The book “National Attitudes in Contemporary Literature” is a well-known book for scholars of modern Arabic literature and its critics, and for those concerned with literary, cultural, and political history and intellectual trends in Egypt from the outbreak of the Arab revolution to the establishment of the Arab League. That is why his companion, Muhammad Muhammad Husayn, is highly valued by those who classify him as, in this book, a conservative Salafi historian, and strict in his refusal to open up to Western culture and be influenced by its values and ideals, and by its political, legal, social and intellectual positions.
Their appreciation of this book is what made Raja Al-Naqqash describe him as a great scholar, and express his disagreement with him with reverence and reverence. For this reason I am referring to, we find that Ghali Shukri in the introduction to his first book, “Salama Musa and the Crisis of the Arab Conscience,” which is radical in its leftism and modernity, and the joints and the haddi in his talk about those who classify them in the category of literary reaction, cultural reaction, political reaction and religious reaction I turned for a moment to the writings of the petty mercenaries who are nothing but unknown soldiers behind facades that derive their luster from the old while he was breathing. But I lament a lot for a few of our university professors when they unintentionally grab shovels to destroy what they cannot destroy, because history has become one thing, resisting time. How about those misleading people – at best – when one of them, Dr. Muhammad Muhammad Hussein, says in his book (National Attitudes in Contemporary Literature) that Salama Musa was an advocate of colonialism!
Ghali Shukri, in his Marxist fever and youth, apologizes to Muhammad Muhammad Husayn that he unintentionally grabbed the pick, and thinks that he is misleading, turning a blind eye to the exaggeration that his book exudes in his victory for the old in literature, culture and social life.
The conclusion that Raja al-Naqqash drew from his two-part response “Taha Hussein in the Dock” published in “Al-Hilal” magazine in 1977 to Anwar al-Jundi’s book “Taha Hussein: His Life and Thought in the Balance of Islam,” and from his response “An unjust trial of Taha Hussein” to the book Abdul-Majid Abdul-Salam Al-Muhtasib “Taha Hussein, a Thinker”, published in the Doha magazine in 1979, wrote it in his article, “Are we on the verge of a civil war in the field of thought and culture?” Which we presented the most prominent ideas in the previous article.
The result is that some writers, writers, thinkers and leaders have taken “temporary positions”, which seem wrong, but whose general goal is sound and acceptable. Then there will come those who “demand the confiscation of these people… and to stand up to them. And imposing a literary and intellectual boycott on them and burning what they produced and what they wrote.”
He had brought two examples of what he called “temporary positions”, namely: the example of Muhammad Abdo and the example of Taha Hussein.
These two examples – as he gave them – were inconsistent. In the example of Muhammad Abdo, there is a political error that he made clear in this example, which is his complacency and cooperation with Lord Cromer, but in the example of Taha Hussein, there is no political mistake he committed after taking over the Ministry of Education in 1950, what was said about him after the revolution of July 23 (July) 1952 during his tenure The order of this ministry – as in his review of this example – was sheer lies. Thus, this example did not express what he said in and about the “temporary positions,” unless it was intended by this example that praising King Farouk was a political mistake.
And he – indeed – intended this matter. After he quoted paragraphs from Taha Hussein’s article in which he defended himself, he commented: “This is Taha Hussein’s position when he was forced to praise King Farouk, and Taha Hussein’s justification for his position is in any fair scale a sound justification to the extreme. He bowed his head in a position to gain for his people and his nation a lot of civilized good that we still enjoy until now, whether in free education or in the establishment of new universities.”
Taha Hussein’s praise of King Farouk cannot be considered a political mistake, agreed upon by all parties in the Egyptian political community. It is a political mistake and a heinous political mistake for those who go too far in supporting the July 23 Revolution and its leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Mustafa Abdel-Ghani says in the conclusion of his book “Taha Hussein and Politics”: “Once the 52 Revolution took place, Taha Hussein’s support for it and its men continued without reservations. He is assured of achieving its goals, and on a third occasion he does not hesitate to express his direct thanks, and for a few times, to the government of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, congratulating him on his survival from the (Brotherhood) attempt to assassinate him, calling this attempt the great evil.
He added: “The revolution continues to be supported at all stages of its development. If the previous era is mentioned, hypocrisy is mentioned, and the hypocrisy of Egypt’s kings and the courtiers of kings is mentioned, addressing with violent slander these many lineages that used to hesitate to the royal family without directing a single criticism of the new forces.”
Mustafa Abdel-Ghani expanded on Taha’s position on the July Revolution in his second book, “Taha Hussein and the July Revolution: The Rise and Fall of the Intellectual”. He repeated the discussion in a third book, which is the book “The Intellectuals and Abdel Nasser.”
And from what he said in the third book: “Although Taha Hussein was at this time talking a lot about democracy, his call to support the revolution was most characteristic of his writings. It always ends with one thing that must be taken into consideration before this referendum, which is the decision of the republican regime, which often attacks the past monarchy in a vehement attack… and exaggerates in absolute support, and it is noted that this support is completely in line with the line of the new revolution that was groping in the pragmatic movement The only way to walk the new path, so that the revolution does not launch any slogan that does not support it, whether this is in favor of the republican system or confirming the continuation of the transitional period that the revolution called for and implemented, and absolute support for Taha Hussein reaches the point of inciting the revolution against the intellectuals who take the position of opposition from it. ».
Based on Mustafa Abdel-Ghani’s presentation of Taha Hussein’s position on the July Revolution, I can say: “Taha Hussein did not err politically when he praised King Farouk as long as he said it out of conviction and it was appropriate for him. Rather, he erred morally when he went too far in undermining the monarchy in the place of his praise. To the men of the revolution, after he praised this regime, represented by Farouk and his father Fouad.
