“What ails us, love-struck and forlorn we dwell,
I, smitten, while your heart succumbs to love’s spell.” – Al-Mutanabbi
- Introduction:
Through careful examination of the lives of notable figures and writers, as well as an analysis of their written works, we can gain insights into the factors that influenced their intellectual orientations and cognitive interests. One valuable approach in this regard is to trace the professors or mentors under whom these scholars or writers studied, or whose paths of knowledge they chose to follow. By doing so, you may come across intriguing connections, such as Abū ʿAmr bin Al-ʿAlā’s influence on Al-Aṣmaʿi’s discourses and critical opinions. Similarly, you might encounter the intellectual spirit of Abū Isḥāq Al-Nazzām and his questioning mindset reflected in various passages of Al-Jāḥiẓ’s writings, which can be quite surprising. Additionally, as you explore the bold opinions of Al-Maʿarri, you may notice the distinctive tone that goes against the norm, as you browse the bold beliefs of his student Ibn Sinān Al-Khaffāji, who, for instance, supported the interpretation of the Quran’s miraculous inimitability (al-ṣirfa).
On the other hand, there are authors and writers whose motivation to write does not stem from their teachers or mentors, whose approaches they embraced and followed. Instead, their greatest inspiration arises from a writer who preceded them, someone with a different intellectual orientation and whose ideas clashed with their own. Perhaps unintentionally, this collision of theses ignited a spark of hope within them, compelling them to reevaluate everything they had learned and read. Driven by a spirit of challenge and resistance, they embarked on carving their own distinct path. Their aim was to document, primarily for themselves but also for their era and their critics, their ability to adopt an independent and opposing stance towards those ideas that had shaken them. They may have spent their entire lives attempting to convince themselves of the validity of their contradictory approach. This radical trend, which often consumes the entire lives of writers who possess heightened sensitivity to incoming ideas, a keen awareness of their implications, and a sharp anticipation of their consequences, stands in stark contrast to the norm.
This means we have before us a case of creative interaction occurring between individuals who may initially seem like opposites. To fully grasp this hidden intersection, it necessitates a thorough exploration. The manifestations of this phenomenon can take the shape of a blatant attack, a violent clash, a quarrelsome objection, a cautious reservation, or even condescending disregard or belittling sarcasm.
In this context, we observe how ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjāni is deeply preoccupied with the ideas of the esteemed Mu’tazilite scholar, Judge ʿAbd al-Jabbār. As a result, al-Jurjani dedicates himself to refuting the opinions of ʿAbd al-Jabbār, leading to a transformation in the concept of al-nazm (structural composition). Originally rooted in Mu’tazili/Jāḥizi principles, al-Jurjāni reconceptualizes it as an Ash’ari notion that emphasizes the thesis of mental speech (al-kalām al-nafsī).
You will see Ibn Sina subjecting Al-Ghazāli’s convictions to rigorous examination through his Healing, pushing him into a state of confusion, and leading him to engage in a battle with the very soul within his own being. In response, Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazāli swiftly defends his sense of self, his worldview under siege, and the tranquility he had lost, prompted to publish his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this work, Al-Ghazāli denounces the philosophers’, and declares their misguidance and disbelief in three significant matters, with Ibn Sina at the forefront of those condemned. Simultaneously, Al-Ghazāli confronts, in solitude, the tempestuous “revolution of doubt” lurking beneath his apparent stability. He vigorously navigates against the tumultuous philosophical currents unleashed by Ibn Sina, striving to find solace in his haven, symbolized by The Deliverance from Error, envisioning it as an oasis on the outskirts of the Sufi island.
After nearly a century, you will find Al-Ghazāli once again, nodding at you amidst the writings of philosopher Ibn Rushd. Within these texts, Ibn Rushd critiques Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazāli’s opinions, composing works such as The Incoherence of Incoherence and harshly denouncing him in The Decisive Treatise, along with all other theologians who have caused widespread disturbance in the minds of ordinary people due to their excessive metaphorical interpretation of Islamic law. Simultaneously, Ibn Rushd, in his defense of philosophy, relies on Al-Ghazāli’s favored duality, which distinguishes between the outward appearance of the common people and the inwardness of the intellectual elite.
In our present era, you will witness the presence of Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri reflected through the lenses of George Tarabichi. Through these lenses, Tarabichi seeks to examine the perceived errors and faults within Al-Jabri’s work, Critique of Arab Reason. However, shortly before his passing, Tarabichi realized that the series of works he had written against Al-Jabri’s project merely served as an implicit acknowledgement of Al-Jabri’s profound influence on his intellectual development, extending to his own recent revisitation of heritage.
You will encounter Al-Jabri once more, this time concealed behind the ornamented cloak of Taha Abdel Rahman. It becomes evident that the ambitious “Taha-esque” undertaking, aiming to depict ideas and concepts within the practical Arab context, could not have materialized without the journey Taha Abdel Rahman set out on. Taha’s journey commences with his rival, Al-Jabri, serving as both a starting point and a departure point, given that he is “the central focus of considerable contemplation.”
In a distant setting, you might find yourself witnessing the German composer Richard Wagner performing his beloved composition. Nearby, Nietzsche stands with a disdainful gaze, seemingly averse to the scene, yet his emotions resonate with each captivating beat of the rhythm.
- The Paradigm
Among those estranged viewpoints that construct an entire existence out of alienation, Mahmoud Shaker’s stance on Taha Hussein’s theses comes to the fore. It can be stated that one cannot truly grasp Mahmoud Shaker’s intellectual contributions or understand the underlying motivations and objectives of this author without reading his greatest source of inspiration: Taha Hussein.
In truth, Mahmoud Shaker’s scholarly endeavor can be regarded as an extended, extensively annotated rebuttal of Taha Hussein’s concepts and his contradictory propositions. This is evident through Shaker’s frequent and scattered acknowledgments within his books.
