The result of, what l found about this subject by reading same parts of the book that written by mr. Edward w. said that published by ”penguin publisher”   :

 ‘’Oxford dictionary’’ define term of ‘orient’ as countries of the (far) east, e.g.  china and japan. So as you see oriental is against occidental (west side like Britain, franc,… and now united states of America). I think after powered the west, they start to expanding their dominion in order to have more natural recourse and collect more wealth , so in this regard their researcher also come to help traders, policy makers and military actioners,… to achieve their goals. So the east that did not be aware of what they had, become abused by westerner with losing wealth and fame.

Oriental people became defame by western researchers and looted by trader. Orientalism is speaking of the way of looking east by west and in fact it is a critically reaction to this dividing the world and especially human been.

Mr Edward w. said is the author the book with the exact name of ‘orientalism’ that he write it in 1977 after long time academic study in the most fames universities in west with look to westerner literature. He had been engaged  with west literature texts for long time and he use this knowledge in very good manner to explain western writer with what kind of way of looking and analysis east.  

He believes that the way of dividing the world in oriental as well as occidental is a geographical dividing and the difference between the people of this two part of glob is not meaning that one said should think that have the right to domination to other side.

 this way of looking to oriental people is related to philosophy of dualism and it is baseless. And with dualism approach you cannot have a suitable scientific result.

I am also with this view that west (and other) look to other nation bass on their own view on them, and west with their dualism‘s look to east defame east culture and social structure,… actually westerner (or orientalist as Mr said name them) look himself as axes of world and other aside out of standard, that should be guide and civilized. With this view they think naturally will have the right to rule others. They see himself as civilized and the others as uncivilized people so with this elaboration of world humanity they divide human been in two category (orient – occident) civilized – uncivilized but with the base of geographical dividing.

In this way of analysis, every man who live in orient area (with any level of culture) are uncivilized and occident should led them to civilized posion.so slavery system, nationalism movement , racism movement , Marxism ,… are the symbol of dualism which see every phenomenon as two confronted aspect. Owner against slave, orient against occident, feminine against masculine, Islam against Jew,…

West with this way of analysis, see other as inferior and himself as superior. Dualism in history have deep influence but in 20^th century it is emerge in face of international wars and after on with cold war and now by the policy of ‘’ to be with us or be against us’’ by Americans, it is continuing.  west feels that they should rule the world and this right given to them by the nature and by the God (for realigns west men).

Mr. said also use his capability in “comparative literature” to show years of misunderstanding in what western legions (in politic and human science) separate for centuries and he show their failer. He also show that orientalism now a day is countinuing by usa.

Here is same statement by mr.  Edward w. said in this book :

The relationship between orient and occident is a relationship of power , of domination , of a varying degree of  hegemony ,… (orientalism – page 5)

“European and then American interest in the orient was political … but that it was the culture that created that interest … therefor, orientalism is not a mere political subject … orientalism is a cultural and political fact ” (orientalism – page 12 -13)

Mr. said see orientalism and imperialism in same and he believe that three great empires (Britain , French ,   America) and their intellectual did the same in literature about orient  (orientalism – page 14)

  Seyed mostafa mostafavi – 1391/7/8

+ نوشته شده در شنبه هشتم مهر ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 12:17 شماره پست: 193

The respected author of article that titled “Orientalism and Occidentalism Two sides of the same coin” by him, want s to say that bad is bad ether is located in this wing or in another wing. Looking to world phenomenon with the glasses of “dualism” dos not have different if you are in the west front or in the east front. Both of them (with this ideology) work the same as destroyer of peace and order in human society especially in political atmosphere.

 Dr. Mohammad Samiei (professor of Tehran university - facility of World Studies)  in this article with the comparing the beliefs of Mr Sayyid Qutb (as symbol of eastern intellectual society) and Mr Samuel Huntington (as westerner think tank) show that dualism in orientalism and Occidentalism work in same way when thoughts combine with dualism. And if we inter with this dualistic approach   to 21^th century and they think the same as the approach that they had in 20^th this century also will have the same destiny and again world will face with disorder and massacre and no peace.

