تغطية الإسلام

by Edward W. Said, محمد عناني (ترجمة)

المفكر البارز إدوارد سعيد يُميط اللثام عن العوامل التي أدت إلى تكوّن الصورة المشوّهة للإسلام في الغرب، واستمرارها. ومعظم هذه العوامل يعود لبدايات المشروع الاستعماري الغربي، ولكتابات المستشرقين، ومن يُطلقون على أنفسهم صفة الخبراء بالإسلام، وبعض الأجهزة الإعلامية الجبارة.

ولا يكتفي سعيد بالتحليل الدقيق لعناصر الداء الذي أدى لهذا التشوه في صورة الإسلام، أو تغطية حقيقته في أعيت الغرب، وفي أميركا بصفة خاصّة، بل يلمح للدواء، وما ينبغي للمسلمين أن يفعلوه لتصحيح الصورة المغلوطة.

ومُترجم هذا الكتاب هو الأستاذ الدكتور محمد عناني، الأستاذ بجامعة القاهرة، والمترجم القدير، والذي بذل جهداً كبيراً لإخراج أفكار سعيد واضحة للقاريء العربي، فجاء النص العربي مُحكم الصوغ مشرق الديباجة.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Islam, History, Religion, Middle East, Journalism

352 pages, Paperback

First published March 11, 1997

About the author

(Arabic Profile إدوارد سعيد)
Edward Wadie Said was a professor of literature at Columbia University, a public intellectual, and a founder of the academic field of postcolonial studies. A Palestinian American born in Mandatory Palestine, he was a citizen of the United States by way of his father, a U.S. Army veteran.

Educated in the Western canon, at British and American schools, Said applied his education and bi-cultural perspective to illuminating the gaps of cultural and political understanding between the Western world and the Eastern world, especially about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East; his principal influences were Antonio Gramsci, Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire, Michel Foucault, and Theodor Adorno.

As a cultural critic, Said is known for the book Orientalism (1978), a critique of the cultural representations that are the bases of Orientalism—how the Western world perceives the Orient. Said’s model of textual analysis transformed the academic discourse of researchers in literary theory, literary criticism, and Middle-Eastern studies—how academics examine, describe, and define the cultures being studied. As a foundational text, Orientalism was controversial among the scholars of Oriental Studies, philosophy, and literature.

As a public intellectual, Said was a controversial member of the Palestinian National Council, because he publicly criticized Israel and the Arab countries, especially the political and cultural policies of Muslim régimes who acted against the national interests of their peoples. Said advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state to ensure equal political and human rights for the Palestinians in Israel, including the right of return to the homeland. He defined his oppositional relation with the status quo as the remit of the public intellectual who has “to sift, to judge, to criticize, to choose, so that choice and agency return to the individual” man and woman.

In 1999, with his friend Daniel Barenboim, Said co-founded the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra, based in Seville, which comprises young Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab musicians. Besides being an academic, Said also was an accomplished pianist, and, with Barenboim, co-authored the book Parallels and Paradoxes: Explorations in Music and Society (2002), a compilation of their conversations about music. Edward Said died of leukemia on 25 September 2003.

Reviews

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edward Said's writing, even if it's about a certain historical event written in a particular historical context (something of which he himself is constantly aware), is timeless in the sense that he understands certain fundamental dynamics of human interaction and nature. These dynamics include the relationship of knowledge to both interpretation and power, as well as the consistent human tendency to objectify that which is different from us, a phenomenon known as "otherness" to people like me, or as "Orientalism" to people who've lived from Said's perspective. So the fact that Said is writing (in 1980) about the Iranian hostage crisis before its conclusion is irrelevant to the larger point he is trying to make about human relations. In addition to, and despite the historical contextual nature of the writing, Said still manages to give us valuable insights into the nature of "Western-Islamic relations" - itself a problematic term in its overgeneralization - today.

For example, Said states in the concluding pages that "negative images of Islam are very much more prevalent than any others, and that such images correspond not to what Islam 'is', but to what prominent sectors of a particular society take it to be" (136). He follows that up on the last page by imploring the reader to realize that "all knowledge is interpretation, and that interpretation must be self-conscious in its methods and its aims if it is to be vigilant and humane, if it is to arrive at knowledge". "For otherwise...we will offer the Muslim world the prospect of many wars, unimaginable suffering and disastrous upheavals."

Said has no patience for lazy scholarship and sweeping generalizations, particularly when human life is at stake. This is embarrassing when we look at the wealth of knowledge that has been made available to us since he wrote this book. Does it need to be stated that our computers allow us access to not just Western interpretations of Islam (whatever it is that means to any given person), but to Islamic interpretations of Islam? This is the problem that occupied some of this book in 1980 - the lack of Islamic interpretation of its own society in Western scholarship - that is not nearly as much of an issue today. For not only do we have the internet at our disposal, but we also have much more cross-pollination in the world of academia due to the nature of technology and globalization. Obviously the nature of subjectivity still makes the point about interpretation valid, but the ignorance of and blanket statements towards a name/religion/label that is claimed by at least 25% of the world's population is inexcusable. There are more varieties of, cultures inherent to, and differences of custom, practice, language and interpretation in the world of Islam today than can possibly be grasped in any one individual's lifetime. This includes not only the religion, but the politics, societies and ethnic groups that form the large majorities of of what could be considered Islam. This is not even to mention those that are identified as Muslim simply by association, but are for all practical purposes irreligious.

All of this should be obvious, as should much of what Said has to say. Yet that is precisely the brilliance of an author like Said: He is prophetic in the sense that he states universal truisms about human nature. He is knowledgeable and wise in the sense that he makes complex ideas easy to understand. And finally, he is able to apply these principles of interpretation and human nature to himself and realize his personal role in the process, which is critical for any analyst attempting to make sense of our world.