- The Shock
Shaker frequently recounted the impact that Taha Hussein had on him, describing it as a ‘storm’ that swept through his being during his days as a university student when he would listen to Hussein’s relentless questioning, often accompanied by a caustic tone. Shaker recalls a specific instance, stating, “Years went by until I entered the university and encountered Dr. Taha’s words in his book On the Pre-Islamic Poetry. They shook my life so profoundly, rattling the core of my being… We were all taken aback by Dr. Taha’s powerful presence, his eloquent speech, and his skillful articulation of his intentions, only to be confronted by his outright denial of the authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry. While my colleagues reacted with surprise, I alone swallowed pure anger, descending into a darkness that led to further darkness, succumbing to a state of confusion that bred more confusion. I was disheartened by this decisive assault on the scholars of our nation, on its storytellers, its grammarians, and even on the commentators of the Quran and the narrators of Hadith. I found myself oscillating between uncertainty and doubt for an extended period of time.”
Towards the end of his article titled Al-Mutanabbi: A Man I Wish I Hadn’t Known, Shaker reflects upon the challenging phase in his life when he grappled with the profound “ordeal of the issue of pre-Islamic poetry.” He vividly portrays the horrors he endured during that time, which nearly pushed him to the brink of destruction. Despite the passage of fifty years since those events transpired, Shaker’s fervent description and impassioned expression convey a sense that he is recounting an experience that still burns within him, as if the passage of time has only intensified its fervor. He states, “For fifty years, I have been hurled into the midst of a battle, standing precariously on the edge of a fiery abyss. If even one foot were to falter, I would plunge into a bottomless inferno that stretches on for seventy years.”
Mahmoud Shaker consistently revisits the tumultuous decade of his life in most of his writings, emphasizing its profound impact on him. He repeatedly shares, “It is important to know that I endured ten years of my youth engulfed in turbulent confusion, tormenting uncertainty, and relentless doubts. During that time, I lived in constant fear of perishing and losing both my worldly existence and my afterlife, burdened by the weight of sins that would condemn me to divine punishment. My sole preoccupation during those dark days was to search for a flickering light that could illuminate a path to salvation, liberating me from the suffocating darkness that closed in on me from all sides”.
Did he find his way out of the darkness? Did he manage to overcome the confusion that plagued him? Did he survive the brink of the abyss? In response to these inquiries, Mahmoud Shaker affirms, “Yes, in the past, by the grace of God and His mercy, I was rescued from the deceptive traps, even though I came perilously close to perishing”. It is worth pausing and reflecting on the final sentence of his statement: “I came perilously close to perishing.” This phrase sheds light on why Mahmoud Shaker consistently recounts this past experience as if it were an ongoing and ever-present reality. While he is grateful for his eventual deliverance after a prolonged absence, he is acutely aware that his newfound safety is tinged with the memories of near-drowning. As he puts it, “All praise be to God, and glory be to Him, I was saved, after enduring immense hardship”.
- Aftershocks of the storm
However, why did a literary matter such as questioning the authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry have such a profound and life-altering impact on Shaker’s soul, compelling him to interrupt his university studies and eventually leave Egypt altogether? The reason lies in the consequential chain of events that he perceived as inevitably linked to it. Shaker explains, “The ordeal of pre-Islamic poetry, when it seized hold of me in the past, plunged me into a deeply unsettling and dreaded matter: reevaluating the notion of the Quran’s miraculous nature”.
Perhaps Shaker’s intention is to convey that eliminating pre-Islamic poetry would entail extinguishing a vital testament that showcases the superiority of the generation to whom the Quran was revealed. By challenging their exceptional eloquence with the Quran’s miraculous eloquence, he suggests that the creators of this pre-Islamic poetry were the very recipients of the magnificent Quran. Therefore, if this eloquent and poetic corpus is disregarded, what basis remains for subsequent generations to acknowledge the Quran’s miraculous nature within its specific context? In other words, the enduring recognition of the Quran’s miraculous character among future generations rests upon the understanding that the generation to which it was revealed represents the pinnacle of Arab eloquence. If this same generation failed to match the eloquence of the Quran, then subsequent generations would be even more incapable of doing so.
It appears that Mahmoud Shaker perceived a close historical connection between pre-Islamic poetry and the miraculous nature of the Quran, likely influenced by early rhetoricians. However, he expressed some reservations regarding the term “miraculous” itself, instead favoring the term “signs” to describe the Quran’s extraordinary qualities. The reasons behind this would take long to explain.
- The philosophy of the ordeal
At certain junctures in his life, when faced with persistent inquiries and comments regarding the magnitude of the violent shock he experienced, Mahmoud Shaker attempts to philosophize his own predicament and establish a broader framework for it, drawing from certain circumstances surrounding his university experience. He discusses what he terms as “the corruption of cultural life,” wherein adults exploit the research efforts of others and pass it off as their own. Shaker cites an example involving Taha Hussein, who allegedly derived many of his quotes for his book On Pre-Islamic Poetry from a previous work by the British Orientalist Margoliouth titled The Origins of Arabic Poetry. According to Shaker, news of this blatant plagiarism eventually reached the university and its professors, yet none of them took any action regarding this significant violation of academic integrity committed by their colleague. This prevailing atmosphere of corruption and deception within the academic sphere led Shaker to completely abstain from pursuing his studies at a university characterized by such corruption and lack of integrity.
Nevertheless, while the cultural and moral issue described earlier holds significance, it alone falls short of fully elucidating the oppressive “depths” that enveloped this young man, the “hooks of doubt” that seized his tender heart, and the suffocating “grave of darkness” that seemed to constrict his chest from the moment he attended Taha Hussein’s lectures at the university.
In fact, Shaker found himself astounded by the behavior of the Egyptian professor, hailing from the Egyptian countryside just like him. They had longstanding connections, and Hussein was aware of Shaker’s brilliance, his traditional Azhari education, and his profound understanding of heritage. Moreover, Hussein himself had studied under the same esteemed Sheikh, Sheikh Sayyid Al-Marsafi, whom Shaker greatly respected. Despite all this knowledge, Hussein displayed a newfound audacity that seemed to disregard the foundations of traditional education, even suggesting that modern methodology required a complete upheaval of traditional education, leaving only a minimal remnant. Shaker perceived this as a disregard for history, as well as to the very notion of what people consider to be history.
- The return to one’s self
How did Mahmoud Shaker weather the storm of controversy ignited by Taha Hussein?
