3

ORIENTALISM AND WESTERN ACADEMIA

AN INTRODUCTORY STUDY

Aayesha Rafiq
Assistant Professor of Islamic Law
Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

Abstract

The article discusses Orientalism in Islamic perspective

and sees how this trend of writing has evolved through
colonial and post-colonial era. It also discusses the
influence of Orientalists in European and American
academia in shaping Middle Eastern Studies and Near
Eastern Studies departments. The article underscores
the political and colonial dimensions of the whole
movement of the Orientalist methodology that still
dominates research in American universities.
Relationship between Orientalist scholarship and
political hegemony is also highlighted. Views of non-
Western scholars such as Abdullah Laroui and Anwer
Abdul Malek and Abdul Latif Tibawi against
Orientalist scholarship reflects how politics of
knowledge in the field of Islamic Studies has always
been shadowed by prejudice, racism stereotyping and
biases.

Keywords:
Islam, Orientalism, Western, scholarship,
Middle East, Near East, political hegemony, Gibb,
European, Edward Said.
 4

In Western academia we come across two trends of writing on

Islam and Muslim societies. One is the orientalist trend and the other
non-orientalist. Orientalist trend is dominated by western discourse on
Islam and Arabs saturated with pre - conceived biases and ideological
distortions, whereas non-orientalist scholarship is grounded firmly in
sound methods of research, is non-biased, non-polemical and is
instrumental in promoting academic honesty.
The scholarship which reflects bias about the Muslim world in
the East is termed as Islamic Orientalist scholarship. To understand
the objectives behind this trend of scholarship a word on Orientalism
is in order. For this Edward Said is referred to who in his ground
breaking publication ‘Orientalism’(1979) gives three fold definition of
Orientalism; a general definition, an academic definition and a
historical definition. In its general meaning Orientalism is ‘a style of
thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made
between the ‘Orient’ and the ‘Occident’’. Academically it means,
‘Anyone who teaches, writes about or researches the Orient- and it
applies whether a person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian
or a philologist- either in its specific or its general aspects, is an
orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism.’ Historically
speaking Said defines it as, ‘a corporate institution for dealing with
the Orient- by making statements about it, authorizing views about it,
describing it, teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short,
Orientalism is a western style for dominating, restructuring and
having authority over the Orient.’(1)
In 1994 Edward Said wrote an afterword for his book
‘Orientalism’. In this afterword he says that Orientalism is a study of
ways in which power, scholarship and imagination of a two hundred
years old tradition in Europe and America viewed the Middle-Eastern
Arabs and Islam. It would not be wrong to say that knowledge about
Islam and the Orient used by colonial powers to justify their
colonialism was derived from orientalist scholarship. By stating so,
Said established strong parallels between colonialism and modern
orientalist scholarship. Edward Said further writes in his seminal work
that ‘Orientalism is a politically constructed binary, a category of
interpretation rooted in pre-conceived and historically constituted
ideas about the ‘Orient’ as an ‘Other’.(2)
According to Sachadina(3) “Orientalism” is an academic
methodology which uses classical heritage of Islamic civilization,
mostly textual, to analyze it philologically emphasizing “evolution” of
ideas through borrowing and syncretic endeavors and prove that
 5

