The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute

LEST WE FORGET – NAWABZADA NASSARULLAH KHAN SAHIB

We have been orphaned. Pakistan has been orphaned. The day of September 27 is the saddest day in the history of Pakistan when its son Nawabzada Nassurullah Khan finally accepted his defeat at the icy hands of death. This lone crusader.... this warrior...... who has been struggling for freedom...... for the cause of democracy....... and has been fighting against oppression since the British Raj...... who was beat but never defeated..... has finally bowed his head. He stood tall against all the forces of evil in Pakistan; were they the dictators in uniform or in plainclothes. He was the little engine that could. He never compromised on principles in the 65 years of his political struggle. The conscience of Pakistan has died. We have been orphaned.

inna lillah-e-wa-inna-elaihe rajaoon.

May God bless his soul and raise him among the truthful and honest. Please remember him in your prayers and promise that we will keep his legacy alive. One day when Pakistan will set itself free from dictators, corrupt politicians, foreign agents, and thugs who rape our motherland everyday......., and on that day when the sun of democracy, pluralism, and freedom will rise in Pakistan.........., just remember that Nawabzada Sahib was ahead of all those who made the dream come true. On the Day of Judgment bear witness that he was the truest son who served his motherland better than anyone.

MNIPhirSay#37: ``If you don’t know about those things, then that’s your ignorance. Don’t bash the man much better than you, just so it might make you look like a Phannay Khan.``

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever heard by anyone who has published something.

First of all, you don`t know me, so you cannot make any statement about my greatness or lack thereof. So please keep your opinions to yourself, until you know me better.

Secondly, no one is bashing anyone. People are trying to carry out mature discussions. It is very legitimate to critique the views of people, who present those views publicly. They themselves, have presented them publicly, thereby, opening them up to freedom of speech. Any public artilce, idea, piece of poetry should be critiqued and analyzed. Infact, that is what Hoodbhoy and others do, all the time. They critique other people`s policies and ideas. That is what they are known for. If one applies your logic, then they do so, to make themselves, ``look like a Phanny Khan.``

One cannot stop critiquing anyone, just because you like or dislike him or her. It is quite unfortunate to see, on this board, the tendency of people to attack others, just because they do not agree with the views of Said, or do not consider him or someone else to be as big an intellectual as others do. This is quite childish.

I know nothing about Said, so I have not commented on him. But I do know, that everyone doesn`t have to love his ideas, or anyone else`s ideas. And that if he (or anyone else) does present his ideas publicly, then they are open game for a critique. Similarly, I think Hoodbhoy is doing a great service to Pakistani education. At the same time I find some (not all) of his views on some other issues, to be quite ordinary, and in many cases partisan with some mistakes. Should I just keep my mouth shut and not express myself on things that he states publicly.

I may not consider Ghalib to be as good a poet as Mir, or vice-versa. Doesn`t mean, I am bashing the guy. I am just giving my opinion.

So relax and participate in the discussion. Do not try to control other people`s opinions. Let them express themselves.

My Dear Ms. Shah,

Having read some of your posts, I am tickled pink to hear you calling me an ``intellectual pygmy.`` Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! What would you call ad hominem attacks such as the one you just launced?

I was merely pointing out that Said`s interpretations of what others have written are truly cockeyed (again, no sexual innuendo intended). However, in a post-Foucaultian PoMo world, everything has to be deconstructed and devolved into a power-sex relationship. Not having had the pleasure of much exposure to Literary Criticism, I tend to read words for what they are, not what their hidden meanings might be. Or, to be more precise, what I want their hidden meanings to be.

So, in this vein, my use of the word ``cockeyed`` means just what the online Websters says it means:

Main Entry: cock·eyed
Pronunciation: `käk-``Id
Function: adjective
Date: 1821
1 : having a cockeye
2 a : ASKEW, AWRY b : slightly crazy : TOPSY-TURVY c : DRUNK 1a

It does not mean that I, a male, am trying to prove my superiority over you, a mere female, by threatening you with sexual violence if you don`t defer to me. THAT would be Edward Said`s interpretation. Sometimes, words are used to express just what they actually mean and there is no need to deconstruct them beyond recognition.

Bernard Lewis likes to show off his knowledge of Arabic, or perhaps he genuinely thinks that it helps in greater understanding, to give the etymology of various words. Said chooses to think that by giving the etymology, Lewis is (i) deliberately insulting Arab hopes/dreams/aspirations by comparing Arab ``revolution`` to a nonhuman`s actions and (ii) going further and saying that Arabs are impotent and feckless individuals who have to acquiesce in the ``penetration`` (another one of Said`s favorite words) of their culture/society by the manly and virile West.