Shaker took the position that any independent mind should take, not surrendering its reins to anyone, but rather exploring the depths of what he hears and reads, deducing the unseen from the evident, and moving beyond the inflation of the claim to the examination of the proof. He would then observe the consistent indicators, no matter how far apart they were, as well as distinguish between disparate phenomena, even if their roots intertwined and their branches entangled. In order for Shaker to achieve this painstaking, ‘diligent exploration,’ he had to embark on a lengthy journey through the works of the ancients – in their various disciplines. A prerequisite for this journey was to withdraw from his familiar surroundings and seclude himself from their clamor and distractions, which he did.
After years of undertaking this extensive intellectual journey, Mahmoud Shaker returned with a firmer and more resolute stance, one that was staunchly opposed to the storm and its originator. Looking back, Shaker recalls that his journey commenced with a meticulous reading of collections and compilations of Arabic poetry. From there, his exploration extended to various fields of knowledge within the heritage, touching upon the texts to uncover the essence of the Arab spirit and the fundamental nature of the encompassing Arabic language. Shaker states, “I often delved into the written legacy of my forefathers, seeking to unravel their innermost selves, despite their diverse perspectives, ideologies, and approaches.”
The outcome of this extensive wandering, Mahmoud Shaker eventually gained clarity regarding the path he had undertaken. He recognized that the crucial initial step towards verification was the “pre-method” stage. This entailed establishing a foundation to reach the authentic heritage approach. Additionally, Shaker identified the discerning and critical “taste” of the scrutinizing critic as a prominent basis upon which he could rely to deduce the characteristics of this method, aiming to apply this method simultaneously to texts.
It appears that if it had not been for Taha Hussein, there would not be Mahmoud Shaker as we know him today. This does not imply that Taha Hussein created Mahmoud Shaker or his intellectual output, but rather that Hussein’s ideas resonated deeply within Shaker’s sensitive heart, igniting his passion, and stirring his inquisitive mind. The encounter with Hussein’s ideas stirred both turmoil and pride within Shaker, prompting him to delve into radical extrapolation of principles in his quest to uncover the hidden traditional method that unifies scattered knowledge. This pursuit led Shaker on a very long, challenging, and captivating journey, one that is both arduous and exciting.
Indeed, Shaker’s lengthy and repetitive explanation of his stylistic method is not without faults. One such fault lies in the challenges associated with defining the method clearly, leading to ambiguity in its description. Shaker himself acknowledges this, stating, “Today, I choose to revisit it in solitude, with only myself as company. My reason for this is rooted in the apprehension that its distinct characteristics have faded away and been wiped clean. The ground beneath my feet, which once held familiarity, has long eluded me. Furthermore, certain markers that I had erected as guiding beacons along my journey, directing me towards the principles that guided me on that particular day towards a purposeful course, which provided me with a sense of belonging, gratification, deliverance, and security, now evoke concern that you, my dear friend, may find yourself within it and face a similar fate.”
Moreover, this Shaker-inspired approach lacks structured procedural mechanisms that ensure its consistency and ease its implementation, rather than relying on ambitious assertions that are challenging to put into practice.
Despite his numerous breakthroughs in heritage research, which reinstated his self-assurance, and the extensive journey Shaker undertook to forge his own unique perspective and methodology, he consistently maintained a calculated and apprehensive distance, coupled with an air of reverence, in regard to his esteemed former mentor, while simultaneously distancing himself from the ideas and stances of Taha Hussein.
- In defense of Sagittarius/Virgo
Taha Hussein persisted in challenging the traditional, conservative scholars of his time, heralding the dawn of an Arab “Age of Enlightenment” emancipated from the grip of ancient customs. This emancipation is precisely what Mahmoud Shaker saw as a glaring manifestation of cultural decay and a heedless deviation from fundamental principles.
Taha Hussein expressed disdain towards pre-Islamic poetry and cast doubt upon its authenticity, challenging its traditional attribution to its specific era. Conversely, Mahmoud Shaker’s intellectual undertaking revolved around meticulously documenting and exalting this poetry, often elevating it to almost sacred status. In fact, the entire magnificence of Islamic heritage hinged upon the initial recognition of the truth and brilliance inherent in pre-Islamic poetry, in the domains of language, literature, and rhetoric. Armed with his distinctive stylistic approach, Mahmoud Shaker was able to discern the unique qualities of pre-Islamic poetry, rendering Taha Hussein’s previously dubious assertions devoid of any scientific merit in his eyes. As he later declared, “those statements amounted to nothing more than hollow chatter, as I have come to realize afterwards.”
Taha Hussein displayed a tendency to recklessly pass hasty judgments regarding Islamic history and ancient Arab culture, often undermining the originality of renowned figures in the field of heritage. His assertions sometimes implied that these figures merely mirrored the dominant Hellenic culture of the ancient world. In contrast, Mahmoud Shaker diligently worked to safeguard Arab heritage, positioning himself as its staunch advocate. He endeavored to instill a sense of awe and reverence for this heritage in the hearts of his readers, while bitterly lamenting the prevalence of “underestimation” in the modern era. Furthermore, he derided the naivety and unwarranted confidence displayed by some contemporary writers when grappling with the sophisticated texts of the ancients.
Taha Hussein saw the future of cultural development in Egypt lying in its connection to Mediterranean culture. Historically, this connection has been established through the reciprocal influence between Egypt and Greece. This should continue to be the case, with an acknowledgment of the shared essence that unifies the European and Egyptian intellects. He challenges the illusion that Egyptians perceive their culture as Eastern rather than Western. He questions whether countries such as China, Japan, India, and the Far East are closer to Egypt than its European neighbors. The answer to this question, according to Taha Hussein, is self-evident and requires no further clarification.
On the contrary, Mahmoud Shaker perceived his cultural identity as a cultural extension, not merely a geographical expansion. For him, his Egyptian identity was rooted in his Arab heritage. He considered himself an Arab first and foremost, as Arabism encompassed his language of communication, the foundation of his thinking, and the cultural heritage he embraced and advocated for. Shaker believed this cultural heritage contrasted European cultural traditions in terms of beliefs, values, history, and identity. He held the belief that the future of any culture is shaped by its past, emerging organically from within the culture itself rather than being imposed from external sources. According to him, the Arabic language, particularly the language of the pre-Islamic Arabs, served as the vessel that absorbed and preserved the future of culture, as everything that followed was built upon its foundations.
