Kenan Çamurcu wrote: The belated “cringe” for Edward Said’s “orientalism” (2)

In the West, which has made it a principle of civilization to keep its distance from exclusionary, othering, intolerant, and definitive movements, Said’s “orientalism” offered an opportunity to hide and refine the cunningness of Muslims who plan to retain their own definitiveness through Islamophobia propaganda. It also offers an absurd self-confidence aimed at legitimizing always being the victim and always being right.

The audacity of the demonstrations in the capitals of Western civilization, heralding the conquest of those countries and the imposition of sharia, carries the banner of orientalism that Said made social sciences say. The colonialism and colonization in the language of the protesters, who have not contributed a single bit to the accumulation of freedom, democracy and political participation of humanity, are fences erected to protect the literature of victimization regarding the powerful West's dominance over the East. Although colonialism and colonization are the purest truth of objective history, when they become the object of consumption of Islamist activism, they can cease to be a shameful past on behalf of the West.

According to dictionaries, colonialism comes from the word “colonia”, meaning “settlement”. In other words, the settlement of a region by colonizers, colonization, settling there and starting life. But what about those who had previously settled there, the natives? The concept does not include them. In fact, it does not even assume that they existed. Therefore, the process of creating a community in a new land necessarily means recreating the communities that existed there before. This can include a comprehensive range of practices, including trade, bargaining, war, genocide, and enslavement.

The fact that this engineering was not seen in the invasion and occupation of other nations by Muslim conquerors, was because they were only interested in the tribute that would finance their own socio-political regimes. When the rush to become Muslim to escape the jizya tax imposed on non-Muslims during the Umayyad caliphs began, it was decided that new Muslims would continue to pay jizya. For example, when the governor of Khorasan, Ashras b. Abdullah, promised that the jizya tax would be lifted from new Muslims during the caliphate of Hisham b. Abdulmelik (724-743), he was forced to continue the old practice when the peasants revolted when they realized that their income would decrease. (Ibn Athir, 1966: 5/147-148). In other words, it is too romantic to find absolute evil in Western orientalism and to extract stories of goodness, tolerance and mercy from the conditions of Muslim states and societies. There has always been an excess capacity in Muslim societies that would not require imposing autocratic rule. There still is.

Said's mistake is to limit colonialism to the Westerners' East. Especially the conquests of Islam. Muslims define their own invasions as divine right and even now they are honing their teeth to conquer the West, gnashing their teeth, and declaring their intentions with various terrorist acts. If Muslims did not take scientists like Napoleon to the places they conquered and did not bother with the definition, this does not exclude their work from the type of activity in the theory of orientalism. It is due to the lack of the effort, endeavor, and zeal gene that will make time for long-term imperial plans in the neuro-political network that is busy with increasing personal welfare as soon as possible.

Edward Said noted in an interview that Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt in 1798 was the first modern imperial expedition and a breakthrough. Napoleon occupied the region, but his was not like the Spanish invasion of the New World for the purpose of loot. Along with his vast army of soldiers, he brought scientists, botanists, architects, linguists, biologists and historians. Their task was to record Egypt from every angle. Not for the Egyptians, of course. They would conduct scientific studies designed for the Europeans. Thus began the work of defining the East, orientalism.

If someone living in Paris or London in the 1850s or 1860s wanted to learn about India, Egypt or Syria, there was very little chance of dealing with these countries with an open mind. Because a lot of work had been written before and this was an organized writing activity. It could also be called organized science. Said would call this systematics “orientalism.”

In this accumulation, there is an archive of images that constantly come up before us. For example, the emotional woman who is useless except to be used by men. The mysterious East full of secrets and monsters. The expression “wonders of the East” is the most well-known cliché of the period. Orientalism is a political literature woven with narratives that are all repetitive of each other.

Said gives the example of the French poet Gerard de Neval. 'What this man who traveled to the Orient reads in his book about his trip to Syria seems very familiar to him. Then he realizes that Neval has repeated exactly what Edward W. Lane said in his book about the Egyptians. Because in the eyes of the Westerner, the East is always the same. No matter where it is. Whether it is India, Syria or Egypt. For them, all societies of the East contain the same material.

