The publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism in 1978 led to a deluge of writing on Western representations of the Orient. Of the recent scholarship that deals with nineteenth and early twentieth-century Orientalism, most either focus on the works of Western scholars of the Orient, or on cultural and literary productions from the time. Said’s scholarship cast new light on past writings by Arab academics, such as Anouar Abdel-Malik, A.L. Tibawi, and Abdallah Laroui, who had already critiqued Western tropes of the Orient. The tropes Said and others were criticizing had several things in common: they depicted Arabs as less moral and intelligent, and often less human than the Westerner. Although Said’s argument in Orientalism was perceived as groundbreaking, he was not the first to write such criticism, nor was his research necessarily unique. While Arab intellectuals from the nineteenth and early twentieth century are rarely considered critics of Orientalist narratives, when studying texts from this period it becomes apparent that many were critical of the Western projects in the region.
Two Nahḍa[1] Writers’ Responses to European Orientalism: Aḥmad Fāris al-Shidyāq and Muḥammad al-Muwayliḥī
Two Arab intellectuals that wrote works that were highly critical of Europe’s interference in the region were Aḥmad Fāris al-Shidyāq and Muḥammad al-Muwayliḥī. Their responses to the West were complex, as they were not only critical of the military or political aspects of the colonial encounter, but also the problematic language used in Europe to discuss the people and cultures of the Middle East.
“The focus on Arab intellectuals’ responses to Orientalist tropes from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is important, as such investigations are sorely lacking from the existing literature that examines the wide-ranging use of such tropes.”
The focus on Arab intellectuals’ responses to Orientalist tropes from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is important, as such investigations are sorely lacking from the existing literature that examines the wide-ranging use of such tropes. This is particularly problematic as it has the effect of further silencing the subjects of Orientalism, while intentionally or unintentionally portraying them as unable to speak up about the treatment they were receiving. The relationships between Orientalist scholars and Arab intellectuals took many different forms, and although I am highlighting two intellectuals who were highly critical of the West, this is of course not the case with all of their peers.
By examining Aḥmad Fāris al-Shidyāq’s Al-sāq ‘alā l-sāq fī mā huwa al-Fāriyāq (Leg over Leg, Concerning al-Fāriyāq, 1855), and Muḥammad al-Muwayliḥī’s Ḥadīth ‘Īsā ibn Hishām (What ‘Īsā ibn Hishām Told Us, 1898-1902) it becomes clear that Arab intellectuals responded to Western narratives of Arabs and the Middle East in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The two works show that the response to the West was not static, but rather, it evolved as it responded to the colonial realities on the ground in Egypt, and the Levant as well as to the increasingly known field of Western Oriental scholarship. Thus, in Leg over Leg, Al-Shidyāq is primarily concerned with scholars of Oriental languages (called mustashriqūn in Leg over Leg)[2] that the protagonist, al-Fāriyāq (a play on the name of the author Fāris al-Shidyāq), meets in Egypt, Malta, England, and France. These scholars are oftentimes perpetrators of Orientalist tropes of the Arab “Other,” and more importantly, they do not consider the scholarship and language skills of al-Fāriyāq, the Arab, worthwhile. The Arab is presented as uneducated, stupid, and of no need to the Westerner. Although Leg over Leg presents tropes of the Arab “Other,” these tropes are of another character than the ones flourishing during the time of al-Muwayliḥī, when the Western obsession with the Middle East reached a new zenith. Thus, in What ‘Īsā ibn Hishām Told Us the two main characters, ‘Īsā and a Pasha, recount and disapprove of Western representations of Egyptians and Arabs as backwards, dirty, lewd, and in need of savior by European nations. This analysis is conveyed through their encounters with British colonial forces in Egypt, and by their visit to L’Exposition de Paris 1900, witnessing the ways France depicted Arab nations.