nothing is “original” in Islamic civilization. It was Greek thought and

Hellenism, as well as the Jahiliya literature that played a role in giving
rise to Islamic culture.(4)
This article underscores the political and colonial dimensions
of the whole movement of the orientalist methodology that still
dominates research in the departments of Near Eastern and Middle
Eastern Studies in European and American universities. In the
contemporary or post-modern world this relationship of scholarship
with political hegemony continues between the Area Studies scholars
and government departments of Foreign Affairs. According to Said
the aim of this scholarship is exploitation and aggression in Muslim
world. This makes sense of the opposition demonstrated by non-
western scholars towards Orientalism because they perceive it as a
scholarship originating in an era of colonialism aimed at establishing
power and control in the Orient.
The first wave of European colonization took place in early
15th century when Portuguese conquered Ceuta in 1415 C.E. and it
continued until early 19th century when France invaded Algeria in
1830 C.E.(5) In this era Europeans colonized the Americas and
created European colonies in India and Maritime Southeast Asia.
During 16th and 17th centuries study of the Orient was an enduring
feature of western learning. Europeans took keen interest in the study
of Arabic language, Arabic literature, Arabic science and Islamic
philosophy. Western world used this knowledge of the Orient to their
advantage and to gain control over them. France and England
controlled the East by making them believe that they are backward
and uncivilized and it is only with the help of guidance and control of
the West that they will lead to the path of progress and welfare.
Western writers studied Far Eastern(6) and Near Eastern(7) societies
based on certain assumptions and were successful in creating a unique
stereotyped image of Arabs and Muslims. ‘Hence, the deep-rooted
collective image in the Western minds about Arabs their culture and
history has been largely relying on the representations which the
orientalists provided throughout the years.’(8) This body of literature
concerning Islam and Arab culture written by the West was short of
objectivity and loaded with misrepresentations.
The second phase of European colonization also known as
New Imperialism was primarily focused on Africa and Asia. During
this era classical Arabic texts were translated into European languages
which were then analyzed, criticized and exploited by the European
scholars against the Arabs and Islam. This wealth of information and
 6

knowledge replicated by the West about the East is today termed as

orientalist scholarship. This scholarship flourished under European
Imperialism and reinforced essential differences between the Muslim
World and Europe. The imperative framework within which this body
of knowledge was shaped had an imprint of hostile encounters
between the Muslims and the West.
There were three fundamental problems with the resultant
academia. Firstly, European scholars engaged in limited and selective
reading of the original Arabic texts. Secondly their studies focused on
essentialzing the cultural differences rather than minimizing it. Lastly
the framework which guided these readings contained heavy bias
against Arabs, Asians and Muslims. Britain and France produced
leading orientalists during colonial era. Later this tradition was passed
to the Germans and finally to Americans.
An Egyptian scholar Anwer Abdul Malek sees a close
connection between the colonizers and orientalists and Abdullah
Laroui (b. 1933), one of Morocco’s leading intellectuals in
contemporary era is well known for his critique on orientalist
scholarship. He criticized orientalists for showing sympathy for
Muslim tradition. He criticizes leading orientalists Lewis (b.1916),
Gibb (d.1971)and Smith (d.1894) and those who followed them.
Abdullah Laroui’s first critique on Orientalism, ‘The Ideology of
Contemporary Arabs’ explains that Orientalism is not Western
because it predominates countries of the West, but because it shares
common epistemological assumptions. The main divide in Laroui’s
view is neither religious affiliation nor mother tongue but the
perspective chosen by the scholar. This is expressed in following
words,
‘Many Easterners will share Western values and
therefore will be counted among Western Orientalists,
while many Westerners will be doubtful of their own
heritage and will be excluded from the congregation.
Nationality, religion and mother tongue do not count as
much as the perspective chosen by the writer.’(9)
Anglo-American Orientalist Tradition
In 1865 Foundation of Hartford Theological Seminary was laid
down at Connecticut, USA, by a leading missionary scholar Samuel
Zwemer where majority of experts on Islam were missionaries. The
objective of their study of Islam was to find in Islam a truncated
version of Christianity. In 1919 Henry Breasted, an American,
established Oriental Institute at University of Chicago and in 1927
 7

