Reviewing Ibn Warraq’s “Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism“:

As of last April, the late Edward Said’s “Orientalism,” originally published in 1978, was no. 2 on the best-seller list in Cairo. No. 1 was a book arguing that Saddam Hussein hadn’t really been executed — all cell phone video evidence to the contrary, the writer argued, was a fabrication of the CIA.

Ibn Warraq, a scholar of Islam and the author of the recently released “Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism,” pointed out this macabre fact to me over the phone as a sign of what went wrong with postcolonial studies — the academic field more or less founded by Said, which, in an effort to examine the relationship of conqueror to conquered, placed a dime-store psychology of empire at the center of every discussion of “East meets West.” Not only did the British and French colonize and expropriate the East, according to Said, their imperial prejudice clouded their understanding of those they conquered. More than that, they “invented” an entire sham epistemology, Said and his followers contend, with which every Western observer has since approached the East and used to his advantage in further colonizing and expropriating it. Said’s legacy, however, accomplished exactly what anyone professing sympathy with the Islamic world should have wished to avoid, Mr. Warraq believes. That is, in defending the virtue of traditional cultures, it gave that world a high-minded rationalization for a persisting status quo of medievalism and intellectual poverty throughout the Middle East.

“‘Orientalism,’” Mr. Warraq writes, “taught an entire generation of Arabs the art of self-pity … encouraged the Islamic fundamentalist generation of the 1980s, and bludgeoned into silence any criticism of Islam.” Though it’s Mr. Warraq’s plaint that the book “stopped dead the research of eminent Islamologists who felt their findings might offend Muslims’ sensibilities,” it is not merely an abstract charge, but personally felt. “Ibn Warraq” is an Arabic pseudonym, meaning “son of a stationer, book-seller, paper-seller,” which this Indian-born writer assumed after witnessing the critical reception Islamists gave Salman Rushdie, all the while claiming themselves as victims.

Posted in

4 responses to “The Art of Self-Pity”

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    And that’s the Said who lied and lied about his background, ain’t it?

    Like

  2. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    You’re right it’s an “abstract charge.” So “abstract,” in fact, that it’s devoid of substantiation. There are plenty of things to criticise in Said’s work, but also much to admire, and he deserves a bit better than a lazy hatchet-job like this.

    Like

  3. Noga Avatar

    I actually find less and less things to admire in Said’s Orientalist thesis. But as for his lying about his background, not quite. He romanticized his past almost beyond recognition. It was something he was prone to do. For example, he wrote a piece about going to the West Bank to spend time with his son who was doing his one year Palestinian service duty, he describes his son’s dexterity in avoiding Israeli checkpoints by taking backroutes, etc. The elder Said gushed over this and likened his son to Kipling’s Kim, no less. He tended to tell his life as though it were a novel.

    Like

  4. Alcuin Avatar
    Alcuin

    Noqa’s characterisation of Said makes him sound like Geoffrey Archer, a man who lied as a matter of life-style. However, the chattering classes have been far kinder to Said than to Archer. Why would that be?
    I think Oliver Kamm strikes the right balance.
    http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/09/edward_said.html
    Said was a good literary critic but a lousy historian. Fairly typical of literary types (such as Arundati Roy, Harold Pinter, the Redgraves, Jane Fonda, etc.) that those who live in a world of fiction are poorly equipped to deal with the world of facts. As 90% of literature is about sex without children and 90% of life is about children without sex, I am less than sympathetic to such people, and consider that in the fullness of time, a hatchet job (and in this case a very thorough one) is fully justified.

    Like

Leave a reply to Andy Cancel reply