Naguib Mahfouz - Heart of the Night

“‘This is why I sometimes feel that my happy household is facing a threat,’ she said.

“I kissed her and said, ‘Be courageous, as I have always known you to be.’

“‘It is fashionable nowadays for young people to believe in communism,’ she told me.

“‘I only think, my darling, and I am not concerned by what is fashionable in any way whatsoever.’

“And so I went on studying and thinking.”

At this point Jaafar laughed so loudly that his voice disturbed both those sleeping and those roving this historical district.

“What is so funny?” I asked.

“I will tell you a secret I never shared with anybody, not even with my friendly wife,” he replied.

“Truly?”

“It once occurred to me that there were some similarities between my life and that of the Prophet!”

He paused, but when I did not comment, he carried on. “My father died when I was quite young and my mother died when I was hardly five. It was my grandfather who raised me. I viewed my departure from my grandfather’s house as a kind of emigration.”

“But the Prophet did not emigrate for the sake of adventure,” I said.

“Of course not, of course not. It is merely a resemblance, not a conformity between the two lives. There was my marriage to an honorable upper-class woman who was older than me. She provided me with opportunities to study and reflect. I considered all that, but then it occurred to me that I was also a man with a mission.”

“A religious mission?” I asked, laughing.

“Let’s say a mission of a new kind. I was fascinated by the idea, and it quickly enthralled me. I pursued my studies and reflection, and continuously reminded myself of the tricks of instincts and emotions in order to purify my thinking and keep it unblemished.

“My first conclusion was related to our social order, which I found to be illogical, unjust, and responsible for all our ills: our poverty, illiteracy, and sickness. I also concluded that I was not a member of the elite as I had often thought, but a member of a gang. Huda objected to this description and alluded to her ancestors’ honorable origins. I analyzed the sources of wealth — gifts, opportunism, exploitation, oppression, and force — until I was convinced that there was no legal wealth in the strict meaning of the word.

“Saad Kabir encouraged me: ‘This is a good direction and promises a happy ending, but you have to start with argumentative materialism and historical materialism.’

“I told him with confidence, ‘I have the same position regarding all philosophies, and Marxist philosophy is only one of many philosophies. Why does it have to turn into a creed, and why does it impose itself by force and dictatorship?’

“‘It is not a philosophy. It was revealed through the heaven of theoretical reflection, to be applied to people’s lives. Let’s give humanity hope. It deserves to be an article of faith.’

“I said, reluctantly, ‘To make an authoritative assertion in favor of materialism is not more powerful, in the realm of the mind, than confirming authoritatively the existence of God.’

“‘You are still an idealist.’

“I shouted, ‘Do not throw strange accusations at me. Stay within the limits of an objective discussion.’

“He calmed down and advised me to study. ‘You need more lessons,’ he said.

“‘But I am not convinced by that theory, while I consider social justice to be obvious without the need for a theory.’

“I devoted more time to my studies. My heart became an arena for a hellish struggle. During this period I spent little time with my wife and rarely played with my children. I was overcome with the idea of a mission as a promising and powerful force, albeit a modest mission, because I vowed to save humanity only in Egypt. I was constantly thinking and rethinking, warning myself repeatedly lest my thinking slide down the slippery roads of emotions and inherited beliefs. Finally I decided to write down my thoughts to ensure clarity in my thinking.”

I asked Jaafar if he had done so.

“Yes,” he said.

“Did you publish them in a book?”

“No, my circumstances did not make it possible.”

“Do you remember their content?” I asked.

He laughed, and quickly summarized his thoughts: “I presented a concise survey of the history of political and social movements, from feudalism to communism. Then I described my project based on three tenets: a philosophical principle, a social doctrine, and a system of government. The adoption of a philosophical principle is left to the interested person to choose, whether it is materialism, spiritualism, or even Sufism. The social doctrine is communist in its essence. It is based on collective ownership, the abolishment of private property and inheritance, total equality, and the elimination of all forms of exploitation. It is guided by the following motto: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ As for the system of government, it is democratic, based on the multi-party system, the separation of power, and the protection of all sorts of freedom — except free ownership — and human values. One can generally say that my system is the logical heir of Islam, the French Revolution, and the communist revolution.

“I gave a copy of the manuscript to Saad Kabir and told him that it contained my opinion. He was surprised and couldn’t believe I’d written it.

“I told him, ‘Your famous characterizations, such as bourgeois, conciliatory, and unifier, won’t deter me. I have the right to formulate a new doctrine if I am not convinced by the existing ones.’

“He became suspicious and said carefully, ‘On condition that you create a real new doctrine and not concoct one out of existing doctrines.’

“‘All doctrines are subject to a give-and-take process,’ I said angrily.

“Saad Kabir read the manuscript in my office in a little over two hours. When he finished, he took a deep breath and muttered, ‘It is no use.’

“I was waiting eagerly for his opinion. He muttered again, as if talking to himself, ‘It is a mixture of fish, milk, and tamarind.’

“‘Explain!’ I said.

“He spoke nervously. ‘Concocted daydreams, imagination, an assemblage of discordant ideas. It is nothing.’

“‘Is this your final opinion?’ I asked.

“‘What did you expect?’

“‘I expected you to be convinced by what I wrote.’

“‘And then?’

“‘Then we can form an association, an organization, or a party,’ I explained.

“He laughed coldly. ‘What a pity!’

“I said, angry again, ‘You all are devoid of a free will and the capacity to think!’

“He replied, adopting a very serious tone, ‘You at least know that my colleagues and I are serious; that we risk our lives and believe in the human being.’

“‘I believe in the human being more than you do,” I said, ‘and I do not believe that a true believer in the human being can accept a dictatorial regime. I, too, am serious, and am willing to risk my life.’

“‘What are you planning to do?’ he asked.

“‘I want to form an association or a political party.’

“‘When he got up to leave, he said sternly, ‘We will come back to this, again and again.’

“Before I called for the formation of an association, I consulted with my wife. She was extremely disturbed, having read the manuscript carefully. She told me, ‘You are a man of law and you know that the constitution of this country considers communism a crime.’

“‘Communism is one thing and my doctrine is something else.’

“‘You are calling for a communist social order, and this is what matters for the law and those who wrote it.’