[Amr Mohamed · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتابي رقم 500
كنت أريد أن يكون كتابي رقم الـ 500 مميز ومختلف فاخترت لادوارد سعيد ولم يكن أول كتاب اقرأه للكاتب فمنذ قرأت منذ عدة سنوات كتاب تشومسكي يمدح ادوارد سعيد وكنت وقتها لا أعلمه بحثت له عن أغلب ما كتب

كتب ادوارد ثلاث كتب عن مسألة العلاقة فى العصر الحديث بين العرب والاسلام من جهة وبين الغرب وفرنسا وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة من جهة أخري

فى هذا الكتاب يكشف لنا ادوارد سعيد كيف يرسم المستشرقون التى يريدها الغرب للشرق حتي بدا أنها حقيقة على رغم من زيفها ، وان صورة الشرق تلك كانت تباع للغرب فى ظل نظام اقتصادي يحكمه الربح المادي فما يريده السوق يقدمه الكُتّاب فالسوق يريد صور مكان غريب متخلف عن ركب الحضارة يسوده التفكير اللاعقلاني والمتع الحسية وخصوصا الاستغراق فى الملاذ الجنسية

الاسلام فى الغرب كبش فداء ينسبوا اليه كل ما يتصادف أن نكرهه فى الأنساق السياسية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، فاليمين يري أن الاسلام يمثل الهمجية ، واليسار يري أنه يمثل حكم الدين فى القرون الوسطي وما تتفق عليه هذه الدوائر جميعا فهو استحالة قبول جوانب كثيرة من جوانبه

وضرب مثل علي ذلك وكيف تم تغطية حدث مهم مثل ثورة ايران واحتلال السفارة الامريكية فى الإعلام الغربي ، فاغلب محرريهم واعلامهم تجاهلوا تماماً تدخل أمريكا السافر فى ايران منذ عقود وانهم الايرانيين من حقهم ان يروا موظفين السفارة ممثلين لبلد مستعمر تدخل فى بلادهم واطاح بمصدق رئيس وزرائهم وساعد وأيد من يقتلهم ويسرقهم ويعذبهم وهو الشاه ، والغرب يجعلوا من اى حدث او تجربة وحيدة فقط تعميم شامل على جميع المسلمين والاسلام كله

وكتب لنا أمثلة لاراء فى الغرب تري ان الاستعمار كان مفيداً وانه بعد انتهاء الاستعمار كانت الهمجية ، وان الاستعمار أتي بالهدوء والنعيم وكأنما ايام الاستعمار أفضل أيام عاشتها الشعوب وأما انتهاك مشاعرهم وتشويه تاريخهم وتعاسة مصائرهم لا قيمة لها ما دمنا من وجهة نظره نواصل الظفر بما هو مفيد لنا وهي الموارد الثمينة

يوجد الكثير من الأمثلة فى هذا الكتاب المفيد أريد ان اكتبها فى الريفيو ، انصح بهذا الكتاب القيم يعيبه فقط الملل فى بعض الاجزاء لإعادة نفس الافكار

تقييمي 3.5

[Bob Newman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Son of Orientalism

Edward Said wrote one of the seminal books of the late 20th century (“Orientalism”) which influenced the way countless historians, anthropologists, economists, novelists, and travelers looked at other cultures. His main topic therein was, if I may be extremely succinct, how knowledge is created and how, in particular, it was created over several centuries as concerned the Middle East by imperialist/colonialist/racist writers of all kinds. Summing up such a potent book in a sentence is ridiculous, but in terms of this review, necessary. COVERING ISLAM is a continuation of Said’s first book. If Western views of Islam (their “knowledge” of it) were created by French and British scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries, the American media, political establishment and body of academic scholars has created the American view of Islam in the period after WW II. To be succinct again---they have done a pretty poor job of it. Said gives credit where he feels credit is due, singling out various scholars or journalists whom he thinks have done more substantial work, but disparages the mass of writers who he points out, have served the purposes the political or oil drilling establishments. He speaks of “communities of interpretation” and basically decides that they have failed to understand.
He claims that a specific picture of Islam has been created and that picture is limited and stereotyped. That picture helped to create a confrontational political situation pitting “us” against “Islam”. The picture we have been given may tell us more about ourselves than about the world of Islam which is far more variegated than ever given credit for in the media. “Clichés, caricatures, ignorance, unqualified ethnocentrism, and inaccuracy” (p.122) have been rampant. Said points out that “the world we live in is much too complex and much too different now and much too likely to go on producing unconventional situations (however much they may be to the liking of the United States as a nation) to be treated as if everything could be translated into affronts to or enhancements of American power.” (p.100)
A less stimulating section deals with the academic world of Middle Eastern Studies. Here, Said involves himself and the reader in some feuds barely disguised. While he may have had some decent points here too, you wonder what personal animosities led him to include this. I think the book would have been better without them. Nevertheless there is truth in the fact that a lot of the upper establishment of academia cooperated within the network of government/corporations/ universities/think tanks, doing research to “prove” certain beliefs or desired objectives. The connection of knowledge with power could not be clearer.
One long section of the book is about the Iranian hostage crisis which was unfolding as he wrote. Said notes that the long history of American interference and Western attempts to dominate Iran hardly rated a mention in the media. The “barbaric” captivity (which he does not support) came to an end with everyone still alive. (What about all the Central American kids on the border? Are they all still alive?) American relations with Iran are worse than ever; we are still stumbling about blindly in the Middle East particularly under an ignorant, racist president who thinks only of his investments and “playing with the big boys”.
I can go on. However, the stunning thing about this book is that it was written 40 years ago, before two Gulf wars, before the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the Gaza Wars, before 9/11 and the Afghanistan war, the Islamic State, and the Syrian, Yemeni, and Libyan civil wars. Did we learn anything from Said? Did we learn anything from all these wars and disasters? Damn little.
If you think he was just some kind of gadfly with no firm grounding 40 years ago, here is part of his last paragraph written in 1980.
“If the history of knowledge about Islam in the West has been too closely tied to conquest and domination, the time has come for these ties to be severed completely. About this one cannot be too emphatic. For otherwise we will not only face protracted tension and perhaps even war, but we will offer the Muslim world, its various societies and states, the prospect of many wars, unimaginable suffering and disastrous upheavals, not the least of which would be the birth of an ‘Islam’ fully ready to play the role prepared for it by reaction, orthodoxy, and desperation. By even the most sanguine of standards, this is not a pleasant possibility.”
What else do I need to say?

