Our Politics

Tag: shia

  • OurWeek in Politics (March 12, 2019-March 19, 2019)

    Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week:

    1. At Least 49 People Killed in Terrorist Attack At Two New Zealand Mosques

    Two horrific terrorist attacks occurred at two New Zealand Mosques during friday prayers this week.

    On March 15, at least 49 people were killed in mass shootings at two New Zealand mosques full of worshippers attending Friday prayers in a terrorist attack broadcast in a horrific, live video by an immigrant-hating, far-right, white supremacist wielding at least two rifles. One man was arrested and charged with murder, and two other armed suspects were taken into custody while police tried to determine what role they played. “It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, noting that many of the victims could be migrants or refugees. She pronounced it “one of New Zealand’s darkest days.” The attack shocked people across the nation of 5 million people, a country that has relatively loose gun laws but is so peaceful even police officers rarely carry firearms.

    https://youtu.be/TPWxqhO00OM

    The gunman behind at least one of the mosque shootings left a 74-page manifesto (in which he cited US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as inspirations for his hatred of Muslims) that he posted on social media under the name Brenton Tarrant, identifying himself as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe. Using what may have been a Go-Pro helmet camera, he live-streamed to the world in graphic detail his assault on worshippers at Christchurch’s Masjid Al Noor (a predominantly Shi’a Mosque), where at least 41 people were killed. An attack on a second mosque in the city not long after killed several more. Police did not identify those taken into custody and gave no details except to say that none of them had been on any watch list. They did not immediately say whether the same person was responsible for both shootings. Prime Minister Ardern alluded to anti-immigrant sentiment as the possible motive, saying that immigrants and refugees “have chosen to make New Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us.” As for the suspects, Ardern said, “these are people who I would describe as having extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand.”

    A Syrian refugee, a Pakistani academic, and their sons were among the 49 people killed. Syrian refugee Khaled Mustafa and his family moved to New Zealand in 2018 because they saw it as a safe haven, Syrian Solidarity New Zealand said on its Facebook page. His older son, Hamza Mustafa, was killed and his younger son was wounded. Victims hailed from around the world. Naeem Rashid and his son Talha Rashid, were among six Pakistanis who were killed in the mosques, according to Mohammad Faisal, spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”He used to teach at a university,” Dr. Khurshid Alam said of his brother. “My nephew (Talha) was a student.”Shah Mahmood Qureshi, foreign minister of Pakistan, confirmed the deaths and offered his sympathies to the families as well as a “promise to facilitate them to the best of our abilities.” Additionally, several worshippers from Iran, Palestine, and Jordan were among those killed as well.

    The terrorist attack sparked much horror and revulsion throughout the world. Pope Francis denounced the “senseless acts of violence” and said he was praying for the Muslim community and all New Zealanders. Additionally, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull similarly condemned the attack, stating that “Today our love, prayers and solidarity are with the people of New Zealand whose compassion, humanity and diversity will triumph over this hateful crime.” Perhaps the strongest criticism came from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, who noted that bigotry and rotten ideologies such as white supremacy directly resulted in the attacks and called upon the New Zealand government to bring those who carried out the “racist, inhumane and barbaric” attack to justice. Zariff also pointed out that the same type of prejudice led to “Israeli thugs entering a mosque in Palestine to insult Muslims.”Additionally, the Iranian government called for an emergency session of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in response to the attacks.

    On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has been criticized for his poor response to the terror attack. While President Trump did express his condolences for the attack in a Twitter post, he discounted the fact that the perpetrator of the attack cited him as an influence on his views and that white nationalism is a growing threat throughout the world. In contrast to President Trump’s implicit endorsement of white nationalism and discrimination against Muslims (mostly in the Shi’a sect), New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has called for a global fight to root out racist right-wing ideology in the wake of the attack.

    “What New Zealand experienced here was violence brought against us by someone who grew up and learned their ideology somewhere else. If we want to make sure globally that we are a safe and tolerant and inclusive world we cannot think about this in terms of boundaries,” said Ardern.