What other interpretations of Said are there? After all, Ibn Warraq quotes him verbatim. What is your interpretation?

BTW: despite the similarity in nicks, I assume you are not my old adversary on Chowk?

TTFN

``This is a school of thought I find particularly repulsive in we Orientals. ``Pity poor me, being screwed over by the White Massaa! Please help me, I am too weak to do anything myself. The Good White Man must save me from the Evil White Man!`` Please, give me a *&%$ break. ``


Well said!

I think we BROWN people (ie Orientals) need to take responsibility for our failures resulting from vices such as corruption, vices which are nothing but innate:

Native Americans need to face up to the fact that their obliteration was `asked for`. Australian Aborigines will do well to follow them. As will native South Americans. The cutting up, bartering, re-organisation,colonisation of the Middleeast had nothing to do with the Europeans. No non-brown persons were out seeking economic hegemony.
The French have nothing to do with the bloodshed in any part of Africa. African mentality is a result of learned helplessness. India was colonized because they were innately corrupt, this had little to do with Britian`s desire to usurp resourses not belonging to them. The merely desired free trade.
The IMF and World Bank policies only fail because we are spineless; corporate bankers only have our welfare in mind. Amnesty International is a self-hating white organisation distorting the truth when it maligns the US as one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism across the globe.
Mossadeg fell because Iranians were corrupt and too weak to help themselvs; Britain actually wished to help Iranians nationalise their own oil fields in order to benefit and prosper from it. Iranians resisted that. General Schwarzkopf`s grandfather had nothing to do with the covert CIA operation. If he did, he was a closet Oriental. More brown people should point out the fact that Said all his life, conveniently refrained from critisizing Arafat or the PLO--one of the most corrupt organisations of its kind. Or any Arab government. And that Said`s hysterical finger pointing at the West as the source of all evil in the East has made his writings phenomenal in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian territories. The latter place known for phenomenal self-pity. Most of Saids and Chomsky`s readers are middle eastern filafel stand owners, being effortlessly able to comprehend English of such standard.
It is a mathematically proven concept that since the fall of Eastern Empires (for eg the Islamic Empire) the West had no more than 10.34% of an involvement politically, economically and militarily in the decay of the Orient. The rest -- a problem spanning continents and billions of humans over centuries of history -- is clearly and SIMPLY a result of certain innate weak characteristics which are genetic in nature and overwhelmingly Oriental. To hell with over-simplified sweeping generalizations.
Brown people who criticize themselves first, will only then be able to rise up. If they go overboard with self-hatred or internalisation of outside prejudice against them -- they are not masochistic. They are healthy. Whereas when white persons critisize certain individuals amongst themselves for economic policies (sometimes maliciously termed as genocide ) they are masochistic living room armchair warrriors. Pakistanis, Indians, Nigerians are notorious for lack of self criticism, smugly regarding their states as highly non-corrupt and efficient. Mordechai Vanunu is a self hating person (who is driven by a pathological love for Palestinians) as are all masochistic caucasian Americans who blame their government for atrocious *genocidal* policies abroad. Iraq-Kuwait/Vietnam-Algiera/Morocco-South Africa/Nicaragua-Chile/Pakistan-India ... all disasters resulting from brown greed. This includes masochistic European anti-globalization protestors, who have poor self-esteem. The West by a far majority has always historically written in glowing unbiased terms of the East, for instance works by European philanthropist anthropologists not comparing the African to an ape. The person who sells a black slave is to be beheaded first. The person buying the slave is merely looking out for himself. It is simply that black and white; rather than a multi-factorial complex evolution of ideas/peoples/wars/economic pursuits/the rise and fall of civilizations. Say hello to ``White man (all good) help me kick my own brown a** (all bad)``. To hell with Irony.
We need more self-hatred in the Orient. Love you Bernard.


(leaves bowl of fe*** material for any Oriental passers by to rub face in, in order to redeem self)

`` I kept thinking how lucky I was to not be a Palestinian.``

Mantolives, (I admit with not much pride ) that I find myself thanking my stars that I am not an Arab living in the West. This group has such a severe image problem in the West, that it will take years to correct and balance. Sad to see many South Asians with severe prejudice against Arabs, having the audacity to complain about western prejudice towards them.