- The trials of the ancient injury
Despite holding independent viewpoints, Taha Hussein’s audacity, at times bordering on recklessness, in challenging established literary and historical principles and assumptions persisted. It gained even greater momentum with the increasing number of students, followers, and supporters. For Mahmoud Shaker, this audacious disregard became a burden, weighing heavily upon him like a rock on his chest, and the very evil scalpel exacerbating his longstanding wound.
Mahmoud Shaker endured a lifelong struggle against the phenomenon of the playful and skeptical mindset embodied by Taha Hussein. This influence permeated his being to the core, making him perceive it in anyone who trivialized and defamed heritage. Driven by this protracted struggle, Shaker strove to extend his reach further, meticulously documenting this skepticism and tracing its origins. He sought to analyze the roots of what he termed the “corruption of literary life” since “the era of renaissance”, up until the present day. He aimed to dissect the “disease of underestimation” that afflicted Arab heritage, inflicted by prominent writers, starting with Imam Muhammad Abduh and his disciples, and continuing with subsequent generations of writers.
Mahmoud Shaker approached his teacher’s contentious ideas with a composed demeanor. One might wonder how someone who is frequently angered by anything that does not align with their views, and who can be forceful towards those who disagree, could transform into a polite negotiator. Shaker, however, demonstrated a remarkable ability to maintain respect and modesty while discussing Taha Hussein’s theses, regardless of the extent of his disagreement. For instance, when referring to Taha Hussein’s book The Great Sedition many years after The University Turn, Shaker states, “I recognize the doctor’s expertise and analytical skills in assembling words, which led me to believe that this book would offer a wealth of knowledge. Before delving beyond even the first word from the book, I confidently thought to myself: Taha Hussein is the ideal individual to depict these intricate and tumultuous events for readers, and to navigate their complexities in order to provide the most comprehensive insights and articulate explanations.”
After discussing certain aspects of Taha Hussein’s book, Mahmoud Shaker reflects on his own reservations and admits, “These are five points that I felt hesitant to discuss or bring up with Dr. Hussein because they are so obvious and apparent. It would not escape the notice of someone like him, who is knowledgeable, skilled, and possesses keen insight to perceive such matters.”
The words you have read piques within you a sense of curiosity about the underlying reasons for Mahmoud Shaker’s admiration and reverence towards Taha Hussein, despite their significant differences of opinion and the gravity of the topic they discussed, which is, in this context, The Great Sedition, with all its inflammatory details.
Indeed, Mahmoud Shaker continued in writing articles to meticulously refute certain points raised by Taha Hussein in that book, demonstrating scholarly diligence and meticulous research. However, despite their intellectual disagreements, Shaker consistently displayed reverence and appreciation for Hussein whenever the opportunity arose, time after time. Shaker did not disregard such reverence when he was at the height of his heated battle with Louis Awad, defending the authenticity of Abū-l ʿAlā Al-Maʿarri, when he set to mention Taha Hussein. He did not forget that he was “our great teacher,” and to pray for him that: “May God prolong his life,” and to praise the character of his old teacher from “the love of repentance to the truth”.
While Mahmoud Shaker held deep reverence for Taha Hussein, he also maintained his inherent right to express his disagreements with him. However, it is noteworthy that their disagreements did not escalate into a rivalry, although in the words of Shaker, their disagreement “went beyond surface-level disputes and had profound roots, even extending to fundamental principles.”
In one of his articles titled “Do not revile my companions,” Mahmoud Shaker mustered the courage to use harsh descriptions, albeit without explicitly mentioning Taha Hussein’s name. Instead, he referred to him as “the author of the book The Great Sedition.” This particular article, along with others in which Shaker defended the originality of his own book on Al-Mutanabbi by contrasting it with Hussein’s work on the same subject, contained sharp and critical descriptions.
Mahmoud Shaker addresses his own thoughts on the motivation behind his scattered acts of disrespect towards his former professor, as well as the specific objectives he had in mind. He clarifies, stating, “All my remarks are confined to the aspects where I critique the content of his speeches. None of it should be taken as a sweeping judgment on every word he writes or on his character, given his esteemed status as one of the distinguished professors”.
- An excursion with anger
While Mahmoud Shaker, in a broader sense, aimed to display politeness and restraint towards Taha Hussein, minimizing any trace of arrogance or anger in accordance with his own disposition, it is important to note that this measured approach was not extended to everyone. There are only a handful of individuals who seem to have garnered intellectual admiration or regard from Shaker despite his stated disagreements with them. Notable among them are the critics: Muhammad Mandour, Abdulaziz Al-Desouki, and the researcher Sayyed Saqr.
Apart from these limited instances, Mahmoud Shaker frequently launched scathing verbal attacks against his adversaries whenever he perceived them to deviate from what he deemed as the correct path. I won’t delve extensively into the details of his confrontation with Louis Awad in his book Falsities and Merriment, as it was a fierce battle where Awad, to some extent, bore the consequences of his own actions. This was a result of his pretentious and misguided attempt to showcase expertise in heritage and historical sources without possessing genuine, accurate knowledge.
I will refrain from delving into the specific manner in which Mahmoud Shaker condescendingly and dismissively addressed the objections raised by Shawqi Deif and Muhammad Rajab Al-Bayoumi towards him. This particular style of response is his favored approach when engaging in heated disputes within the pages of Al-Resala magazine.
However, what truly captures attention is the fervent zeal that overtook Mahmoud Shaker in the few years following the publication of his initial research on Al-Mutanabbi in 1936. During this time, he embarked on an ardent pursuit, characterized by youthful enthusiasm, to scrutinize every writer who had set to study Al-Mutanabbi. He branded them as “potential thieves” who purportedly appropriated his ideas. From this investigation, he concluded that his research had been wrongfully appropriated by numerous scholars who utilized his concepts and condensed them without giving proper credit to their rightful originator. Although he directed his focus towards multiple individuals, two prominent figures stood out: Abdul Wahab Azzam and Taha Hussein, whom he accused of plagiarizing the most pivotal ideas of their respective books on Al-Mutanabbi. According to this assertion, if these ideas are extracted from their original context, their essence and significance will be lost, leaving behind only superficial flaws and inconsequential discourse.