Thus, a timeless depiction of the East develops. As if the East, unlike the West, does not develop and remains the same. According to Said, this is one of the problems of orientalism. It creates an image of the East that is outside of history, static, immobile and eternal. But this assumption is definitely in conflict with historical facts. In fact, Europe creates an ideal “other” for itself.

What interests Edward Said is not East-West relations. It is the deep inner harmony of Orientalism and its ideas on the East. So our subject is, much more than the long scientific talks, the power tests of the European and Atlantic powers on the East.

Here Gramsci's distinction between "civilized society" and "political society" seems quite useful to Said. The first is an intelligent and unforced union. The other can stand with its army, police and bureaucratic system. Since the role it plays is politics, it is directly related to establishing superiority. Orientalism writing is concerned with this superiority and preserving it.

Edward W. Said was born in Jerusalem in 1935 to a Christian family. His family immigrated from Palestine to Egypt after the establishment of the state of Israel. However, it is stated that Said made a small adjustment to his background. His family never owned a house in Jerusalem (Medinatu'l-Quds). Even if he was born there, he grew up in Cairo. (Keyes, 2021: 144).

He began his pre-university education at Victoria College in Cairo. Victoria College was opened to educate Arabs and Levantines who were members of the ruling class that would take over the administration after the British left the country. When he was forced to leave this school in 1951, he completed his education at Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts in the USA. He received his undergraduate education at Princeton University and his master's and doctorate at Harvard. In 1974, he was a visiting professor in the Department of Comparative Literature at Harvard.

Said taught English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University until his death in 2003.

Said’s life journey can be considered a true oriental experience. Being born into a Christian Arab family, completing his education in Western schools that taught in English, participating in academic life in the US and continuing there. He says that due to all these characteristics, he could not see himself as completely Arab or completely Western. In his own words, he was always somewhere “between worlds.” In his autobiography, he called this situation “homeless.”

Here is how he describes it in his essay “Between Worlds”: Both his mother and father were Palestinians. His mother was from Nazareth, his father from Jerusalem. His father had US citizenship, which he gained while serving in France with the American Expeditionary Force during World War I. In 1911, when he was 16, his father left Palestine, then an Ottoman province, to avoid the draft because of the war in Bulgaria. He went to the US, studied and worked there for a few years, and then returned to Palestine in 1919 to start a business with his cousin.

In this narrative that Said moves quickly, the qualification of “Ottoman province of Palestine” is important. Because it has consequences. For example, it is a very important consequence that Judah, whose name was changed to “Palestine” as a punishment for the Jews due to their rebellions for freedom against the Roman state, never had a state or country called Palestine. But in the “Palestine industry”, the main theme is the narrative that the country of Palestine was occupied by Israel. In this case, what is the Ottoman occupation of Judah, Samaria and Gaza? Is Yavuz Selim’s conquest expedition to the Muslim East, which he entered from Syria and exited from Egypt and Gaza, included in colonialism? Would it be orientalism to appoint governors who are subordinate to the center to rule these countries? If not, what was the Palestinians’ rebellion for freedom against the Ottomans during the first great war? The “Palestine flag” was the symbol of this rebellion, wasn’t it?

What about Yavuz Sultan Selim’s war invasion of Gaza (1516) and the Mamluk army’s 5,000 casualties while taking the city with a population of 6,000? It is not hard to guess that many people died in Gaza in this war. If Netanyahu’s killing of 23,000 civilians, or 1 percent of the population of Gaza with a population of 2 million, during the operation he launched in response to Hamas’ October 7 attack is considered “genocide” (because 30,000 of the 53,000 casualties were armed combatants), what about the massacre and destruction committed by Yavuz Selim?

Those who are involved in the Palestinian industry for various reasons and repeat certain clichés do not like such questions.