``He is a below average speaker and a below average writer of the English language, in comparison to people with his qualifications.``

Romair, youre one of the few to point this out. I agree especially after hearing him speak recently. Though I do think he is a compassionate man with sincere intentions to correct what he sees as wrong. My bias towards him lies in the fact that he is a disgruntled athiest ... or perhaps a frustrated agnostic. I dont think he has found the answer.

tahmed32 -- could you post a link to any research indicating the statistics on his readers. I`d like to share that with someone.

`` If I lived in the middle east (like most of his readers) I may have believed him.``


Btw, if you frequent the bookstores section on religion a little more than ``sometimes``, I am sure you will find a large if not equal volume of poorly researched literature on Arabs and Muslims, poorly disguised for their blatant racism. The recent surge in fair/informative writings on Islam is post 9/11 and I agree with you that there is a fair amount of positive literature; but for one Armstrong there are ten that counter the positive opinion.

I am not a practicing muslim, but I rather hear criticism of Islam or any organized religion from an unbiased and calm point of view, rather than something stemming from prejudice. Often it seems, coming from zionists or zionist sympathizers or evangelical bible thumping christians.

Dont you think its a bit harsh to label someone a liar when you have ``never read any of his work``? He may be mislead, but I dont think he deliberately lied. Living in the US as an Arab in the 40`s and 50`s was far from easy. Have some compassion.

And do try to read his book--I am trying-- you will be better equiped to shred its argument. Reading is never a waste time, neither is gaining knowledge.

Romair --

``I think the main complain some people have against her is that she is too pro-Islam.``

I get that sense too. I am unsure how non-controversial one can be while defending lets say, child marriages. A 9 year old girl marrying a 53 yr old man.
Or defending slavery. Oh well I suppose its all upto the beholder ... if one views compassionate slavery as a `comparative` `good` ... then I suppose there is no moral misgiving in ones heart. Man needs opium to survive, just as he needs to believe...

Just a thought.

Re: Plats8

Ok, would you like a refereed critique that points out the same general mistakes and absurdities Ibn Warraq pointed out? Glaring errors that show very clearly that Said was more of a PoMo poseur, a professor of Literature not of history, than a serious authority on the subject. Thus he was guilty of making sweeping generalizations in pursuit of a personal agenda, the same charge that he accused the Orientalists of! Here is the reference:

C. F. Beckingham, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 42, No. 3. (1979), pp. 562-564. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X%281979%2942%3A3%3C562%3AO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

Unfortunately, you need access to a computer from an institution that subscribes to JSTOR to access the article (in pdf format). If you can`t access it, I`ll be glad to email you a copy. BTW, it looks as if Ibn Warraq got some of his best anti-Said stuff from this article. Tsk, tsk, tsk... but what do you expect from a damn Arab!

Cheers.

PS: Ibn Warraq`s critique is much more exhaustive than Beckingham`s. I just couldn`t resist the jibe!

plats8 #34 I think the analogy of Einstein with Said is an incorrect one, for the following reasons:

a. My reading of a couple of his recent articles on the internet after reading Fuzair`s post pointing out that the emperor had no clothes provide clear evidence of (a) Dishonesty: as described below in that piece I cut-and-paste from the online version of Al Ahram newspaper; and (b) Superficiality: as concerns with ``Arab/muslim image`` that he delves upon in the two articles I read.
I dont say this with any happiness. But truth is more important than good feelings.

b. Einstein was nothing if not intellectually honest and and profound (to put it mildly). His fought the REAL battle, the battle on behalf of all mankind: extending the frontiers of man`s understanding of the universe. His struggle to develop a unified field theory was built upon a solid foundation of success in developing the theory of relativity.

To compare the two is to compare a rotten apple (Said) with a shipload of fresh mediterranean oranges.

And as I said, dont get me wrong: my natural reaction was to be positive about Said (see my first post on this board). But, as I said, truth is more important than good feelings.

Mantolives:

Thankyou for your recollection... it told us more about the great man that Said was...
You know... I would be the last person to be on any of the palestinian solidarity committees... I am very neutral in the issue, and sometimes accused of being pro-Israeli though I am not, yet the greatness of this man is that he is still commands universal respect so much so that I was devastated when I found out about his death.

What do you mean by neutral? Is being neutral a good thing in and of itself? Just saying that “you’re neutral”, or you’re not the type who sits on “palestinian solidarity committees” really doesn’t say much, except your liking for such labels.