[أسيل · Rating 5 out of 5]

امتداداً لكتابه الاستشراق وكتاباته النقدية
مستنداً على التغطية الاعلامية في ازمة الرهائن الامريكان
في ايران وعلى حال الدول العربيةالنفطية
وكيف تعاملت مثلاً السعودية مع فيلم قصة الاميرة
ومن خلال اطلاع ادوارد للكتب والصحف والمقالات والتغطية الاعلامية
وربطها بالصورة التي رسمتها اوروبا للاسلام منذ نشأتها
وعهودها الاستعمارية والتي تعمل على استمرارها
من خلال المستشرقين والخبراء بالاسلام ومراقبته وتتبعه لاراءالمتخصصين
في الدراسات الاسلامية
يغطي ادوارد كيف يتناول الغرب الاسلام ويتعامل معه
وفق منهج تحليلي علمي دقيق
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

الادراك السليم والتقييم النقدي
لصفات الاجتماعية والفكرية المتاحة للجميع ويستطيع كل انسان غرسها بذاته
الادراك الذي ينشأ من الخبرات الانسانية المشتركة
وقابل لأن يخضع للتقييم النقدي


" ان القضية التي اطرحها في هذا الكتاب تقول ان التغطية المعتمدة للاسلام التي نجدها في الدوائر الاكاديمية ترتبط بما نجده في الحكومة وفي اجهزة الاعلام بروابط متداخلة وانها اشد انتشارا واشد اقناعا ونفوذا في الغرب عن اي تغطية او تفسير آخر ومن الممكن ان يعزى نجاح هذه التغطية الى النفوذ السياسي للاشخاص والمؤسسات التي تتولاها وليس بالضرورة الى صدقها او دقتها كما اقمت الحجة على ان هذه التغطية قد ساعدت في تحقيق اغراض لا تتصل بالمعرفة الفعلة للاسلام الا باوهن الروابط وكانت النتيجة هي الانتصارات لا لنوع خاص من المعرفة بالاسلام فحسب بل لتفسير خاص لم يسلم على اي حال من الطعن فيه ولم تبث حصانته ضد اختراق الاسئلة التي وجهتها الاذهان المتفتحة الوقائية غير المعتمدة
لينتهي الامر الى التغطية بالمعنى الحرفي اكثر مما تنال من الايضاح او الفهم
بل اننا نواجه هنا خط اختراع اكايب جديدة وترويج انواع لم يسمع بها احد من المعلومات الخاطئة

إن بواعث الإزعاج "غير العلمية" مثل المشاعر والعادات والأعراف والتداعيات والقيم تعتبر جزءاً لا يتجزأ من أي تفسير، فكل مفسر قارئ، ولا يوجد من يمكن أن نعتبره قارئاً محايداً أو خالياً من القيم، أو بعبارة أخرى، كل قارئ يجمع بين ذاته الخاصة وبين انتمائه إلى مجتمع ما، وتربطه روابط من شتى الألوان والأشكال بذلك المجتمع. والمفسر في عمله يخوض غمار مشاعر قومية مثل الوطنية أو النعرة القومية وأحاسيس شخصية أخرى مثل الخوف أو اليأس، ولابد من ثم أن يحاول بأسلوب منضبط استعمال العقل والمعلومات التي اكتسبها من التعليم الرسمي (وهي التي تمثل في ذاتها جهداً مديداً من التفسير) حتى يصل إلى مرحلة الفهم. أي إنه لابد من بذل جهد كبير لاختراق الحواجز القائمة بين سياق أوضاع معينة، وهو السياق الخاص بالمفسر، وسياق أوضاع أخرى، وهو السياق الذي كان قائما عندما وحيثما كُتب ذلك النص. وهذا الجهد الإرادي الذي يبذله القارئ واعياً، أي جهد تخطي المسافات والحواجز الثقافية، هو الذي يمكنه من معرفة المجتمعات والثقافات الأخرى –وهو الذي يحدد في الوقت نفسه من تلك المعرفة. ففي تلك اللحظة يفهم المفسر نفسه في سياقه الذاتي، ويفهم النص في السياق الخاص به، أي في السياق الإنساني الذي نشأ النص فيه. ولن يتأتى هذا إلا من خلال الوعي بالذات الذي يغذو الوعي بما هو بعيد وأجنبيا وإن كان بشريا على كل حال.

ملاحظة: كثيراً ما قرأت قوائم وبرامج كتب لغض رفع الوعي والاراك
وغالباً ما تغيب كتب هذا المفكر عن هذه القوائم
لكتابه الاستشراق اهميته ولكنه قد يكون صعباً على غير المتخصصين
ولكن هذا الكتاب له اهميته وسلس وواضح

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

After laying the ideological foundations of Orientalism and exploring its impact on Western policy and thought towards the Muslim peoples, Saïd here analyzes how these factors inform the press and how it transforms and warps reality in reporting. If you wonder why CNN and Fox can continue to use falsehoods and slanderous stereotypes about "arabs" without barely any criticism in the rest of the mainstream media, you will not be disappointed. It is interesting to note that in another recent book I read, An Army at Dawn, Churchill's aim during WW II was to maintain the British Empire following the defeat of Germany and how he omitted revealing true casualty numbers and atrocities committed by Allied forces in the Africa campaign (and presumably beyond) and this book from 1981 clearly explains why. Even 37 years later, nothing has really changed. A must read.

[Abdullah Bakhashwain · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا كان اول تعرف لي على ادوارد سعيد وكان ذلك حين صدور هذا الكتاب في ترجمته العربية. يناقش الكتاب كيف تتم تغطية الاسلام اعلامياً في الغرب. وقد كانت المناسبة هي احداث احتلال السفارة الامريكية في ايران . وناقش الفرق بين الباحثين والدارسين والمعلقين على الاحداث الامريكان والبريطانيين و وضح ان مشاكل اكثر الامريكيين يتحدثون عن طاهرة وهم لا يعرفون لغتها بعكس البريطانيين حتى الصحفيين والمراسلين الامريكان كان هم ينقلون ما يقوله لهم المترجم لا ما هو واقع فعلاً بعكس البريطانيين الذين كان اغلب العاملين والمتخصصين في الشرق الاوسط يجيدون لغات سكانه. بالرغم من قدم صدور الكتاب الا ان التعامل مع قضايا الاسلام والشرق الاوسط والعرب الان كثير ممن يتعامل معها بعيد كل البعد عن المعرفة التاريخية والاجتماعية والسياسية والثقافية للعالم العربي. كتاب جدير بالقراءة

[Diz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first edition of this book was written during the Iranian Revolution, so the majority of the incidents discussed refer to that or the oil shock of the 70s. I read the second edition that was published during the 90s, so it also includes some incidents from the 80s and the Gulf War. Despite its age, a lot of the points made about the way that Muslims are framed in the media are still valid, if not more so. There has been a lot of research into this area since this book was published, but most of those books refer back to this one, so it remains relevant.