With the unexpected first name (Edward) at the beginning of a clearly Arabic surname, “Said,” he was a disturbingly irregular student throughout his childhood. Born in 1935, his mother had been a great admirer of the Prince of Wales, hence the name Edward. A Palestinian with an English first name, who went to school in Egypt, with an American passport and no clear identity. Worse still, his native Arabic and his school language, English, were inextricably intertwined. He says he never knew which was his first language. “I never felt completely at home in either language, although I had dreams in both,” he says.

Edward Said is a person who is difficult to identify with any particular affiliation. He would criticize Yasser Arafat, for example, by warning him not to involve the Palestinian issue in his personal leadership ambitions. He would accuse Arafat of being narrow-minded in his policies. Arafat also banned the import of his books into the areas he controlled. Simultaneously, some of Said's books were banned in some Arab countries.

Said was a good pianist. While the Israeli government was labeling him a “terrorist intellectual,” he was giving concerts with his Jewish musician friend Daniel Barenboim. The East-West Divan Orchestra, founded by the duo, continues its activities in honor of Said’s memory. The orchestra consists of 110 musicians between the ages of 14 and 25 from 17 different countries, including the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Türkiye and Jordan.

Edward Said attributes his interest in orientalism to two reasons. The first of these is the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.

Before the war, there were many images and discussions in the Western media about how the Arabs were so cowardly, how they did not know how to fight, how they would always be defeated because they were not modern. However, when the Egyptian army crossed the canal in early October 1973 and showed that it could fight like other armies, everyone was surprised and it had an immediate stimulating effect on him.

The second was the constant discrepancy he saw between his own experience as an Arab and its reflection in Western art. “I’m talking about great artists like Delacroix and Gerome, or novelists who wrote about the East like Disraeli and Flaubert,” he says. He saw that these representations of the East had almost no relevance to what he knew about his own past. So he decided to write a history of Orientalism.

But let's not forget, Said does not start his analysis of orientalism from a zero point. He has not addressed or problematized the Arab-Israeli wars that began with the attacks of Arab states in 1948, 1967 and 1973. He is always concerned with what happened afterwards. If we expand the expression a little more, he knows very well that he cannot construct a theory of orientalism without excluding the attacks and wars of Muslims against Israel and the West.

Edward Said published Orientalism, which is considered a “paradigm-building work,” in 1978. In the book, he examined a long-standing tradition of writing that stemmed from Europe’s cultural, political and economic interests in relation to the East.

In the book, he mainly evaluates the orientalism of the colonial era of the 19th century. Mainly French and British orientalism. For this reason, he did not include the oriental studies of Germany, which was lagging behind in colonial relations, in his work. His reference to the oriental studies in the USA, which inherited the legacy of the British and French empires after the Second World War, is quite superficial.

Said’s book is neither the first to address the issue of orientalism nor to criticize it. However, Said emphasizes the political rather than objective nature of knowledge with the help of Foucault’s concepts. What he tries to do in the book is to show the connection between orientalist studies in England, France and later the USA and the imperialist interests of these countries in the Middle East. He evaluates this tradition “as an application of cultural power” that was mobilized by the much more comprehensive structures of power and sovereignty in Europe.

Edward Said explains how orientalism works in the First Chapter of his work. He lists with examples how European imperialist politicians benefit from orientalist discourse. He proves how they fortify themselves with orientalism. In short, he shows what orientalism means for politics.

In the second part, he examines the early stages of what he calls "contemporary orientalism", which began in the second half of the 18th century and continued in the 19th century. He examines the development and institutions of orientalism up to the 1880s on the basis of political history.

Another thing he wants to do in this section is to show how the modern professional terminology that dominated the discourse about the Orient was produced in the 19th century. Because this terminology controls everyone who wants to talk about the Orient, whether orientalist or not.

According to Said, from the middle of the 19th century onwards, the Western world began to reshape and change the East. Afterwards, Orientalism was able to adapt itself to new conditions. According to him, a new type of Orientalist would now appear on the scene: Imperial agent Orientalists.