#5 by dost-mittar on September 28, 2003 8:04am PT
In his death, the Muslim world has lost a great crusader for the Arab and Muslim world. Though a non-muslim himself, he defended their worldview more strongly and intelligently than most muslims.


To characterize Said as a crusader for the Muslim world or the Arab world is a slander on someone who was always very emphatic about putting the Palestine cause as a secular and humanist moral imperative.



#8 by Saminasha on September 28, 2003 9:36am PT
Said has always been in favor of a two state solution, of the right of Israel to exist. He has often publically excoriated Arab leaders. This is why the Zionist supporting lobbies in the US have never been able to silence him or diminish his astute vision.

Said actually gave up the idea of a two-state solution. In 1999, in an article in the NYT Magazine he floated the idea of a one-state solution with Jews and Arabs living side by side in a secular state. He expanded on this idea in his interview with Ari Shavit of Ha’aretz. Links are here:




#14 by ahmedmadani on September 28, 2003 10:58am PT
Has he written about our countries rulers? Did he support present over lord of Pakistan ?
Did he say anything about people like Ayub, yah. khan, Mo . Zia?
Did he support them by tacitly not saying any thing?
What was his position about Jordanian Kings?
Saddam Huisain or Rulers of Arabia. Was he critical or he was pabically only interested in Israel and palestine problem?

The answer is yes yes yes and yes. My books are at home, or I’d provide direct quotes. Said was critical of Zia, and spoke out against him numerous times. As Eric Alterman wrote in his little paragraph in memory of Edward Said, that no one on earth spoke more harshly about the Arab rulers, including Yasser Arafat, than Said.


#17 by sameerJB on September 28, 2003 11:51am PT
I agree with you. I`d have put him in class with Naom Chomsky and a Japanaese whose name evades me right now. I

Francis Fukuiyama?

#24 by fuzair on September 28, 2003 5:43pm PT

Ahh…let me ignore the epithets and the jejune (ahhh…Said’s favorite adjective ) name-calling and get down to your supposed criticism:

Said simply said that yes, that is absolutely correct; you Westerners are inded to blame for everything. We are not at fault, no matter how corrupt, useless and venal we might me. This is a school of thought I find particularly repulsive in we Orientals. ``Pity poor me, being screwed over by the White Massaa! Please help me, I am too weak to do anything myself. The Good White Man must save me from the Evil White Man!`` Please, give me a *&%$ break.

No. This is not Said said. If you had not read cliffnotes on Orientalism, or its review by David Horowitz and actually read the whole thing, it is quite clear that was not that was said in the book. That is an ignorant caricature of Said’s writing.

Now on this much celebrated nobody called Ibn Warraq. I read his book “Why I am not a Muslim” when it came out; and found much to identify with someone who had given up religion like myself. Against the unquestioning submediocre garbage that goes around as scholarship in the field of “Islamic Studies”, this book is a bucket of cold water poured over your head. In that sense, it is refreshing. As a piece of scholarship, that work is substandard. The only appeal it has is because it is a polemical diatribe against Islam with zero scholarship value. All the book contains are quotations from Orientalists and little else. So its understandable that Warraq is a bit peeved that his beloved Hurgronje, Goldziher and -- who can forget this blathering bigot – William Muir have been whacked out of the ballpark. But more importantly, Warraq’s book can be considered a cheap copy of Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”; which is a great work to inspire would-be apostates, but like “Why I am Not a Christian”, “Why I am Not a Muslim” does not make a scholar out of its author. So I find it ironic that an admirer of Ibn Warraq would dare to write even one adjective on Said’s “scholarship”. Ibn Warraq is the one who has turned into an Uncle Tom and become the Thaykaydaar of secularism. For his brand of secularism, bashing Islam as peculiarly evil, and Muslims as uniquely pathological beings is a prerequisite.


Now I turn to the Thawra issue:

Just from the title of Lewis’ book (“Political Lanugage of Islam”) it is quite obvious that Lewis seeks to tell us something about the “politics” of Islam; otherwise, it wouldn’t be named as such. Why is this camel business brought into this in the first place? (Said has documented in detail, how philology was used to stereotype the Oriental, by Orientalists.) Lewis knows very well that Thawrah is a word widely used for revolution and uprising. That is why he discusses this in the first place. Tracing the etymology back to a camel’s rising does not in any way contribute towards understanding of either politics or Islam, except to poke fun, and find an excuse to bring up the stereotypical association of an Arab with a camel. Just because Lewis wears a three piece suit and has a bad British accent doesn’t mean that he is above petty racism couched in scholarly jargon.