[Amid عميد · Rating 5 out of 5]

Covering Islam by Edward Said is an enlightening critique of the Western media’s portrayal of Islam. Said brilliantly unpacks the concept of ‘Orientalism’ and how it leads to a distorted and oversimplified view of the Islamic world. The book challenges readers to question these stereotypes and seek a more nuanced understanding. An essential read for those interested in media studies, cultural interpretation, and Islamic perspectives.

[طاهر الزهراني · Rating 3 out of 5]

بعد قراءة كتاب(تغطية الإسلام) لإدوارد سعيد، والذي كان يتحدث عن الغرب وأمريكا خصوصا والعالم الإسلامي وعن إيران خاصة في عهد آية الله الخميني، وذلك بعد أحداث احتجاز الإمريكيين في إيران في السفارة في نهاية السبعينيات الميلادية، كانت يسلط وسائل الإعلام الغربية الضوء على أساس أن هذه الدولة هي من يمثل الإسلام..

ثم يعرج إدوار في فصل صغير، على فيلم (موت أميرة) الذي سبب خلافا بين السعودية وبريطانية وكيف ان وسائل الإعلام كانت تحاول إبراز ما هو سيء ومرعب ومنافق فقط، وبالتالي لم تكن هناك تغطية إعلامية موضوعية عن الإسلام والعرب
..
طبعا الكتاب يتحدث في مرحلة مضت، - لذا لا تتوقع أن تجد فيه ما يضيف لك - قد يهم الباحثيين لتلك المرحلة، ولكن بقراءة هذا الكتاب، يخرج ببعض التصور عن أشياء كثيرة وسيناريو متكرر جدا
لهذا حمدت الله أن إدوارد سعيد عاش أحداث ما بعد 11 سبتمبر لكي يتحفنا بتصور وإحاطة موضوعية متفردة، وهذا الذي وجدته عندما قرأت له كتابه العظيم ( الثقافة والمقاومة )وهو كتاب مهم جدا جدا ، لمن أراد الحقيقة او جزءا منها

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book that discusses how the media frames the Islamic tradition and creates authoritative voices who represent Islam on the airwaves or in print, but are not necessarily "the" authoritative voices.

[Owlseyes]

"So inflamed against Islam has the media environment in the United States and the West generally become that when the Oklahoma City bomb attack took place in April 1995 the alarm was sounded that the Muslims had struck once again; I recall (with residual chagrin) that I must have received twenty-five phone calls that afternoon from newspapers, the major networks, and several resourceful reporters, all of them acting on the assumption that since I was from and had written about the Middle East that I must know something more than most other people. (...) The media had assaulted me, in short, and Islam—or rather my connection with Islam—was the cause."
Edward Said

"Vesten har gjort islam til sin fiende"
(The West has made Islam its enemy)
17 NOVEMBER 2023
Alexander Dugin
in: https://derimot.no/alexander-dugin-ve...

[عمر · Rating 4 out of 5]

فإذا كان تعبير "الإسلام" لا يحمل لنا من الدلالات إلا ما يقل كثيرًا عما ينبغي أن يحمله، وإذا كانت "التغطية" باستخدام هذا التعبير تغطّي، بمعنى تُخفي، أكثر مما تظهر، فأين عسانا، أو بالأحرى كيف نستطيع أن نجد المعلومات التي تَحُضُّ على أحلام جديدة بالقوة أو تُنَمِّي المخاوف وضروب التحيز القديمة؟



وإذا كان تاريخ المعرفة بالإسلام في الغرب قد ارتبط ارتباطًا وثيقًا بالغزو والهيمنة، فلقد آن الأوان لقطع هذه الروابط قطعًا مبرمًا. ولا نستطيع مهما قلنا أن نبالغ في تأكيد ضرورة ذلك. هذا وإلا فسوف نجد أننا لا نواجه التوتر فقط بل وربما الحرب أيضًا، بل سوف نقدم إلى عالم المسلمين، وإلى شتى مجتمعاتهم ودولهم، احتمال نشوب حروب كثيرة، ومعاناة لا يتصورها العقل، وفورات تأتي بالفواجع، وليس أقلها خطرًا مولد نوع من "الإسلام" المتأهب تمامًا للنهوض بالدور الذي أعدته له قوى الرجعية، والتزمّت واليأس. وحتى لو حكمنا بأشد المعايير إغراقًا في التفاؤل فلن نجد ما يثلج الصدر في هذا الاحتمال.


هذا هو الكتاب الثالث بعد الاستشراق والمسألة الفلسطينية التي يتناول فيها إدوارد سعيد العلاقة بين الغرب والشرق.

الكتاب مهم جدًا ويحتاج قراءة ثانية

[Maudy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not someone who stands on a different edge—holding a different faith—from the writer, but I still think this is such a good read. We know how Islam has been fabricated in many ways around the world, yet we rarely get the chance to understand why and how those narratives were perpetuated.

“Each of us lives in a world actually made by human beings, in which such things as "the nation" or "Christianity" or "Islam" are the result of agreed-upon convention, of historical processes, and, above all, of willed human labor expended to give those things an identity we can recognize.”

Big identity was never pure or fixed from the start, every cultural product is always interpreted, constructed (in by that YES it means in engineering-like way, everything is on purpose), narrated, and even fought over to shine. The important thing isn’t whether someone is a “true Muslim” but how they, themselves interpret Islam and how they act based on that interpretation. So if any political movement claimed itself to be Islamic, we should see it in a way that it’s how they conceive Islam, not Islam itself.

Truth does OUR frameworks around it are definitely human-built.