    2. Enforcement of Consumer-Protection Laws Sinks Under the Trump Administration

    A bombshell report released this week shows that enforcement of longstanding protection laws decreased dramatically under the Trump Administration.

    President Donald Trump has long positioned himself as a “tough on crime” politician, who is in favor of a pure retributivist approach to crime prevention and allowing the death penalty for even the most minor crimes. Despite this public persona, a report by Public Citizen released on March 13 revealed that this stance does not extend to “lawbreaking corporations.” Over the first two years of Trump’s presidency, enforcement activity at the nation’s top three consumer protection agencies that resulted in fines of at least $5,000 plummeted 37 percent from the last two years under former President Barack Obama, according to Consumer Carnage, the watchdog group’s new report. “Trump, who once asserted that he was ‘not going to let Wall Street get away with murder,’ now is allowing industry after industry to get away with just about anything,” said Alan Zibel, the report’s lead author and research director for Public Citizen’s Corporate Presidency Project. “Trump’s appointees’ apparent belief that enforcement of consumer protection laws should be a last resort,” Zibel noted, “represents a dramatic about-face from Trump’s claim of populism during his campaign.”

    The report shows that the drop at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) “has been especially egregious,” particularly under the reign of Mick Mulvaney, who is now the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Kathy Kraninger, who previously served under Mulvaney at OMB, now runs the CFPB, and has continued Mulvaney’s efforts to gut the agency. The CFPB, as the report highlights, “completed 11 enforcement actions of $5,000 or more against corporations in 2018, down 54 percent from 24 in 2017, when the CFPB was still run by an Obama appointee.” “Under this president, federal agencies have slashed fines, declined to bring cases against corporate wrongdoers, and gutted enforcement programs,” said Public Citizen president Robert Weissman, summarizing the current conditions. “The result is a government that is eager to throw consumers under the bus.” Weissman specifically laid blame on the individuals President Trump has charged with overseeing the three top federal consumer protection agencies. As he put it, “Members of the Trump administration have made abundantly clear they perceive their function as serving and assisting corporations instead of holding them accountable for lawbreaking.”

    3. California Governor Gavin Newsom Signs Executive Order Placing Moratorium on the Death Penalty

    California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order this week placing a moratorium on the death penalty in his state, citing the fact that the cost finality and racial imbalance among death penalty inmate makes the punishment “immoral”

    On March 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that will impose a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty, arguing that the cost, finality and racial imbalance among death-row inmates make the punishment immoral and a public policy “failure.” Newsom will suspend the practice through an executive order that will give a reprieve from execution, though not release, to California’s 737 death row inmates, about a quarter of the nation’s population awaiting capital punishment. The order will also overturn California’s lethal injection protocol and close the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison, where the state’s most notorious criminals have been put to death. “I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people,” Newsom said. “In short, the death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian.”

    Despite California’s reputation as one of the most liberal states, it retains the countries largest death row population. Additionally, even as California has shifted left on several criminal justice issues, voters have chosen to retain capital punishment, rejecting a 2016 state ballot measure to abolish it. In that same election, state voters narrowly approved a proposal to speed up the pace of executions by limiting the time for appeals to five years. Given its size, any change to California’s death row carries immediate implications for the status of American capital punishment. Governor Newsom’s order comes as the punishment is on the decline nationwide, with executions less common and fewer states carrying them out. Last year, 25 people were executed, significantly down from the 98 executions nationwide in 1999. Despite the decline in the overall rate of executions, public support for the death penalty has drastically increased since President Donald Trump assumed office in 2017, with a solid 60% of the population favoring the death penalty according to recent polling.

