Abu Zayd proceeds, reading into Zaki Naguib Mahmoud's book, "The Rational and the Irrational in Our Intellectual Heritage". The book studies the hermeneutical structure of "The niche of lights" by Ghazali the Persian Muslim theologian, jurist, philosopher and mystic Al Ghazali. According to Mahmoud the history of heritage comes down to the following four phases: political conflict over the caliphate, the emergence of intellectual groups such as the Mu'tazila and Murji'ah (Islamic schools of divinity with a number of followers), the glare of interpretation and philosophy and lastly, the comprehensive advancement. Mahmoud also explains the significance of light in a set of 4 levels shifting from the general to the more specific, from the tangible to the cognitive to the imaginative. However Abu Zayd blames Mahmoud for not allocating any value to the already-known and structured and takes us to yet another book "On the Modernization of Arab Culture" to come to the conclusion that heritage never solved any of our main issues, cited as below: 1- Political and social freedoms and women's rights. 2- The dilemma of integrating the scientific and industrial eras, which Mahmoud attributes to the nature of the Arab culture and language. 3- Arab unity and nationalism. Abu Zayd also undermined this analysis, writing: "The devastating outcome of heritage didn't bother Mahmoud much. Since tackling this issue, given the heritage we have, can cause an emotion close to defeat. As glorified as it might seem to an outsider, it still is a mask that shields the sight of disgrace and humiliation," he adds scathingly, "renaissance has turned into an urban man's nightmare." Abu Zayd doesn't stop at that, he faces yet another enemy, Dr. Mohamed Emara who criticized Zaki Naguib Mahmoud himself, accusing Abu Zayd of "taking religion out of a logical context that could be subjected to right and wrong, where feelings can play a significant role leading to a complete mess and confusion." Abu Zayd responded by sternly saying: "Being put on trial is unacceptable. Faith emanates from the heart before anything else," adding "we're here trying to analyze why some would appoint themselves as the sole representatives of Islam, seeing ideas that differ from their own as questionable or blasphemous". Emara stated at the introduction to his book, "As Islamists we deeply oppose his ideas and the danger they present." Abu Zayd wrote: "It's vital to understand that the label of "Islamist" refers to political groups that hold the banner of Islam. They play just another political game, using religion as a shield and a weapon when needed." "This mix of religion and politics turns the latter into a dogma that results into policies entailing too much religious fanaticism. That's where the real danger lies, in this confusion between freedom of faith and treason. Questioning this state of affairs would make one an apostate, would mark you as a traitor". Abu Zayd goes as far as to say that "Emara is allergic to the word "intellectual" as most of his peers, considering heritage as anything but intellect-related. Legacies are not an inspiration or a mere act of nature; it has been thought and worked upon to come in such form. And, it's only normal for the researcher to perceive it as such, even if it has a religious foundation, Hermeneutics and brains still play a big role in that." We're still seeking the truth as much as Abu Zayd was. To be continued..
