Warraq's command of both eastern and western culture allow him to point out the innumerable factual errors in "Orientalism". His commitment to logic and reason allow him to shred Said's erroneous and inconsistent arguments. It is a well researched and clearly written critique that also examines the lasting effect Said's work has had on Muslim thinking and politics.

The style is a bit too aggressive and lively to my taste, but it synthesizes a lot of the critique on Said's orientalism. Some chapter's have made me laugh out loud, other's were to the point and very accurate. Definitely recommended!

I am still reading this, it's very long and dense and packed with information. I'm not comletely convinced by the author's argument, though he makes it very cogently.
We'll see what I think when I finally finish it.

Conflicted feelings about this one. Parts made me cringe, but I appreciated Warraq creating a space for many voices that usually aren't allowed in the discussion.

Edward Said's fraudulent work, first published in 1978, has had a growing pernicious effect on the world, as have his hateful and deceitful works on the Arab-Israel conflict.
Said's polemic has very much become the accepted dogma of university departments across the world that study any of the subjects covered by 'Orientalism'. Ibn Warraq refutes the perfidious lies of Said meticulously and with brutal candour in this antidote to Said's pro-Islamo-Fascist and nihilist Far Left propaganda.

The effect of Said's work has been to slander the valuable work of generations of genuine scholars on the Middle East and Islamic world. but his work has gone much further than academia. He taught an entire generation of Muslims and Arabs 'the art of self-pity' which has led to the rise of Islamo-Nazi fundamentalism and terror that is the biggest threat to the freedom and decency of the world today.

Warraq points out Said in his fraudulent creation of the concept of "the other", a cliche rammed down the throats of university students around the world, is never used to apply to non-Muslims or even non-Arabs in the Islamic world.
Peoples such as the Copts, Maronites, Mandaens, Samaritans, Assyrians, Greek Orthodox Christians, Chaldeans, Berbers Zoroastrians, Baha'is and especially Jews are denied the status of Orientals and the protected status of 'the Other'. They simply do not exist in the world of Said and his intellectual followers.

I have long waited for the chance to voice my opinion that the concept of 'the Other' is a massive fraud perpetrated by leftwing intellectuals which simply means selected groups of people favoured and protected by the Left who ignore the suffering and victimization of other people, thus practising exactly what they accuse Westwerners, conservatives etc of doing to those they chosen to term 'the Other'
Warraq uses this term for convenience as he refers to as a 'temporary verbal surrender' , while identifying it for the dishonest cliche that it is.

Warraq's brilliant analysis of the engagement the West with Eastern and Islamic cultures go's some way to both explaining that there has been much positive in western civilization and influence and that Western culture has been most open to receiving and understanding the cultures of others while Islam since 900 CE at the latest has rejected input from other cultures and civilizations as well as rejecting the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, which is echoed in Said's contempt for science.

This loathing of science and the truth and denigration of Western civilization is revealed by an exhibit at the Ontario Science Center at Toronto which gives way to such unbelievable, almost surreal relativism claiming "Modern Western science puts the sun at the center of the solar system. but other points of view are not necessarily wrong or primitive"
Unbelievable

Warraq wishes to encourage progress and a true spirit of questioning in the Islamic and Arab world. but what males this almost impossible as well as any criticism of Islam in the West is Said's Orientalism which taught an entire generation the art of self-pity: 'Were it not for the wicked imperialists, racists and Zionists we would be great once more".
The propaganda and falsehood by self-pity, postimiperialist victimhood and rantings about 'imperialism' is an "immature and unattractive quality" we owe of so much contemporary Middle Eastern culture. This paranoid conspiracy mentality is encapsulated by Said's 1980 work "The Question of Palestine" where he bizarrely charges that Zionism was created by the West purely to keep Islam at bay! Again unbelievable
Said and his followers interpret intellectual and political history in a highly, in short twisting the truth which Said does not seem to believe in anyway.
Warraq details the Arab role in beginning the slave trade which continues in Africa and the Middle East today and points out that the movement AGAINST slavery began in the West and it was in the West where slavery was first abolished.

