![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ziasudraEnglish-Speaking Orientalists
A. L. Tibawi, Islamic Quarterly, 8, 1-4, 1964, pp. 25-45 (page numbers different in this anthology edition)
"In his 'Critique of English-Speaking Orientalists', first published in 1963, Tibawi draws particular attention to the deep-seated hostility towards Islam displayed in the Christian world; and to the fact that in the nineteenth century Christian missionaries formed a close alliance with academic orientalists. For these and other reasons, he concludes, many orientalists have failed to display a proper sense of 'scientific detachment' in their work. Not only have they adopted 'fixed' ideas about Islam, they have also shown a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Koran, interpreting it, not as the 'speech of God, eternal and uncreated', but as a mere, human composition, incorporating elements drawn from Christianity and Judaism." (p.57)
English-Speaking Orientalists
For Tibawi, he's attacking believers as a believer, though two different religions are involved. He is insistent in the portrayal of Muhammad as the "bearer of a divine message," an Islamic belief that admittedly needs to be acknowledged in the academic study of Islam. Yet just as the study of Christianity sometimes shows forth a scholar's personal conviction beyond the basic acknowledge that Christ is divine according to the religion, Tibawi's version of "ideal academic study of Islam" also calls for spiritual overtones in the academic.
"Both the Christian reconquest of Spain and the Ottoman penetration deep into Europe seem to have rekindled the flames of hatred and prejudice and retarded the possibility of fair representation." (p. 58)
~ Conflict due to a contrast of cultures and beliefs, necessary outcome of the "East-West encounter."
On the West understanding Islam:
"One of his [chair of Arabic at University of Cambridge] successors in the eighteenth century wrote a pioneering History of the Saracens, but also recommended that the Qur'an should be read in order to contradict or refute it. Thus increased knowledge seems to have made little headway in dispelling a tradition which had developed during the course of centuries." (p. 59)
Some examples:
"...the curious traveller, the leisurely romantic, and the rich connoisseur who wrote rather shallow books about the Orient, acquired antiques, or collected manuscripts. But through this tangle the figure of the disinterested scholar is discernible, for example in the indefatigable E. W. Lane. Of all these types, at least the missionary was convinced that if the political power of Islam could be shaken, spiritual collapse and eventual conversion to Christianity was near at hand." (p. 60)
~ 1. Who judges whether a Western-produced book on the East is shallow or deep?
2. The travelogues, excavation notes, etc. from the 1700s-1800s are still used as sources in programs put together by History Channel, etc. Can they simply be dismissed just because they did not come from an indigenous point of view? Can we dismiss their "rather shallow" work as unimportant, thus ignoring a chain of events leading up to better understanding of the East?
3. lol, ideology of Christian travelers and missionaries. But think in another way: what did they contribute to the field?
"But somehow there persisted an undercurrent of common thought – perhaps now largely unconscious – that Islam might be transformed through 'westernization' or 'modernization', or 'reformation'. The missionary prayed, and the orientalist speculated, and both wrote and continue to write, with varying degrees of subtlety and insight, on the subject." (p. 60)
~ Transformation of Islam thought is based on 1) essentialization of the Orient, and 2) the Decline Theory. Missionary and Orientalist writings: varying degrees, but while there were overt un-insight, Tibawi seems to at least concede to some subtle insight.
His thesis:
"But here it may be stated, in a summary fashion, that English-speaking students of Islam – and from now on the discussion will be restricted to them – have been less scholarly objective in their studies than in their publication of texts. Instances of insufficient scientific detachment are not lacking even in the editing or translating of certain texts, where the subject lends itself to the ventilation of those 'fixed ideas' about Islam which still exist in the minds of certain Western scholars." (p. 61)
His opinion:
"The writer believes that on the whole old prejudices, greatly diminished since the dawn of this century, are still strong and widely disseminated by some Arabic and Islamic scholars in the West. Moreover, he fears that 'religious' prejudices have more recently been reinforced by new 'national' prejudices. There is evidence that the feeling of hatred long reserved for Islam has now been extended to the Arabs or more particularly Arab nationalism." (p. 61)
~ Tibawi is assuming: 1) readers' knowledge on what he is referring to, and 2) readers' agreement with him that whatever his references are sufficiently support his claim that religious and national prejudices are still being disseminated.
"If we were to describe in a word the kind of training they [younger generation of scholars] had received, it would be generally correct to say that, apart from theological background in certain cases, most of them had linguistic or literary training, and that very few among them are trained historians. One or two have recently made rather experimental ventures in the vague realms of sociology and psychology." (p. 62)
~ Is the assumption that theology, linguistics, philology, and psychology absolutely do not overlap with history 100% correct? Aren't all these fields interdisciplinary (or have the potential to be so) at least in some ways?
His critique:
"Many of the studies on Islam written by English-speaking orientalists are distinguished by erudition, but if one penetrates beneath the apparatus of the learned footnotes and the array of sources one is bound to detect an alarming degree of speculation, guesswork, and passing of judgement [sic.], for which little or no concrete evidence is produced." (p. 62)
~ General question: what constitutes concrete evidence?
"It is, of course, one thing to be skillful in deciphering documents in Arabic (or Persian or Turkish) and quite another to be able to integrate the material culled therefrom into an historical contribution in the accepted professional sense. History in general is one of the most vulnerable of disciplines to the invasion of people from outside; it is often assumed that anyone who wields a pen can write history. In Islamic sources, the linguistic, literary, and historical materials are so intertwined that scholars are prone to attempt too much and find themselves writing history, almost unconsciously, with scant qualification for the task. Hence it is easy to understand why the subject of Islam has been far better treated by the few 'historians' among the orientalists than by the majority who are in actual fact linguistics." (p. 62)
~ That would be his answers to the questions I raise earlier.
What Tibawi believes scholars should acknowledge:
"To the community of Islam, Muhammad is the last of God's messengers to mankind sent to confirm and complete earlier messages conveyed through former prophets. To the community the Qur'an is the Speech of God, eternal and uncreated, transmitted to Muhammad, at intervals, through the agency of the angel Jilbril. Not only the message itself but also the call to preach it is of divine origin." (p. 62)
~ If this is an academic qualification, is it not also a religious belief? Where and how does one draw the line between subjectivity and objectivity?
"In writing on the subject, a fair way would be to state the Muslim view in its entirety so fully and clearly as to leave no room for complaint of misrepresentation." (p. 63)
Problem with false assumptions:
"...they proceed to base on this assertion far-reaching judgements [sic.], historical, theological, literary, &c., which by sheer repetition are elevated to the dignity of facts." (p. 63)
"...after repeated polemic and missionary onslaughts against their faith, and after prolonged Western political and cultural domination of their lands, the Muslims are more prone to take offence than ever before."
~ Repetition leads to indoctrination leads to belief in incorrect things.
The believing Muslim vs. the sceptical orientalist: who would be more "objective"? Who would be more qualified? Does objectivity = qualification? (p. 63)
Why is assuming human authorship not okay when biblical studies have taken the opposite position? Assuming human authorship tends to create an air of "objectivity" and "better scholarship" in biblical studies.
"To borrow the phraseology of the quotation one might say that its author would have to admit that he cannot have it both ways: to consider Muhammad as a sincere prophet and to impute dishonesty to him since he, the supposed author of the Qur'an, does not admit that he appropriated somebody else's ideas." (p. 65)
~ What about being sincerely wrong (on both sides)?
"The faithful Muslim will still be consistent within his system; so also will the polemicist. But not the professed writer of history who attempts to ride two horses at the same time. Respectable as his attempt at a compromise may be, the result of his effort is frustrating to protagonist and antagonist alike, and not strictly acceptable to the neutral historian who has no axe to grind." (p. 65)
~ Neutrality is not the answer. Neutrality ≠ objectivity
"It is a sad commentary on the collective wisdom of the learned among the adherents of these faiths that they never succeeded in removing the causes of their mutual discord and orientalists must accept a share in perpetuating this regrettable state of affairs." (p. 66)
~ The need: clearly defined rules and methods of comparison.
"...any writer who feels any hostility to, repulsion from, even contempt for a foreign tradition should be considered – nay, he should honestly consider himself – as mentally and emotionally unfit to attempt a comparison which could contribute no tangible benefit to scholarship." (p. 67)
~ But on the other hand, is the requirement then a total lack of conviction? Again, neutrality ≠ objectivity.
"For it is only Christians who have for centuries been attempting to understand, or misunderstand, Islam in Christian terms. The basic Muslim view of Christianity has always been the same because it is part of the divine revelation in the Qur'an." (pp. 67-68)
~ True, in that I don't think Muslims try to understand Christianity in Muslim terms. But misunderstanding is still there, and Tibawi cannot simply dismiss that with "the basic view...Qur'an." He is, in this case, insisting an understanding of a truth (Christianity as how Christians would understand it) based on the beliefs/convictions from another religion (Qur'an's revelation of what Christianity is).
