Conflicts of Imagination Yaar...this is not Asif`s fault.

He wrote a piece of work....in a similar vein , it seems to me, ..as Faiz`s ``do ishq``. The concept is old, but still interesting. HaaN ..shaa`iri meiN he needs islaah. But no one deserves to be a target of invective for trying, no matter how deficient his attempt is.

I regret to say that Chowk Staff is the party that deserves a degree of opprobrium for lax editorial standards. Someone should have sent the poem back to Asif, with suggestions on how to improve it. I am sure Asif would have obliged. I realize that part of the problem could have been the lack of a competent editor for Urdu submissions -- Urdu not being the strong suit of many here on Chowk. In that case, may I suggest that there are people on Chowk -- Khamkhwa, SameerJB, Temporal, to mention three -- who are able to understand and evaluate such works, and suggest improvements. Maybe their help should be sought?

Asif:

The only parts I would comment negatively on, are the footnotes. To me, it seems that translating phrases like ``Sarwar-e-kaainaat``, and ``ashraf ul makhlooqaat``, or ``pul siraat`` is a little patronizing. You should give your readers more credit.

Moreover, I don`t remember the term ``ashraf ul makhlooqaat`` being used anywhere in the Qur`an. For that matter, I am not sure that ``makhlooqaat`` is a correct Arabic construction. But I could be mistaken on this point.

And finally, forgive me for splitting hair, but since ``Pul Siraat`` is not a standard theological term. (You can scour Dhikr al mawt wa ma ba`dahu to find it :) ) I`d write the footnote as ``Pul Siraat refers to the bridge`` and so on...

Khair...yaar I know ppl are slamming you for your effort. But for next time, if you need another pair of critical eyes for your Urdu poetry, feel free to contact me. Mera bazm-e-khayaal go keh veeraan hai, but I am okay at suggesting improvements in poetic expression.

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence
Rodinson on Warraq`s book:

He accumulates quotes from works criticising religion in general, the idea of God, the notion of a miracle etc….in brief he summarises all the traditional polemic in Europe and America against the established religions. In this domain, the European reader will not learn a great deal. All that has been well-known, commonplace in the West for a long time. But the public in the Islamic world (if it dares to to acknowledge it) will be astonished, stupefied, shocked, offended.


Warraq has done little more than rehashing the traditional arguments against religion -- many of which are found in Russell`s writing. As far as the ``scholarly annotation`` is concerned...yaar there is no new research in that book. There are no new ideas. It is all old hat. I really don`t understand why people are so impressed by this book, except for the novelty value of a Muslim writing against islam.

A Student Remembers a Great Teacher Yaar how has this discussion on Edward Said turned into one on PM and paedophilia? TAhmed why don`t you write an article on PM`s alleged paedophilia and take your fight there...ajeeb log haiN

A Student Remembers a Great Teacher Fuzair:

BTW, what is your background? I am curious. I assume you are an academic of some sort with a degree in one of the social sciences (not Econ!) or the humanities.

NahiN bay.....neither an academic, nor in the social sciences. MaiN seedha saadha aadmi hooN beh.

Will reply to your other points as I get time.

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.

A Student Remembers a Great Teacher 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.

A Student Remembers a Great Teacher TAhmed you are digging a bigger hole for yourself every day.
Medication peh hai kya?

A Student Remembers a Great Teacher ``A thousand obituaries from his arab fans who were only too happy to live in the delusional world that he weaved for them will not change one word of what Said actually wrote. ``


Ahh..and the racist in Tahmed comes out.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute sattar2:
Naqsh (#184) ...

... while you take back your salam ... perhaps you should also slit his throat ... and flush his head down the toilet ... I am sure your insecure, vengeful god will reward you abundantly for killing an apostate ...

Let`s not put words in Naqshbandi`s mouth. All that Naqshbandi did was taking back his salam.

On the books yes, the punishment for apostacy is death. But books don`t mean much. My apostacy (outside of my immediate family) is well-known. I continue to have many Muslims as friends. No one has killed me yet. You seem to be pretty much alive too? Then why such anger at Naqshbandi?