In the last chapter of his work, Edward Said discusses the transformation of the orientalist heritage, which was transferred to the 20th century, and the orientalist discourse into a system that constantly reproduces itself within official patterns.

In the evaluations written on Said and his orientalism, it is particularly stated that Foucault's discourse and Gramsci's hegemony concepts have an important place in his critical perspective. It is emphasized that Said turned to a more radical socio-political critique than his hermeneutic and critical understanding of history.

Said used Gramsci's concept of hegemony while creating the methodological background of Orientalism. However, he also drew a parallel between the thesis that writers are products of their history and the determinism of texts.

The discursiveness that came to the fore in Foucault guided Said in understanding the process of the West dominating the East in terms of the knowledge/power relationship. Said's analyses cannot be understood without his views on issues such as discourse, text, interpretation, discussions of meaning, and the functions of criticism and the intellectual.

The support he received from Chomsky was strategic, because Chomsky had exposed the material relationship between objective science and the war while investigating the source of the money the American government allocated for weapons research during the Vietnam War. He also received the idea from Raymond Williams that hegemony was stubborn and permanent, because even when culture was under heavy pressure, writers and intellectuals continued to produce.

For Said, the differences between different types of orientalism are, in essence, different experiences of what is called the East.

The difference between England and France and the United States is that England and France had colonies in the East. So the British had long-standing relations and imperial roles in India. So they had an archive of real experience, like ruling India for several centuries. The same goes for the French, who had been in North Africa. They had direct colonial experience in Algeria and Indochina, for example.

Said thinks that for Americans, this experience is more indirect, because there was never a colonial-style American occupation of the Near East. So the difference between British and French Orientalism and American Orientalism is that the American experience of the East is indirect and based on abstractions.

The second important issue that separates the American experience from British and French Orientalism is related to the presence of America's most important ally, Israel, in the Middle East. According to him, Israel's presence in the Middle East politicized American Orientalism. Therefore, for Said, the only problem is that Israel's security is presented as threatened by suicide bombers. "But," says Said, "nothing is said about the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Palestinians who live in misery as a direct result of Israel's actions, whose property and homes have been confiscated."

Of course, Said, who said this, was asked many times whether he considered suicide attacks on innocent people in Israel reasonable and excusable. He always denied the accusations and condemned the terrorist attacks. However, the accusations against Said are not unjust whenever he compares the Israelis who died in suicide attacks with the Palestinians whose homes Israel seized.

There are also the roundings of “hundreds of thousands” and “millions” that Palestinian industry never gives up. Are there really hundreds of thousands, millions of Palestinians whose homes have been confiscated? The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that around 20,000 homes were demolished on various charges between 2009 and 2024. The majority of these charges were related to involvement in attacks on Israeli security forces. Houses demolished on the grounds of illegal construction are also included in this figure. In all cases, Israel has been accused of violating the Geneva Convention and human rights. Some of the demolitions have been brought before Israeli courts. There are cases that have been concluded in favor of Palestinians. In fact, the Israeli Supreme Court has deemed the demolition of an activist’s home in an attack that resulted in the death of an Israeli soldier as disproportionate punishment and overturned the decision. There are many precedents and decisions. It seems impossible to compare Israel’s democracy based on law with the exhibitionist regime of Hamas in Gaza, where bodies are dragged through the streets.

Said has other examples on the subject of Orientalism. For example, Iran. For him, what was reflected in the media after the Iranian revolution was a whole arsenal of images. Great masses shaking their fists, black banners, a stern-faced Khomeini, etc. So the impression you get about Islam is that it is more frightening and mysterious than all the scary things. As if the main duty of Muslims was to threaten and kill Americans.

Well, isn't that so? Haven't Muslims been doing such things for decades? And they boast about it after every action. Despite this, when it is said to "make Islam look scary", it is just a slogan for provocation.