Warraq takes apart the accepted blaming of only the West for all evils in the world today pointing out that "Europe has been guilty of terrible crimes but what civilization has not been?" Confining ourselves to the twentieth century the sins of the West are no worse than the crimes and follies of Asia. Warraq then documents the killing of 70 million Chinese by Mao, and one fifth of Cambodia's population by Pol Pot. The massacres of three hundred thousand people in Uganda by Idi Amin or of 800 000 in Rwanda in 1994. The genocide of 1.8 million people in Sudan, including at least three hundred thousand in Darfur. The crimes of Saddam Hussein, the chemical of the town of Hama by Hafez al Assad in 1982 in which 40 000 people die, and the 2 million people who have died in Iran because of the policies of the Islamic Republic.
Warraq dismantles Said's highly faulty and fraudulent methodology. He describes also how the very tolerance of the West has led to what he so eruditely refers to the bufooneries of Michael Moore, the exaggeration of Robert Fisk and the fanaticism of Noam Chomsky" all of these apologists for Islamo-Nazi atrocities and terror.

Warraq examines the real agenda of Islamism ignored in the mainstream media and universities. He also covers the horrific abuse of women and children in Islamic societies again condoned and ignored by leftwing intellectuals.
As he describes Iran: "The hypocrisy of the Islamic Republic of Iran should now be apparent The West does not need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection, endure clitoridectomies, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, have acid thrown on their faces, are married off against their will at the age of nine. or where the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes are denied"
This book should be required reading for all students of the humanities brainwashed by Said's perfidious and dishonest agitprop.

I admit that I have never read Edward Said's Orientalism, but references and arguments that draw from that work have definitely trickled down into many articles and comment flame wars that I am quite familiar with. Colonialist representations of Eastern cultures and peoples as weak, static, passive and feminized for the purposes of implying inferiority and justifying subjugation are facts that can be attested to. One need simply consider something as banal as the Tintin comic books and their portrayal of black Africans. But even while Orientalism is probably onto something in its breakdown of offensively stereotypical depictions of the East, the debatable point is whether Said's rather reductionist theory holds true for even the great majority of "Orientalist" work; whether nearly all Western engagement with the East can (rather ahistorically, the criticism goes) be attributed to colonial and racist malice.

I believe that Ibn Warraq's critique makes an almost unassailable case that Said's central thesis is nowhere near as universally applicable to Western depictions of the East as it is made out to be. The author extensively describes - so there can be no doubt as to the force of his arguments - examples of Orientalists who had genuine sympathy, passion and love for the cultures they studied. They often contended with colonialist powers on behalf of natives, and many endured great personal and financial hardship in order to carry out their work. These Orientalists - whether linguists, historians, painters or archeologists - are respected and appreciated by modern Eastern scholars, who acknowledge the Westerners' contributions and even thank them for the cultural and academic revivals that succeeded them - e.g. the Bengali Renaissance, which Warraq devotes considerable attention to. He mentions entire schools of Orientalists - for example the German school - that could impossibly be said to have colonialist ambitions or malicious motives. He notes the popularity of Orientalist paintings among Arab collectors, and tracks the history of Western openness to the "Other" from antiquity to modern times. All in all, he makes a good case for Orientalist pursuits and provides a much-needed counterpoint to Said's unbalanced and even pernicious rhetoric. He raises valid questions as to the methodology of Said and his followers (most notably Nochlin, who is subjected to very severe criticism, though not unfairly, I believe) and the book is well-sourced and based on quite extensive research.

However, it's important to remember that Defending the West is meant as a kind anti-Orientalism, hence it is skewed toward positive examples of Orientalists* and toward fair or sympathetic depictions of Easterners by said Orientalists. This is not really a criticism, since the book itself makes its nature abundantly clear, but I fear Ibn Warraq often frames his defense in very conclusive terms, and never recognizes any instance in which Said's theory holds true. There is no real acknowledgement of the racism and chauvinism that did in fact exist and no attempt to add nuance to the exclusively positive spin given on Orientalism.

