Talk:Hosseiniyeh Ershad: Difference between revisions
←Created page with 'Motahari also taught here. Can anyone shed some light on the relationship between Shariati and Motahari. I read somewhere that they did not get along. Thanks.' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Motahari also taught here. Can anyone shed some light on the relationship between Shariati and Motahari. I read somewhere that they did not get along. Thanks. |
Motahari also taught here. Can anyone shed some light on the relationship between Shariati and Motahari. I read somewhere that they did not get along. Thanks. |
||
Motahhari, Shariati, Minachi, Mohammad Taqi (Shariati's father), Abolfazl Zanjani, Bahonar, Musavi-Arabili, Homayun, Manuchehr Salur, Nasser MakaremShirazi, AliAkbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mohammad Beheshti taught there.Shariati was openly attacking two main pillars of the Iranian society, aimed at the clergy as the guardians of a polytheistic, pacifying, reactionary, and oppressive Islam and he lashed out at the political, economic, and cultural institutions and foundations of the shah's regime. Motahhari was feeling as though Minachi (Ershad Board of Director) and Shariati were combining forces against him and so he was feeling as though he was losing his domination over Ershad, and so he blamed the two for different reasons. Motahhari complained bout Shariati's articles (notably his book Eslamshenasi). Motahhari threatened to leave Ershad because in his view, Shariati was uncontrollable, stubborn, and impervious to council and recommendations. Also Motahhari felt he was not advised on Ershad's daily operations with regards to what should be said and who should speak. Basically a clash of personalities and egos at Ershad evolved into a string of disputes and finally terminated with the departure of Motahhari. This involved a controversy between two different Islamic discourses appealing to two different audiences. Shariati represented one interpretation (an enlightened intellectual without any formal religious training, the non traditional religious content of his speeches, his appearance, and questions about his immediate family member's practical loyalty to Islamic customs, i.e. not wearing hijab, etc). And Motahhari defending the traditional clergy. |
|||
It is interesting because Shariati did represent some of Motahhari's own ideas but in a more radical and fiery manner. Was it not Motahhari who, some nine years earlier, had argued that inflicted by populism, the Shi'i clergy were incapable of leading society, since they were always condemned to trail conservative and change resistant commoners? Had Motahhari not accused the clergy of defending the status quo and had he not pressed the religious dignitaries to take action and reform the cleric institution, rowhaniyat, lest all would be lost to 'those newly born shrines'? |
|||
Source: Ali Rahnema (An Islamic Utopian, A political biography of Ali Shariati. (2000) I.B. TAURIS, p. 248-259). |
|||
Revision as of 03:32, 2 September 2010
Motahari also taught here. Can anyone shed some light on the relationship between Shariati and Motahari. I read somewhere that they did not get along. Thanks.
Motahhari, Shariati, Minachi, Mohammad Taqi (Shariati's father), Abolfazl Zanjani, Bahonar, Musavi-Arabili, Homayun, Manuchehr Salur, Nasser MakaremShirazi, AliAkbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mohammad Beheshti taught there.Shariati was openly attacking two main pillars of the Iranian society, aimed at the clergy as the guardians of a polytheistic, pacifying, reactionary, and oppressive Islam and he lashed out at the political, economic, and cultural institutions and foundations of the shah's regime. Motahhari was feeling as though Minachi (Ershad Board of Director) and Shariati were combining forces against him and so he was feeling as though he was losing his domination over Ershad, and so he blamed the two for different reasons. Motahhari complained bout Shariati's articles (notably his book Eslamshenasi). Motahhari threatened to leave Ershad because in his view, Shariati was uncontrollable, stubborn, and impervious to council and recommendations. Also Motahhari felt he was not advised on Ershad's daily operations with regards to what should be said and who should speak. Basically a clash of personalities and egos at Ershad evolved into a string of disputes and finally terminated with the departure of Motahhari. This involved a controversy between two different Islamic discourses appealing to two different audiences. Shariati represented one interpretation (an enlightened intellectual without any formal religious training, the non traditional religious content of his speeches, his appearance, and questions about his immediate family member's practical loyalty to Islamic customs, i.e. not wearing hijab, etc). And Motahhari defending the traditional clergy.
It is interesting because Shariati did represent some of Motahhari's own ideas but in a more radical and fiery manner. Was it not Motahhari who, some nine years earlier, had argued that inflicted by populism, the Shi'i clergy were incapable of leading society, since they were always condemned to trail conservative and change resistant commoners? Had Motahhari not accused the clergy of defending the status quo and had he not pressed the religious dignitaries to take action and reform the cleric institution, rowhaniyat, lest all would be lost to 'those newly born shrines'?
Source: Ali Rahnema (An Islamic Utopian, A political biography of Ali Shariati. (2000) I.B. TAURIS, p. 248-259).