A scientist and researcher such as Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd earned the right to have the questions he raised stay alive after his death. And while the praising of his defense of rationality in the face of the movements of isolation and intellectual obscurantism is well-deserved, it continues to fall short of rising to the level of pursuing the project which was launched by the deceased. Abu Zayd spent his life searching and analyzing the backdrop of the Islamic discourse, both the old and the contemporary, tackling works extending from the writings of Abdul-Qahir al-Jurjani and Ibn al-Arabi to those of Ali Abdul Razeq. Therefore, although the quick reviewing of the work of the scholar will not give it its due, the eulogies are often killing the lively problems placed by the deceased on the table of discussion. The "war of infidelity" (as Abu Zayd described his ordeal) to which he has been subjected since 1993, the ideological disputes and the accusations of apostasy made against the man due to the hostility and personal hatred felt by some of his colleagues (ironically, some of the latter tasted the same poisonous cup which Abu Zayd was forced to take) is what further attracted the media attention to him rather than his work, which proceeded down the path of calm and deep scientific and academic research. Nonetheless, this war was extremely beneficial to Abu Zayd as it revealed the acuteness of the disputes over the problems and the concerns which he tried to put forward, to dismantle and criticize for decades. Indeed, issues such as the authority of the holy texts and the sides enjoying the right to interpret it and present it again in new formulas that suit the social and political balances under which these sides are flourishing, never left our writer's mind. This is where his interest in Muhyi ad-Din Ibn al-Arabi stemmed, as he dedicated two of his books to him (i.e. “The Philosophy of Hermeneutics,” and “Thus Spoke Ibn al-‘Arabī”). The first was an extremely important study into the cognitive and linguistic tools which allowed the “Greatest Sheikh and the Red Sulfur” Ibn al-Arabi to establish his own philosophical principles throughout which he perceived existence, life and the religious text. As for the second, it was a breathtaking biography unfolding the chapters of the life, journeys and spiritual and intellectual experiences of the author of “The Meccan Revelations.” The headlines and content of Abu Zayd's other books reveal without the shadow of a doubt the commitment of the researcher to a critical stand toward authorities that are extending their nets to control the perception of religion, prayer and worship by ordinary Muslims, and use them all to serve their own idea in regard to the substance and conclusions of religion. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd's work intersects with the work of other contemporary Arab researchers such as Fouad Zakariya (who also passed away a few months ago), Mohammed Arkoun and George Tarabishi over certain points, and diverges away from them over others. Indeed, allowing the mind to prevail over the superstitions, preconceptions and visions serving social and political authorities, is a common element between the latter scholars although each of them walked a different path which may have led to different conclusions at the level of the priorities which the Islamic and Arab societies must draw up to exit their historic predicament. Rationality, humanization, the elimination of the monopolization imposed on the text and renewal from within the Islamic body instead of seeing it imposed by hostile sides, are usually the elements of the Arab and Islamic schedule which should be implemented in the opinion of Arab and Muslim writers, researchers and intellectuals. However, with the comprehensive renaissance projects which the Arabs and Muslims hoped to achieve in days that have long gone by for reasons which would take a lot of time to explain, it is extremely important for renaissance men such Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd to keep bringing up the key questions, namely: Who interprets the text? How? Why does this interpretation serve one side and oppress another?