Part of this bias also stems from the fact of Ibn Warraq's worldview/philosphical commitment - a devotion to the arts and sciences as the ultimate good, as humanity's raison d'être. He waxes lyrical (it is quite touching, really) about the glories of human achievement, the ennobling quest for knowledge for the sake of knowledge and the unassailable morality of his Orientalist subjects. Part of his narrative seeks to vindicate Western atheism/secular humanism as morally superior to other worldviews, which I think leads to some unfortunate pronouncements - such as the assertion that the audiences of Wagner concerts are vastly more spiritual than believers who seek deities in order to be healed of physical infirmities or otherwise aided in their lives. The problem is not so much the contention itself, but the arrogant certainty with which it is pronounced and the lack of insight into religious devotion and the many intersecting motivations behind it. To be fair, Warraq sometimes shows admiration for religion, but mostly in terms of certain philosophical or artistic achievements that he approves of. Too often, he assumes his worldview to such an extent that he does not seek to argue or develop even quite contentious points.

Here again, although I disagree with the author's convictions, it is his delivery that bothers me and that I wish to criticize. Defending the West often isn't sure whether it is a source of levelheaded analysis to balance out rabid Saidism or a polemical work advancing a particular philosophical vision. Small jabs and biased comments get a pass from me, as does the singling out of Islam for criticism (e.g. the section on slavery) since Warraq is a Muslim apostate, but what I found inexcusable was the following rant: Chapter 8: The Pathological Niceness of Liberals, Antimonies, Paradoxes, and Western Values. This chapter simply doesn't belong in the book, not because its claims are necessarily false, but because they are so sweeping and so contentious that their defense requires much more than the brief but blustering tirade that was this chapter. It jumped from topic to topic, making bold assertions as mere afterthoughts and generally departing from the largely respectful and scholarly tone of the rest of the work. It made a very bad impression and injected the book with an unnecessary dose of "opinionated jerk". I don't mind scholarly endeavor being colored by personal conviction, since pure objectivity is mythical, but chapter 8 crossed a line in terms of gratuitous subjectivity.

Addressing form, the quality of the writing in Defending the West is not bad, although not exceptional either. It is often a strange mixture of ironic jabs or impassioned language and very dry, encyclopedic run-downs that I found myself almost skimming. Chapters and sections often end rather abruptly without unifying conclusions and are structured in a less-than-obvious manner. Generally, however, the prose has a decent flow and the subject matter is of sufficient interest to render the book quite engrossing. Its real problem is that Warraq tries to address far too many topics and struggles to structure them cohesively. Defending the West is at times an encyclopaedia, at times an essay, at times a textbook. Neither form nor substance are consistent throughout the entire work.

One thing I do appreciate is Ibn Warraq's point of view as a non-Westerner, which should deflect the standard accusations of racism, colonialism, privilege, etc. He highlights the variety of opinion on Orientalism among "Orientals" themselves and points out that Said and his ilk engage in a lot of the stereotyping and homogenization of Easterners that they supposedly condemn. He astutely remarks on Said's essentialization of the West, his (more than) occasional incoherence and his purely theoretical and ideological framework that does not accord much value to empirical evidence. In the spirit of Western self-criticism, Warraq also rightly points out the egregious racism that is not only tolerated, but completely normalized in many non-Western countries. Few non-Western nations are willing to self-criticize and soberly assess their culture, history and society, and I definitely agree that this is one of the most noble features of Western civilization.

As an overall assessment, Defending the West is fair and justified as a criticism of Said, but rather flawed in structure and tone; a necessary counterpoint to Orientalism that nevertheless remains ideologically charged and only presents the positive examples of East-West relations.

*The term "Orientalist" is used rather loosely by both Said and Warraq. It refers to the historical Orientalists of the 19th century, but also generally to Westerners who take interest in and study Eastern cultures, regardless of the time period.

This guy totally misses the point of Orientalism. A systematic critique of Said's portrayal of "the West" derails the entire conversation (or maybe that WAS Warraq's point?)

An utter destruction of one of modern social science's foundational texts. Even its English is imperfect and dishonest. Somewhat of a pot-pourri at the end but a great read.