At the eve of 21^th century when the world was very optimistic of finishing the period of wars and killing man kinds in huge number, again dualism come to emerge in serious speech of President George W. Bush after the September the 11 of 2001 (collapsing twin tower building in New York) that he noted:

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

At that time the world face with dualism of USA as head of Capitalism and on the other side Islam (that defined in the term of terrorism face). Mr Bush define black and white approach in international policy and he make an artificial framework that even patron westerner like France and German governments also could not find any place in Mr Bush new dualism strategy, for himself, and this radicalism by USA even exclude France and Germany that should ignored France and punished Germany by the Bush dualists military hard wares.

From this time dualistic policy of Bush administration would say who is terrorist and should be punished and selectively who is not terrorist and which government should be come to end and which one with same character should powered and ignored. This framework should say who will be the target. So the Bush strategy divide the world between “us” and “others” , the main way of dividing in every dualistic system of thinking’s that have a bipolarised situation, phenomenon, society, culture, political thought,..,  with no grey area. Although harm other This fundamentalism and radicalism in USA policy will also destroyed foundation of western utopia that is based on pluralism.

Respected author of this article although recognise being natural dualism between some social phenomenon like “young” against “older” ,… refer that dualism is became in negative face when is speaking of dominations one on others. As it mentioned in this article :

 “In this paper dualism specifically refers to the realm of human interaction for the purpose of exploitation and domination. Historically speaking, dualism was manifested by different ideologies which attempted to justify the domination of others by theorising dualities based on sex, race, nation and class. The critical part of dualistic thought is not that there is merely a difference which can be found between each pair of men, but a dramatic difference, a ‘difference by nature’, i.e., an essential otherness which makes a specific group of men less human and hence subject to domination by another complete human being. In the social and political realms the main intention behind promoting dualistic thought is usually to justify the way ‘we’ treat them, even if we, as human beings, do not want to be treated in a similar way. The core of a dualistic argument, thus, is that ‘they’ are essentially different, totally dismissing their commonalities with us as members of the human race. It goes without saying that this argument inevitably produces on the other side a counter-response which leads to a counter-counter-response, in a vicious circle of hate. Here, in a brief historical overview, I mainly focus on some modern European examples.”

Some good example of dualism that naturalise by west philosopher are :

Feminism against macules - Nationalism - Racism - Marxism,… in this ideologies the funder of them define a two side frame that show endless conflict between two natural enemy. They exaggerate some characters and they impose monolog interaction between two society of two side that led them to dominant to others. Val Plumwood rightly defines this interaction as binges by Mr Samiei in his Article :

“A dualism is an intense, established and developed cultural expression of such hierarchical relationship, constructing central cultural concepts and identities so as to make equality and mutuality literally unthinkable. Dualism is a relation of separation and domination inscribed and naturalised in culture and characterised by radical exclusion, distancing and opposition between orders constructed as systematically higher and lower, as inferior and superior, as ruler and ruled, which treats the division as part of the natures of being constructed not merely as different but as belonging to radically different orders and kinds, and hence as not open to change.”

Mr Samiei in this article want s to mentioned that dualism is a dangerous and harmful approach that is adapted by somebody or a group against  somebody or other group.

Mr Samiei also show that new dualistic view of point in 21^th century come out from new orientalism theory by “Huntington” in name of “clash between civilisation” that in this theory Islam and west is in two fronts.

He also shows us that there is no fundamental different between dualistic approach that taken by “Huntington” or “Qutb” two side fallow their agenda and political aim and draw their rival as black and white viewpoint.

as Conclusion Mr Samiei suggest s :   

“Dualism, regardless of being used by whom against whom, is a flawed and dangerous ideology. As globalisation unfolds, we need more mutual understanding and more  democratic patterns for global political theory. It is the biggest intellectual and political challenge of the coming period, one could say. Dualism leads our world to new barbarianism in which conflict, war, and terror are legitimate means. Instead, we should highlight our commonalities as equal members of the human race and accept and even protect and promote diversity. Nowadays as we have understood that we are surrounded by a triangle of intimidations, i.e., the possibility of a nuclear war, environmental crisis and terrorism, humanity is in need of more coalition building to tackle these devastating threats. To cope with these dilemmas we have to dismiss ideologies that give us swords to fight against each other, making us ignore such major threats of our common environment of our common existence.”

I am also waiting for new world that nobody now himself as whole the truth and other as derailed thought, derailed culture , derailed society ,… we should hope that again all of human desire to have peace and prosperity will not destroyed by some government like Bush s administration at the time of hopes.

