A Student Remembers a Great Teacher

Oh..on MY refutation of the reviews.

First: Reviews don`t need ``refutation``. I sense this nasty confrontational tone from you which means that this whole discussion is more about you than about Edward Said, and how YOU have him completely figured out.

There is no need for me to write a word of my own if Edward Said himself has addressed -- sometimes in anticipation -- the objections raised to his work. My quotation of his words is indication that I, to a great degree, accept his explanation as valid. (For example, I quoted from Orientalism, where Said explicitly commended Rodinson`s and Geertz`s -- supposedly ignored by his book -- scholarship. )

In the end, Said`s critique is directed towards a ``discourse`` -- itself a word from critical theory jargon -- in Orientalism. Argument over whether this or that scholar should be included, is really about what is necessary to establish the existence and character of a ``discourse``; and hence a matter in the domain of critical theory. I have a feeling that most of Said`s well-meaning critics -- and I am thinking of Malcolm Kerr, Albert Hourani, Maxime Rodinson -- did not really understand him before reacting. Others were driven by political and personal vendetta. But this so far, is just a ``feeling``. I am not even literate in critical theory, let alone well-versed in it. Spurred by this discussion, and a desire to better understand this very difficult book Orientalism I will try to get of critical theory, esp. that of Focoult (sp?). Hopefully those Chowkies well-versed in these discussions would guide me to some useful literature.

fasisal, buddy:
Maybe you misinterpreted my gentle poke. Suffice it now to say that Mahatir`s my man too!
Will I be in Khi around 18-25?!? Oh bhai, coming to this part of the world sucks up my four-months salary. Abb poore paisey wasool karoUNga. Will spend XMas with my folks in Toronto before returning to my beloved Karachi.

Romair,

I thought I was being referred to (indirectly) in your post #134, 3rd (technically 4th) para. If I was bit too prickly, I apologize.

re. faisal:
``...and also i dont know why but this issue is of huge concern in the islamic world.``
Well, part of it is traditional Islamia`s response to injustice (it would eally be cool, though, if the same response were elicited in intra-Islamia conflicts and injustice too).
But to clue you in to another source: last month, my travel agent, while admitting, unsolicitedly, that the Muslim world brings problems upon itself by its failure to condemn the mischief makers, is still sold on the story that 4,000 Jews skipped work on Sep.11. He was absolutely increduluous when I later suggested that there are Jews even in Israel who protest their government`s handling of the Palestine issue. It is no exaggeration to say, that even to this otherwise well-informed guy who is not by a long shot an Islamic fundamentalist, ``Yahoodi loag`` was some monolithic representation of the new evil empire. I hear this strain all the time in my classrooms too... the Yahoodi is the new Commie.

PoMo is (or was, remember, I`m an old man) the chic way of referring to Post Modernism. What the heck is Post Modernism anyway, that is another question entirely!

pm:

you know that i am no islamo-supremicist and in fact i would be calling for sanctions on pak should our politicians pass laws like the ones in eighties which turned you guys into second class citizens. dont see why white people should not be subjected to the same rules. and also i dont know why but this issue is of huge concern in the islamic world. i have recently had the opportunity to closely interact with muslims from s.e. asia and i am just amazed to see how much anger this issue is causing in places and among people who you normally dont associate with extremism. and btw this anger runs across class lines. and any leader who articulates these feelings with half a brain has good chance to build a huge power base across different countries. i am kind of pinning my hopes on mahatir.

also my trip to karachi got delayed. i will be there from 18-25 october, are you going to be around then?

TAhmed,
Since you`ve decided to talk like a decent human being again...
You write: ``my main concern is that he should consider the emotional damage this does to the child.``
Where do you get off presuming that I give no thought to these matters. Your continual prodding for an answer simply annoyed me for its presumptuousness.
Now, if you are able to approach the subject at all with any equanimity, you might consider that ALL the links I posts were to studies and other literature relating to the alleged emotional damage to the child. Comprende?

puyu #135 point taken.

oops! faisal, that would be ``2,000 miles (acutally, maybe less) East, not South, of Karachi``, of course.

WildeLover,
Hey, thanks for your gracious openness. My views have been expressed clearly enough (for those with non-cretinous brains (and/or those unencumbered with an overdose of self-righteous indignation)
But I cannot deny feeling disappointed here. Maybe you will actually force Chowk Cretin to read without blinkers, and that would deprive us all of this wonderful spectacle of unadulterated moral supercilliousness in full splendour, and then I might even start respecting CC for the otherwise honest, if what somewhat simpleminded bloke that he is.
Dilemma!!

Fuzair,
What`s PoMo anyway?