Furthermore, Said’s point that Lewis’ translations of the word “Thawrah” all carry demeaning undertones, seems quite sound. One could have given the benefit of doubt to someone else, but Lewis’ anti-Arab animus is not well-hidden. It is not by accident that Lewis is courted and admired by right wing Likudniks all over the world.

In the end, we know who prevailed. Someone cursed Said for “single handedly destroying a field of study”. That is the greatest tribute Said could have gotten. While Said’s book continues to be widely read and studied in universities throughout the world, as a ground breaking work in cultural studies, Lewis and his chamchay (David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes , etc. ) are reduced to blathering off at Likud fundraisers, and setting up Campus Watch. Fifty years from now, Said will still be remembered. Lewis will be long forgotten as an unmemorable practitioner of a dying discipline.

#26 by Romair on September 28, 2003 6:51pm PT

Why are we getting into useless comparisons? Those who know Pervez Hoodbhoy – and there are many here who do – know that Pervez will be the first to dismiss any comparison being drawn between him and Edward Said as ignorance or hyperbole. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets worked up about it as well. So let’s not turn a thread on Edward Said as a Pervez Hoodbhoy bashing session.

Pervez has never claimed that he is an intellectual of Said’s stature, or a scientist of Salam’s caliber. If anything he has always denied such comparisons.

That said, his services to Pakistan are tremendous, and those who don’t acknowledge them are ingrates. He is more than a drawing room intellectual. At great personal risk, he has advanced the cause of education, of freedom of thought, of democracy; and not to mention the social betterment of the least priviledged in the country. If you don’t know about those things, then that’s your ignorance. Don’t bash the man much better than you, just so it might make you look like a Phannay Khan.

#35 by Saminasha on September 29, 2003 6:00am PT
As usual, the intellectual pygmies have come to pillage the village. Why is this as predictable as clockwork? Look for the clues: ``neo Marxist``, ``I havent actually read anything by Said``, `` I was able to find a translation that is debatable therefore the entirety of the scholar`s work is meaningless``. Why dont you people just be honest for once in your lives and admit that you are uncomfortable with ideas that threaten your bon bon deliveries and your plans for vacation? Relax boys, Said was quite a classical music and opera aficiando himself- no ones expected to you break out into Bread and Roses. But, that would then show the complexity of Said and you`d have to go take your pebbles elsewhere...

This “neo marxist” is a favorite of mine as well. :)) Well said!! And for all the ``I haven`t read anything by Said`` folks..I`d say ..guys..shut up if you haven`t read anything by him..you don`t HAVE to say something on every thread.

Thanks

MNIPhirSay

Romair #31 I hope you will be able to take time of to do the book review of Armstrong`s Islam. That would be very informative for those of us who have it on our ``To Read Someday`` list.

Saminasha #35 Lets have less heat, and more light.

And why knock Fuzair for saying the Emperor Has No Clothes? Show us the clothes instead, and explain why the Emperor was not wearing them in the piece that I cut and paste for example. Dont get mad at Fuzair for telling it like he sees it.

Sincerely,

Intellectual Pygmy

As usual, the intellectual pygmies have come to pillage the village. Why is this as predictable as clockwork? Look for the clues: ``neo Marxist``, ``I havent actually read anything by Said``, `` I was able to find a translation that is debatable therefore the entirety of the scholar`s work is meaningless``. Why dont you people just be honest for once in your lives and admit that you are uncomfortable with ideas that threaten your bon bon deliveries and your plans for vacation? Relax boys, Said was quite a classical music and opera aficiando himself- no ones expected to you break out into Bread and Roses. But, that would then show the complexity of Said and you`d have to go take your pebbles elsewhere...

Shall we go over it slowly? ALL interpretations are meant to clarify or reveal otherwise eclipsed aspects of ideas. The interpretation that old man Fuzair brings to any reading is as agendaed as child lover PM does. Lets not pretend otherwise.

tahmed #29,

I guess I was not clear about the Einstein reference. Old Albert spent the last quarter
century of his life trying to refute quantum mechanics and attempting to create a
unified field theory - both spectacular failures, if I may say so. Would it be prudent
to say that his entire body of scientific work is irrelevant because of his failures ?