Then reference this field of study, with the studies themselves in relevance to your actual arguments. You haven't, and don't appear to be able to.
Home | Then reference this field of study, with the studies themselves in relevance to your actual arguments. You haven't, and don't appear to be able to.
The Jefferson Quran used in Ellison's swearing in is the George Sale translation. It's use was obviously a political maneuver, Mr. Ellison wishing to point out Islam's long history in America.
http://www.americanvision.org/images...rson_quran.jpg
From Publishers Weekly
In contrast to many post-September 11 studies, which seek to satisfy the demand for instant analysis, Little's fascinating book is based on extensive and long-range research into the history of U.S.-Mideastern relations. Informative and well balanced, this work of diplomatic and political history raises provocative questions about that history that shed an intriguing light not only on the events of September 11 but on the past 60 years of American encounters with the Middle East. Little's overarching theme is the complex and sometimes inconsistent attitudes and interests that determined U.S. policy in the region. The author contends that American political activity has been hampered by profound cultural misunderstanding, resulting in unforeseen and unintended negative consequences. In eight invigorating chapters, Clark University historian Little (Malevolent Neutrality) focuses on the implications of oil, the persistence of racial and cultural stereotypes (whether anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic) and the importance of Israel in American foreign policy. After reviewing all the major episodes, he poses the important question of whether wealth and power have provided America with the moral authority necessary to control the Middle East. Little's own assessment is not entirely positive. His text is highly accessible, yet offers serious and careful analysis. At a time when the U.S. is possibly on the verge of a major military intervention in Iraq, this stimulating book is highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Orien...5208731&sr=8-1
Maybe you can't tell how scatalogical you sound? Where and what is your argument?
Stop hinting. A photo of a Koran, and a Publishers Weekly review you took off of Amazon do not conclude anything.
You were challenged to find a pre-Sa'id study that proves whatever point you're trying to make, and this is your best response?
They weren't intended to. Every thread isn't a debate. This one is simply a resource for information on the subject of Orientalism.Originally Posted by redcake
And you were challenged to open your mind past Sa'id on this subject. It would seem that's asking too much.You were challenged to find a pre-Sa'id study that proves whatever point you're trying to make, and this is your best response?
No. But if you have a link about it, my German is good enough that I might get something out of it. Hans Wehr is another Orientalist of note. I did come across an article that said that translating the Quran using his dictionary would lead to a biased result. However, his dictionary is an epic work and my own copy has fallen in half.
If you claim this thread was put here as a resource, IN THE RELIGION FORUM, then where is the resourceful information on the topic that predates Sa'id?
Who cares if you intend to debate this topic... you're being challenged on it either way.
I have no problem with discussing both.
Report of the Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Orientalists Held in London, 1874
http://books.google.com/books?id=l48...F531s#PPA54,M1
Michel Foucault was also a commentator and critic of Orientalism, and some may say that Sa'id was a conduit as well as a critic of his philosophy.
http://www.uel.ac.uk/cnr/LondonFoucaultCircle_000.htm
So you see no difference between Oriental/Mid-Eastern studies and something called Orientalism?
People actually from the Orient often get some of what we would classify as Oriental Studies in the public school system. My wife was exposed to preIslamic poetry in its original form in her high school literature class, much as we would be exposed to Chaucer.
When a westerner choses to go to the effort to study what are extremely difficult and different languages, there has to be some motivation. With many, it's simply intellectual curiousity, but during times of Empire building, it has been used as a means of cementing the Empire together. Some scholars enter the field with a specific motivation to prove how superior their culture or their religion is. I would suggest that is a form of faulty science and as likely to end in good results as a physicist who uses overly complex math in order to prove the roundness of the earth.
I'm interested in what these so-called occidentalists come up with since you seem unwilling to accept that there ever was such a thing as orientalism. Perhaps by looking at their distortions, you can understand how the same thing could happen from the other perspective.
Of course there are distortions and stereotypes which were made sporadically, but to paint a picture that their main goal (or even fault) in studying these foreign cultures was using an imperialist lens, or any other negative description you can come up with, has no merit. You're confusing Oriental studies, which was just the term at the time to describe very legit, important and well meaning anthropology and science meant to survey a very rich culture, and this Orientalism concept.