    Overall, Governor Gavin Newsom’s executive order placing a moratorium on the death penalty resulted in a mixed reaction. “A moratorium in California has enormous symbolic value,” said Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “It’s part of the momentum we are seeing.” On the other hand, Michele Hanisee, the president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles said that reprieves for condemned inmates would be, “in effect, invalidating the law” that California voters have repeatedly affirmed, despite the liberal values that dominate the state. Newsom’s plan also promoted a sharp rebuke from President Donald Trump, who himself is a strong supporter of the death penalty for even the most minor crimes. “Defying voters, the Governor of California will halt all death penalty executions of 737 stone cold killers,” the president wrote in a Twitter post. “Friends and families of the always forgotten VICTIMS are not thrilled, and neither am I!”

    4. Former Vice -President Joe Biden Beings Planning Presidential Run

    Former Vice President Joe Biden began planning for a 2020 Presidential run this week by meeting with supporters, potential donors.

    According to a Wall Street Journal report, former Vice President Joe Biden contacted a group of his supporters on March 19 to ask for help in raising several million dollars from major donors, making it known he is planning to enter the 2020 presidential election. Biden has been contemplating a White House run for some time and continues to lead in polls among Democrats as a favorite to take on President Donald Trump. Biden would enter a crowded field of close to 20 presidential candidates that have already declared, or are expected to announce that they will be joining the 2020 race. The report said Biden asked at least a half-dozen supporters for help in lining up major donors. Biden also reportedly expressed concern he may not have the same immediate success in raising political funds online as other Democrats, such as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas. O’Rourke, who formally entered the 2020 race on March 14, raised more than $6 million in the first 24 hours, trouncing the $5.9 million Bernie Sanders raised in the first 24 hours.

    A day before the Wall Street Journal report, President Donald Trump criticized Biden’s indecision about running for President, calling him “another low I.Q. individual!” in a Twitter post. Despite some concern for his indecisiveness regsrding making the plunge into the Democatic primaries, Joe Biden still retains much support among Democratic Primary voters. A CNN Poll released on March 19 shows Joe Biden enjoys 28 percent support among the crowded field of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Bernie Sanders comes in second with 20 percent support followed by Kamala Harris, who is third with 12 percent.

    Overall, the reaction to former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy is mixed. It can be argued that Joe Biden perhaps has the most comprehensive record of any of the candidates running, having served in the Senate for 36 years before becoming Vice President. During his time in the Senate, Biden emerged as a leader on both international and legal issues, having served as both the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additionally, Biden developed a reputation as a dedicated, honest, and hard-working politician during his time in the Senate and earned the universal respect of his colleagues. Joe Biden also took an active role as Vice President, working closely with President Barack Obama on both foreign and domestic policy. Despite his strong resume and depth of experience, some liberal activists have expressed concern with Joe Biden’s record regarding criminal justice issues, foreign policy, and votes in favor of confirming conservative Supreme Court judges Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the 1986 and 1991 respectively. Despite these issues, Joe Biden is leading President Donald Trump by anywhere between 9-17% in most public opinion polls and might be able to win back several Midwestern states that the Democrats lost in the 2016 Election.

  • OurWeek In Politics (7/15-7/22/18)

    Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week

    1. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Meet in Helinski For Controversial Summit

    President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in a controversial summit in Finland.

    Amid chaos following his week-long European trip and the ongoing investigations into allegations that the Russian government colluded with his 2016 Presidential campaign, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir in Helinski, Finland on July 16 in their first-ever summit meeting. The summit marked the first official meeting between the leaders after previous unofficial talks between Trump and Putin at the 2017 G20 conference in Vienna. In addition to meeting with Putin, Trump also met the Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in the Presidential Palace. Some of the topics Trump pledged to discuss with Putin include the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the steadily declining relationship between the US and Iran, and measures to reduce the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia.