Princeton University started the Department of Islamic Near East

headed by a Christian Arab Philip Hitti (1886-1979) who then started
a program of ‘Arabic and Islamic Studies’ at Princeton, he introduced
the field of ‘Arab Culture Studies’ to United States. This was the time
when orientalist methodology shifted from philological approach to
historical approach. Leading orientalists who adopted this
methodology to study Islam were Ignac Goldziher and Joseph
Schacht.
Duncan Macdonald (1863-1943) was the first expert on Islam
in American academia. He is addressed as the father of the field of
Islamic Studies in America. He studied Semitic languages at Glasgow
and Berlin before teaching at Hartford Theological Seminary in U.S.
He studied Muslim theology and believed that stories in ‘One
Thousand and One Nights’ reflected Muslim piety. Throughout his
writings Macdonald seems to be essentializing the difference between
an Oriental and Occidental mind. Macdonald was of the view that
Muslim mind is unable to comprehend complexity. Hamilton Gibb the
next most famous orientalist took Macdonald’s axiom for granted and
proceeded to explain why Muslim societies behaved in accordance
with Macdonald’s dictum.(10)
In early twentieth century American orientalist scholarship
focused on the ancient Near East and showed less interest in Arabic
and Islam. The trend in study changed from philological approach to
social science research. But the problem was that not many scholars
were trained in social science research studies. The first effort to study
Middle East by adopting social science research technique was done
by Gibb and Bowen. In 1930s Gibb and Harold Bowen were
commissioned by London based Royal Institute for International
Affairs to study Western impact on Middle East, as a result of their
research they published two volumes on the nature of Islamic society
titled, ‘Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western
Civilization on Moslem Culture in the Near East’. These books
provided blue print for the development of Middle Eastern Studies in
US. Gibb succeeded Margoliouth as professor of Arabic and came to
Harvard as visiting professor in 1950. He later became director of
Harvard Center of Middle Eastern Studies and strongly proposed the
adoption of social science research agenda.(11)
Joseph Schacht (1902-1969) a British-German professor of
Arabic and Islam at Columbia University stands at the nexus of
European, British and American orientalist scholarship. His focus was
mainly Islamic law and Hadith literature and his two ground breaking
 8

publications(12) raised huge controversy and debate between Muslims

and orientalists. Schacht was born in Germany and moved to Britain
during WW-II, taught at Oxford University in 1946 and was
naturalized as British subject in 1947. He moved to Columbia
University in 1959 and taught there till the end of his life.
Bernard Lewis (b.1916) a leading orientalist of contemporary
era studied at University of Paris and SOAS London. He earned his
name as British American historian, scholar in Oriental Studies, and
professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
Bernard Lewis is recognized for his phenomenal influence in policy
circles but his influence in intellectual and academic field is minimal.
His advice on Middle East is sought by policy makers of US
administration. Edward Said characterized Lewis work as a prime
example of Orientalism. He questioned scientific neutrality of Lewis’
work on the Arab World and contends that:
‘Lewis knowledge of the Middle East was so biased it could
not be taken seriously and claimed ‘Bernard Lewis hasn’t set foot in
the Middle East, in the Arab world, for at least 40 years. He knows
something about Turkey, I’m told, but he knows nothing about the
Arab world.’(13)
Bernard Lewis too acknowledges the academic weakness of
Orientalism. To him, Orientalism has not emerged as a purely
academic discipline. It has been devoid of scientific methods of
investigation. European orientalists have been unable to overcome the
language disability and build cultural bridges between East and West.
But he differs from the post colonialists when he asserts that the
backwardness of the Middle East is due to their religion and culture
whereas according to the post-colonialists views the major problems
of the region are political and economic under development due to
19th century European colonization. Bernard Lewis also exemplifies
Said critique on the relationship of scholarship to power. In 2002,
Lewis’ ties to the US State Department were further exposed in his
book What Went Wrong? Which explained 9/11 as the decline of
Islamic Civilization. In it he warned ‘that the suicide bomber may
become a metaphor for the whole region.’
Ahmad Jawad in his honors thesis ‘The Great Orientalist
Bernard Lewis’ critically analyzes his two recent books ‘What Went
Wrong’ and the ‘Crisis of Islam’. He contends that Lewis is not able to
convey historical facts in an objective manner. The aim of historical
study is to be able to observe the actions and reactions that made the
world as it is today, and from these observations gain a better
 9