Oooh.. i get it... PostModern?

don`t see either you or MNI or any other Said apologist actually addressing the points I have raised about his tendency towards hysterical polemics--how else would you describe ``Since the enlightenment, Dr. Said wrote, ``every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric`` (this is from his NYT obituary). Or his ignoring all of the ``Orientalists`` who might have countered his very interesting take on Western study of the ``Orient:`` ignore many of the real scholars and castigate fiction authors and travelogue writers for perpetuating offensive stereotypes?


Did I say that Said didn`t have a tendency towards getting polemical? But then meray bhai..many people do that. Your own statement about Said saying nine absurdities for every sensible thing is itself a polemical exaggeration, is it not? Or that he concentrated on travelogue writers instead of real scholars? (Did he not write about Lane, Bernard Lewis, and Gibb?) The point of the book ``Orientalism`` is less to trash the whole discipline, than it is to underscore its ``geneology``.

Said is a great favorite among certain type of PoMo intellectuals (the same ones who read, edit and write for trash journals like ``Social Text``). As the reviews of his book indicate, actual scholars of the subject have some serious qualms about his work.

This passage Fuzair, is more indicative of your own biases than a commentary on Said. First of all, what is ``subject``? If Said wrote a book on the history of Arabic script, maybe these guys would count as ``actual scholars``. Said`s book is a critique of the epistemology of Orientalism, on which these ``actual scholars`` are no more qualified to comment -- maybe less because they have a conflict of interest -- than Said himself. So what are you trying to prove? That the book is badly received? If the book was this badly received, it wouldn`t be taught in so many universities, would it?

Oh but it is only a favorite amongst ``a certain type of PoMo intellectuals``. By associating this book with a certain kind of people -- whether real or a construct of your own mind, I don`t know -- with whose ideas you yourself profess willful and distasteful ignorance, you are trying to discredit the book. I`d say that this bit is not even worth refuting. Am I a PoMO intellectual? Bhai jaan this is sounding very much like: ``If I don`t understand it, it`s garbage``.

Finally, I have a suspicion that you have read the hostile reviews much more closely than you have read the actual book Orientalism. I don`t know how well you know Ibn Warraq -- or are impressed by his work -- but your mode of argument is quite similar to his. (I went and read the ``Debunking Edward Said`` article.)

Anyways, since you seem to know Ibn Warraq maybe you can convey this to him. He can consider this my response to a letter I received years ago to write for his journal. It is great that he wrote a book marshalling all the arguments against the Qur`an, and popular Islamic religious beliefs. For that he should be commended, even if the book doesn`t have any new material or original research. Believing Muslims need to read that book, despite its polemical nature, and shabby research. But he has chosen to market this book as a screed against Islam used for partisan purposes, by people whose own extremism is not much better than that of Islamic fundamentalists. Hence his alignment with the likes of Daniel Pipes, on whose book he devotes a whole chapter. Despite his professions that he seeks to bring about an enlightenment within Muslims, his book doesn`t really talk to Muslims themselves. He is not the first apostate on the planet. although he might be the first professional one. Many other people who have turned away from islam, have chosen to actually reform Muslim society from within, and not by inciting the Western public against it. Many of these good souls are intellectual progeny of Edward Said himself. And since Ibn Warraq has written a whole chapter on the Rushdie Affair ( quoting glowingly from Daniel Pipes` book with the same name) , he probably also knows that the late Edward Said insistently and repeatedly condemned the fatwa against Rushdie on multiple occasions before a Muslim audience -- including an interview with Herald magazine.


The meaning you -- and the obit writer in the NY Times -- impute to that quote from Edward Said (that every European is a racist) is so absurd that I am certain it is quoted out of context, or misunderstood. I will get back to you on this one.

wildflower #127 Please see the following links:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002594&channel=gulberg&start=70&end=79&page=8&chapter=1&order=0#192

See post #192 from Roohi which refers to the ``boylove`` article, and post #194 from PM where he defends the practice.

The boylove article is on this link:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000632&channel=gulberg&order=0&start=10&end=19&page=2&chapter=1#replies

This I will say about PM: he has been honest about his preferences. Since he is on this board, I shall pass it over to him for any further response he may wish to provide. Chowk is not a court of law, and my main concern is that he should consider the emotional damage this does to the child.

Tahmedji!!
You accuse every one of slandering you!!
just read all those stuff that you have posted and decide who has been too emotional and personal

Fuzair #126: ``Hamidm and Romair

Just curious about why disagreeing with your views on any subject automatically makes one an idiot? Are you two up for the Nobel Prize in everything this year?``

It is quite interested to be quoted in areas where I never stated anything. Could I request you to point out exactly where I used the word idiot, or your name for that matter.