At the time that all the nations in the eve of 21^th was preparing for in different new century that meanwhile they were tiered of war and killing each other’s. the Bush administration enter world to new long period of wars and disorder and endless mascara again worth than 20^th century.

  So we have to change the way of looking to each other to understanding humanity better and recognise each other and different values and tolerate each other in good manure.

+ نوشته شده در شنبه پانزدهم مهر ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 17:45 شماره پست: 194

In May 2003 Mr Edward w. Said write a preface for his new edition of the book “orientalism” Published by the “Penguin Group” again in 2003 (it was third edition, after its republication in 1978, 1995). In this text he refers to his goal and again had a look to the world ,s new phenomenon base on his “orientalism” theory. He looks at occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan as new Orientalists action toward Orient (Middle East). He analyse this events as newest world face with new imperialism by United States and United Kingdom.

Mr said know himself as represent of "the Orient" and his book as source of a especial kind of discourse that is contain a source of cultural element of The East,… and know it effective till now after it published in 1978 and translation to in thirty-six languages till 2003 show that it rule is going on. He thinks that his book and it, s subjects is alive and completely did not “die down” and one of the reason of it, is continuation of the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam world to fuel enormous change, struggle, controversy and war.

Mr said believes that his growing up in Middle East (Palestine and Egypt and Lebanon) has effective role in “Orientalism” Definition. He speaks about the starting his engagement in political after the 1967 Arab–Israeli war and the effect of continuation of occupation of Palestinian Territory and other Arab land and very bad Palestinian situation in his carrier and also his experience in comparative literature as specialist in this field to have orientalism theory.

He also noted that in American university, Columbia is still one of the few remaining places in the United States where such this study can take place. and still Orientalism has dynamic to interpret new events in political atmosphere in eve of 21^th . then Mr said see event in middle East as chain like this :

   The Lebanon civil war ----- the failure of the Oslo peace process -----the outbreak of the second intifada--------- the awful suffering of the Palestinians on the reinvaded West Bank and Gaza, with Israeli F-16's and Apache helicopters used routinely on the defend less civilians as part of their collective punishment-------The suicide bombing phenomenon has appeared with all its hideous damage-------- than the events of September 11, 2001 -------their aftermath in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course Mr said thinks that general understanding of the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam in the United States has improved, and the situation in Europe seems to be considerably better but imposing west forms of life to orient and quite common voice that is hear by high officials in Washington and elsewhere that speak of changing the map of the Middle East is bad alarm.

In this preface again he declares that there is no real “orient” and artificially it made by some orientalist. He also blame American army, navy and air force that came 7000 miles away of their land to destroy a country (rarely known by Americans even the educated of them), in the name of freedom. And he raises the question that modern imperialism ever ended or not.

Mr said blame scientific silent toward what imperialism has done, and what Orientalism continues to do. Humanism is something that he wants to introduce and he alert from “minding away from concrete human history and experience and in to the realms of ideological fiction, metaphysical confrontation and collective passion”.

Mr said although in Palestine – Israeli mater is in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people to national self-determination, but at the same time he is think full at the Jewish and what they suffered in the past and speak about equality in Palestine - Israeli

As Dr Samiei mention mentioned in his article “Orientalism and Occidentalism Two sides of the same coin” Mr Said also see it the same.

 Mr said with his post- modernical critism look to Internet and mass media. And he believe that Education also threated by some “ism” like nationalism, the religion orthodoxism as well as mass media and an electrical war is going on by orientalist and occidentals against each other. They systematically make an enemy and starts to war with this unknown enemy that even educated men in US never heard its name and labelled them and egxageratly destroyed their face by mass media to prepare exploitation when military starts his movement, at that time public opinion is will be ready for any cruel act toward this unknown enemy.

And all of it prepared by same people that named “experts” by mass media,… as tool in the hand of modernity to achieve its goal. So F16 fighter and mass media work in same role in this “modern technological sociality” and when other side see this inhuman action toward himself, the reaction of them is the same and they start an anti – American straggle without knowing what is American society and it’s real element. For example Mr Said know US government a powerless in determining US policy.

Mr Said give a good welcome to some result of international summit that speak of “one World”, the expression against ruled dualism modern world. He also speak with large number of the people who are silent in this battlefield in bilateral war between “the west” or “Islam” that will they effect and shouldn’t be quite

Mr Said also emphasize on “the rational interpretive skills that are the legacy of humanistic education”,” return to traditional values” and “worldly secular rational discourse”. He believe that  “we need to concentrate on the slow working together of cultures” and  “ live together” and “ we need time and patient” And “humanism is the only, and final, resistance we have against the inhuman practices and injustices that disfigure human history”.