Additionally, this same fervent rush caused Mahmoud Shaker to become impatient when confronted with any criticism aimed at his research. He refused to acknowledge any errors or oversights, regardless of the rationality, consistency, and impartiality of such critiques. An example of a measured and objective criticism came from Saeed Al-Afghani, who scrutinized the issue of “Al-Mutanabbi’s Alid lineage”—the very foundation upon which Shaker built his own research. Al-Afghani published this criticism as an independent study in Al-Resala magazine, which was then followed by subsequent articles in the same publication, serving as a direct response to Shaker’s rebuttals.
In fact, Shaker’s fervent enthusiasm during that period escalated to such an extent that he would construe any general allusion made by a writer to a study on Al-Mutanabbi as a direct reference to himself. This tendency is evident in his hastily written article responding to Sheikh Ali Abd al-Razzaq, a well-known and Azhar-educated scholar. Shaker presumed that a passing and general idea mentioned in Abdul Razzaq’s article was a specific allusion to him, despite the fact that the idea in question was far removed from his own work and its content.
However, Shaker’s displays of fanaticism and anger become even more perplexing when they pertain to issues that are considered intellectual matters where disagreements are possible, and which warrant a respectful and measured approach during discussions. One such example is the disagreement among researchers regarding the most effective methods of conducting informed textual criticism of heritage books. In these cases, it is natural for each researcher to identify intellectual shortcomings in the work of others, as no one is immune to such lapses. Consider, for instance, Mahmoud Shaker’s reaction when faced with valid objections raised by experts in textual criticism, notably Ali Jawad Al-Tahir, in response to his critical edition of Ibn Salām Al-Jumaḥi’s book. Shaker responded with an outburst of unbridled anger, coupled with cynicism and sarcasm. He described Al-Tahir’s article as being “like the Jew’s notebooks, as they say in the proverb”. Shaker further expressed his intention to dismiss what “this newcomer” had written and to refrain from responding to him. However, he justified his decision to engage in a response, adopting a professorial tone typical of Shaker, by stating that he sought to provide “a justification for instructing the new generations, who are doomed to the dwell within the murky realm of a corrupted literary landscape that has cast its shadow over the Arab and Islamic world. Remaining silent about this corruption is tantamount to complicity in its transgressions and malpractices.”
It is sufficient to express a valid objection to some of Mahmoud Shaker’s efforts in text preparation, such as his inclusion of the term “fuḥūl” (first-class) in the title of Ibn Salām’s book, Classes of Poets, an inclusion without any convincing reasons. Similarly, scrutinizing certain quotes that Shaker expanded upon or expressing opinions about the sources he relied upon can be grounds for being considered a culprit in the “corrupt literary life.” As a result, the objector may face denigration, retaliation for linguistic errors, ridicule, and accusations that “he misreads what I actually write, misunderstands what he misreads, and then misrepresents what he misunderstands,” and that his words are “weak, corrupt, incorrect, and delusional.” After engaging in a lengthy and rigorous discussion, Shaker concludes that Ali Al-Tahir’s article, which he republished, is “sheer absurdity, mocking readers, devaluing the subject matter, and deceiving the magazine that published it”. He goes on to characterize it as “a poor piece of work driven by ill intentions, which undermines the author’s credibility”.
The point of Shaker’s impassioned outburst is that such a pretentious and condescending tone is rarely employed when he engages with Taha Hussein, despite the range of his responses to Hussein’s writings, their lengthy association, and the numerous criticisms he leveled against them.
In the introduction to his book Al-Mutanabbi, as well as in other instances within his writings, Mahmoud Shaker attempted to provide some justifications for his restrained approach when confronting Taha Hussein, despite feeling a strong internal rebellion against Hussein’s ideas. One significant reason was that Hussein had been first and foremost Shaker’s professor during his studies. Furthermore, Hussein owed Shaker a considerable debt of gratitude, as Shaker had intervened on his behalf with the university director at the time, Lotfi Al-Sayyid, to bypass the strict application of the admission system. This system typically prohibited students holding scientific department certificates in the secondary stage from entering humanities colleges. Lastly, there were longstanding personal connections between Shaker and Hussein, which fostered a sense of admiration towards Hussein, akin to that of an older brother.
While Shaker mentioned these reasons for his restrained approach towards Taha Hussein, he omitted the most significant reason—one that gradually gained a stronger hold on him as time passed. This reason was the presence of anxious caution within him, a caution fueled by the desire to avoid rekindling deeply irritating and emotional sentiments tied to a past that remains unresolved. There was a psychological fear associated with recklessly confronting an old wound that is unlikely to heal easily.
- Mahmoud Shaker’s Tetralogy
Mahmoud Shaker’s wounded state seems to resonate deeply with his admirers, and has he ever lacked this quality? If Shaker is not the quintessential example of a contemporary Arab wounded in his language, culture, and values, then who is? Wounded he is with all the allure of pain and the charm of suffering that are associated with wounds, Shaker stands out among our contemporary writers in his ability to captivate his readers and draw their emotions towards him and the subject he tackles, in his unique style that blends exaggeration, contempt, glorification, and unapologetic honesty.
Exaggeration is a notable trait in Mahmoud Shaker’s writing, particularly evident when he deals with various topics, especially when exploring terms and concepts and highlighting distinctions between similar words. He consistently presents his fears and anxieties, repeatedly emphasizing them to the point where they infect the reader, evoking feelings of apprehension, anxiety, and fear. This deliberate exaggeration serves as a means to direct readers towards a desired outcome or conclusion, leading them along the right path. Moreover, Shaker frequently references imminent dangers, which, while often based on real threats, are portrayed by him as constantly on the verge of eruption and fragmentation.
I do not mean that the exaggeration and fear expressed by Shaker are contrived for the sole purpose of influencing and captivating the reader. Rather, it is more plausible that these emotions are deeply rooted within him, inherent to his persona. They have been present since his early encounters with pre-Islamic poetry, continued through his engagement with the lineage of Al-Mutanabbi, and persisted until his final moments, evident in the solemn and trembling lines he penned before his demise, reflecting on the miraculous nature of the Quran. As he eloquently stated, “Whenever I contemplated embarking on such a task, anxiety, confusion, and hesitation surrounded me, and I was overwhelmed by the magnificence of what lay before me.”
