Islam Through Western Eyes By Edward Said Analysis

In his essay entitled “Islam through Western Eyes,” Edward Said criticizes the Western view of Islam, claiming that, since the Middle Ages, the Western world has had a flawed view of Islam. The author identifies the basis for this misleading image of Islam in the “imaginative geography dividing the world into two unequal parts.” According to this fictional geography, indeed, the world is divided into the Orient, which is seen as different and inferior, and the Occident, called also the West. Although this split is actually unreal for what concerns territorial borders, it created social and cultural borders that reflect the Western flawed view of Islam. Said blames the entire range of scholars and disciplines that deal with the Orient for encouraging

The author explicitly states the core of the argument and defends his point of view through a historical and social analysis of the relationship between West and East; however, the argument is not clearly developed since the analysis is not accurate enough and its key points are unmethodically presented, resulting in repetitions and unclear transitions. For instance, Said presents the example of French and English occupations in the Islamic world just in general terms, without going into details and highlighting the focal point between these examples and the flawed Western view of Islam; as a result, his historical analysis, which represents the evidence used, lacks sufficiency, disregarding the STAR criteria. Moreover, Said repeatedly claims that the Western view of Islam is inaccurate in several paragraphs, which are distant from each other, and addresses different reasons for this situation, but he does not create a unique paragraph to give the readers an overall and clear picture of his point of view. For what concerns ethos and the character of the writer, Said appears to be trustworthy by showing a considerable expertise about the history of the relationship between the West and the East; indeed, even if the author does not provide an in-depth analysis, he shows to be knowledgeable about both the past and modern history. The essay is mainly brainy and logical and does not rely on appeals to pathos; however, in a few cases, the writer engages readers’ emotions and values, as in the case of the story about the Christian Science Monitor’s Helena Cobban and the Saudi spokesman’s