The veil of self – Saudi newspaper Al-Watan

Is the movement of direct understanding a veil? I will present – here – two names corresponding to lovers; Clarify the source of the question; They are Mahmoud Darwish and Mohamed Arkoun. As for Darwish, he is interviewed by Sobhi Hadidi, who wrote a study titled (Mahmoud Darwish in the Bed of the Stranger: A Poem of Love and the Epic Call) and published it in the New Carmel Journal, dealing with the Diwan (The Stranger’s Bed), on the ground that its subject is love, and Darwish did not treat love like the poets in their spinning; In terms of crawling in Sbabba, as opposed to pride in life.

That is why when Sobhi read the Diwan of Darwish, he did not find roughness and hardness, and at the same time he did not find coldness and looseness, so he turned to the concepts of love in the Arab heritage, perhaps that would help in the interpretation Between lovers, mixing is accompanied by spiritual contact; Where form calls form, and contrast comes the opposite, that is, through spiritual separation. Therefore, Sobhi believed that Darwish was taking this view. So Darwish recited:

“Let’s go together in two different ways/Let’s go together/Let’s separate” assertively; Although Darwish combines union and separation at the same time, it didn’t make Sobhi notice, so is there a fog over this friend that prevents him from reading his friend’s text?

Is it the belief that the movement of heaven is different from the movement of the soul? Ibn Hazm relies on the old adage: “Souls are conscripted soldiers; What is known with him is reconciled, and what is denied by him is different. That is to say, he relates love to a sublime origin, that souls are divided in a higher place, and from there homogeneity and disharmony return, and when they are alienated, reason is their aspiration to the higher origin.

To show this further; Ibn Hazm sees that the higher soul has multiple powers, and is divided by juxtaposition, and corresponding to earthly souls. As for the emergence of love, it is related to the type of power and its juxtaposition (convenience and neighborhood ); In other words, if a woman and a man love each other, their selves are compatible in force and are juxtaposed. Here Sobhi, with his brief reading of Ibn Hazm, thought that the strange word in the Diwan of Darwish – with the beginning of the poem mentioned above – refers to this mixture, contrast and alienation of the soul within him, these meanings that transcend the body, and are linked to heaven.

What added to the brief assumptions about Subhi’s reading is that Darwish had two poems in this book. The first: the Damascene necklace of the dove, and the second: a low sky. These two poems undermine the reading of Sobhi; As the dervishes like, assumes the sky of the Greatest Father as a low sky, and its characteristics are: walking on two feet, small, poor, and passing between bodies.

As for Arkoun, he meets a special reader, Hashem Salih, the writer who translated most of Arkoun’s works into Arabic. It is ironic that Arkoun – who wants to define the problem of Arab culture – needs to be Arabized.

Hashem says in an article explaining why I tried to translate Arkoun’s thought into Arabic: “I am an Arab Muslim, by heart, and for this reason I am jealous of this nation, and I wish it to come out of this difficult situation…”

From there, he began to glorify Arkoun; As the first to treat the problem of revelation historically and comparatively anthropologically, including monotheistic religions; In this way, Arkoun liberated Hashem – according to his words – from the fear of the sacred texts, if not from their terror.

What Arkoun did was to shed light on modern methods of scientific research on the Quran, and it enlightened him in an unprecedented way – as Hashem says – which means Hashem – since he was concerned by Islam – saw that the archonian result is that the Quranic influence on what preceded it – such as the Torah and the Bible – was not direct – as some orientalists say – it rather merged all the previous elements and presented them with an awesome new formula on the religion of monotheism in the Arabic language. Hashem’s goal is to get out of medieval theology – as he says – without abandoning the essence of Islam, and then his reading of Arkoun depends on this wish which is different from the mentality of the West – which he hopes the Arabs will achieve – as it is a confusion in his view that he believes that the main problem of Arabs and Muslims is the criticism of religious and non-Arab reason, although he believes that the spirit human is one at the end, but it is divided in time according to major nationalities! All this; In order to save the faith from the atheist view, where he says – in the article – “But we need a civilization that combines spirit and matter… If that were in foreign lands, we would not wouldn’t have stayed an hour there.”

So what he wants does not exist in the West – according to him – yet he says: We must reach the Western stage which transcends the Islamic spirit.

Hashem’s blurring – first – in the distinction between the individual secular mind, and the collective visions that guide the events of history according to places, then – second – in the distinction between the liberation of the the recourse to spirituality, and their fabricated fusion; It is – that is to say the ambiguity – what makes him use the stages of human development in Auguste Comte, to apply them to his division of mentalities. The Western mind is at the stage of scientific positivism, and the Islamic mind is at the metaphysical stage. theological stage. Then he tells us:

The Islamic mind must reach the stage of the Western mind, but – in a moment of contradiction – it complains about the loss of spirituality in the West.

Perhaps the ambiguity is what made him read Arkoun in a different contrast; Arkoun is also religious in a way, but different from Hashem’s contradiction, as Arkoun opposed historical positivist reason, although he claimed to replace mythical consciousness with historical sense. Religion is a structure distinct from terrestrial becoming.

Arkoun says, according to his adversaries, that “you are a stranger to the Age of Enlightenment, in which you formally manifest your attachment to it, but in reality you are hostile to it or attack it in the name of your religion, and the proof because it is your learned differentiation between secularism and secularism.

You have made this terminological distinction only to eliminate the idea of ​​secularism from its foundation, in fact you are hostile to this fundamental value which is the foundation of our civilization. Perhaps ambiguity is the common denominator between Arkoun and Hashem.

Leave a Comment