But, keep in mind that this is within the context of scholarly debate.
But what of the Christian belief that one cannot truly know God without first deciding to know God? The experience-comes-after-belief phenomenon? Is studying another's religion even possible, subjective or objective?
"Bold speculation, drawing of parallels, and formulation of analogies may be attractive to a professor of comparative religion who understandably must somehow find subjects for comparison. Such purely imaginary exercises may likewise be interesting to the missionary who may employ the analogies to 'soften' the resistance and to open the way. They may also be useful to the non-Muslim teacher in a Western university as a diversion to enliven his task. But as the product of a Christian theological mind couched in Christian terms they are, to say the least, pointless to educated Muslims. The matter is almost like a social conversation; in order to be fruitful it must cover subjects agreeable and interesting to both sides." (p. 69)
~ "Educating Muslims" aside, how can such a social conversation be fostered with certain divergent views, where neutrality is frowned upon?
Some questions: Is Islam immutable? (c.f. last semester's class) What's the role of neutrality?
"Similar scholarly neutrality is adopted in the approach to contemporary legal practice, with neither moral judgement [sic.] nor preaching." (p. 70)
~ So now objectivity = neutrality?!?
"A stranger to a religious system cannot so easily dispense with elementary courtesy and yet expect to be listened to with respect." (p. 72)
"Religious perception is a spiritual, intuitive experience. It cannot be comprehended by analytical or critical methods. Those outside a religious system can never capture the significance of the experience of those inside it." (p. 72)
~ Then is studying a religion in order to understand it even possible? Where is the line of "acceptable" drawn?
Tibawi's claims:
"The first essential prerequisite for any successful change (or reform) is therefore native initiative, independent of foreign control or suggestion. The second essential prerequisite is that all change must be acceptable to learned orthodox authority." (p. 73)
~ So there needs to be a filter of Islamic authority?!?
Overall:
I find Tibawi often (subconsciously?) assumes a certain air equivalent to the expression of "preaching to the choir." He assumes certain knowledge from readers, and in a way, certain predisposed beliefs. What he does not consider is whether all Muslims would agree with his interpretation of what Islam is (and in fact, they don't).
(Consider his audience: Islamic Quarterly)
A. L. Tibawi, Islamic Quarterly, 8, 1-4, 1964, pp. 25-45 (page numbers different in this anthology edition)
"In his 'Critique of English-Speaking Orientalists', first published in 1963, Tibawi draws particular attention to the deep-seated hostility towards Islam displayed in the Christian world; and to the fact that in the nineteenth century Christian missionaries formed a close alliance with academic orientalists. For these and other reasons, he concludes, many orientalists have failed to display a proper sense of 'scientific detachment' in their work. Not only have they adopted 'fixed' ideas about Islam, they have also shown a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Koran, interpreting it, not as the 'speech of God, eternal and uncreated', but as a mere, human composition, incorporating elements drawn from Christianity and Judaism." (p.57)
English-Speaking Orientalists
For Tibawi, he's attacking believers as a believer, though two different religions are involved. He is insistent in the portrayal of Muhammad as the "bearer of a divine message," an Islamic belief that admittedly needs to be acknowledged in the academic study of Islam. Yet just as the study of Christianity sometimes shows forth a scholar's personal conviction beyond the basic acknowledge that Christ is divine according to the religion, Tibawi's version of "ideal academic study of Islam" also calls for spiritual overtones in the academic.
"Both the Christian reconquest of Spain and the Ottoman penetration deep into Europe seem to have rekindled the flames of hatred and prejudice and retarded the possibility of fair representation." (p. 58)
~ Conflict due to a contrast of cultures and beliefs, necessary outcome of the "East-West encounter."
On the West understanding Islam:
"One of his [chair of Arabic at University of Cambridge] successors in the eighteenth century wrote a pioneering History of the Saracens, but also recommended that the Qur'an should be read in order to contradict or refute it. Thus increased knowledge seems to have made little headway in dispelling a tradition which had developed during the course of centuries." (p. 59)
Some examples:
"...the curious traveller, the leisurely romantic, and the rich connoisseur who wrote rather shallow books about the Orient, acquired antiques, or collected manuscripts. But through this tangle the figure of the disinterested scholar is discernible, for example in the indefatigable E. W. Lane. Of all these types, at least the missionary was convinced that if the political power of Islam could be shaken, spiritual collapse and eventual conversion to Christianity was near at hand." (p. 60)
~ 1. Who judges whether a Western-produced book on the East is shallow or deep?
2. The travelogues, excavation notes, etc. from the 1700s-1800s are still used as sources in programs put together by History Channel, etc. Can they simply be dismissed just because they did not come from an indigenous point of view? Can we dismiss their "rather shallow" work as unimportant, thus ignoring a chain of events leading up to better understanding of the East?
3. lol, ideology of Christian travelers and missionaries. But think in another way: what did they contribute to the field?
"But somehow there persisted an undercurrent of common thought – perhaps now largely unconscious – that Islam might be transformed through 'westernization' or 'modernization', or 'reformation'. The missionary prayed, and the orientalist speculated, and both wrote and continue to write, with varying degrees of subtlety and insight, on the subject." (p. 60)
~ Transformation of Islam thought is based on 1) essentialization of the Orient, and 2) the Decline Theory. Missionary and Orientalist writings: varying degrees, but while there were overt un-insight, Tibawi seems to at least concede to some subtle insight.
His thesis:
"But here it may be stated, in a summary fashion, that English-speaking students of Islam – and from now on the discussion will be restricted to them – have been less scholarly objective in their studies than in their publication of texts. Instances of insufficient scientific detachment are not lacking even in the editing or translating of certain texts, where the subject lends itself to the ventilation of those 'fixed ideas' about Islam which still exist in the minds of certain Western scholars." (p. 61)
His opinion:
"The writer believes that on the whole old prejudices, greatly diminished since the dawn of this century, are still strong and widely disseminated by some Arabic and Islamic scholars in the West. Moreover, he fears that 'religious' prejudices have more recently been reinforced by new 'national' prejudices. There is evidence that the feeling of hatred long reserved for Islam has now been extended to the Arabs or more particularly Arab nationalism." (p. 61)
~ Tibawi is assuming: 1) readers' knowledge on what he is referring to, and 2) readers' agreement with him that whatever his references are sufficiently support his claim that religious and national prejudices are still being disseminated.
"If we were to describe in a word the kind of training they [younger generation of scholars] had received, it would be generally correct to say that, apart from theological background in certain cases, most of them had linguistic or literary training, and that very few among them are trained historians. One or two have recently made rather experimental ventures in the vague realms of sociology and psychology." (p. 62)
~ Is the assumption that theology, linguistics, philology, and psychology absolutely do not overlap with history 100% correct? Aren't all these fields interdisciplinary (or have the potential to be so) at least in some ways?
His critique:
"Many of the studies on Islam written by English-speaking orientalists are distinguished by erudition, but if one penetrates beneath the apparatus of the learned footnotes and the array of sources one is bound to detect an alarming degree of speculation, guesswork, and passing of judgement [sic.], for which little or no concrete evidence is produced." (p. 62)
~ General question: what constitutes concrete evidence?
"It is, of course, one thing to be skillful in deciphering documents in Arabic (or Persian or Turkish) and quite another to be able to integrate the material culled therefrom into an historical contribution in the accepted professional sense. History in general is one of the most vulnerable of disciplines to the invasion of people from outside; it is often assumed that anyone who wields a pen can write history. In Islamic sources, the linguistic, literary, and historical materials are so intertwined that scholars are prone to attempt too much and find themselves writing history, almost unconsciously, with scant qualification for the task. Hence it is easy to understand why the subject of Islam has been far better treated by the few 'historians' among the orientalists than by the majority who are in actual fact linguistics." (p. 62)
~ That would be his answers to the questions I raise earlier.
What Tibawi believes scholars should acknowledge:
"To the community of Islam, Muhammad is the last of God's messengers to mankind sent to confirm and complete earlier messages conveyed through former prophets. To the community the Qur'an is the Speech of God, eternal and uncreated, transmitted to Muhammad, at intervals, through the agency of the angel Jilbril. Not only the message itself but also the call to preach it is of divine origin." (p. 62)
~ If this is an academic qualification, is it not also a religious belief? Where and how does one draw the line between subjectivity and objectivity?
"In writing on the subject, a fair way would be to state the Muslim view in its entirety so fully and clearly as to leave no room for complaint of misrepresentation." (p. 63)
Problem with false assumptions:
"...they proceed to base on this assertion far-reaching judgements [sic.], historical, theological, literary, &c., which by sheer repetition are elevated to the dignity of facts." (p. 63)
"...after repeated polemic and missionary onslaughts against their faith, and after prolonged Western political and cultural domination of their lands, the Muslims are more prone to take offence than ever before."
