كه روشنفكران ناراضی فرانسه و دانشجوهای مراكشی و الجزایری و تونسی را ”متن جامعه“ می‌دید و قاطبۀ فرانسویها را زینب زیادی فرض می‌كرد.  یعنی به‌عنوان آدمی اهل سبزوار در ناف خارجه، قادر به تشخیص وزن فرهنگ اصلی و خرده‌فرهنگ حاشیه‌ای نبود.  حرفی از قهرمان بودن یا نبودن او هم نزده‌ام.  نوشته‌ام برای بچه‌های شهرستانی سخنرانی می‌كرد كه این تهران لعنتی چه جای مزخرفی است و صد رحمت به پاریس خودمان كه دانشجوهای آفریقایی در آن ”متن جامعه“اند، و طفلكها را به گریه می‌انداخت.  در ضمن، میرزاده عشقی و نیمایوشیج و عارف و صادق هدایت و بسیاری دیگر هم از این شهر بيزار بودند و هستند.  خود بنده یكی."    //www.mghaed.com/interviews/zamaneh.htm

پاینده ایران ،

پاینده ایران ، شرم و ننگ و مرگ بر جمهوری اسلامی و یاران  و شرکای انقلابیش

جنابِ آقایِ زندانیان گرامی‌

واژه‌ی نظریه پرداز از دو واژه‌ی ترکیبی : " نظریه" و " پرداز " تشکیل شده است.

واژه‌ی  نظریه تانیثِ واژهٔ " نظری" است و واژهٔ نظری به مفهومه هر مطلبی که درکِ آن نیاز به فکر و نظر باشد، ارزیابی میشود.

واژه‌ی پرداز، واژه‌ی فاعلی پرداختن است.

بنابرین این واژه هرگز معنایِ " نام گذاری بر اندیشه " را نمیدهد.

از منتقدِ گرامی‌ درخواست میشود قبل از انتقاد به  معانی واژه‌ها دقت کند

با مهر

داریوش دولتشاهی

//www.kheradgeraie.com/

سپاس از شما حوانان میهن پرستی چون داریوش دولتشاهی موفق باشید

سپاس داریوش دولتشاهی گرامی

چاه بلاهت

آقا داریوش دست مریزاد،

متأسفانه تو راسته باور  چپولان زابه راه و اسلامیستهای تولب شده از نتیجه انقلاب خوش عاقبت، شارلاتان علی شریعتی وارد حیطه ایمانی شده و هیچ سند و مدرکی تو کت اینها نمیرود.  

خوشبختانه هستند همچو شما که حقیقت را فدای ایمان کور نمیکنند و مستند وارد گود میشوند؛ باشد که از تعداد به دام افتادگان کم شود و از افتادن دیگران به چاه بلاهت جلوگیری، بار دیگر، دست مریزاد.