Documentaries like “Jihad in America,” which covered the World Trade Center bombing, created a much more frightening portrait of Islam, Said said. Islam and its teachings were now synonymous with the word terror. Because of the demonization of Islam, there is almost no difference between “religiosity” and “violence.” But similar generalizations, such as that the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City attack was a “Christian fundamentalist,” were never made.

Edward Said describes the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995: "One of the enthusiastic on-air commentators said something about it looking like a Middle Eastern-style bombing and that some dark-skinned people were seen around right after the bombing. They never thought for a moment that this was a young man named McVeigh, who had grown up there and was completely American in appearance, and who had committed it out of an Ahab-like rage against the world."

The Ahab in Said's metaphor was the 7th king of Israel who reigned in the 8th century BC. The activist McVeigh is also an Evangelical, known as Christian Zionists. The mentors of the Bush administration who started wars in the Middle East starting in 2001 were Christian and Jewish sympathizers of this cult, this is true. But wait a minute, is this a single action being compared to the terror attacks of Islamists that are too numerous, diverse and cause so much loss of life to be tallied? Isn't there both a methodological error and a moral flaw here?

Said, of course, knows the reason why Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma attack is not a religious generalization. The fact that Christians do not organize festivals in the streets, do not distribute halva, and do not vow to do more, similar to the mass celebrations held in Gaza and the West Bank after every deadly attack on Israel, prevents such a generalization. Despite this, does the level at which Americans call this singular, exceptional, isolated action “domestic terrorism” not also carry meaning? While Muslims do not even refer to the constant and countless attacks by their own as acts of terrorism?

1) In summary, what Orientalism tells us in Said's theory is this:

i) What is called the Eastern collective identity was constructed by the Western understandings and representations of the Orient.

ii) Orientalism is a public image machine that produces statements about the Orient.

[Şerif Mardin, in his article “Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire”, analyses the Alla Turca behaviour pattern of the West in a similar way: the West became sensitive to the gap seen between the Ottoman system and its own and constructed a synthetic model of Ottoman Turkish culture. However, Mardin criticises Said’s excessively liberal use of the discourse model defined by Foucault in terms of power-authority relations, taking it out of context.]

2) Orientalism is not a European invention out of thin air. It is a package of important doctrines and practices that several generations have worked together to create through long investments. Because of these ongoing investments, the East has to pass through the filter of Orientalism as a system of knowledge in order to hold a place in the conscience of the West.

3) Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient, whether specifically or generally, is an Orientalist, and what he does is Orientalism. Regardless of his profession: Anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or linguist.

[Bernard Lewis will object to this definition and ask why such a definition is not given, for example, to those who study ancient Greece.]

4) If we take the end of the 18th century as a rough starting point, orientalism is the collective institution that deals with the Orient, that is, it makes judgments about the Orient, describes it and provides education about it.

5) The East is not an academic creation that is integrated with mystical, exotic and wild representations. It is a conceptualization that is completely unique and has a determining power.

6) A culture that sees itself as superior and wants to maintain this superiority (which is the case with Western culture) cannot understand and evaluate another culture as an equal. Especially if this culture is nourished by the military and economic goals and institutions of colonialism. In other words, if it is the dominant culture.

7) The East is an unreal world. It was produced by the West and exists in the mindset of the West, it is not real. This situation is not only valid for Westerners. This is also the case for the Easterner's own definition of the East or for the Muslim's own definition of Islam and Muslims.

8) The structure of Orientalism is not a collection of lies or fairy tales that will burst like a balloon when the truth is told. Again, the value of Orientalism does not come from being a truthful reasoning about the East. On the contrary, it is a sign of the power of the European and Atlantic countries against the East.

9) Orientalism should be examined as a Western style used to dominate and reconstruct the East and to establish authority over the East. Its preoccupation with the East is to make determinations about the East, to legitimize views on it, to describe and teach it, to settle there and finally to govern it.

10) It is not possible to examine and criticize a single geographical region from a historical and literary perspective. Therefore, such an examination also brings with it an examination of the oppressive effects of colonial powers on the history and literature of the region.