Contextualizing Leg over Leg and What ‘Īsā ibn Hishām Told Us
Although al-Shidyāq and al-Muwayliḥī spent much of their careers in the same areas, the political landscape had changed drastically between the times they were writing their works. Leg over Leg was published shortly after the death of Mehmed ‘Alī Pasha (1769-1849), effective ruler over Egypt from 1805-1848. Despite still formally being an Ottoman province, Egypt had gained status as a semi-independent state at this time. The Suez Canal had not yet been completed, and the presence of foreigners in Egypt was mostly represented by Protestant missionaries and traders, though with some French and British military advisors. Being from Mount Lebanon, Al-Shidyāq did, however, have a nuanced understanding of foreign powers, given the increased presence of French and British in this increasingly sectarian region.[3] However, much changed before What ‘Īsā ibn Hishām Told Us was published. In 1875 Khediv Ismā’īl Pasha was forced to sell the Egyptian shares of the Suez Canal to Britain, and as a result, Britain gained significant political control over Egypt. This eventually led to the British ground occupation of Egypt, which lasted from 1882 to 1914. It was during this time that Muḥammad al-Muwayliḥī wrote his criticism. Thus, the biographies of these authors and the political circumstances at their times provoked their responses to European representations of Egypt and the Levant.
Criticisms Catered to Different Audiences
Both al-Shidyāq and al-Muwayliḥī were highly critical of the European Orientalist tropes about Egyptians and other Arabs. Additionally, both of them acknowledged that these tropes were used to denigrate other populations as well: the entire Islamicate region in the case of al-Shidyāq, and the rest of the colonial world in the case of al-Muwayliḥī. The focus on these regions is not accidental, but rather corresponds to the recipients of their critiques.
“Both al-Shidyāq and al-Muwayliḥī were highly critical of the European Orientalist tropes about Egyptians and other Arabs. Additionally, both of them acknowledged that these tropes were used to denigrate other populations as well: the entire Islamicate region in the case of al-Shidyāq, and the rest of the colonial world in the case of al-Muwayliḥī.”Al-Shidyāq is condemning the field of Oriental studies, particularly the lack of language training the scholars had. This was true not only for Arabic, but also for Turkish and Persian. Al-Shidyāq connects the failure to hire and study with native speakers of these languages to racism in Europe; he argues that European scholars only hire people of their own race.[4] When making this connection al-Shidyāq also includes Jews as a subject of racism in Europe, albeit without commenting on the level of Hebrew being taught in European institutions. Although al-Muwayliḥī primarily focuses on the ways European colonial powers, particularly Britain and France, were using these tropes to justify and advance their colonial projects, he connects it to colonizing missions worldwide.
The two works were written for significantly different audiences: Leg over Leg is a lengthy scholarly work, which would only have been read by highly educated Arabic readers, whereas What ̔ Īsā ibn Hishām Told Us was first published as serialized newspaper essays. It is important to keep these audiences in mind, as it underscores who the two authors understood to be the perpetrators of Orientalist tropes: scholars versus colonial forces. Thus, although both works illustrate that the authors are highly aware and critical of the Orientalist tropes that are used in Europe, their criticism is in proportion to the foreign presence in the Middle East at the time and the audience they thought could influence the negative impact the Western presence had.
“Although both works illustrate that the authors are highly aware and critical of the Orientalist tropes that are used in Europe, their criticism is in proportion to the foreign presence in the Middle East at the time and the audience they thought could influence the negative impact the Western presence had.”
Contemporary Relevance
Both al-Shidyāq and al-Muwayliḥī provide criticism that resonates with the West’s role in the region up until today. For example, al-Shidyāq points out that the grandeur of the West’s academic and scholarly accomplishments are directly tied to their possession of books and artifacts that were moved from their countries of origin, illicitly or licitly.[5] It is impossible to miss the relevance of this criticism for our contemporary era. Not only are many, if not most, of the sources that were removed from the region during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries still in the libraries and museums they were brought to, but we still continue to move national archives and important texts and artifacts out of their countries of origin. This is therefore another type of academic silencing, as without access to sources, one’s scholarship becomes highly impaired. We should thus not forget the politics involved in deciding who has access to which sources. Further, scholars educated in the Middle East are still considered to have less merit than scholars educated in the West, and as for al-Shidyāq, it can be very difficult to get your scholarship published and for you to be hired abroad without these credentials (this is fortunately no longer true for language instructors).