He speak of using “democratic field of Cyber space” to opposite what is coming from the “Rumsfeld’s”, “Bin Laden’s”, “Sharon’s” and “Bushes” of this world.

Seyed Mostafa Mostafavi

 21-7-1391

+ نوشته شده در جمعه بیست و یکم مهر ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 11:30 شماره پست: 195

In The Name of God the munificent and the merciful

Professor Bernard Lewis had an Interview on 30^th December, 2001 just few months after terrorist attack to New York City (US). In this interview he obviously declares that dualism and confrontation between Middle East (Islam) and “Christian Europe” were very old and it started long time ago and this attack also is the continuous of that battlefield!

 Maybe base on the mutual influence of Mr. Lewis on neo - conservative government (Bush administrator), this misunderstanding is repeated by President Bush when he mistakenly speaks about “Crusades war” when he wants to start his war against Taliban and Iraq.

 In Mr. Lewis opinion “Ottoman empire” is as whole of Islam and it’s defeating as defeating of Islam against Christianity but everybody knows that the world of Islam is vaster than Ottoman Empire ‘s territory and Muslim who ruled under Ottoman Empire are not whole of Muslim. So Ottoman Empire although was base on Islamic system, but it is not equal with Islam, and Islam is as religion not the Ottoman Empire.

 Mr. Lewis based on his Orientalism approach toward Middle East; see the two sides as monolithic entities. And he recognizes Middle East as every time defeated during the last 3 century toward European Christianity. When Mr. Lewis want to describe the Middle East, he use “they” repeatedly toward them and put this “they” against West as One another side and always “victorious” and one side as “defeated” again and again.

 He sees all the political and social phenomenon in a chain (as historian) and he try to join them together, Then he forgets himself as scientist who should scientifically analyse the political or historical events and he replaces “Christian Europe” by the “we” or “us” in his statements. So when you read his writing or listen to his speaks you will find him as representative of one side not as expert who expects to scientifically analyse the phenomenon.

So As the Islamic world define, the USA current war in Middle East see as religion war against Islam (the things That formally rejected by US administrator even president Obama again and again) Mr Lewis forget US and Russia rivalry or long enmity among and put Russia also in the same front with the west (as he name “us” or “we”) against “They” and obviously characterize it with religion ‘s aspects, But if it is a accepted fact that “al-Qaida” done this terrorist attack also, this military group is not the representative of Islam or symbol of it, and Muslim world and majority the people who Mr. Lewis name them “they” are moderate and  against fundamentalism of “al-Qaida” which every regional country know that “al-Qaida” is made in USA, against “USSR” and before Nato or US start their fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Muslim people had long tough and hard war against them, there because They don’t accept their philosophy and their approach toward Islam. But I don’t know how Mr. Lewis put “Ben Laden” as representative of Islam.

 Mr. Lewis named a vast area like Middle East as “dangerous and unstable region” but he (as historian or expert of the region) should know that instability start when the “we” decide to destroyed Ottoman empire system and then they decide to put their agent in the heart of Middle East land and now a day they make instability in the region because of just “oil” and “Israel”.

In this interview Mr. Lewis show his “black and white” looking way in the way of interact with The “we”‘s enemy or rival, when he want to show the way to his political wing to act against them, he speak about “Get tough or get out” so he does not see any gray space in between. He suggests them to be “tough” because he cannot imagine anything else in between two sides, from being tough till getting out. He never can imagine any compromise or negotiation and middle way between to side. He see an old and endless war that have no solution for it and you should just fight and there is no escape of it and just victory by the “us” can solve it or defeat and got out.

His solution is just “continue the good work that was started in Afghanistan and deal with some of the other countries or groups, terrorists-terrorist groups and countries that help them”.

 so you can feel deep hate toward Middle Eastern in Mr. Lewis when he describe the region and when he give solution to this mater. In his view there is no space for living together between the “they” and the “we” in equal atmosphere. Superiority of the “we” as is always victorious, should recognize by the “they”. In this atmosphere the best or acceptable “they” or the symbol of this acceptable “they” is just Mr. Mustafa Kamal Ataturk that decide to be exactly westernize and but as result you can see this admired system of Ataturk after long time trying to westernize, is not accepted in western club also.

