Sadowski's Response and Dr. Pipes as "neo Orientalist".

Submitted by Ynnatchkah (United States), Jul 14, 2008 at 09:38

Several things o be discussed:

1. Irritates me when ones permanently labeling Dr. Pipes as Neo Orientalist.

In http://www.fm5.at/Islamophobia%20as%20neo-orientalism/ for example, it is said that "…Orientalism and Neo-orientalism appeared in Middle-East academic experts circle as two ways to explain the alleged impossible democratization of Muslim countries "…"…seeing Muslim countries this way and associating them with barbarism, provide a strong symbolic violence in Western imaginaries. This serves as a hegemonic strategy for legitimizing colonialist economic or political projects"...

I never saw any of the writing of Dr. Pipes associating Muslims with barbarism or legitimizing colonialism or alledgedlybringing the impossibility of democratization.

In fact, many of his writings, "irritates" me (I say irritates in a good sense), when defies/bothers me from taking the step to dig deeper the Muslim Non Islamist life, either by being exhausted of so much IslamISM that has brought so much disgrace or by the Islamist indeed Imperialism in our western way of life.

In "Militant Islam", Dr. Pipes on page 203 speaks about Normative Islam, as a way to emphasize how Islam and Judaism cluster in several points. As I understood it, may establish a movement towards a new pattern of cooperation.

At this point still strikes me that the Quran (the spine of Muslims) advocates Jews as animals, while at the same time as emphasized by "Arabs for Israel" legitimizes that Israel belongs to the Jews). Dr. Pipes too candidly addresses Islam and it " irritates" "us" (in the good sense again), for what our motto is just to destroy Islamists, in the same way they cripple our lives- it looks like if we devote time to dig in the non Islamist muslim life, then Islamism will go forward much faster ending up taking over the world.

Also, in others several passages in Militant Islam Dr. Pipes makes clear that many women in Islamic cultures even when dressed "modestly", work outside the realm of their homes, in important places, including politics and science. So why call Dr. Pipes Neo Orientalist?

BTW, Islamism is imperialism upon western societies that advocates barbarism upon us, justifying as a result violence against us.

Why Edward Said never addressed it, only he knows in hell.

2. ON Comments (2) cited by Dr. Pipes, in my opinion Sadowski takes in infantile position when advocating:"' "This is the way I understood and interpreted your article. When you write an article, you cannot control the way others interprete [sic] it."…

Probably for fear- he thinks that if recognizing a mistake, his credibility will be diminished. In fact the opposite would occur. When recognizing a mistake, the beauty of modesty and clear aim of establishing a work based upon cleanliness and scientific approach- triggers in others confidence in his work.

It is Not a matter of subjectivity in interpretation.

It is a matter of adulter-ing other's speech on purpose.

It is like taking an already done work, changing it slightly to create a "new" intellectual trademark and assume it as new-yet having base on other's work- either as a way of struggling to not be accused of plagiarizing or simply to please others who in majority and a major statistic who would approve assessment more easily.

This type of Sadowski's attitude reminds me about an already existing ground for justified bias towards distrust (and mocking manners) against many humanities professionals (as advocated by the motto: "... stupid enough not to follow more difficult areas such as sciences for incompetence and "bon vivant" personal characteristics), ,besides emphasizing absence of confidence, from people that come from non humanities paths for the non scientific approach.

Sorry for being frank, Mr. Sadowski.

Unfortunately, Sadowski response IS deplorable at best.

I guess a Legal Project number "two" for these cases OUGHT TO BE implemented.

1. On comments (3) I understand a different possibility. When altering Dr. Pipe's words, they want to use this "new approach" as a "based hypothesis", "to heroically" counter point an anti hypothesis and thus "establish" only in their minds a thus "acceptable" synthesis that endorses their truth as "the truth".

...While for healthy minds Sadowski's response shows his falsehood, prejudice (against Dr. Pipes work) and incompetence, for unprepared minds Sadowsky work will be taken as legitimate in all spheres...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".