    The summit between President Trump and Putin was wrought with controversy from the moment of its announcement. On June 14, a group of leading Senate Democrats urged Trump to forgo meeting Putin face-to-face and instead called on the President to work to remove the Putin regime from power and pressure the Russian government into stopping their supposed malign activities on the world stage. The letter was written by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and endorsed by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and many others. Additionally, Trump tweeted on the morning of the summit that the relationship between Russia and the US has “never been worse,” blaming the declining relationship on “foolishness and stupidity” on the part of the US, and referenced the ongoing Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, calling it a “witchhunt”. Trump also indicated his inclination to accept Putin’s denial of Russian interference, saying “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

    The Helsinki 2018 meeting began with Niinistö officially welcoming Putin, followed by Trump. The bilateral discussions between Putin and Trump mainly took place in the Finnish Presidential Palace, with Trump and Putin met with only interpreters present. The bulk of the meeting was conducted in secrecy, leading to much confusion and questions regarding the content that was discussed. In the closing press conference press conference, Trump and Putin praise each other and appeared to be in broad agreement on all policy issues. Much to the shock of Western observers, President Trump exonerated Putin of interfering in the 2016 election, directly going against the overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community that Russia indeed interfered in the election and potentially swayed the vote in as many as ten states. Trump also used the press conference to criticize the ongoing investigation into his campaign by Special Counsel Robert Muller, calling it a “partisan witch-hunt.”

    Overall, the reaction to President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been negative. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a “sad day for America,” and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) called for American interpreter Marina Gross, who sat in on the private meeting with Putin, to be questioned before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additionally, many Republicans strongly criticized President Trump. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claimed Trump “made us look like a pushover,” whereas Senator Ben Sasse called Trump’s remarks “bizarre and flat-out wrong.” 2008 and 2012 Republican Presidential Nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney also condemned the meeting and the President’s actions. Romney said Trump’s siding with Putin rather than US intelligence agencies was “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles”, while McCain called the summit “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” Despite the overall negative reaction to the summit by political leaders of both parties, President Trump’s approval rating among Republican voters increases in the wake of the summit, with many of his strongest supporters expressing the belief that Russian collusion in the 2016 Election was a positive turn of events.

    2. Violence and Turmoil Threatens Pakistan’s Unstable Political Situation

    Amid a hotly-contested general election, several events this week threaten to further destabilize Pakistan and prevent the country from exiting a long period of political turmoil.

    Several events this week have threatened to upend the already unstable political situation in Pakistan. On July 19, Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2013 until his removal from office in 2017, returned to his country to begin serving a ten-year prison sentence. In a July 6 court decision, Sharif was sentenced to 10 years in prison and handed an almost $11 million fine over corruption charges related to his family’s purchase of overseas properties. His daughter Mariam Nawaz was also found guilty and is facing seven years in prison and a $2.6 million fine. Her husband Captain Safdar has received a one-year jail sentence. All three have been barred from engaging in politics for 10 years and four properties in London will be confiscated by the Pakistani state, according to the verdict.

    The return of Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan occurred amid a heightened level of violence and turmoil facing the country in the wake of the bombing of a political rally in Baluchistan province on July 15, as well as tensions surrounding the upcoming general elections on July 25. Th suicide bomb attack resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 people and injured 186. Nawabzada Siraj Raisani, who was campaigning for an assembly seat in Balochistan, was killed in the bomb blast along with dozens of others. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in an email, stating that the attack was meant to intimidate the Shi’a Muslim community of Pakistan and discourage their participation in the political process. The Balochistan government announced two days of mourning and political parties in the province announced the suspension of political activities in the aftermath of deadly suicide bombing.

    Despite the ongoing tensions within the country, many observers feel that the July 25 general election has the potential transform Pakistan for the better and allow the country to at last gain a sense of stability after nearly 4 decades of military rule. “For the first time in our history, fair elections are going to be held,” stated Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesman for the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party. As campaigning enters the final stretch, charismatic populist and former cricket star Imran Khan and the deposed leader’s brother, Shahbaz Sharif, have emerged as the two frontrunners. Additionally, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the 29-year-old son of former leader Benazir Bhutto, is also attracting widespread support, seeking to reestablish his family’s party as a viable political force. Most polling suggests that the election is too close to call, and could result in coalition negotiations which will ultimately leave Bhutto Zardari’s smaller party with the balance of power.

