I love this angle! Literature must engender internal change (and preferably some tangible socio-political change in the wider world), or else it is a wasteful dump of words.
After reflecting on what you said I realised you're absolutely right. Literature does have its own intrinsic worth: leisure, reflection, and self-expression. The other benefits are great, but lacking them does not invalidate literature. Perhaps I've been too influenced by my recent reading of Ahmed Shamlou 😂 you can find out a bit more about his view of literature in this other piece I've written:
Can the Quran be catagorized under literature? I know that sounds silly (maybe even blasphemic if you consider this question to be a derivative of some sort of the historical issue of "is the Quran makhlooq?") given it's the word of God so it truly cannot be compared to any other thing just as God cannot be compared, but should we classify it as literature, then there must exist some sort of objectivity in distinguishing between the greatness of works.
We need to define the scope of the analysis and comparison for objectivity. We would argue that the Quran is the best of all books, and the scope here would be the impact a book has on humanity—the Quran has had and will continue to have the biggest impact on humanity. We're not even looking at the fact that it's kalaam-ullah here because the scope is enough to detremine the Quran's greatness over all else.
But if the scope was about which book is best at teaching mathamatics or anatomy or any such science, you will likely say any modern textbook does a better job than the Quran. These topic and purposes are outside of the scope of the Quran. In short, like you said, we need good and relevant measuring. sticks,
A lot to think about here. As for the question of whether the Qur'an should be categorised as literature, if we decline that label, then would it fit under a different label? Is it only the Qur'an that should be placed outside of the category of literature, or other works of scripture?
I like that you've brought your own measuring stick/avenue to the table :) But it also raises further questions. How do you judge a book's impact on humanity? And how would you compare it with other influential books, such as the Bible, or works by Greek philosophers that have shaped ethics until today?
Interesting. My initial thoughts: as far as Shakespeare goes, his main focus was human psychology whereas with Hafez the crux of the matter is the soul. I don't think being known/popular in your lifetime is a good measuring 'stick' for greatness but relatability and resonance across many eras and time spans is. Hafez achieves this with his mere words whereas Shakespeare sometimes needs to be 'explained' to a modern reader...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts :) You've touched on a really fascinating difference between the two. They both plumb the depths of human experience but from different angles. Both are directed at the heart/soul but offer different shades of introspection.
Their ease of understanding is another great point. Modern Persian differs little from the Persian of Hafez's time, so that even now Persian speakers can readily understand his words. English has evolved more over our period, so unfortunately English speakers struggle to engage with Shakespeare at a deeper level without some reading guide.
No, thank you for your piece and the opportunity to ruminate! Alhamdulillah.
Very true about the languages. When I point out to students that Shakespeare is technically modern English they balk because of how different it is for them. English has always had that problem of constantly being in transformation and globalisation has just sped up the process. Persian is much more solid. Another point that interests me is how languages give an insight into a culture, but that's another matter altogether perhaps.
Also literary merit is perhaps subjective to an extent because of the vast variety of people. I love Russian literature but many people don't. I wouldn't argue that they are wrong, but merely hold a different perspective.
It is a pity that the Qur'an -which cannot be categorised as literature- is brought to this level, being the uncreated word of Allah, a revelation through the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi was sallim, and a continuing revelation to the clear-hearted. Firstly, Hafiz' inspiration is from that living, current teaching connected to the Divine in accordance to the Divine's revelation. Shakespeare is from an abrogated Divine revelation, but both are great men of elucidation and love. There is no competition here, each brings what they possess and part of knowing the Divine is seeing His hand in creation. Shakespeare is wonderful at exposing the human soul/self. The clarity of Who our creator is can only come from Himself and that is the Qur'an, the only uncontaminated of the revealed books, and its demonstration by His Rasul. Take from Shakespeare what you will, he was also created by the same God.
'There is no competition here, each brings what they possess and part of knowing the Divine is seeing His hand in creation.'
In one (beautiful) sentence you provided the most compelling reason why we should read great literature from different languages/cultures, and instead adopt a mindset of appreciation rather than competition.