[Moataz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know if there's such a thing as 'over-sympathy' towards Islam or not, but I couldn't really escape the sense that Edward Said often fell into sympathetic-justifying tone rather than sympathetic-explanatory tone in arguments of Islamic violence in the west or towards the west here. I understood that the whole discussion in the book is about The West and not about Islam, but if the book's tone made me uncomfortable and confused. I know that it's not realistic to say that, but: Western violence in our countries doesn't at all justify violence in the west; it does explain it, but it doesn't justify it. The same goes for violence against Muslim (brown communities actually) whenever a terrorist attack take place. It does explain it; it doesn't justify it.

But don't get me wrong. This is the only thing I have against the arguments of the book. And even that, I say with half-hearted sense, because the book is very persuasive in its arguments. Edward Said is a hardcore Academic man - sorry for the expression. He's both eloquent and elegant as his usual in laying arguments with supportive "compelling" evidence. The most thing I like about Edward Said is he's a philosopher of a sound and rational mind, and when he's critical, he's not at all polemic. Even when oppose idiots and crazy people with great influence, he's a civilized and elegant man in his criticism, and never goes low or trivial.

However, the relationship of the Islam and West is often interpreted that "Islam" is the attacker, the trouble starter, and that's true. But when it comes to "Islam" in "Islamic countries" is a totally different power dynamic. I don't like Iran. I don't wish to grow up in Iran. The idea of praising aspects of Iran was insane for me. One doesn't often hear such rhetoric. (It's not Edward Said's words. It's the Le Monde's journalist Rouleau.) But that's the end of it. Edward Said's point was that the American Media didn't see any positive sides from the Iranian revolution, despite the presence of less aggressive parties than Khomini which American media didn't cover unlike European media.

The western media still relatively the same, with more cautious leftists than before, but still blunt racists are still exercising their ignorant speeches. Until recently, a right-wing fanatic on Fox (i don't even which to mention his name, but his name says fat, white, and incel), said that "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Which is very strange coming out of an American, who hear about a mass shooting every couple of months. But compared to the CNN and The Post and Times coverage of Islam in 80s and 90s, this statement is very nice. Finally they admit not all Muslims are terrorists. That's progress.

[مـنــار الخلايلي · Rating 4 out of 5]

مراجعة كتاب "تغطية الإسلام"
للكاتب إدوارد سعيد
نوع الكتاب: دراسة ونقد

لقد أثار إدوارد سعيد مسألة الإستشراق في سلسلة تضمنت ثلاث كتب، ويعتبر كتاب تغطية الإسلام آخر كتاب في هذه السلسلة التي تناولت علاقة الشرق بالغرب. وقد خصص هذا الكتاب التغطية المزيفة للإسلام عند الغرب، حيث تُفهم كلمة "تغطية" بمعنى إخفاء الحقيقة، وأيضاً بمعنى آخر وهو التغطية الإعلامية للإسلام.

ويجدر الإشارة هنا أن مذهب الكاتب مسيحي وليس مسلماً، أي أنه لا يمكن أن يكون متحيزاً لأنه لا يعبّر عن إيدولوجيته الدينية، بالإضافة إلى أنه يعيش في بلاد الغرب، وهذا من شأنه أن يجعلنا ندرك سبب صخب المعلومات والمقالات التي إستشهد بها في كتابه.

ينقسم الكتاب إلى ثلاثة فصول أساسية، يركز الفصل الأول على نظرة الغرب للإسلام حيث نقد إدوارد سعيد كيف يتم إختزال صورة الإسلام بالدين الوحشي التابع للقرون الوسطى ويصوّر المسلمين بالغوغاء الإرهابيين و المتعطشين للدماء، ويشرح العوامل الداخلية في أميركا التي ساهمت في تعزيز الرؤية المغلوطة للعالم الإسلامي.
أما الفصل الثاني فطرح من خلاله ثورة إيران ومسألة إحتجاز الرهائن في السفارة الأميريكية بطهران، وشرح كيف استغل الإعلام الغربي هذا الحدث لطمس حقيقة الإسلام وحصرها بأفعال إرهابية، للتحكم بقناعات الشعب واحكام السيطرة الفكرية عليها، كل هذا يعود لكون الشرق منافساً رهيباً للغرب بموارده الطبيعية، وكون الإسلام تحدياً متأخراً للمسيحية.
وكان للإعلام دوراً محورياً في هذا الصدد، حيث استشهد إدوارد سعيد بأمثلة -لا حصر لها- تعكس استخدام الغرب "لبروباغندا" موجهة أحادية المنظور بهدف التأثير على آراء و سلوك أكبر عدد من الأشخاص.

يختم إدوارد سعيد كتابه بالفصل الثالث الذي يعتبر الخلاصة لكل ما ورد، ويتناول فيه علاقة المعرفة بالسلطة، ويركز على أن المعرفة ليست شيء مستقل بذاته ولا يمكن أن تكون مجردة أو حيادية دون التأثر بتوجيهات السلطة والعوامل المحيطة لها، حيث أن المعرفة ترتبط بالسلطة ارتباطاً وثيقاً، والدولة التي تمتلك نفوذاً اقتصادياً وسياسياً وأكاديمياً، يسهل عليها تكوين معرفة وثقافة عن الغير كما يحلو لها، من خلال استخدام الأدوات والأجهزة الإعلامية دون مراعاة الشروط الأساسية لمعرفة ثقافة أخرى.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published in 1981 and updated in 1997, Said's critique of the media's coverage of Islam, particularly in the Middle East, is a thought-provoking challenge to any reader's perceptions of what is reported as news from that war-torn part of the world. Written before 9/11, subsequent military intervention in Afghanistan, and the current conflict in Iraq, the book's interpretation of events unfolding there (the aftermath of the Islamic revolution in Iran) are often prophetic. An understanding of Islam based solely on Western "interest," he argues, will lead to further and protracted conflict rather than resolution of differences.

Despite a carping tone that becomes irritating and a tendency to make its points with a thoroughness that seems like overkill, the book throws a searching light on how Islam is represented by news gatherers, experts, and policy makers. Emphasis on violence, anti-American rhetoric, and resistance to "modernization," for example, belie the fact that there is not a single monolithic Islam but many Islams and that what news organizations perpetuate is an undifferentiated form of cultural stereotyping - as if it were sufficient to say about the Dutch that they all wear wooden shoes.