    3. Israel Launches Broad Air Assault in Gaza Following Border Violence

    Israel resumed its sustained siege against Gaza this week with the commencement of a sustained bombing campaign.

    On July 20, the Israeli government launched a large-scale attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip after a Palestinian sniper killed an Israeli soldier along the border fence during a day of escalating hostilities. Successive explosions rocked Gaza City at nightfall, and the streets emptied as warplanes struck dozens of sites that Israel said belonged to Hamas. Israeli military analysts said the aerial assault was one of the most intense since a cease-fire ended 50 days of fighting in the Gaza Strip in 2014. The ferocity of the bombings raised fears that the hostilities could spiral into an all-out war that will further devastate the Gaza Strip. After nearly seven hours of siege by the Israeli government, a Hamas spokesman announced that the cease-fire had been restored with the mediation of Egypt and the UN. At least four Palestinians were killed by initial Israeli artillery and tank fire. Hamas said that three of the four were members of its military wing.

    https://youtu.be/XkaUJa2PkMA

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Isreali Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman defended the actions by their government, warning of the commencement of a major siege of against the Gaza Strip unless Hamas ceases its supposed attacks against Israeli targets. Additionally, US Ambassador to the UN Nikk Haley and Senior Advisor to the President Trump Jared Kushner enthusiastically defended the Israeli government, stating that Netanyahu and Lieberman acted appropriately and that their actions will increase the chances for peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, Nickolay E. Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator in the Middle East, had urged the Israeli government and Hamas “to step back from the brink” in a strongly worded post on Twitter on Friday night. “Not next week. Not tomorrow. Right NOW!” he wrote. “Those who want to provoke #Palestinians and #Israelis into another war must not succeed.”

    4. Israel Passes Controversial “Jewish Nation-State” Law

    Amid much criticism, the Israeli Parliament passed the “Jewish Nation-State” Law on July 19.

    On July 19, the Israeli parliament adopted a controversial and bigoted law defining the country as the nation-state of the Jewish people, provoking fears it will lead to blatant discrimination against its Palestinian citizens. The legislation, adopted by a relatively close 62 to 55 margin, makes Hebrew the country’s national language and defines the establishment of Jewish communities as being in the national interest. The bill also strips Arabic of its designation as an official language, downgrading it to a “special status” that enables its continued use within Israeli governmental and educational. “This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote. The nation-state bill was first introduced in 2011 by Avi Dichter, a member of the Likud Party and a center-right conservative. The main goal of the law was to establish the unique Jewish right to an Israeli homeland as one of Israel’s constitutional rules. When the final version passed this week, Dichter declared that “we are enshrining this important bill into a law today to prevent even the slightest thought, let alone attempt, to transform Israel to a country of all its citizens.”

    Overall, the reaction to the new Israeli law has been mixed. In addition to praise among conservative Israeli politicians, noted American White Supremacist and Fascist political activist Richard Spencer endorsed the law. “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law, Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans,” Spencer stated in a press release. On the other hand, countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and even Israeli ally Saudi Arabia denounced the law, stating that it is discriminatory against Israel’s large Arab minority and threatens to further Israel’s reputation as an “apartheid state.” Additionally, several liberal Jewish leaders and orgnizations expressed outrage with the law. “The damage that will be done by this new nation-state law to the legitimacy of the Zionist vision … is enormous,” wrote Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, in a press release. J Street, a liberal Zionist organization, called it “a sad day for Israel and all who care about its democracy and its future.”