Would you respect the opinion that a Mid-East Studies course taught by anyone who was not Middle Eastern in origin was akin to Anti-Semitism, Orientialism, or bigotry? Can a Christian teach about Judaism in a theology course without it amounting to anti-semitism? What stupidity.
I don't think you even understand the terminology despite making this topic.
You're completely missing the point. It's a bit much to ask people not to be a product of their times. The danger is when students start reading the work of Orientalists without an understanding of what their biases are. The danger is that this propaganda becomes their sole source of knowledge.
I just got a library book for children about the Persian Empire. The author had undertaken to include the Shah and Khomeini. The entire history of Iran from the coming of Islam to the last Shah was summarized in a paragraph and a half. How does a child get an understanding of the history of Iran when 1200 years are missing? There was three or four pages on Zoroastrianism and not a word about Islam.
If a Christian was a member of an evangelical, missionary society as was George Sales, I'd wonder that he didn't have a certain bias.Would you respect the opinion that a Mid-East Studies course taught by anyone who was not Middle Eastern in origin was akin to Anti-Semitism, Orientialism, or bigotry? Can a Christian teach about Judaism in a theology course without it amounting to anti-semitism? What stupidity?
A Christian or Jew could teach Mid-East Studies without creating negative stereotypes and many have.
No Andak, the danger is when the Arab/Islamic world refuse to differentiate between history and propraganda, and expect a the academy to teach students under the knife of presumed guilt for a presumed bias. It's clearly a bigoted expectation and a worthless excercise when you freely admit that a Christian and a Jew can teach in this field without creating negative stereotypes.
It isn't presumed bias, it's real bias and I see and hear it all the time. This bias has so pervaded our society that we no longer even recognize it. I asked if you could provide us with examples of this occidentalism. If you refuse to acknowledge that orientalism exists, at least you can understand when bias is used against you.
This quote bears repeating.
It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. - Norman Daniels
Man ain't that the truth!!!
This quote from Maurice Bucaille's book appeared in 1976, two years prior to Sa'id's work Orientalism.
When one mentions Islam to the materialist atheist, he smiles with a complacency that is only equal to his ignorance of the subject. In common with the majority of Western intellectuals, of whatever religious persuasion, he has an impressive collection of false notions about Islam. One must, on this point, allow him one or two excuses. Firstly, apart from the newly-adopted attitudes prevailing among the highest Catholic authorities, Islam has always been subject in the West to a so-called 'secular slander'. Anyone in the West who has acquired a deep knowledge of Islam knows just to what extent its history, dogma and aims have been distorted. One must also take into account that fact that documents published in European languages on this subject (leaving aside highly specialised studies) do not make the work of a person willing to learn any easier.
This was written in 1960.
The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur'an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur'anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of hat what had newly realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt. (From Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, by Norman Daniel, page 33)
The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam, that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156) "translated" the Qur'an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters. Sale's infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration's which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: "The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . " (p. 267). (From An Authoritative Exposition - Part 1, by cAbdur-Rahîm Green)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/orientalism.html
The article you posted in part is informed (and obsessed) with Edward Sa'id. It's based on dime store Marxism, and a false premise. Western Imperialism lasted a very short time, and none of these quotes address Ottoman Imperialism, Islamic Imperialism, or say the influence of the Greeks, all because of an agenda to promote the idea of the West vs. Islam. Rather then point to a certain study, period of thought, or something specific, you are using the Sa'id thought process of making blanket statements. How are we to deduct that the study of a classical culture was meant for any other purpose then to preserve it, and what purpose does it serve to generalize attacks? People like Muhammed Asad (a Jewish scholar who converted to Islam), and Ignaz Goldziher, are just some of many who promoted tolerance. Orientalism, this concept of study as oppression is a figment of the imagination. Why should we excuse an entire population of their misdeeds, and inability to articulate their own culture without a reliance on apologetics, simply because they have been documented by Europeans? They aren't being maligned because of mistranslations ...dream on...we can quote Muslims on Islam, and make the exact same conclusions now.The question begs to be asked, what is so offensive about education, and scholarly studies? What is so offensive about this field of study aside from the desperate need to blame it's supposed bias for all the ills in the Arab world?
Last edited by andak01; 07-25-2007 at 05:21 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks