Hasan A. Yahya, a professor of Philosophy
Debate for Orientalism as a philosophical or non-philosophical approach to study reality is misleading among scholars. According to Crescentology, philosophy cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the two reflected realities or viewpoints or opposite ways of thinking. Because philosophical thinking to be perfect in providing ideas (silly or rigor as perceived by some), needs to be applied for both viewpoints. Otherwise, it will be a perception with an array of possibilities for errors. A philosopher would be in this case an independent of his feelings, wishes, hopes and fears. In other words, a philosopher follows objectivity in its strict sense.
Talking about religions from the angel of rational thinking, using mental powers, will not satisfy theologians or ideologists talking about the same topic. The difference between the two, is the open or limited spirituality. Glorious spirituality as totality of existence is a characteristic of God the Just for all human and non-human beings, not God for only Muslims or Christians or Jews, or Buddhism, or else, A total objectivity of human thinking. A limited spirituality is ground-like soccer game competition where spirituality is limited to certain groups represent one of the two teams on the play ground, the winner will have certain skills on both individual and group cooperation while undermining the skills and qualities of the other team.
In a sucker game, philosopher will never loose, theologians will. Because in soccer game, not the skill of feet is needed, but the mental power and physical skills work side by side to use the feet in cooperation with other feet. In short, theologians in the soccer game, imagine spiritually granted victory without planning, or thinking about the other team skills and qualities, where God will interfere, somehow. Unlike theologians, philosophers take into consideration the other team, or the other point of view on equal measure to apply for both teams to perform reality as factual outcome.
Reality is is an outcome of facts. It is a result of an action or reaction of a person, or persons. The response is covered with emotions, without thinking, It occurs among both sane and insane persons, groups, organizations, and states. Planned reality needs philosophers not theologians or politicians. On the same token, reaction share reality (as action) in the power of creating it. But response or reaction usually comes later than an action in terms of cause-effect. Where planning makes reaction realities as right or wrong relative to metaphysical, epistemological and ethical ideology of the decision maker. Politicians and theologians share these characteristics, but sharply different from philosophical approach.
Reality might satisfy some persons, but never satisfy all persons, dealing with reality is a perception, I will bring some real incidents of reality, where people differ in their perception also, according to certain influences. The psychological, the social, and the cultural, factors constitute the color of reaction to reality as an action. Realities fight each other, like ignorance and knowledge, like mental and physical, like modern and old times, like close and open minds and spaces. Saddam invasion to Kuwait was means, a reality, for sure, to an end. Such end is different among the invaders and invaded. The action created reaction. No matter how reasonable the action is, the reaction would be more planned than the action itself. The reaction is not less reasonable view, and Saddam was defeated. Take the Nazi and Jews in Europe, or Israelis and Palestinians case, or Muslims and non-Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs, East and West in history, all were characterized by TRADISM in economic sense, unfortunately, reality in any place and time is real, the unreal is the reaction to it. In this point reaction comes in two shapes, one planned which is more successful because it needs mental abilities of persons and groups and may be nations through leadership and representatives, including personal and technological skills, immediately or strategically. The non-planned reaction which can be described as emotional and physical no matter what possessions, skills or qualities of a person (where the mental ability is in prison, and the only freed power is the physical) will loose but with excuse. Unfortunately most human reactions historically, are not planned but excused and justified. For example, Arabic language was considered an obstacle for the dominant colonial forces. Therefore, for people in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Lebanon, French Language was introduced. The call for abolishing Arabic, the language of Qur’an was attacked, by some learned persons in European universities, Taha Hussein, for example in Egypt was a leading figure to shed doubts over the pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and literature which is the corner base for Qur’an. Other voices from Lebanon and other places suggested writing Arabic in English letters like the way Turkey changed its letters to Latin. The reaction was justified to defend Arabism and Islamism in the Middle East.
Orientalism thesis has subsequently found incongruous allies among some Islamist polemicists, because the writer was Arab Christian. And consider orient western scholarship as a conspiracy as they did with the Encyclopaedia of Islam, work of mostly western scholarship has attracted particular criticism. They argue that this sort of publications should have been written mostly, if not entirely, by Muslims and should have been subject to Muslim censorship. Their belief is that Islam is the power to unite people together, and that a reason why the west tries to destroy it.
Reality incidents-facts on the ground are: Colonization is a reality (occupation of lands, resources and mentalities), Religiosity is a reality,(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, occupation of cultural mentalities thru diffusion), Ideologism (Capitalism, Communism, Nazism, and Zionism, etc.,) are occupation of political party by emotions rather than reasoning.
Purposes of Orientalism, include all the above facts, it is a colonization, of land, resources and mentalities, a religiosity, and an ideology. The other party facing Orientalism is the occupied land, the occupied religious perceptions, and the guidance rules of Ideologism. To explain this point, colonization was an action with different characteristics from reaction. The reaction shares action in certain ways. Philosophically speaking, dealing with the action of colonialism, and Orientalism, to be objective, have to depend equally on the same basis of the colonizing power (as action or reaction) and the reaction (or action) of the colonized or occupied. In race relations we call the two sides, the majority-minority debate were both are personally equal under the law.
Edward Said’s approach in his Orientalism was a reaction for continued injustices toward Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, from reality point of view rather than philosophical point of view which is wider in volume and scale. The reaction in many cases can be described also as an action under the umbrella of reaction. His purpose was philosophical but his treatment of Orientalism was description of reality, where lack of justice is supreme reality outcome of cultural perceptions, colored by colonial scientific and rational thinking rather than a reaction to fear or anger.
The crusade campaigns were initiated by internal forces rather than colonial purposes. Colonialism, was a non-planned reaction as a solution for internal turmoil in Europe. Colonized lands, resources and peoples can be described in their resistance, as reaction to reaction, (or action) never planned before, where resistance was the normal outcome against the colonial power ( as the weak-strong struggle).
Other examples of reality, for instance, the September 11, 2001. Was it an action or reaction? In both cases it was real. The immediate consequences were injured and dead people were the results (reality), demolition of buildings (reality). Spoiling the environment (reality). Considering it as an action was seriously taken offensively more than considering it as a reaction to unjust (one sided) USA foreign policy in the last fifty years toward Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians. The reaction to it as perceived as an action, was a reaction. But planned one in a democratic world. Dignity of the powerful was hurt, negative relations of Goliath facing David in modern world, where Goliath is equipped with both reasoning and emotions. The reaction was depending on three propositions: existence, identity, and consciousness, propositions that defeat its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. According to objectivity of Ayan. While honor of a nation’s identity, existence and consciousness were assaulted, the reaction to 9/11 was more ideologically emotional, but planned by reasoning and creating support worldwide as if it was a reaction from the Western World toward an action from others (whatever their size was). The force behind 9/11 attackers was considered a leading factor to anarchic powerful nations to colonize the world anew under the name of globalization using rational methods. Occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq was justified not as legal, but as a perceived right for individual and national as well as global security.
More incidents can be brought here, in a form of question. Was the incident of Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, Texas, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an action or reaction? Was it personal or collective self-interest? Was it like colonization or resistance according to the above reasoning? Was the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh an action or reaction? Was killing Marwa al-Shirbini, in Germany, an action or reaction? It is the same as: Was colonization an action or reaction? Was Orientalism an action or reaction? The answers may lead to an explanation colored by ideological-religious or logical-philosophical judgement. And finally was paying millions (from one to 25) as a reward for killing Salman Rushdie or Bin Laden an action or reaction?