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute tahmed32 #177:
He did none of the above. And this affirms my point that too many of us muslims have this stupid habit of labelling books, individuals, indeed entire communities and countries, as ``anti-Islamic`` without any basis.

Please leave this lecture baazi on the problem with Muslims for someone else. Just so you know, I do not consider myself a Muslim, having given up religion 13 years ago. That`s why when I say someone is being anti-Muslim, I say that based on something more than the visceral rage and paranoia of a fanatical believer.

On the topic of books, I have said what I had to say already.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute Problem is not that TAhmed called Said a liar. Problem is that his basis for that charge is ludicruously flimsy. That`s why I have been harsh on him, and will continue to do so. Incidentally, I disagree with him on both counts: on his accusation that Said lied in that quote, and on his claim that Qur`an preaches peace and tolerance. Maybe some day I will take him up on the latter point as well.

Baaqi sab you guys can pat each other on the back, and thank each other for support. I didn`t know there was a gang war going on.

Fuzair miaN...do I know you from somewhere? haiN? It looks like we have a history. Khair..I will respond to your post in detail either tonight or tomorrow. Right now I`m busy with my day job.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute tahmad #105:

It is quite clear to me, that it is useless arguing with you, because you are living in your own world where you are Aflaatoon. It is amazing that someone who has barely heard Said`s name, and has read two articles (out of 20+ books and probably a few hundred articles) is so strong and confident in his aspersions.
Most of your critique of Said is too vaguely articulated to be properly understood, let alone responded to. The only specific charge was that he lied in his article. And when I have shown to you that this particular charge is false, you are trying to send me on a red herring chase for page numbers and such. You are the one who confidently insists that Said lied -- ot ``exaggerated``, not ``mischaracterized``, but lied.

Here is the URL on Amazon that`ll give you a list same as mine:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-3084300-4504035

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_b_rs/002-3084300-4504035

Temporal is being his typical diplomatic and humorous self. Heaven knows your self-delusion deserves harsher opprobrium. I`d suggest to you as well, that before launching accusations -- calling someone a ``liar`` is not a critique but an accusation -- check your facts. Everybody else is not an idiot out here to willy nilly heap praise on Edward Said. Calling him a ``great intellectual`` is not just empty praise. Even his critics concede that he was a man of great erudition, even among intellectuals. You can critique Said -- he was not infallible -- but at least be intelligent and informed about it.

So far you`ve been high on jazba, and low on knowledge. The head in the proverbial sand is your own.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute I am usually careful about what I write. When I make a mistake, I acknowledge it and apologize (as I did to Romair).

In this case, all I said was, that what was being touted as an ``argument`` (by SameerJB) was basically all an excercise in calling names. He can call names all he wants. Just don`t consider it ``argument``. That`s all I am saying. My calling Lewis an insufferable racist is also not an ``argument`` against Lewis. Let the quote that followed my characterization show for itself if Lewis fits that characterization.

I have never professed to be above name-calling. I can do that and often do that very well. And often you have been and will continue to be on the receiving end. The only limits I obey in such discussions is to keep people`s families out of this, and on chowk I also desist from moTi gaaliyaaN.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute TAhmed:

``Today bookstores in the US are filled with shabby screeds bearing screaming headlines about Islam and terror, Islam exposed, the Arab threat and the Muslim menace, all of them written by political polemicists pretending to knowledge imparted to them and others by experts who have supposedly penetrated to the heart of these strange Oriental peoples. ``

This is quite simply a lie. If I lived in the middle east (like most of his readers) I may have believed him. But since I live in the US, and often visit book stores and sometimes check out the religious sections for any new books on Islam, I know he is lying. Far from the nonsense he writes, the bookstores generally carry books that are very positive about Islam. Karen Armstrong alone has probably done more to create a better and more favorable understanding of Islam in the west than all the muslim writers in the world together.