Said's arguments are often dismissed for reasons that may have some validity (as a Palestinian-American, his sympathies are clearly not pro-Israeli), but readers can benefit nonetheless from his contrarian views, especially since they throw into question assumptions about the Middle East, which so far show a tendency (as in the case of Iran and Iraq) to seriously misjudge political and cultural realities.

[Mazen · Rating 3 out of 5]

يناقش إدوارد سعيد في أسلوب تقرير كيف تناولت وسائل الإعلام الأميريكية أزمة الرهائن التي وقعت في إيران بعد سيطرة مجموعة من الطلبة علي السفارة الأميركية في أخذ من فيها رهائن لمدة تزيد عن السنة، و كيف تمت قولبة الإسلام و الشيعة علي طراز الغرب والشرق و الشيوعية و العالم الحر، افتقدت أمريكا في ذلك الوقت قلاع استشراقية علي شاكلة التي كانت في فرنسا و إنجلترا أثناء حكمهم مناطق شاسعة من العالم الإسلامي، و علي رغم هوس أمريكا بمنطقة الشرق الأوسط وقتها إلا انها افتقدت معرفة حقيقية بالشعوب الإسلامية المختلفة و ظروفهم الإجتماعية. وضح إدوارد كيف انحازت آلة الإعلـام الأميركية إلي رؤية واحدة في تناولة إيران و آية الله الخميني - رحمه الله - و أن معظم المتحدثين و الصحفيين كانوا علي جهل كبير و عميق العربية و الإسلام و اللغة الفارسية و انطلقوا من مفاهيم قديمة و مشوهة تخدم وجهة النظر الأميريكية دون تقديم رؤية عميقة عن الوضع. نتيجة لهذا تكون عند الغرب صورة نمطية وحيدة عن " الاسلام " كقالب معرفي موضوعي متماسك، و ليس كدين سامي لشعوب مختلفة و متنوعة و انما مجموعة نمطية من القيم يتم تداولها لتبرير كراهية الشعوب المقهورة في الشرق الأوسط و حقدهم علي الغرب و الولايات المتحدة.

[Shreya · Rating 5 out of 5]

my first book by Edward Said!!! i was very excited to read this and it did not disappoint. he's an excellent writer. you can tell he chooses every word with a lot of care, which made his flaming criticisms of Islamophobic writers, publications, etc all that much more enjoyable and instructive. i would not be able to show my face again if he had critiqued me like that.

good read but also extremely sad and heartwrenching. kept thinking the whole time about how this was written before 9/11 even happened :(

[THANA]

DNF. Stopped at the 48%.

Said’s books are sth beyond me, I hope to come after a year finding myself better in understanding them.

[simão · Rating 5 out of 5]

apesar de Edward Said já nos ter habituado à sua qualidade e conhecimento em “Orientalism”, creio que esta obra oferece muito ao leitor que pretende perceber como a política, mais especificamente as relações internacionais, são tão impactantes no conhecimento e interpretação de assuntos como o Islão.


algumas passagens que eu gostei:

“if there is one lesson Americans should have learned from the Vietnam tragedy, it is that we do not possess the ability to decree the course of events in ancient countries deeply affected by their own histories, cultures and religions.” — de realçar o uso do termo ‘tragedy’ em vez de ‘war’.

“[…] And the moment a voice is heard that challenges this conspiracy of silence, ideology and ethnic origins become the main topic: He (or she) is a Marxist; or, he (or she) is a Palestinian (or an Iranian, or a Muslim, or a Syrian).”

notável como um livro de 1981 continua a ser especialmente relevante à luz da agressão sionista na Palestina, curiosamente a terra natal do escritor.

[Pádraig Mac Oscair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Orientalism applied, where Said analyses the then-contemporary coverage of Islam the insights of that book. Worth reading (the examples cited may have largely faded into irrelevance but the points Said makes certainly haven't) but maybe read Orientalism first to have a better handle on the theoretical foundation and be sure to read Tangled In Terror: Unrooting Islamophobia afterwards for an expanded understanding of Islamophobia across a wider purview.

[Brumaire Bodbyl-Mast · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very condensed rendition of Saidian critique, this time, in rare form, his target is contemporary
journalism and academia, rather than literature. While most of it was written in the 80s and 90s, it’s all still as if not more relevant today than it was at the start of the current Islamophobic craze. The first 3rd covers several particular journalists, their pathetic excuses for “Islamic experts,” and their odd writing habits. The second 3rd covers the response to the Iranian hostage crisis, how the old guard of journalism, both print and television, in the US were pathetically underprepared to discuss its Islamic character and Iran in general. Some European counterparts proved quite admirable in their coverage by comparison. The final section is more generalized - looking at how knowledge is formulated in the academy, especially when regarding something so ambiguous as Islam. The second section is most interesting to me, as Said’s admiration of Rodinson as an orientalist who truly tried to gain a better understanding of his subjects proves fascinating. The first section (and introduction) goes hard on one of Said’s favorite targets, Bernard Lewis. Overall a great read, which while the subjects have changed, the topic is still relevant. Just swap out names and it’s virtually indistinguishable from today.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though overly polemical at points, this is still an informative book that takes much of Said's key ideas from Orientalism and applies them to media coverage of the Middle East and Islam, helping to problematize the oversimplified portrayals of both.
Many of his main arguments are pretty obvious to us now (news stories often villainize Muslims) but give a much-needed historical backing to coverage of Islam before 9/11. I think that others I know my age tend to assume that many of our problems in essentializing Islam and stereotyping Arabs are predominantly rooted in the 9/11 attacks. Said's book helps clarify the history of the representations of the Muslims in American media and thus really helped me understand the American response to 9/11 in a way I hadn't before, and provided a way to analyze news reports that already sound fishy without simply making overgeneralized statements (i.e., "Fox News sucks") myself.

[Fatima Zahra · Rating 5 out of 5]

بالرغم من أن الكتاب ألف في الثمانينات، إلا أن كل ما فيه من حقائق لازالت سارية المفعول في عصرنا الحالي.

