{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017678708685626442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.72609819121447, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Applying Modern Literary Theories to Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry: A Critical Analysis of the “Rite of Passage” Model

Pre-Islamic Arabic poetry has been analyzed from the perspectives of various modern critical literary theories. It has been subject to manifold critical applications that include oral poetry theories, structuralist and anthropological literary theories. Kemal Abu Deeb, Adnan Haydar and especially Suzanne Pinckney Stetkevych are among the leading representatives of this phenomenon. Abu Deeb and Haydar apply specific structuralist techniques of analysis to the ancient Bedouin poetry, while Stetkevych proposes the paradigm of the “rite of passage” as formulated by Arnold van Gennep as a more applicable method to understanding Jāhilī poetry. She further argues that the three parts of the qaṣīda; the nasīb, raḥīl, and fakhr correspond to the three stages of the rite of passage; separation, liminality, and reaggregation. This article questions the applicability of such western literary theories in translation and analysis of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and its rhetorical elements. Concentrating on Stetkevych’s arguments in a more detailed fashion, the article elaborates peculiar characteristics of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and interrogates the applications of such western literary theories in understanding of this traditional form of poetry. It indicates that arbitrary classification and comparison of pre-Islamic poetical elements may not serve for any purpose other than deteriorating their original meanings and introducing additional complexities. It makes references to a good number of examples from her writings to arrive at the conclusion that for the sake of making certain pre-Islamic literary conventions comparable to western literary elements she pushes rhetorical components of both traditions into unnecessary, incomprehensible and complicated directions. The article appreciates industrious scholarly attempts at trying to integrate Arabic literature into world literature, but it still invites critical attention to the reconsideration some of their conclusions and generalizations. It revisits these arguments by way of comparing them to classical interpretations by indigenous Arabic literary authorities, especially in the cases of the two classical qaṣidas, namely the Mu‘allaqa of Imru’ al-Qays and the Bānat Su‘ād of Ka‘b b. Zuhayr. The article also questions Stetkevych’s generalizations based on these qaṣīdas regarding the issue of condemnation of poetry in Islam and articulates the contextual and historical peculiarities of this subject-matter.