Like the three blind men who described the elephant diffently, Shakespeare, Hafez, Coleridge, Rumi, amongst others, all described metaphysical realities according to their own contingent capacities. We are all too often swift to raise agendas before we've understood the bigger picture. Drink from the well of Shakespeare and the spring of Hafez.
Ali, your exploration of Hafez and Shakespeare through Farzad’s insights is thought-provoking and well-articulated. You compellingly highlight Hafez’s widespread appeal despite the communication limitations of his time, challenging the notion that fame relies solely on publication mechanisms.
I appreciate how you invite readers to consider the subjective nature of literary evaluation. Your provocative title effectively sets the stage for a rich discussion, and your open-ended questions encourage deeper engagement with the topic.
Overall, your piece balances scholarly insight with accessible language, making it enjoyable for a wide audience. I look forward to seeing how others respond!
Thank you so much for your words of kindness and encouragement :) And yes, seeing everyone share their different perspectives is exactly what I was after! We all have some inkling as to what makes literature great, or why certain works of literature are better than others. But to flesh out this inkling is much harder to do, which is why I hope this piece sparks that introspection fr each reader to better understand how and why them judge literature.
Tolstoy has interesting criticism of Shakespeare. I haven't read the latter's sonnets but I would imagine they contain less food for the soul than can be found in Hafiz's poetry.
I wholeheartedly agree with the second part of your comment. With the exception of 'The Phoenix and the Turtle,' none of Shakespeare's poetry — brilliant though it is — hits as deep as that of Hafez (at least for me).
I didn't know that about Tolstoy. What were his criticisms?
Can we compare poetry, an aural medium, passed down through oral cultural traditions, with drama that is a visual medium, dependent upon the dissemination of complex written texts?
For me, poetry strikes directly at the heart, drama strikes more slowly, via the brain.
I love this angle! Literature must engender internal change (and preferably some tangible socio-political change in the wider world), or else it is a wasteful dump of words.
After reflecting on what you said I realised you're absolutely right. Literature does have its own intrinsic worth: leisure, reflection, and self-expression. The other benefits are great, but lacking them does not invalidate literature. Perhaps I've been too influenced by my recent reading of Ahmed Shamlou 😂 you can find out a bit more about his view of literature in this other piece I've written:
https://alihammoud7.substack.com/p/the-unlikely-meeting-of-che-guevara
Can the Quran be catagorized under literature? I know that sounds silly (maybe even blasphemic if you consider this question to be a derivative of some sort of the historical issue of "is the Quran makhlooq?") given it's the word of God so it truly cannot be compared to any other thing just as God cannot be compared, but should we classify it as literature, then there must exist some sort of objectivity in distinguishing between the greatness of works.
We need to define the scope of the analysis and comparison for objectivity. We would argue that the Quran is the best of all books, and the scope here would be the impact a book has on humanity—the Quran has had and will continue to have the biggest impact on humanity. We're not even looking at the fact that it's kalaam-ullah here because the scope is enough to detremine the Quran's greatness over all else.
But if the scope was about which book is best at teaching mathamatics or anatomy or any such science, you will likely say any modern textbook does a better job than the Quran. These topic and purposes are outside of the scope of the Quran. In short, like you said, we need good and relevant measuring. sticks,
A lot to think about here. As for the question of whether the Qur'an should be categorised as literature, if we decline that label, then would it fit under a different label? Is it only the Qur'an that should be placed outside of the category of literature, or other works of scripture?
I like that you've brought your own measuring stick/avenue to the table :) But it also raises further questions. How do you judge a book's impact on humanity? And how would you compare it with other influential books, such as the Bible, or works by Greek philosophers that have shaped ethics until today?
Interesting. My initial thoughts: as far as Shakespeare goes, his main focus was human psychology whereas with Hafez the crux of the matter is the soul. I don't think being known/popular in your lifetime is a good measuring 'stick' for greatness but relatability and resonance across many eras and time spans is. Hafez achieves this with his mere words whereas Shakespeare sometimes needs to be 'explained' to a modern reader...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts :) You've touched on a really fascinating difference between the two. They both plumb the depths of human experience but from different angles. Both are directed at the heart/soul but offer different shades of introspection.
