Trent Carl IWS 192 Orientalism: Between Intellectual Superiority and Sincerity Orientalism, as defined today, includes many

scholars with different interests, methods of research and analysis, and intentions. Here, I am defining Orientalism broadly as a way of studying the Orient, specifically Islam, from the vantage point of the Occident. I believe this is the broadest way to define the term and it overlaps with more general terms such as Islamic Studies and Near Eastern Studies as used in academia in the United States. Here I want to briefly consider the dichotomy in Islamic Studies literature between Intellectual Superiority and Intellectual Sincerity and note the greyness that may exist between the two poles. The core issue here is the issue of intellectual superiority. This should, theoretically be very neutral. Every scholar, in any academic realm or field of study, that critiques another scholar's research or conclusions is, implicitly or explicitly, claiming intellectual superiority over the other scholar's particular work. It would not make sense otherwise or else the individual would agree with the other scholar's findings and cite the work instead of issuing critique. So one cannot claim that because Western scholarship sometimes critiques Muslim scholarship that this represents, as Said describes in his more narrow definition of Orientalism, a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony1. It should also be noted that Muslim scholars have a very long tradition of critiquing each other; Islam is not intellectually monolithic. Another element to this discussion is the element of objectivity or sincerity. Can intellectual objectivity be realized? If by that it is meant can someone think without having any particular ideas colouring his intellectual background it must categorically be rejected. A political
1 Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York: Random House, Inc. 1978), p. 5.

Trent Carl IWS 192 science scholar who is immersed in Marxist thought will obviously have Marxist tendencies in his or her scholarship. More broadly, someone growing up in Norway will have a worldview that is shaped by (either acceptance of or rejection of) Norwegian culture, political thought, and educational systems. As Said noted, No one has ever devised a method for detaching the scholar from the circumstances of life, from the fact of his involvement (conscious or unconscious) with a class, a set of beliefs, a social position, or from the mere activity of being a member of a society.2 The point to be made here is if an Orientalist scholar argues from a vantage point of the West then he cannot necessarily be dubbed insincere for a Muslim scholar argues from the point of view of being Muslim. So, can there be a distinction between scholarship that seeks, sincerely, to understand and scholarship that seems to want to simply discredit a previous tradition? I will offer a few examples that I believe represent each side of the coin. If a scholar makes a claim without any supporting evidence it could be said that he is simply trying to debase an idea or compilation of ideas. Gatjke mentioned, Reliable information about the fate of the copies of the Qur'an produced by direction of 'Uthman is as good as non-existent; however, using traditional Muslim accounts and the later version of the Qur'an, a number of conclusions can be drawn concerning the state of the 'Uthmanic edition of the Qur'an.3 Gatje's statement here plainly puts at odds reliability and traditional accounts relayed by Muslim scholarship without any supporting evidence surrounding this claim. The implication here is that all the Muslim scholarship that has endeavored to clarify the issue of the reliability and the way the Qur'an was transferred in time is absolutely worthless to the point that
2 Said, p. 10. 3 Helmut Gatje, The Quran and Its Exegesis, (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2004), p. 25.

Trent Carl IWS 192 it almost mind as well not exist. On a different note I will cite Motzki. Motzki devised a new method of hadith critique to try to devise a new method to authenticate or reject ahadith. This gesture shows a sincere intellectual journey to understand and find out what is true. Motzki states, Western studies dealing with the issue of the collection of the Qur'an make clear that premises, conclusions and methodology of these studies are still disputable. Whether their alternative views on the history of the Qur'an are historically more reliable than the Muslim tradition on the issue thus remains an open question.4 Harold Motzki gives credit to both Western Scholars and Muslim scholars who have dealt with these issues and critiques them from his viewpoint. He does not make wide claims such as the one above that seem to relegate a whole section and tradition of scholarship to the landfill. The issue of sincerity and superiority based on one wanting to simply cast away a point of view they disagree with is something that is grappled with daily by humans. We see this in journalism, television, the internet blogosphere, etc. In Islamic Studies and Orientalism it has an increased emotional aspect to it because it deals with content that much of the world's population deems sacred. And in no way can we say that this debate is relegated to classical Orientalism of the past. Recent news reports that Liberty Seminary President Ergun Caner lied about his conversion from a Jihadist to a Christian shows that this struggle is still pertinent today5.

4 Harold Motzki, The collection of the Quran: a reconsideration of Western views in light of recent methodological developments, Der Islam, 78, 2001, p.15. 5 http://www.alternet.org/news/146797/christian_right's_favorite_muslim_convert_exposed_as_jihadi_fraud? page=entire