Said’s work has been read by many as a “criticism of the West” or a “defense of the East/Islam.” Of course, the author’s being Palestinian and his close interest in the Palestinian issue have an impact on this opinion. However, Said always denied that he was anti-Western. He was actually against conceptualizations such as “East” and “West.”

Said’s bringing together very different ways of thinking and creating a discourse analysis had a devastating effect on the representations of the East by the West. This effect forced the direction of orientalist studies to change. So much so that experts now prefer the name “eastern studies” instead of orientalism. The reason for this is that the concept of orientalism is both vague and very general, and also evokes the “high-brow” administrative attitude of European colonialism at the beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, although different names are preferred in naming, orientalism continues to exist in the academic world with its theses about the East and things belonging to the East.

Edward Said's Orientalism became the focus of intense debate in the field of cultural studies after its publication. Objections to Said and his work arose from both the Western and Eastern worlds, motivated by very different concerns. Criticisms were leveled by intellectuals such as Aijaz Ahmad, Bernard Lewis, Sadiq Jalal al-'Azm, Albert Hourani, James Clifford, John McKenzie, David Kopf, Leonard Binder, Fred Halliday, and many others.

Among these criticisms is the assessment that non-Western societies place the blame for their tyranny, backwardness, deficiencies, flaws, laziness and crimes on colonialism.

The question of what Said adopted as a correct representation of the East was also asked. According to this criticism, Said was actually pushing exactly the same position as the discourse he criticized.

Historian İlber Ortaylı, in his criticism of Said (The Last Ottoman Empire, 2006), agrees with Said's harshest critic Bernard Lewis. Lewis had called Said's thesis of orientalism "complete nonsense. " Based on this discussion, Ortaylı explained Said's analysis of orientalism as the shameless competition between Palestinians and Jews for positions in America. Criticisms were also written accusing Ortaylı and Lewis that this attribution could not be considered criticism.

The theory based on colonial discourse analysis began to be known as postcolonial studies in the early 1990s. However, although Said provided a source for discussions of postcolonialism, he never wanted to be called a postcolonialist. He was indifferent to the fact that a whole new discipline was being founded on his work. He even criticized postcolonialists such as Homi Bhabha from time to time.

Said's critique of orientalism revealed a vast amount of colonial literature and its background. Studies on the subject claim that Said's critical readings of Joseph Conrad, Jane Austen, Rudyard Kipling and Yeats played an important role in this.

Said's influence not only led to the emergence of critical branches of orientalism, but also maintained its importance with its contribution to social sciences. Therefore, it would be appropriate to examine Edward Said's contribution to social sciences from a very broad perspective, such as ethnicity, culture, identity, exile, and colonization.

But the easiest to blame the West. Anyone who has a little bit of conscience and is interested in truth cannot deny that the greatest share of Islam has fallen to the shares of Islam in the world to come to this point. In Nigeria and Sudan, Islamist militants stepped on Christian villages and kill dozens of children, women and elderly ruthlessly, while condemnation of Muslim societies is not even heard with their mouths. There is no need to go back, in 2024, Boko Haram, ISIS-Africa and Fulani militants killed 5,000 Christians. What is the situation of thousands of people killed because they are Christians just because they are Christians?

If Westerners have orientalism, Muslims also have oxydentalism. The opposition of Western is everything in the Muslim mind. It always covers the inadequacy, incompatibility, failure and ability with the Western opposition.

Is orientalism bad and oxydentalism good?

Resources

Akbaş, White Arif. (2014). Postcolonialism trials , transplanting YGY (R. Radhakrishnan's “A Said Dictionary”)

Akinhay, Osman. (2007/2). The issue is book magazine. Number: 9, September, pp: 47-50.

Arlı, scholar. (2003). “Among the worlds: Edward W. Said's Heritage”, Divan Scientific Research , p. 15, p. 169-189, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/254427

Aynî, Abu Muhammad Bedruddin . (d. 1451). (2001). Umdetu'l-Kari Şerhu Sahihi'l-Bukhari. Beirut: Dâru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.