  • “Origins of the crisis in Yemen” Video Response

    This video by CaspianReport discusses the background of the current political crisis in Yemen. Yemen is located in the Southwestern part of the Middle East and is evenly divided between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. This central location, the lack of strong governmental institutions, and disputes between both religious sects made a conflict within the county inevitable. The conflict in Yemen began in 2011 and was part of the Arab Spring wave of protests against corrupt and authoritarian governments (often backed by Western powers) within the Middle East. The protests were led by both secular and Islamist opposition groups. Longtime rebel groups such as the Houthis (a Shi’a group primarily supported by Iran, Syria, Russia, and Lebanon) and the Southern Movement participated in the protests. President Ali Abdullah Saleh (who assumed dictatorial control of the country in 1978) responded with a violent crackdown that destabilized the country and made his downfall inevitable. Saleh was almost killed when a bomb went off in a mosque where he and other top government officials were praying in June of 2011. During Saleh’s time receiving medical treatment, he left Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. As acting president, Hadi met with the opposition and expressed support for political reforms. Saleh agreed in late 2011 to resign from power, and the opposition groups subsequently agreed to allow Hadi to stand unopposed for the presidency in 2012.

    Hadi’s election was one of the first democratic transfers of power in Yemeni history and was an encouraging sign for Yemen’s political future. Despite the initial optimism surrounding his presidency, Hadi struggled to deal with numerous issues, such as attacks by Al-Qaeda, separatist movements, corruption, unemployment, and food insecurity. The Houthi movement, which champions Yemen’s Shia Muslim community (which has been the victim of much governmental repression despite their near majority in the country) took advantage of the new president’s weakness by taking control of their northern heartland of Saada province and neighboring areas. Disillusioned with the transition, many ordinary Yemenis, including Sunni’s, began to side the Houthis and in September 2014, the Houthis entered the capital, Sanaa.

    In January 2015, the Houthis reinforced their takeover of Sanaa, surrounding the presidential palace and other key points and placed political figures under house arrest. The Houthis and security forces loyal to Saleh then attempted to take control of the entire country, forcing Hadi to flee abroad in March 2015. Alarmed by the rise of a group they believed to be backed militarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia and began an air campaign aimed at restoring Hadi’s government. Even though the Saudi-led campaign has received widespread logistical and military support from countries such as the US, Israel, UK, and France, the tactics used by the Saudi military in Yemen are subject to widespread internal condemnation. Many international observers accuse the Saudi’s of indiscriminately targeting civilians, committing a religious genocide against Shi’a Muslims, and leading the country to the brink of widespread famine. Much like with many other conflicts in the region, one can argue that the primary goal of Saudi Arabia through their intervention in Yemen is to weaken the regional influence of the Iranian government and prevent any indigenous political movements in support of independence and political freedom from emerging.

  • Ali Shariati & Liberal Islamic Political Thought

    Ali Shariati & Liberal Islamic Political Thought

    One of the most important political theorists in Iran over the past century was Ali Shariati. Shariati was a well-known Iranian intellectual active during the 1960s and 1970s. Shariati developed an entirely new perspective on the history, philosophy, and sociology of Islam based in part on Marxist political thought, and gave highly charged lectures that laid the foundation for the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79, which ignited only 7 months after his death at the age of 43.

    Ali Shariati was born in the Iranian city of Mashad on November 23, 1933, to a religious family. His father was a teacher and Islamic scholar. From an early age, Shariati came into contact with individuals from the less privileged economic classes and was exposed to the massive levels of poverty and hardship evident within much of Iran during the 1930s and 1940s. At the same time, he was exposed to Western philosophy and political thought. He attempted to provide solutions for the problems faced by Middle Eastern societies through traditional Islamic principles interwoven with the point of view of modern sociology and philosophies such as Marxism and Socialism.

    Ali Shariati became a high-school teacher in 1952 and was an active member of the Islamic Association of Students. In 1953, Shariati became a member of the National Front and received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Mashhad in 1955. In 1957, he was arrested by the Iranian police, along with 16 other members of the National Resistance Movement due to his leading a protest critical of the Pahlavi Regime. Shariati managed to obtain a scholarship for France, where he continued his graduate studies at Sorbonne University and worked towards earning his doctorate in sociology. During this period, Shariati started collaborating with the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) in 1959.

