Interesting research and interesting writing but a little bit defensive against the definition or Orientalism by Edward SAID and a little bit nostalgic about 'the time of his father' Ch8 'the all too brief heyday of Orientalism' and Ch9 'an enquiry into the Nature of Certain Twentieth-century polemic' almost tell the story ( )

Even though it's written as a response to Edward Said's Orientalism, Robert Irwin's Dangerous Knowledge is a good introduction to the history of Orientalism through the centuries - and especially, an introduction to the fascinating characters that have populated the field from its informal inception in Medieval travel writings to the more formal establishment as a field of study in the last couple of centuries. I'm not very familiar with Arabic studies or Orientalism in general, but thoroughly enjoyed the history and personal sketches. The final chapters on Said and other critics of Orientalism were well done so that a novice (I'm definitely one!) could easily get a sense of the controversy and the ongoing discussion. All-in-all, an interesting read. ( )

Irwin sets out to examine the effect that Edward Said's work, Orientalism, has had on studies of Islam. He routinely surveys academic studies over the centuries before ending his book on the strangest sentence which undercuts any objectivity he may claim to have. He states: "As for Islam, a religion that embodies essential truths about the nature of the universe and man's relation to God has nothing to fear from the most advanced techniques of Western textual criticism" (p. 330). Since when can scholars claim such immunity from rational discussion and scientific inquiry?

Absolutely brilliant and hilarious! Mr. Irwin has authored several novels, and, no doubts, his non-fiction writing has only been improved by that.

I found just a couple of rather strange ... aberrations? (I guess it is appropriate to use that word for a book populated by so many eccentrics) in this book.

Mr. Irwin writes (pp. 19–20), "For reasons that remain misterious, the new conquerors [i.e., Arabs] were referred to in the earliest Latin sources either as 'Hagarenes' or as 'Saracens'." I've always thought there's nothing misterious about that: it's an old tradition of calling an ethnos by a name or place known to classical authors, or by a legendary ancestor. Hagar was mother of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, hence Hagarians. Saraceni were nomads mentioned by the late Greek authors, so here you go ...

Another example (p. 181): "It always rankled with [Edward] Palmer that he did not succeed to [William] Wright's professorship when the latter died." Something isn't right here. Palmer was murdered in 1882, Wright was succeeded by their mutual friend William Robertson Smith after Wright's death in 1889. With all Orientalists' eccentricity, it seems rather unusual for Palmer to be irritated by a fact that his friend and colleague outlived him.

Despite these minor editorial omissions, I wish could give more than five stars to this book.

As for the sad case of Said's "Orientalism," Mr. Irwin yet again "tore that book to pieces," which, naturally, will have no effect on Said's admirers. As any critique never had and never will on supporters of the "Black Athena," or on believers in the less known here in the West so called "New Chronology." ( )