Well, I guess I should re-read Said's work as well. Although from this description it appears that all Said got right was the spelling of his own name. I look forward to other reviews of both books.

In his opening chapter, Warraq dissects Said’s polemic refuting his assertions one by one most notably that the "all" Western writers on the Orient viewed the people of the regions in question as backward and unchanging, and seeing the women voyeuristically by examining the writers Said cited and many he didn’t; that these Western writers saw their work in support of imperialism in part by again examining these very writers’ works and by noting that the most significant writers on the Orient during the period in question were German and there were no German colonies in the Orient; and by illustrating Said’s reliance on the inherent illogicalities of postmodernism. Warraq scores a bullseye with Said’s victim card when he writes "The most pernicious legacy of Said’s “Orientalism” is its implicit support for religious fundamentalism, and on its insistence that “all the ills [of the Arab world] emanate from Orientalism and have nothing to do with the socio-economic, political and ideological makeup of the Arab lands or with the cultural historical backwardness which stands behind it.” Warraq also takes issue with those Western liberals who object to any criticism of Arabs and non-Westerners in general etc as inherently racist yet denying the open racism prevalent in many of these very societies.

In his next chapter, he cites and expands upon the three defining characteristics of the West: rationalism; universalism and self-criticism. It is rationalism that allowed the development of science free from the yoke of religions doctrines and the refinement of ethics such as the West’s abandonment and outlawing of slavery despite it being endorsed by the Christian bible. Universalism saw commonality in all humanity and a gradual abandonment of seeing peoples in different localities and of different religions as the "Other" and self-criticism put all received knowledge and contemporary assertions alike under the microscope. Although Warraq didn’t include this, where in the Orient do we have writers who’ve argued, akin to Voltaire, "I might not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it", or, akin to John Stuart Mill, "A man’s affairs are his own, only when they interfere with the affairs of another man does the state have the right to intervene"?

Warraq cites Aeschylus’s Oresteia “In the political order, we are led to understand, justice replaces vengeance and negotiated solutions abolish absolute commands. The message of the Oresteia resounds down the centuries of Western civilization: it is through politics, not religion, that peace is secured. Vengeance is mine, saith the lord but justice, says the city, is mine. He includes a few gems of his own such as "Freedom of conscience requires secular government, and secular law is made legitimate by the consent of those who must obey it. Citizens participate in government, in the making and enacting of law. In an Islamic theocracy, sovereignty belongs to god. One has but to obey unquestioningly the dictates of those who interpret the Holy Book. In a democracy, sovereignty rests with the people, freedom is the cardinal principle." As Scruton summarises, “without freedom there cannot be government by consent and it is the freedom to participate in the process of government and to protest against, dissent from and oppose the decisions that are made in my name that confer on the dignity of citizenship. Put very briefly, the differences between the West and the rest is that Western societies are governed by politics and the rest are ruled by power" and individualism is not a recognisable feature of Islam. Instead, the collective will of the Muslim people are constantly emphasised, there is certainly no notion of individual rights that developed only in the West, especially during the eighteenth century. The constant injunction to obey the caliph, who is god’s shadow on earth, is hardly inductive to creating a rights-based individualist philosophy."

Warraq concludes the book with a comprehensive examination of a large number of Western artists, writers and musicians who travelled to and lived in the Orient and whose art, writings and music display an influence, sympathy and interest in the region that counter the assertions made by Said.

The book is an absolute must-read for those interested in political exchanges between Arabia and the West, and especially those who have read Said’s "Orientalism".

This is one of the first books to take on Edward Said and his Orientalism. It is twenty years too late. But it is a very important book. It is extraordinarily detailed. Yet, it is very interesting. He describes the exemplary lives that Said denigrates in his book.