    In 1961, Ali Shariati founded the Freedom Movement of Iran along with Ebrahim Yazdi, Mostafa Chamran and Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, three individuals who would become the leaders in the first post-revolutionary government of Iran in 1979. Shariat returned to Iran in 1962 and was arrested for taking part in the June 5, 1963, protests against the Iranian government and the rule of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He was released after a few weeks, at which point he began teaching at the University of Mashhad. Shariati subsequently moved to Tehran, where he began lecturing at the Hosseiniye Ershad Institute. These lectures proved to be hugely popular among his students and were spread by word of mouth throughout all sectors of Iranian society

    Shariati’s continued success again aroused the interest of the government, which arrested him in late 1975. Widespread pressure from the populace and an international outcry eventually led to his release after eighteen months in solitary confinement in June of 1977. Shariati was allowed to leave the country for England and d died three weeks later in a Southampton hospital under mysterious circumstances. It is argued by many that his time in captivity within Iran and torture at the hands of SAVAK contributed to his death.

    Ali Shariati developed an entirely novel approach to religious study and interpreted Shi’a Islam under the lens of revolutionary ideologies such as Socialism and Marxism. In particular, Shariati discussed the dual aspects of the Shi’a Islam throughout its history. The pure form of Shi’ism was known as Red Shi’ism, which is the pure form of the religion and focuses on social justice and salvation for the common person. Additionally, Red Shi’ism lacks the rituals and an established clerical hierarchy. In contrast, Black Shi’ism is the less pure form of the religion and is under the domination of several distinct groups such as the monarchy, the clerical establishment, and the Bazzari (the traditional merchant class of Iran), thus being out of touch with the needs of the common person. According to Shariati, Black Shi’ism was established in Iran under the Safavid monarchy during the 16th Century and was embodied by the Pahlavi monarchy.

    The idea of Red Shi’ism as promoted by Ali Shariati shares some similarities with Liberation Theology, which was established by the Catholic Church in Latin America during the 1960s in response to massive human rights abuses and continued economic inequalities within the region. Liberation Theology stresses the active involvement of religious organizations in addressing social inequalities and promoting the belief that religion can play an active role in improving societal conditions.

    Ali Shariati argued that a moral and proper society would conform to Islamic values. Shariati suggested that the role of government was to guide society in the most moral manner rather than to manage society in the best possible manner. Shariati also believed that the most experienced and knowledgeable members of the clergy were the best suited for guiding society due to their in-depth understanding of the Islamic values system. Due to their knowledge of such traditions and beliefs, Shariati felt that the clergy was uniquely suited to advance the individual towards their greatest potential and to not give into to the hedonistic desires of individuals as evident in much of the Western world.

    In contrast to Western philosophers such as John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill, Ali Shariati was critical of the idea of liberal democracy, pointing out that the induction of liberal democracy correlates with the plundering of nations for economic reasons. Shariati believed that the idea of liberal democracy is the main enemy of humankind and progress and that the economic structure characteristic of it promotes inequalities and harms the rights of individuals. Shariati does not accept the definition of Democracy based on western explanation and viewed religious government as the best form of democracy. According to Shariati, the religious government is the main right of Muslim citizens in terms of democracy and governmental type because it promotes the highest level of social equality and respects the rights of all citizens regardless of their differences in appearance, status, and social class.

    Ali Shariati sought to translate his ideas into the cultural symbols of Shi’a Islam that many Iranian citizens could relate to such as Ashura. Shariati believed that Shi’a’s should not only actively await the return of the Twelfth Imam but should work to hasten his return by fighting for social justice at any cost. Additionally, Shariati believed that people do not have to put away and hide their religious and cultural practices in the fight against imperialism and inequality and that the people could fight such problems the most effectively through the recovering of their cultural and religious identity.

    In conclusion, Ali Shariati was one of the most influential Iranian philosophers of the 20th Century. Shariati believed that the application of both Marxism and Islamic principles is the most effective way to address social inequalities and further social justice, and sought to spread his ideas through symbols associated with Shi’a Islam and Iranian culture. Additionally, many of Ali Shariati’s ideas are still influential today and have been used by numerous groups worldwide seeking to create an equal society and move away from the legacies of imperialism and colonialism.