With Taha Hussein’s praise of King Farouk and his father, King Fouad, and the lavish praise for them, he used to show them the difference of opinion, directly and in turns, and explicitly and symbolically. Because his relationship with them ranged between tug of war and attraction, and oscillated between alienation and approximation to him.
Let us contemplate the difference between the freedom of disagreement and disagreement he had with the monarchy and his position on this freedom in the new republican era.
“Taha Hussein’s position has never gone beyond this sympathetic role to the officers, affecting safety. More than one intellectual at this time reminds me that Taha Hussein conveys this position to the writers of the next generation to him, who are tempted to oppose the regime in general.
For example, he blames Abd al-Rahman al-Sharqawi for his anti-revolution stance at the beginning of the revolution, telling him a saying that he kept repeating often after that, which is: It is a fool of a fool to fool around with fools.
This is what Mustafa Abdel-Ghani reported, in his third book from the minutes of a discussion with Abdel-Rahman Al-Sharqawi, dated: February 25, 1985.
In an article by Taha Hussein, in which he defended himself, there was a sentence in which he said: “And all the people know that ministers would not have addressed Farouk, so they would reproach and reproach him, and indicate the tyranny he was involved in and the sins he committed… Rather, it is the custom of ministers when they talk to Kings should not speak otherwise.”
Taha Hussein’s sentence claims that ministers in their speeches before the president in the new republican era “can speak otherwise.” That is, to “disgrace and vilify him, and indicate the tyranny he was involved in and the sins he used to commit”!
“Speaking otherwise” is limited to addressing kings, and does not include addressing Republican presidents!
This is an open fallacy, which he knows is false. He closely felt the authoritarian tendency in the Free Officers’ behavior and conduct, which required ministers, opposition politicians, intellectuals, journalists and others to “talk the opposite of this”, and not just “talk otherwise.”
The irony is that he said this sentence in the context of his defense against an accusation leveled against him in the revolution courts, and he was forced to publish his defense in more than one publication (see Mustafa Abdel Ghani’s second book. Raja’ al-Naqqash was specified in the second part of his article in “Al Hilal” magazine » It is the People’s Court, as the revolution had two courts: the Revolutionary Court and the People’s Court).
The other paradox is that this accusation was leveled against him even though he is at the head of the liberal intellectuals who support the Free Officers, and at the head of those arguing with the Free Officers that what they have done is a real “revolution” and not a “blessed movement,” a “coup” or a “renaissance.”
Taha Hussein said that sentence, even though he knows “and all people know” that what happened to him in the courts of the revolution cannot happen much less than him and others in the “dead era,” and with a longer term “the bygone era.”
These two expressions are among the new political expressions in the new republican era, which Taha Hussein was among its users.
We know that in the year that Raja al-Naqqash wrote his article, “Are we on the verge of a civil war in the field of thought and culture?” In 1979, he was settled among several sects in Egypt, and he stigmatized the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser as the “dead covenant.” Will he be condemned and criminalized who recited verses of praise for his personality and leadership, including Taha Hussein, who continued to recite them until the hour of his death.
This trend in political thinking has led us into a continuous cycle that we have not yet been able to break to get out of.
In the second part of his response to Anwar al-Jundi’s book (Taha Hussein: His Life and Thought in the Balance of Islam), Raja’ al-Naqqash had reviewed what he believed were political mistakes committed by Taha Hussein from 1906, the year he entered political life, to 1933, the year he joined the Wafd Party. These mistakes were the most beautiful in his joining the minority parties, starting with the Umma Party, then the Constitutional Liberal Party, which gave birth to the Umma Party and replaced it, then the Union Party and then its return to the Constitutional Liberal Party.
He had used Taha Hussein’s article referred to earlier in response to Anwar al-Jundi’s accusation that he kissed King Farouk’s hand when he was appointed Minister of Education in 1950, and that before and after that he praised him highly on multiple occasions.
The question: Why did he not evoke what he thought were political mistakes committed by Taha Hussein until 1933 in the example of Taha Hussein, who made it parallel to the example of Muhammad Abdo?!
The answer: Because he did not find, from his political perspective, what justified Taha Hussein for joining the minority parties. What he found in Muhammad Abdo’s truce with Cromer and his cooperation with him, which is that he had the closest relationship with Cromer – as he said – he set out to work in the reform of Al-Azhar and the development of education with it, so that it fits with the times. . He helped him prepare the ground for the establishment of the first Arab university, which is now Cairo University. It also helped him spread the enlightenment and reform movement in culture and society.
The defect does not depend on the imbalance between the two examples: the example of Muhammad Abdo and the example of Taha Hussein, but rather in the idea that he called “temporary positions” on which he established his ideal.
This idea is shaky and flexible, and the most specific idea in the example of Muhammad Abdo is that he and the Umma Party and the Constitutional Liberal Party, as well as the Wafd Party, were from the school of political realism in dealing with the British occupation. Opposite them in their stance on the British occupation were those who advocated the Ottoman Islamic University and the National Party led by Mustafa Kamel, who were calling for confronting it, not negotiating with it.
The error essentially enables Al-Naqqash to place the harsh accusations of Taha Hussein and Muhammad Abdo in a political framework. Muhammad Muhammad Husayn and those who followed his path did not direct it to them or others, for a political purpose, because of this or that “temporary political stances”. The political reprimanding of them was one of many pretexts, serving their main objective, which is the refusal to modernize in other than the following fields: the army, industry, the economy, and the administration. This is what was stated by their teacher, Muhammad Muhammad Husayn. For the rest of the talk.