Shaker’s fear, magnified by his tendency to exaggerate, plays a significant role in understanding the periods of silence he experiences and the prolonged gaps in his writing, sometimes spanning years. During these intervals, he reaches a point where he nearly loses confidence in his own writing abilities. A clear illustration of this can be found in his anxious opening remarks regarding the rust on his pen and the burden it imposes upon him, as well as the profound chasm that separates him from it after his extended hiatus from writing. This is evident in his poignant engagement with Louis Awad in the book Falsities and Merriment.
It is also possible to understand Shaker’s inherent tendency his unique interpretation of Arab and Islamic history, as evident in his book A Message on the Way to Our Culture and other writings. He offers a distinct perspective by closely examining the stages of the conflict between the Arab-Islamic world and the European West, emphasizing significant historical moments that coincided with what is commonly referred to as the “renaissance age” (a term Shaker himself does not endorse). These events include Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt in the late eighteenth century, followed by English occupation, and the subsequent “cultural depletion” experienced by subsequent generations, as expressed by Shaker.
Much has been said about the prominent feature of exaggeration in Shaker’s style. Regarding the characteristic of disdain, it arises from the wretched reality that envelops him and the majority of those “responsible” for it. Here, he frequently employs a favored expression that he incessantly repeats, referring to “the corruption of cultural life”, which, in his viewpoint, originated from the Renaissance generation. This corruption subsequently permeated his own generation and subsequent ones.
Perhaps the most notable expressions of the contempt that gives Shaker’s speech immense appeal and popularity among his readers and followers is his consistent effort to exhibit traditional pride and superiority, coupled with a profound disdain for anything Western or European, namely, “the northern regions where these wild savages are from.” He frequently employs a condescending tone, which is quite uncommon in contemporary discourse, particularly when discussing Orientalism and the biased studies produced by these recruited Orientalists about Arab and Islamic heritage. Shaker asserts that these Orientalists lack the essential prerequisites for understanding this heritage: fluency in its language, familiarity with its culture, and a genuine sense of belonging to it. Furthermore, Shaker’s disdain extends to all the inventions of these foreign orientalists, such as formal conventions and antiquated rules in the methodology of textual criticism applied to Arabic heritage books.
With regards to the characteristic of contempt, it is possible to explain Mahmoud Shaker’s affinity for the poetry of Abū-l ʿAlā Al-Maʿarri and his practice of adorning the covers and texts of some of Al-Maʿarri’s books with verses that belittle and express anger towards people. Shaker’s deep connection to Al-Maʿarri, his celebration of him, and his frequent invocation of his poetry and wisdom warrant a separate consideration. This conservative adherent of heritage had no qualms about aligning himself with Al-Maʿarri, consistently harmonizing with his poetry, and even defending him and his originality in a highly renowned and detrimental cultural battle, which stands as one of Mahmoud Shaker’s most well-known clashes. Shaker embraced the authorization granted by his icon, Abū-l ʿAlā Al-Maʿarri, while disregarding the skepticism and intellectual bias evident in Al-Maʿarri’s poetry, particularly in the luzūmiyyāt collection. Conversely, he did not entertain the skepticism of his mentor, Taha Hussein. Reflecting on this contrasting stance sheds light on one of Shaker’s secrets. Mahmoud Shaker places great value on personal authenticity and a sense of belonging to Arabic culture. These qualities are embodied by Abū-l ʿAlā Al-Maʿarri. Al-Maʿarri is a talented poet, adept writer, and proficient linguist. Despite some personal biases tarnishing his vision, he epitomizes the pure Arab in terms of his culture and perspective. On the other hand, Taha Hussein’s doubts were imported from abroad, as he emulated the research of Orientalists. As stated in his book, his approach mirrors that of the French philosopher Descartes. From Shaker’s perspective, Hussein is merely a conduit for Western ideas and a follower of its great figures.
Therefore, we can understand the intense indignation that Mahmoud Shaker experienced when he came across an article by Louis Awad, in which Awad relied on certain historical accounts to suggest that Al-Maʿarri was intellectually influenced by a Christian monk. This marked the beginning of the Falsities and Merriments battle, which unfolded in the Egyptian press during the mid-1960s. Shaker was particularly wounded by this alleged association, as if it implied: “Even our ancient heritage and pure Arab culture, you want to claim ownership of, as if to say there is no genuinely Arab culture for us, since we are present within you, both before and after!” Consequently, we can also comprehend why Shaker rejected the notion of a “global culture” and the idea of a shared human heritage. In his view, embracing such concepts would only serve to promote Western culture exclusively, the culture of the dominant victors.
This adherence to traditional Arabism also clarifies why Mahmoud Shaker aligned himself with Mustafa Al-Rafi’i during his youth, rather than Abbas Al-Aqqad and Taha Hussein, who belonged to the older generation. Despite Al-Rafi’i being the least formidable among the three, displaying limited ability to generate ideas and effectively argue for them, and employing excessive ornamentation in his style of writing, which amounted to much honor in Shaker’s viewpoint. His commitment to heritage, his deep affection for it, and his constant advocacy for it were sufficient reasons for his choice.
This traditional Arabism further elucidates why Mahmoud Shaker exhibited complete inconsistency with the prevailing puritanism of that era. This movement adopted dissenting stances toward certain historical figures and poets, aiming to morally and intellectually evaluate works of heritage to determine what was deemed acceptable or unacceptable. Shaker vehemently criticized the proponents of this trend, perceiving them to be aligned with the adversaries of heritage and those who undermined its significance, regardless of their motivations and objectives.
Regarding Mahmoud Shaker’s inclination toward glorification, it becomes evident through his recurrent speeches, which bear a missionary tone, as he passionately discusses the significant mission to which he has devoted himself. He highlights the challenges and hardships he encounters in his endeavor to propel a dormant nation forward, while simultaneously defending its rich heritage and elucidating the comprehensive approach that governs its disciplines and knowledge. He proclaims, “Hence, it has become both my right and duty not to waver, falter, or deviate, as long as I have committed myself to defend my nation to the best of my ability. It has also become my right and duty not to merely navigate the existing paths, but to lend the grandest of roads such a quality of clarity, as to render it manifestly clear and unmistakable.”