Edward Said, is our concern here, in his Orientalism, was a reaction for western actions of injustice, falsifying materials on Arabs, Islam, and Palestinians in several stages of history. Therefore, emotions were leading his scientific thinking and scholarship. Thus, the outcomes of the argumentations in the Orientalism book created a various reactions to it. It is like reactions for the internal turmoil in Europe in a form of crusades in three centuries after the eleventh century, like the resistance reaction to colonization in the 18th and 19th centuries, like the exploded personalities reactions with anger in Texas, Germany, and Holland. All these reactions are not totally reasonable other than personal belief or loss of personality, which easily can be described as insanity. Means to survive lie behind all reactions in both death or life, because both are becoming equal when insanity is applied.
What are the means and what are the ends of the above reactions or actions? It depicts the loss of one side, while the other side celebrates its insanity as victorious whither the outcome was death or life of persons or nations.
Here comes the role of philosophers to take into consideration the action and the reaction on equal bases, or in research terminology, taking the cause-effect reasoning to reach a sound finding. This philosophical side was lost in Said’s argument about Orientalism, while it was strongly convincing the reactionaries, it does not satisfied the actionaries. Orientalism has attracted particular criticism from some Muslims, who argue that this sort of reference work should have been written mostly, if not entirely, by Muslims, and should have been subject to Muslim censorship. And some non-Muslims described his work as “somewhat confusing survey of the way Europeans and Americans have written and thought about the orient and, more precisely, about the Arab world.” Said argues that Orientalism was a sinister discourse that constrained the ways westerners could think and write about the orient. And suggested that there was a malign tradition of disparaging and stereotyping orients in various ways that went back to Homer, a tradition that was continued by such grand writers as Aeschylus, Dante, Flaubert and Camus. In fact, Said argued, the in recent centuries academics in Islamic and middle eastern studies had been instrumental in framing a mindset that facilitated and justified imperial dominance over the Arab lands. Which I believe is true. But both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars are not taking into consideration the philosophical grounds behind the Book: Orientalism, in the first place.
I have in common with Said, too many things, age, place of birth, and American citizenship, to emphasize one of the three commonalities, takes you out of philosophy which deals equally with all. In this article. however, the philosophical approach is attempted to deal with a new phase of Orientalism, which I call: “Crescentologism” instead of Orientalism if we are looking to reduce tensions among civilizations globally. The Crescent according to the new concept, is a full real moon, even some of it is hidden, it doesn’t mean the some is not there. In terms of Orientalism, Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, as well as orients (the West) are still there, and cannot be ignored among world civilizations, no matter the amount of falsification and information distortion exchanged about them. Orientalism though effective to pinpoint to injustices bias in scholarship, it broaden the negative gap between East and West. This article follows the philosophical approach which according to Ayn Rand in her recent Atlas Shrugged book describe as objectivism. For this author, The laws of Crescentologism constitute an objective science of cultural normalization depends on reciprocal exchange of four axioms, if you will or assumptions, where true knowledge lead to true understanding, then true appreciation can be agreed upon to finally reach compromising for the purpose of happy life as individuals nations and cultures. Crescentology takes the approach of objectivism where it is a philosophy for living on earth which equally worldwide, grounded in reality actions and reactions aimed at defining human beings’ nature anywhere they live and taking into consideration the nature of the world as well. As Rand speaks for me, he wrote: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man (I prefer human being to escape ideological feminism-Yahya) as a heroic being, with his (her) own happiness as the moral purpose of his (her) life, with productive achievement as his (her) noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. “ (The italics, and emphasis between brackets in the last three lines are the author of this article). (2361 words) www.hasanyahya.com
Hasan A. Yahya is an American writer, scholar, and professor of philosophy. Has a 2 Ph.d degrees from MSU. He published 22 Arabic and 8 English books, and 200 plus articles on sociology, religion, psychology, politics, poetry, and short stories. Philosophically, his writings concern logic, justice and human rights worldwide. Dr. Yahya is the author of Crescentoly: Theory C. of Conflict Management and Cultural Normalization, 2009, on Amazon. He’s an expert on Arab and Islamic cultures, and was invited to several TV shows and international conferences on religion and future strategic planning. www.dryahyatv.com