كتاب نقدي بامتياز يحلل مشكل العلاقة المضطربة بين الشرق و الغرب

ما أعجبني في الكتاب هو أنه فتح عيني على معلومات قيمة لم أكن أعرفها من قبل. اختلاف علاقة الشرق مع أوروباعن علاقته بأمريكا، العوامل الداخلية في أمريكا التي ساهمت تعزيز الرؤية المغلوطة عن العالم الإسلامي، الدور المحوري للإعلام في التحكم في قناعات شعب بأكمله!

الكتاب فتح شهيتي لقراءة كتب أخر لإدوارد سعيد.

[Matty B · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book completely changed how I look at the headlines and news stories and reveals what a multi-faceted racist conflation the word "ISLAM" is in the mouths of western journalists. Also revealing is how much foreign policy is based on the shitty analysis of mis informed journalists.

[Fadillah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Significantly, these things also make it evident that covering Islam from the United States, the last superpower, is not interpretation in the genuine sense but an assertion of power. The media say what they wish about Islam because they can, with the result that Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism and "good" Muslims (in Bosnia, for instance) dominate the scene indiscriminately; little else is covered because anything falling outside the consensus definition of what is important is considered irrelevant to United States interests and to the media's definition of a good story. The academic community, on the other hand, responds to what it construes as national and corporate needs, with the result that suitable Islamic topics are hewn out of an enormous mass of Islamic details, and these topics (extremism, violence, and so forth) define both Islam and the proper study of Islam so as to exclude everything not fitting neatly between them. Even when on occasion the government or one of the university Middle East departments or one of the foundations organizes a conference to deal with the future of Middle East studies (which is usually a euphemism for "What are we going to do about the Islamic world?"), the same battery of concepts and goals keeps turning up. Little is changed.
- Knowledge and Power - Covering Islam : How the Media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world by Edward Said
.
This is by far one of the most enlightening read this year. I am not going to pretend that i can summarise every single thing that has been unpacked and discussed in the book - i will even admit that i wish i have time to re-read and even buddy read again with anyone who wanted to experience this level of “eyes wide open, mind was blown” in the most academical sense. My goodness, why do i put this book in my shelves for 1 year before i decided to read it. Here’s why you should read this book (And please do because i can’t describe much on his wisdom. The level of knowledge and insight is beyond my comprehension capacity).
- First, this book was written more than 40 years ago. The book is published in 1981 and updated again in 1997. We are looking at the timeline before Aggression and Assault on Islam and Muslim Countries even started and before islamophobia is rampant in western countries. We are looking at the two Gulf wars, 9/11, Israeli Attack on Lebanon, The Afghan War, The formation of Islamic States, The Civil wars happening across Syrian, Yemen and Libyan and even the time before the end of the Iran-Iraq War. How come Edward Said has been stating the truth nothing but the truth all along? The fact that world hasn’t learned anything is frustrating.
- Second, to simplify what he wanted to say is if its not your religion, your culture, your faith and not even your goddamn country - stay out of it. Islam is not a monolithic entity. Edward Said came with the most satisfying replies to the list of these so called scholars and experts in The USA that did not even understand the language, history and people to literally feed the media with the most ridiculous statements that exhibited their ignorance. What’s more laughable that this kind of blanket statement was accepted and did not even being considered prejudice towards more than 20% of the world's population.
- Third, Edward Said also pointed out to the readers how this manufactured content in the media regarding misconceptions of Islam which best described either by CBS, FOX, ABC or or even CNN. In Fact majority of USA news outlet sort of produced their content with this archaic formula : Islam = Arab = Jihad = Terrorism and it persisted until now. The slanderous stereotypes and the ongoing falsehoods against Islam and Arab in the mainstream media is not being objected or criticised , let alone being defended of. Reading this book, i do think that Edward Said wanted fellow Americans to not 100% depended to the ideas and opinions expressed by so many of misinformed journalists and the media that they represented when it comes to its coverage of Islam in the middle east.
- Fourth, Edward Said highlighted how the nature of "Western-Islamic relations" is considered a problematic term and this overgeneralisation used in the radio, television and even newspaper do a disservice of understanding that from Islam itself, varieties of cultures, customs, language, practices, nuances and even interpretations from countries that impossible to be understood in one’s lifetime.
- Fifth, this a truly a thought-provoking book that pushed us to challenge, seek more answers , to unlearn, learn and relearn our perceptions and thoughts based on news that is reported war torn countries. What Edward Said done with this book is to demonstrate a series of observation particularly on how problematic it was when The West (specifically USA although some European Media is mentioned) started to cover on Islam. This bad analysis mixed with shock value on how Islam supposed to look like or be like reeked sort of imperialism subtleties and when you connect it to their nosey foreign policy (obviously for oil), did in fact exposed the hypocrisy of their media.
.
P/s : Before some of you come and said that Edward Said is not even Arab. He is an Arab and he was born in Palestine. Before some of you said Edward Said is over sympathetic towards Muslim and accused him of being Muslim, he is not. He is a christian. Before some of you called him anti-semitic mentioning Israel and its war crimes, he has seen countless of Israel’s atrocities upon his homeland.
.
Memorable Quotes :
- [ ] "I am not saying that Muslims have not attacked and injured Israelis and Westerners in the name of Islam. But I am saying that much of what one reads and sees in the media about Islam represents the aggression as coming from Islam because that is what "Islam" is. Local and concrete circumstances are thus obliterated. In other words, covering Islam is one-sided activity that obscures what "we" do, and highlights instead what Muslim and Arabs by their very flawed nature are."
- [ ] No expert, media personality, or government official seemed to wonder what might have happened it a small traction of the time spent on isolating, dramatizing, and covering the unlawful embassy seizure and the hostage return had been spent exposing oppression and brutality during the ex-shah's regime. Was there no limit to the idea of using the vast information-gathering apparatus to inform the justifiably anxious public about what was really taking place in Iran? Did the alternatives have to be limited either to stirring up patriotic feelings or to fueling a kind of mass anger at crazy Iran? These are not idle questions, now that this lamentably exaggerated episode is over. It will be beneficial as well as practical for Americans in particular, Westerners in general, to puzzle out the changing configurations in world politics. Is "Islam" going to be confined to the role of terroristic oil-supplier? Are journals and investigations to focus on "who lost Iran," or will debate and reflection be better employed around topics more suited to world community and peaceful development?
- [ ] 'At present, "Islam" and "the West" have taken on a powerful new urgency everywhere. An we must note immediately that it is always the West, and not Christianity, that seems pitted against Islam. Why? Because the assumption is that whereas "the West" is greater than and has surpassed the stage of Christianity, its principle religion, the world of Islam-its varied societies, histories, and languages notwithstanding-is still mired in religion, primitivity, and backwardness."
- [ ] There is no longer much excuse for bewailing the hostility of "the West" towards the Arabs and Islam and then sitting back in outraged righteousness. When the reasons for this hostility and those aspects of "the West" that encourage it are fearlessly analyzed, an important step has been taken toward changing it, but that is by no means the whole way: something must be put in its place if a new mass of anti-Islamic propaganda is not to result. Certainly there are great dangers today in actually following, actually fulfilling, the prevailing hostile image of Islam, though that has thus far only been the doing of some Muslims and some Arabs and some black Africans. But such fulfillments underline the importance of what still has to be done. In the great rush to industrialize, modernize, and develop them-selves, many Muslim countries have sometimes been too compli-ant, I think, about turning themselves into consumer markets. To dispel the myths and stereotypes of Orientalism, the world as a whole has to be given an opportunity, by the media and by Muslims themselves, to see Muslims and Orientals producing and, more im-portant, diffusing a different form of history, a new kind of sociology, a new cultural awareness: in short, Muslims need to emphasize the goal of living a new form of history.
- [ ] "It is only a slight overstatement to say that Muslims and Arabs are essentially covered, discussed, and apprehended either as oil suppliers or as potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Muslim life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Islamic world. What we have instead is a limited series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as, among other things, to make that world vulnerable to military aggression."