This mention of clarity brings us to the fourth characteristic of Shaker’s style: unapologetic honesty. By relying on this quality, he engaged in battles with his adversaries, consistently displaying courage in confrontations and relentless resilience in challenging circumstances.
Shaker’s ultimate objective, which he strived to achieve in every matter he addressed, was clarity and explicitness. Also, his preferred approach in conveying his cultural “message” was marked by unmistakable clarity and candid honesty. In doing so, he aligned himself with his deep-rooted connection to heritage and his understanding of the essence of Arabic rhetoric during its prosperous epochs. After all, how can rhetoric truly deserve its name if it fails to be clear, lucid, and unambiguous?
It comes as no surprise, then, that Shaker held a strong aversion to the use of symbolic language, considering it to be a form of linguistic timidity. He believed that if a language exhibits cowardice, it will rely heavily on symbols, while investing little effort in achieving correctness, clarity, and eloquence in expression. Shaker objected to the use of symbols in Arabic because he believed that Arabic possesses genuine courage in its expression, etymology, and the formation of its letters, a quality unmatched by any other language. Such a firm and decisive stance demonstrates that he cared little about the opinions of modern linguists who caution against engaging in (moral) comparisons between languages due to potential scientific pitfalls.
The combination of exaggeration, contempt, glorification, and unapologetic honesty forms a unique and rhythmic blend that Mahmoud Shaker has mastered exclusively. With his sharp and refined articulation, extensive traditional knowledge, and adept use of condescending sarcasm, Shaker knows precisely when to employ these elements to unsettle his opponents or derive strength from the paradoxes of reality. There is an element of overt linguistic self-praise in his style, reminiscent of the description given by Bashar bin Burd of Silm bin Qutaybah as “the one with insight into the strange matters”. These are all literary and linguistic weapons that Mahmoud Shaker has consistently utilized in his battles against adversaries and in his efforts to garner more supporters and followers.
It is possible to come across other writers whose writings exhibit certain Shaker-esque qualities, particularly exaggeration and glorification, such as Najib Al-Bahbiti, for instance. However, they do not achieve the same level of mastery as Shaker in capturing the attention of their readers and enticing them with this challenging and sublime form of rhetoric.
- Shakeris and the odes of glorification
It is not surprising that Mahmoud Shaker had numerous devoted followers. However, when one examines the perception of Shaker among many of his admirers, it becomes apparent how enthusiastic followers can sometimes misrepresent the true nature of a scholar or writer. In their eyes, Mahmoud Shaker is viewed as the guardian of heritage, the master of the Arabic language, and the mentor of generations, possessing exceptional and incomparable qualities. These qualities include extensive knowledge, intellectual brilliance, profound familiarity with heritage texts, dedication to writing, strength of character, and relentless composure. Simultaneously, he is seen as an exemplar of extreme humility, profound nobility, and overwhelming kindness towards his friends and admirers.
There is no objection to attributing some of these distinguished qualities to Shaker – may God have mercy on him. However, solely focusing on idealized attributes and reverently narrating them diminishes the uniqueness of the individual. It is essential to recognize that a person’s faults and shortcomings are integral to their individuality and distinctive imprint. Also, the noise of exaggeration and the clamor of overstatements only serve to obscure the deeper human truth of the writer. In addition, the continuous reverential exaggeration has a detrimental effect on diminishing the critical sensitivity of readers towards the opinions, impressions, emotions, and attitudes conveyed in Mahmoud Shaker’s works.
Consider, for instance, the words of Mahmoud al-Tanahi, may God have mercy on him, a prominent follower deeply influenced by Mahmoud Shaker. In a published article, al-Tanahi eloquently described Shaker as possessing “the mind of al-Shafi’i, the genius of al-Khalil, the tongue of Ibn Hazm, and the courage of Ibn Taymiyyah.” These four exceptional qualities, al-Tanahi asserted, enabled Shaker to amass a profound understanding of Arab knowledge and sciences, unmatched by any of his contemporaries.
Mahmoud Shaker never sought the grandiose eulogies, imbued with poetic flavor, bestowed upon him in the style of Abu Tammam: “Amr’s endeavor to emulate Hatem’s generosity,” nor did he crave the intellectual elevation that would transform him into an abstract construct, transcending his human form and its imperfections. These imperfections were the most visible marks of his distinction, a constant reminder of his lifelong struggle to achieve a genuine self-image, a goal that remained elusive, even though “he rarely, if ever, achieved it completely.”
The enduring and escalating nature of this Shaker-esque phenomenon is rather perplexing. Even contemporary figures receive similar coined expressions and admiration that borders on sanctification. Inflated praise continues to be bestowed upon individuals without any critical evaluation, questioning, or pause for reflection. It is as if Mahmoud Shaker himself foresaw this trend when he wrote in his book Falsities and Merriments: “But this is our era: the acceptance of novelties, whether praised or condemned, is met with unquestioning submission, and illusion governs the sources and avenues of thought.”
One cannot help but feel pity for these ardent followers who speak with exaggerated confidence about their teacher’s supposed resilience and the roaring surge they believe emanated from him, oblivious to the underlying reason for his towering stance that consumed his entire life. All while recalling, with great trepidation, his flame. Once a fiery university tempest, it has nearly flickered out, leaving behind the overwhelming bewilderment that shook him. These admirers fail to grasp the significance of Shaker’s relentless satire, which Shaker never tires of reiterating, a biting commentary on an era where Arab thinkers, driven by greed for meager crumbs from others, gleefully squander their own precious intellectual treasures.
Witnessing the destruction of his beloved treasures firsthand, Mahmoud Shaker embarked on a thorny journey, carefully collecting the scattered fragments, meticulously piecing them together, and weaving them into knots to restore their radiance. This painstaking task illuminated his deserted path, guiding his resolute steps after a prolonged hiatus.