“Judging by the daily news regarding Muslims, particularly Muslim women in the West and abroad, the trope of the uncivilized and barbaric “Other” in need of salvation certainly has not changed much since the time of al-Muwayliḥī.”
Similarly, much of the colonial criticism offered by al-Muwayliḥī could have been written today about the roles of American forces abroad. For example, when describing British felons in Egypt al-Muwayliḥī points out that the local Egyptian courts “have no jurisdiction or power of punishment in Egypt” and that as a result “[t]he offender is returned to his country of birth and homeland for trial. When judges there look into the case, they inevitably end up acquitting the criminal.”[6] With the number of war crimes never brought to court and hidden away after Western military actions abroad continue unabated, this sounds highly familiar. Judging by the daily news regarding Muslims, particularly Muslim women in the West and abroad, the trope of the uncivilized and barbaric “Other” in need of salvation certainly has not changed much since the time of al-Muwayliḥī.
[1] A name for the awakening, or rebirth, of Arabic thought and literature during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
[2] I use the term Orientalist scholars when discussing the academics in the field of Oriental studies. This term does not in of itself carry the negative connotation the term took on after the publication of Said’s Orientalism.
[3] For a discussion of the developments in Mount Lebanon at the time, see: Ussama Samir Makdisi, The Culture of Sectarianism: Community, History, and Violence in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Lebanon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).
[4] Al-Shidyāq, Leg over Leg, Volume 3, 351.
[5] Ibid., Volume 4, 433-35.
[6] Al-Muwayliḥī, What ʻĪsā ibn Hishām Told Us, Volume 1, 87.
Further Readings on the Subject
Abdel-Malek, Anouar. “Orientalism in Crisis.” Diogenes 44 (1964): 103-40.
Fahmy, Khaled. All the Pasha’s Men: Mehmed Ali, His Army and the Making of Modern Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
———. Mehmed Ali: From Ottoman Governor to Ruler of Egypt. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009.
Laroui, Abdallah, and Diarmid Cammell. The Crisis of the Arab Intellectual: Traditionalism or Historicism? Berkeley: The University of California Press. 1976.
———. The Culture of Sectarianism: Community, History, and Violence in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Lebanon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
al-Muwayliḥī, Muḥammad. What ʻĪsā ibn Hishām Told Us, or, a Period of Time [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Roger Allen. Library of Arabic Literature. 2 vols. Vol. 1, New York: New York University Press, 2015.
———. What ʻĪsā ibn Hishām Told Us, or, a Period of Time [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Roger Allen. Library of Arabic Literature. 2 vols. Vol. 2, New York: New York University Press, 2015.
al-Shidyāq, Aḥmad Fāris. Leg over Leg, or, the Turtle in the Tree: Concerning the Fāriyāq, What Manner of Creature Might He Be [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Humphrey Davies. Library of Arabic Literature. 4 vols. Vol. 1, New York: New York University Press, 2013.
———. Leg over Leg, or, the Turtle in the Tree: Concerning the Fāriyāq, What Manner of Creature Might He Be [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Humphrey Davies. Library of Arabic Literature. 4 vols. Vol. 2, New York: New York University Press, 2013.
———. Leg over Leg, or, the Turtle in the Tree: Concerning the Fāriyāq, What Manner of Creature Might He Be [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Humphrey Davies. Library of Arabic Literature. 4 vols. Vol. 3, New York: New York University Press, 2013.
———. Leg over Leg, or, the Turtle in the Tree: Concerning the Fāriyāq, What Manner of Creature Might He Be [in Arabic and English]. Translated by Humphrey Davies. Library of Arabic Literature. 4 vols. Vol. 4, New York: New York University Press, 2013.
Tibawi, Abdul Latif. “English-Speaking Orientalists: A Critique of Their Approach to Islam and Arab Nationalism.” The Muslim World 53, no. 3 (1963): 185-204.
Toledano, Ehud. “Review Article: Mehmet Ali Paşa or Muhammad Ali Basha? an Historiographic Appraisal in the Wake of a Recent Book”. Middle Eastern Studies 21, no. 4 (1985). 141–59.