Belazurî, Ahmed Yahya . (d. 892). (1959). Ensabu'l-Eşraf. Cairo: Dâru'l-Mearif.

Bukhari, Muhammad b. Ismail . (d. 870). (2002). Sahihu'l-Bukhari. Daru Ibn Kathir, Beirut.

Bulut, Yücel. “Edward W. Said and Orientalism”, https://www.Mapaws.com/edward-w-saide-ve- orientalism- 42093h.htm

Cevherî, Abu Nasr Ismail b. Hammad . (d. 1007). (2009). Sıhah, Tâcu'l-Uğa and Sıhahu'l-Arabiyye. Cairo: Dâru'l-Hadis.

Dehkî, Ali Gulamî . (2001). “Cenghâ-yi Irtidad and Buhran-i Caneşinî Pes Ez Peyamber”, Ma'rifet , Issue 40, Tehran Şemsî, p. 34-42, http://ensani.ir/fa/article/66784/

Abu Dawud, Suleyman b. Eş'as . (d. 889). (1997). Sunanu Ebi Davud . Daru Ibn Hazm, Beirut.

Sculpture, Muhammad Hussein . (d. 1956) (1942). Es-Siddiq Abu Bakr. Cairo: Dâru'l-Mearif.

Ibn Abdilber . (d. 1071). (2010) et-Temhid Lima Fi'l-Muvatta mine'l-Meani ve'l-Esanide . Beirut: Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.

Ibn Asakir . (d. 1176). (1995). History Medinet Dımeşk. Beirut: Dâru'l-Fikr.

Ibn Abi Shaybe . (d. 849). (2006). Musannef Jeddah: Daru'l-Karda Li-s-sekafeti'l-islamiyye.

Ibn Prisoner . (d. 1233). (1966). Al-Kamil fi't-history . Beirut: Dâru sâdır.

Ibn Huzeyme, Muhammad b. Isaac . (d. 923). (1992). Sahihu ibh Huzeyme . Riyadh: al-Mektebetu'l-Islami.

Ibn Huzeyme . (d. 924). (1980). Beirut: Kutubü'l-Islami.

Ibn Isaac . (d. 768). (2004). Es-Siretu'n-Nebeviyye. Beirut: Dâru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.

Ibn Kathir, Ismail b. Omar . (d. 1373). (1978). Al-Bidaye and'n-nihaye . Beirut: Dâru'l-Fikr.

Jhally, Sut. (2016). “About Orientalism with Edward Said”, trans. Adem Köroğlu, Necmettin Erbakan University Journal of Theology , 41, p. 167-.178, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/268955

Keyes, Ralph . (2021). Post -truth age. Tudem.

Kuleyni, Muhammad b. Jacob . (d. 941). (1988). Al-kafi . Tehran: Daru'l-Kütübi'l-İslamiyye.

Parla, Jale . (1985). Lord, Orientalism and Slavery , Communication Publications.

Said, Edward W. (1998). Orientalism (Eastern Science) - The discovery arm of colonialism. İrfan Publishing.

Tabari, Muhammad b. Cerir. (d. 923). (2011). History-Ümem ve'l-Müluluk . Beirut: Dâru'l-Kütübi'l-İlmiyye.

Tavus al-Husaynî, Ali b. Moses . (d. 1266). (1979). al-Taraif fi ma'rifeti mezahibi't-tavaif. Sand: Matbaatu'l-Hayyam.

Tirmidhi, Abu Jesus Muhammad . (d. 892). (2000). Sahihu Süneni't-Tirmizî . Mektebetu'l-Mearif, Riyadh.

Turanli, rose. (2017-1). “Edward Said's Orientalist Discourse Analysis”, Oriental Journal , Issue 30, p. 101-119, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/883871

Vakıdî, Muhammad b. Omar . (d. 823). (1990). Kitabu'r-ridde , 176-177, Beirut: Dâruğarbi'l-Islamî.