 The Atlantic Monthly | May 2003 published an article by Mr. Bernard Lewis “"I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go to Hell" religions and the meeting of civilization Lewis.
in this article Mr. Bernard Lewis speaks of The “us” that he name it as “the modern Western world” against “others” with non- stop confrontation toward  backwardness, long time defeated Middle East.

 surprisingly he defines themselves primarily by “nationality” I don’t know how he can give Nationality aspect to a vast front that even Russia and Germany are include and he forget the “we” that make 20^th century bloodbath with the World War Second (1939-45) that take life or fifty million and approximately thirty-five million people were either badly injured or injured. How these nation who have such as this bloodbath among them can make a one nation that Mr. Lewis can use nationality word here. The question is this how can see them as nation.

 Mr. Bernard Lewis obviously put “the modern Western world” with confrontation with a force that “defines itself as Islam has given a new relevance—indeed, urgency—to the theme of the "clash of civilizations."

Mr. Lewis know clash between civilization as necessity of modern international relation as he say “clash of civilizations is an important aspect of modern international relations, though probably not many of us would go so far as to imply, as some have done, that civilizations have foreign policies and form alliances.”

In this article Mr. Lewis with retelling Mustafa Kemal Ataturk speech “only one civilization was alive and well and advancing, and it is modernity, the civilization "of our time." All the others were dying or dead. Turkey's choice was to join this civilization or be part of a dying world. The one civilization was, of course, the West.” Say that the only alive civilization is the west civilization.

He recognize two kind of civilization first one is civilization which define itself with exact religion like Islam and Christianity and the other one is define itself base on region and ethnic. He tries to separate religion aspects of civilization and so in the case of Christianity he speak of Christendom and he wish to also separate Islam also from Islamic civilization world, and he speak of creating Islam Dom.

He rightly put his finger on Islamic country weakness in studding foreign language. But his mistake again is that he see Islamic ruler as exact Islam but Mr. Lewis as expert should know that Prophet Mohammad in ruling and, … is completely different with an Ottoman king or a Islamic ruler in Spanish land. And if you compere between sultan Salim‘s aim, way of ruling, morality, policy,… with Prophet Mohammad you can see they are totally different.

 The other thing is that, Mr. Lewis should know that historic reason is not good excuse to capture other nation’s land by the others. Because if it became a ongoing policy in international interaction (in any era of time), so many land in the world in future should be hand over to their historical owner of them. With this unreasonable reason For example U.S resident should be wait to see the powerfulness of local American (Indian) in future to, give America up to them. In the case of Australia, Canada … is also the same. so speaking of power in the hand of Jewish is not good reason to occupy Palestinian land and see it as chain of “conquest and Reconquest” and in the case of Palestine see it as “the great European counterattack into the lands of Islam” it will lead humanity to the endless conflict that power will determine which resident in which land should be stay at a exact time.

It is the fact that US is alive with its enemy, without enemy their outdoor and international policy will be hesitated so they need to have an enemy and in the case of collapsing USSR they were looking for new one and it seem that Islam is chosen in this manner and also some scientist Like Mr. Bernard Lewis or Samuel Huntington … theorized this adopting enemy scientifically. Mr. Lewis with long time study on Middle East with a Jewish background and conservative attitude (all is necessary for coming to political stage in USA), make him famous and player in US Republican time to choose new enemy.

Westerner like Mr. Lewis when they want to analysis the “other” they look to himself and then the deference between The “us” and “others” and they say that everything that “we” have is factors of our succeed and if “others” want to be succeed they should adopt them to be victorious as us. One of them is the separation between church and governing or religion and politics. That is their suggestion to others to separate social ruling from religion. But they don’t have any attention to difference between Islam and Christianity or role of church in medieval period and clergy role in Islam. About the woman is also the same if you see to the picture that belong to 19^th ,18^th century in Europe woman wearing is very different  and they were very covered but by the now they are going to be naked. And this something that is going to be dominates there.

 Also some westerner like Mr. Lewis suggests the others to do the same and they did not have any attention to different culture and the necessity of it. Just they say you have to be same as us if you want to be succeeded.       

Seyed Mostafa Mostafavi

  27^th October – 2012 - Tehran

+ نوشته شده در شنبه ششم آبان ۱۳۹۱ ساعت 14:27 شماره پست: 197