Their ease of understanding is another great point. Modern Persian differs little from the Persian of Hafez's time, so that even now Persian speakers can readily understand his words. English has evolved more over our period, so unfortunately English speakers struggle to engage with Shakespeare at a deeper level without some reading guide.
No, thank you for your piece and the opportunity to ruminate! Alhamdulillah.
Very true about the languages. When I point out to students that Shakespeare is technically modern English they balk because of how different it is for them. English has always had that problem of constantly being in transformation and globalisation has just sped up the process. Persian is much more solid. Another point that interests me is how languages give an insight into a culture, but that's another matter altogether perhaps.
Also literary merit is perhaps subjective to an extent because of the vast variety of people. I love Russian literature but many people don't. I wouldn't argue that they are wrong, but merely hold a different perspective.
It is a pity that the Qur'an -which cannot be categorised as literature- is brought to this level, being the uncreated word of Allah, a revelation through the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi was sallim, and a continuing revelation to the clear-hearted. Firstly, Hafiz' inspiration is from that living, current teaching connected to the Divine in accordance to the Divine's revelation. Shakespeare is from an abrogated Divine revelation, but both are great men of elucidation and love. There is no competition here, each brings what they possess and part of knowing the Divine is seeing His hand in creation. Shakespeare is wonderful at exposing the human soul/self. The clarity of Who our creator is can only come from Himself and that is the Qur'an, the only uncontaminated of the revealed books, and its demonstration by His Rasul. Take from Shakespeare what you will, he was also created by the same God.
'There is no competition here, each brings what they possess and part of knowing the Divine is seeing His hand in creation.'
In one (beautiful) sentence you provided the most compelling reason why we should read great literature from different languages/cultures, and instead adopt a mindset of appreciation rather than competition.
Like the three blind men who described the elephant diffently, Shakespeare, Hafez, Coleridge, Rumi, amongst others, all described metaphysical realities according to their own contingent capacities. We are all too often swift to raise agendas before we've understood the bigger picture. Drink from the well of Shakespeare and the spring of Hafez.
I love the analogy of wells and springs! In essence they are the same (water), though they differ in intensity/degree.
Ali, your exploration of Hafez and Shakespeare through Farzad’s insights is thought-provoking and well-articulated. You compellingly highlight Hafez’s widespread appeal despite the communication limitations of his time, challenging the notion that fame relies solely on publication mechanisms.
I appreciate how you invite readers to consider the subjective nature of literary evaluation. Your provocative title effectively sets the stage for a rich discussion, and your open-ended questions encourage deeper engagement with the topic.
Overall, your piece balances scholarly insight with accessible language, making it enjoyable for a wide audience. I look forward to seeing how others respond!
Thank you so much for your words of kindness and encouragement :) And yes, seeing everyone share their different perspectives is exactly what I was after! We all have some inkling as to what makes literature great, or why certain works of literature are better than others. But to flesh out this inkling is much harder to do, which is why I hope this piece sparks that introspection fr each reader to better understand how and why them judge literature.
Tolstoy has interesting criticism of Shakespeare. I haven't read the latter's sonnets but I would imagine they contain less food for the soul than can be found in Hafiz's poetry.
I wholeheartedly agree with the second part of your comment. With the exception of 'The Phoenix and the Turtle,' none of Shakespeare's poetry — brilliant though it is — hits as deep as that of Hafez (at least for me).
I didn't know that about Tolstoy. What were his criticisms?
Can we compare poetry, an aural medium, passed down through oral cultural traditions, with drama that is a visual medium, dependent upon the dissemination of complex written texts?
For me, poetry strikes directly at the heart, drama strikes more slowly, via the brain.
A crucial point, and one that certainly complicates any attempt to compare the two. Tbh this probably comes closest to what my own views would be :)