[Yazeed Mujahed · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1981 he finished this book by
" If the history of knowledge about Islam in the west has been too closely tied to conquest and domination, the time has come for these ties to be severed completely. About this one cannot be too empathic. For otherwise we will not only face protracted tension and perhaps even war, but we will offer the Muslim world, its various societies and states, the prospect of many wars, unimaginable suffering, and diaries upheavals, not the least of which would be the victory of an"Islam" ready to play the role prepared for it by reaction, orthodoxy, and desperation. By even the most sanguine of standards, this is not a pleasant possibility."
Today in 2024, we are living the most horrible scenario due to the stubbornly attitude of being ignorant by the Occidental.

If you want to understand the root cause why the world is suffering today, may be this is a good start.

[Greg Florez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Said engages in a detailed examination of the presentation of Islam in USA, France and UK to make the case that the American media and academic discourses about islam are shaped by their political and economic interests. The final chapter Knowledge and Power is a nice digestible summary of Said’s theoretical approach to the issue.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was great but, to be frank, terrible at the same time. Why?

Author, Said's premise is that the West and, in particular, the US's understanding of the Middle East/Arabic/Persian world and culture has been conflated with an amorphous concept of 'Islam' which is largely inaccurate and framed within the paradigm of assumptions that Islam is inherently anti-Western and terroristic. He goes into great depth about how most Mid-East scholars, since they are in the service of governments, foundations with aggressive public policy aspirations or oil companies, create knowledge that that is already agenda or service-based, rather than knowledge for knowledge's sake, the result of 'purely intellectual' pursuits. He also breaks down the prejudices inherent in interpretations and the rampant lack of background (from not knowing the language, history or culture to having no contacts beyond their fellow foreign press corps or diplomats from their own country to get a fresh or 'real' take on a country) many Western journalist have in covering this region and culture as opposed to other (read, Western) regions.

However, the elephant in the room so to speak as far as the book's relevance is, despite this being an updated edition (for the 1990-91 Gulf War!), how the central lens through which the book examines these issues is still the Iranian revolution which led to the overthrow of the Shah and the embassy hostage crisis of 1979. Obviously the events of 9/11, and even more recently, the 'Arab Spring' have completely eclipsed those two now, relatively speaking, way-historical events although ironically enough, the themes and issues Said speaks to have only become more amplified in the time between these two events.

It's a shame Said wasn't alive to witness and speak on 9/11 and the implications of the Arab Spring in yet another update of Covering Islam, which seems more than overdue at this point. The problems Said outlines in terms of the lack of understanding and slanted media coverage all things Middles East, Arabic, Persian and Muslim have not seemingly improved in any meaningful way since his book was last published although it's interesting to reconsider characters covered in the book like former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak who is pointedly and repeated referred to as 'pro' or 'America-friendly' despite his now well-known, even to Americans, shortcomings. He also does an amazing job of going into the background of the notorious NYT Iraq war booster, Judith Miller near the beginning of the book, which does a great deal to explain why she was such a partisan dupe in the lead-up to that debacle. Reading Covering Islam did make me wonder what Said would make of the Al Jazeera TV network, which didn't even exist at the time he was penning this book, or a writer/TV personality like Fareed Zakaria who is possibly the most influential Muslim journalist in the US, and maybe the world currently, if not ever?

On the other hand, my reasons for calling the book terrible are that, as important a work as this is, I found it badly written in the way many academic journals pieces can be. Jargon-filled, vague, pedantic, overly verbose and willfully dense and confusing when simple, clear lucid arguments and writing were really called for. This made the book hard to read & easily process. It took me well over a month to slog through this barely 300 page book and I'm not sure how much of it I really 'took in.' Much of the survey work he laid out on methods of thinking, knowledge-gathering, interpretations etc. I found hard to properly understand and I frequently would take a couple days subway riding just read a few short pages and not really have gotten any of the points Said was trying to make in them despite him summing them up frequently as he went along. Although to be fair he made a game attempt at tying up all the themes by the end that did help somewhat.

Perhaps this was way too broad a topic to seriously be contained within such a short length, but I felt like this book could have been much better if Said hewed closer to principles suggested in George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" essay. For that reason, while I give the book a four-star rating, that's more for its importance and raison d'être than for its actual quality which is more three or maybe 3.5 stars at best.

Hopefully there are Middle East scholars and academics out there ready to take on the mantle that has been left open by Said's absence though because they are sorely needed now more than ever before.

[Zirvita · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that can be easily read thanks to Said's prose, while being also full of references to delve deeper as it corresponds to his style.
Strongly recommended even today as the discourse on "Islam" has not changed much.