Three words; Informative, Truthful, Accurate!

Thank you Ibn, for your wonderful book, a must read!

It is clear that Edward Said, like any scholar, was not perfect and had an agenda, but Ibn Warraq's criticism of his work and fierce defence of orientalists and their scholarship is way too personal and goes beyond the academic, something which makes his arguments kind of weak. There is some sort of resentment that rests credibility to the whole book and makes it difficult to read, because it feels more like a tantrum than like a reasonable critique.
Ibn Warraq's infatuation with the West and Western "reason" seems to forget that it was indeed the West who colonised and subjugated the rest of the world (the Americas, the East, Africa and many parts of Asia). Even if orientalists were interested in different cultures and languages, at the end of the day their work, whether they liked it or not, helped construe an image of the East which helped European empires in their control the rest of the world.
As Manichean as Said seems to be according to the author, he was right in denouncing this fact, something which the author of this book seems to forget.

Dense and dry, but extremely well-researched and documented,this book is valuable as an anthology or bibliography of works to reference as well as a decent defense of the West and critique of Said's Orientalism. I would highly recommend reading Said and Warraq together. In addition, however, to form my own opinion, I would need to do my own study of the history, art, and literature referenced summarily by Warraq (and even more summarily by Said). It was fascinating to read a passionate (and shrill at times) defense of Western culture by a self-proclaimed atheist/agnostic.

The elephant in the room for both Warraq and Said is the lack of a basis or standard for morality and truth. I wanted to ask them both "Why do you care? Why is "rational self-criticism" inherently better than ignorance (Warraq)? By what standard is imperialism so wrong (Said)?"

And, I am grateful to them both for making me consider, study, and ask things I would not otherwise have before reading their books.

A great read.

Let me first note that I have read Said's book and I do think he was on to something. I agree that many times Arabs and/or Muslims were and are still portrayed in a stereotypical or superficial ways. We sometimes see this on the news/in media where self-appointed “experts” on Arab or Muslim affairs talk about a huge part of the world using broad generalizations, and what Said calls “essentialism” .

As perceptive as Said’s observation may have been, what makes his book extremely weak, from a scholarly and academic perspective, is his rather dishonest attempt to make this one interesting thought or insight into an entire, all-encompassing narrative. In Said’s narrative, “The West” invented the study of “The Orient” to justify its preconceived (and largely negative) notions about the inhabitants of this large part of the world, and ultimately to rationalize its domination over them. Of course, this was not done consciously (and Said would obviously not claim that it was), but nevertheless this fact can be discovered through Said’s Foucauldian analysis.

The problem with the narrative I have just described is that it is largely false. Almost none of the historical facts about the study of the Middle East conform to this narrative. In this book, Ibn Warraq very carefully goes through a comprehensive list, showing that in most cases “Orientalism” was born out of pure intellectual interest (which Warraq thinks is characteristic of Western culture) . Most devastatingly for Said’s argument is the fact that Western scholarly work and interest in the cultures of the Middle East, was widespread both centuries before the emergence of colonialism, or any kind of western dominance in the ME, and in countries which never had colonies in that part of the world, most importantly Germany and Russia. Moreover, many of the “Orientalists” themselves had strong anti-colonial sentiments. Many showed great care and respect for the cultures they studied. So much so, that to this day some are revered by people in these countries for illuminating or outright saving parts of their culture which were lost to them.

The greatest irony, pointed out by Ibn Warraq, is that in order to maintain his argument in light of these glaring contradictions, Said himself had to resort to an “essentialist” view of the West. How else could one explain, for example, the sincere intellectual interest shown by German scholars in cultures which were never colonized by Germany, but to say that these Germans shared some “Western” essence with French and British colonialists (Countries with which Germany would go on to fight two brutal wars) - an essence which made them unconsciously justify French and British dominance. In short, Said resorts to the same caricatures and generalizations he accuses “Orientalists” of.

In summary, this book is an excellent rebuttal of Said’s “Orientalism” - carefully, and sometimes even pettily, taking apart Said’s grand narrative.