understanding of other peoples, cultures, and belief systems in order to

allow them to coexist in peace and harmony. Lewis’s writing does not
offer this understanding, rather, it drives his readers to see Arabs and
Muslims as ancient opponents and in this way Lewis seeks to
legitimize the policies and military campaigns of his benefactors, the
influential men of power who seek what is arguably imperialistic
control and hegemony in the Middle East.(14) Muhammad Samiei
compares Lewis, Esposito and Kepel in his PhD dissertation (2009) in
which he concludes that Lewis is a persistent follower of the old
fashioned school of dualism.
‘His dismissal of the diversity and dynamism of Islam, his
reliance on historical evidence and his reluctance to look directly at
modern Muslim societies, his exaggeration of the religious part of
Muslim identity, his overestimation of radicalism and his discourse of
rage, clash and fear, his positivist methodology with his self-assured
objectivity: all of these elements are the heritage of his orientalist
predecessors.’
University-based scholars such as, Gibb, Bowen, Schacht, Hitti
and Lewis etc. who studied Islam in Europe and the United States
came to be situated in departments or institutes of ‘Oriental Studies’ or
‘Near Eastern Studies’ or ‘Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations’
or some variant thereof, though others might work in departments or
institutes focusing on art, history or even anthropology.
Orientalism in American Scholarship
By mid twentieth century that is after the World Wars and
during Cold War era, Americans had started influencing the world
politics in all its spheres so the orientalist tradition is dominated by
American scholarship in the 20th century. Ahmad Dallal(15) writes
that American academy accepted most of the European paradigms for
the study of Islam. From the beginning of nineteenth century till the
end of World War II America dominated the Orient and approached it
as France and Britain once did but it is the British orientalist tradition
that left the most lasting imprints on the American field of Islamic
Studies.
Ford Foundation established the Foreign Area Fellowship
program in 1951 and a Division of International Training and
Research in 1952 with a mandate to establish university Area Studies
Centers. In 1951, the SSRC (Social Science Research Council)
initiated social science research on Middle East and five leading
universities of US including Columbia, Princeton and Michigan
established centers of Middle Eastern Studies. When US universities
 10

established Middle Eastern Studies and Area Studies departments

Gibb suggested that methodologies of social sciences should be
adopted instead of philology to develop a better understanding of
cultures. US universities were unable to find experts on Middle East
who were trained in philology as well as social science research. As a
result different area studies programs were headed by European
orientalists all trained in philology and languages of the Orient and not
in the disciple of the social science. (16) After the Second World War
American policy makers identified the need of experts in languages
and cultures of Middle East and Islam for intelligence and Foreign
Service. At this time United States was projecting its role as super
power and increasing its global involvement. The increased interest of
US in Middle Eastern Studies and Islam overlapped with the growth
of Area Studies in US. In 1958 National Defense Education Act
(NDEA) was passed by Congress. The law provided large scale
government funding for higher education, especially for Area Studies
and languages. Area Studies in turn gave largest incentive to Middle
Eastern Studies and Islamic Studies in US. The objective of area
studies initiative was to apply social science methodology to
understand the cultures and regions of the world. By comparison
cumulative NDEA funding of area studies centers from 1959-1987
amounted to $167 million of which $ 22 million were allocated to
Middle Eastern Studies. (17)
Gibb moved to Harvard University in 1955 where he directed
the center for Middle Eastern Studies. Austrian orientalist Gustave
Von Grunebaum (1909-1972) was appointed by UCLA in 1958.
German scholar Frantz Rosenthal was hired by Yale in 1956 and
Joseph Schacht (1902-1969) was hired by Columbia University. In
1960s gradually other universities started establishing centers of ME
Studies. Thus the newly established centers of Middle Eastern Studies
failed to apply methods of social sciences. Gibb suggested that there is
a need to have the orientalists and social scientists work together, but
sadly though the traditional orientalist approach was carried forward
by American orientalists which treated Islam as an ahistorical
monolith.
By 1996 Area Studies was under attack from scholars in
several fields who in general argued that area studies had been an
invention of the Cold War, reflected US political interests and
Eurocentric prejudices, and now that Cold War was over ,the area
studies has lost its rationale and value. Numerous charges were levied
at area studies scholars such as imposition of national agendas through
 11