~ Repetition leads to indoctrination leads to belief in incorrect things.
The believing Muslim vs. the sceptical orientalist: who would be more "objective"? Who would be more qualified? Does objectivity = qualification? (p. 63)
Why is assuming human authorship not okay when biblical studies have taken the opposite position? Assuming human authorship tends to create an air of "objectivity" and "better scholarship" in biblical studies.
"To borrow the phraseology of the quotation one might say that its author would have to admit that he cannot have it both ways: to consider Muhammad as a sincere prophet and to impute dishonesty to him since he, the supposed author of the Qur'an, does not admit that he appropriated somebody else's ideas." (p. 65)
~ What about being sincerely wrong (on both sides)?
"The faithful Muslim will still be consistent within his system; so also will the polemicist. But not the professed writer of history who attempts to ride two horses at the same time. Respectable as his attempt at a compromise may be, the result of his effort is frustrating to protagonist and antagonist alike, and not strictly acceptable to the neutral historian who has no axe to grind." (p. 65)
~ Neutrality is not the answer. Neutrality ≠ objectivity
"It is a sad commentary on the collective wisdom of the learned among the adherents of these faiths that they never succeeded in removing the causes of their mutual discord and orientalists must accept a share in perpetuating this regrettable state of affairs." (p. 66)
~ The need: clearly defined rules and methods of comparison.
"...any writer who feels any hostility to, repulsion from, even contempt for a foreign tradition should be considered – nay, he should honestly consider himself – as mentally and emotionally unfit to attempt a comparison which could contribute no tangible benefit to scholarship." (p. 67)
~ But on the other hand, is the requirement then a total lack of conviction? Again, neutrality ≠ objectivity.
"For it is only Christians who have for centuries been attempting to understand, or misunderstand, Islam in Christian terms. The basic Muslim view of Christianity has always been the same because it is part of the divine revelation in the Qur'an." (pp. 67-68)
~ True, in that I don't think Muslims try to understand Christianity in Muslim terms. But misunderstanding is still there, and Tibawi cannot simply dismiss that with "the basic view...Qur'an." He is, in this case, insisting an understanding of a truth (Christianity as how Christians would understand it) based on the beliefs/convictions from another religion (Qur'an's revelation of what Christianity is).
But, keep in mind that this is within the context of scholarly debate.
But what of the Christian belief that one cannot truly know God without first deciding to know God? The experience-comes-after-belief phenomenon? Is studying another's religion even possible, subjective or objective?
"Bold speculation, drawing of parallels, and formulation of analogies may be attractive to a professor of comparative religion who understandably must somehow find subjects for comparison. Such purely imaginary exercises may likewise be interesting to the missionary who may employ the analogies to 'soften' the resistance and to open the way. They may also be useful to the non-Muslim teacher in a Western university as a diversion to enliven his task. But as the product of a Christian theological mind couched in Christian terms they are, to say the least, pointless to educated Muslims. The matter is almost like a social conversation; in order to be fruitful it must cover subjects agreeable and interesting to both sides." (p. 69)
~ "Educating Muslims" aside, how can such a social conversation be fostered with certain divergent views, where neutrality is frowned upon?
Some questions: Is Islam immutable? (c.f. last semester's class) What's the role of neutrality?
"Similar scholarly neutrality is adopted in the approach to contemporary legal practice, with neither moral judgement [sic.] nor preaching." (p. 70)
~ So now objectivity = neutrality?!?
"A stranger to a religious system cannot so easily dispense with elementary courtesy and yet expect to be listened to with respect." (p. 72)
"Religious perception is a spiritual, intuitive experience. It cannot be comprehended by analytical or critical methods. Those outside a religious system can never capture the significance of the experience of those inside it." (p. 72)
~ Then is studying a religion in order to understand it even possible? Where is the line of "acceptable" drawn?
Tibawi's claims:
"The first essential prerequisite for any successful change (or reform) is therefore native initiative, independent of foreign control or suggestion. The second essential prerequisite is that all change must be acceptable to learned orthodox authority." (p. 73)
~ So there needs to be a filter of Islamic authority?!?
Overall:
I find Tibawi often (subconsciously?) assumes a certain air equivalent to the expression of "preaching to the choir." He assumes certain knowledge from readers, and in a way, certain predisposed beliefs. What he does not consider is whether all Muslims would agree with his interpretation of what Islam is (and in fact, they don't).
(Consider his audience: Islamic Quarterly)