- An unspoken wish
You witness Mahmoud Shaker repeatedly unveil his truest self, with spontaneous honesty, stripping away the layers of pretense to reveal his deepest human truths. His writings, articles, and introductions to edited texts overflow with candid confessions, while simultaneously seeking refuge from the potential consequences of this desire that almost consumed him in his youth, when he was barely twenty years old. It is astonishing to contemplate how he managed to retain, within himself, the intensity of that youthful moment and the whirlwind of emotions it stirred, as if time itself has been suspended. It is as if it was destined for Mahmoud Shaker to forever embody the essence of that young, twenty-year-old student who defiantly struggled against Taha Hussein’s grip around his neck in order to reclaim his breath.
Indeed, the grip of that twenty-year-old boy, Mahmoud Shaker, only grew stronger over time, eventually reaching such a level of remarkable prowess as to leave Taha Hussein feeling stifled and exasperated on numerous occasions. This was particularly evident following Mahmoud Shaker’s public interrogation of his former mentor, accusing Taha Hussein of yet another instance of plagiarism from his own research, initially published in Al-Muqtataf magazine under the title “Al-Mutanabbi,” which Shaker claims had been appropriated by Hussein without proper credit. Shaker’s original research and subsequent commentaries transformed into a substantial book with extensive additions.
It is important to note that Mahmoud Shaker’s grip on Taha Hussein was primarily grounded in scientific, methodological, and moral aspects. On the other hand, Taha Hussein’s grip that seemed to constrict Shaker’s neck was more intellectual and doctrinal in nature. It was a suffocating trial that challenged Shaker’s religious conscience and unanimously accepted body of knowledge. The latter is surely more agonizing and terrifying.
It is worth mentioning that five years after the passing of Taha Hussein, Mahmoud Shaker, who was seventy years old at the time, wrote three extensive articles in Al-Thaqafa magazine titled Al-Mutanabbi: A Man I Wish I Hadn’t Known However, if we set aside his gradual exposition of his approach to aesthetics, which is included in these articles, the entirety of his fervent and eloquent discourse revolved around a single individual. Surprisingly, this person was not Al-Mutanabbi as the title suggests, but rather, as anticipated, Taha Hussein.
The most fitting and accurate title for these series of articles, and perhaps for Mahmoud Shaker’s entire life, would have been: Taha Hussein: A Man Whom I Wish I Hadn’t Known!
If this unspoken wish could be granted, perhaps a significant portion of the Mahmoud Shaker we recognize would cease to exist. It appears that the experience of enduring painful suffering and excruciating traumas plays a crucial role in shaping different minds. It is through encountering opposing forces and unforgettable hands that the flame within one’s soul, which may have been dimmed by familiarity and complacency and complicit nature of interactions between compatible individuals, is rekindled.
- A Final Allusion:
In concluding this presentation, it is crucial to emphasize that the formula of interaction underlying the word of “intersection” mentioned in the title, which necessarily indicates a reciprocal exchange of influence between the two parties.
Admittedly, some of the examples we cited, such as Al-Ghazali’s relationship with Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd’s relationship with Al-Ghazali, may appear superficially one-sided, as the latter individual was born after the death of the former. However, even in these cases, the concept of intersection still holds true. How can one read and engage with the ideas and legacy of Ibn Sina without considering, sometimes unconsciously, the perspectives and interpretations offered by Al-Ghazali? Similarly, the same can be said about viewing Al-Ghazali’s legacy through the lens of Ibn Rushd, the grandson.
Regarding our specific example, it is not implausible to exclude the possibility that Mahmoud Shaker’s influence, among others, contributed to what observers perceive as Taha Hussein’s gradual and understated departure from certain early assertions about pre-Islamic poetry and ancient Arab culture. This is evident in Hussein’s Wednesday Talk articles, later compiled into a book. In these writings, Taha Hussein analyzes and celebrates various poems by pre-Islamic poets like Labid, Turfa, and Zuhayr, thereby surpassing his previous skepticism regarding the authenticity of attributing much of pre-Islamic poetry to its era. This marks a departure from his initial question posed in his controversial book, “Is there pre-Islamic poetry?”
In addition to his sarcastic and dismissive tone towards the new generation of “renewers” who equated renewal with erasing and denying the past and entirely severing ties with their heritage, culture, and language, Taha Hussein’s condemnation of this approach was not overlooked by Mahmoud Shaker, who meticulously documented it in an article about Hussein, and reiterated later in the introduction to his book, Al-Mutanabbi. Shaker couldn’t help but find delight and inspiration in this ironic Hussein’s condemnation of his own earlier stance, due its ironic nature and inspiring implications.
This intricate psychological study of ideas underscores their profound influence on an individual’s life trajectory, shaping their life phases, circumstances, and outcomes. It also explores how the intersecting paths of divergent minds lead to the creation a spectrum of fates and destinies. Influenced by the varying forms of intentions, consciousness, and cultural references, these destinies range from grateful awakening to sudden collapse and stubborn renewal.
Through the lessons of history, the evidence of reality, and the embodiment of examples, how opposing forces stimulate each other to generate and create ideas, prompting both parties to excel in their presentation and defense of these ideas. This dynamic often leads to self-discovery and the identification of one’s true path through engagement with a complete opposite, or so perceived.
Most people fail to recognize the profound wisdom embedded in the “game of opposites,” the importance of their opponent’s survival and defense, and how this dynamic interplay of “defense” serves to liberate them from self-absorption and foster a balanced personality and perspective.
By embracing this wisdom, an individual may embark on a deeper contemplation of the self that lies between opposing forces: where desires, illusions, inclinations, and ambitions vanish. It is through this introspection itself that an antidote is administered to the inflated ego, which skillfully cloaks itself in the garb of collective identity and the mantle of advocacy for the “cause.” As we conclude this extended journey with Mahmoud Shaker, and while we find delight in the rich tapestry of his writings, it is now time to turn our attention to his ethereal companion, Abū-l ʿAlā Al-Maʿarri, who, with his eloquence that transcends centuries, will illuminate the most cautionary and vigilant form of opposition: the self against itself.
In search of drink, I circled the waters wide,
Alas! No rope to lower, my bucket dried.
A foe within, my soul in battle strife,
How shall I guard against my self-made strife?
T1675