scholarly writings. It was argued that the orientalists through their

writings are denigrating other societies that have almost always been
politically and economically subordinated.
There must be some truth in these charges as Michael Foucault
says,‘…that political power and position and the generation of
knowledge are inevitably entwined’.(18)
Michael Edwards(19) says that politics of knowledge is ‘how
ideas are created, used and disseminated’. Western interest in the
field of Islamic studies and Muslim societies is closely linked with
politics of knowledge. The dilemma is that the politics of knowledge
in the field of Islamic Studies has always been shadowed by prejudice,
racism stereotyping and biases. This trend is observed in the writings
of seemingly learned scholars of the West when they write about
Islam and the Muslim world. Professor Abdul Latif Tibawi(20) (1887-
1973) in his critique on English Speaking Orientalists writes that
contemporary orientalists in their desire to understand Islam in order
to combat Muslims made it impossible for their indoctrinated students
to have a positive view of Islam. He contends that it is actually
western bias against Islamic societies which bars them from
understanding of the Muslims.
*****
References
(1) Edward Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin Group, 2003) p.48.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Prof. Abdulaziz Sachadina, is currently teaching at George Mason University,
USA, in the department of Religious Studies and is endowed IIIT Chair at its
Washington D. C. office.
(4) Professor Sachadina explains Orientalism in a lecture delivered at IIIT,
Washington D.C. to participants of Winter Institute on January 15, 2014.
(5) http://medlibrary.org, retrieved on June, 14, 2013
(6) Far East includes regions of East Asia, South East Asia and Russian Far East.
(7) Term Near East was coined from the Western perspective of European writers.
The earliest use of Near East is dated 1856. In 1958, the State Department
explained that the terms “Near East” and “Middle East” were interchangeable,
and defined the region as including only Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. The first official use of the term
“Middle East” by the United States government was in the 1957, which pertained
to the Suez Crisis. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle East
as “the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the
east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian Peninsula to the south, plus the
Sudan and Ethiopia.”
 12

(8) Tahir Ramdane and Merah Saud, ‘Between Orientalists and Al-Jazeera: Image of
Arabs in the West (Comparative Inquiry)’ International Journal of Humanities
and Social Science, Vol.1 No. 4, April 2011. p. 64.
(9) The Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Vol 31, No. 1, July 1997 ,
available at[url=http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Bulletin/laroui.htm]
(10) Dallal, Ahmad, ‘Study of Islam in American Scholarship: Persistence of
Orientalist Paradigms’ 2012, available at http://web.stanford.edu/dept/france-
stanford/Conferences/Islam/Dallal.pdf, p. 9.
(11) Ibid. p.12.
(12) Schacht’s ground breaking publications are ‘Origins of Mohammadan
Jurisprudence’ (1950) and ‘An Introduction to Islamic Law’ (1964).
(13 ) Edward Said, Orientalism.
(14) Jawad, Ahmad, (2012). ‘The Great Orientalist Bernard Lewis’ Outstanding
Honors Thesis Paper, University of South Florida, p. 108. Available at
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=honor
s_et
(15) Ahmad Dallal is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Arabic and Islamic
Studies Department at Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
(16) Dallal Ahmad, ‘Study of Islam in American Scholarship: Persistence of
Orientalist Paradigms’ 2012 available at http://web.stanford.edu/dept/france-
stanford/Conferences/Islam/Dallal.pdf
(17) Ibid.
(18) Tim Mitchell, (2004). ‘Middle East in the Past and Future of Social Science’
Politics of Knowledge; Area Studies and Disciplines.ed. David Szanton,
(USA:University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection,
2004) p. 23. Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/84255833/Tim-Mitchell-
the-Middle-East-in-the-Past-and-Future-of-Social-Science
(19) Michael Edwards is a writer and activist based in upstate New York, and the
editor of Transformation.
(20) Dr. Abdul Latif Tibawi,(1910–1981) was a Palestinian historian and
educationalist.

™™™