I ignored this unfalsifiable assertion because rebutting it would surely start a pointless argument over what constitutes ``most of`` and ``full of``. But now that you are insistently touting some kind of an uncovering of a ``lie``, it is time that this garbage of a post be addressed.

First of all, you are not the only one who visits bookstores in the US. Secondly, it`s clear you don`t look hard enough. It is time that this canard of yours be addressed, lest you think too highly of yourself on account of this ``discovery``.

Search under ``Islam`` on Amazon.com

The three featured titles are:

1. ``The Dark Side of Islam`` by R. C. Sproul, Abdul Saleeb
Make up your own mind if this book is favorable to Islam. Abdul Saleeb is actually someone I know indirectly. He is an Egyptian Christian who is now paraded as Exhibit A in the anti-Islam propaganda.

2. ``The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror`` by Bernard Lewis
This is not favorable to Islam either.

3. ``Unveiling Islam: An Insider`s Look at Muslim Life and Belief`` by Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner
Neither is this.

Amazon`s top three features are all books that are quite unequivocally anti-Muslim and anti-Islam.

Further results are:

``Reading Lolita in Teheran`` by Azar Nafisi
(This is a book i recently read and liked; but this is not a book that shows Islam in a favorable light. For apologists of the fascist regime in Iran, this book is an eye-opener.)

``The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror`` by Bernard Lewis
(Lewis again..)

``What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East`` by Bernard Lewis
(Lewis yet again)

``Autobiography of Malcolm X`` by Malcolm X et. al.
(This can`t really be considered a book on Islam to start with.)

``Hatred`s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism`` by Dore Gold
(Dore Gold should be remembered as the fat moustached Likud supporter and adviser to Israeli prime ministers who is present in various talk shows pushing the Israeli cause. )

``Nine Parts Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women.`` by Geraldine Brooks
(Brooks is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal: not exactly a testimony to her dispassion.)

``A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam``
(This, after 6 or 7, is the first book that doesn`t have something bad to say about Islam or Muslims.)

``Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West`` by Robert Spencer
(Title is self evident.)

``Midnight`s Children`` by Salman Rushdie
(This is a novel. )

---

And I haven`t mentioned books like ``The Arab Mind`` by Raphael Patai, ``Terrorists Among Us`` by Steve Emerson, and many more pieces of offensive rubbish that you can easily find in a bookstore.

Now I`d suggest you don`t harp on this bakvaas any more. Thank you.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute My naive estimate would be that Edward Said had a far more refined appreciation of western civilization than any of us here - perhaps all of us put together.

Thank you. Very well put.

The insufferable racist Bernard Lewis came up with this brain fart in one of his books:

``The works of Mozart and Shakespeare and Voltaire have traveled around the globe, as for that matter have Stravinsky, jazz and George Orwell. But they all pretty much stop at the frontiers of the Arab world, which has shown little interest in how others think, write, compose.``

It is quite amusing to note that his bete noir Edward Said, an Arab, knew infinitely more about every single one of these (Mozart, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Stravinsky, Jazz, Orwell) than Lewis himself.

While Lewis was peddling this racist bakvaas, the West-Eastern Divan orchestra organized by Edward Said and Daniel Barenboim -- comprising of young Israeli and Arab musicians -- played Beethoven and Mozart in Morocco, to an obviously delighted audience.

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute SameerJB:

I really don`t see the reason why a post by fuzair has kicked up such a storm and couple of people immediately jumping on his side and making it a partisan discussion.

Where is the storm? It looks like you want to see one so you can lecture everyone about it.

Fuzair`s ``argument`` if it can be called that was pure name-calling (``neo Marxist``, e.g.) and juvenile cat calls really, except for one excerpt by Ibn Warraq.

There is a common thread in the detractions heaped on Said, that he blamed the West for the problems of the Muslim world, including Ibn Warraq`s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is also many people`s critique of his book Orientalism. These charges are outright falsehoods. There is no point in saying anything more on this issue.