Orientalism and Islam

I had one political science lecturer who once told the class " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It stuck onto me because it expanded a whole lot of possibilities.

But as a grew older, I begin to realise, as intelligent and insightful as it sounds, it is extremely amoral in light of the terrorist attacks around the world and also the presence of an Islamic State in the world. It is almost cruel to tell the family of the people that died that they died simply because of different perspectives. It was like they died in vain hence I never really told anyone of my opinion except to some family members.

Yesterday, I read a collection of Edward Said's essays. Some of it were on his essays on literature and other's were on his famous essay: "Orientalism" and other's were on his Palestinian background. You see the only reason I bought this book- it was bought from an old and quaint second-hand bookshop- was that his essay on Orientalism was rather interesting. In the sense that it questions my entire education as nothing more than looking at myself, culture and society as nothing more than looking from the lens from another world far from where I was from- the western- Eurocentric world. He was defending the East from lens of his own euro-centric lens as well.

But yesterday wasn't about Orientalism per se, it was about why Muslims are so angry with the West per se or even any establishment for that matter. It dawned onto me that the Edward Said, a rather angry man of Middle-Eastern origin, and I am not sure whether he is Muslim for that matter is angry at the world at the world for being euro-or western-centric.

He illuminates the historical baggage that the West have with his Middle-Eastern neighbours starting from the idea of statehood to the idea of Christianity/ Western versus Islamic dichotomy. What he suggests is that Islam is the one thing that the West have never been able to grapple with or "colonize". And it is exactly for this reason that through the millennia, there have been conflicts between the west and states of Islamic origin. He sees Islam as bastion against the decadent or self-interested Western World. And the West sees the Orient especially Islam and the middle east as stuck in primitive and dark ages.

I am not trying to say that I agree with him, but I would glean from this is that Islam sees itself vis-a-vis the West and the West sometimes see itself vis-a-vis Islam. Look at Donald Trumps statements and you will know.

It is precisely for this reason that it might be interesting to hold any multi-lateral or any bi-lateral meetings between the West and the Middle Eastern countries on a neutral ground. On a ground with no historical or cultural baggage that comes from conflict for more than 2 millennia.

Based on his essay on Orientalism, what better place than the Far East to hold such a meeting. Firstly it breaks the idea of exoticizing the "East" as mystique and mysterious place - as Orientalism suggest-and secondly, we have no problems with two thousand years of Christianity and Islam conflict. What better place than a country which does not have statehood embedded with Christian/ Muslim origins or either portrayed as having biases on either side. Countries such as China, South Korea and Japan or even Singapore are good examples.

Countries such as China even swear off religion as a way of governing the state. They would be an ideal neutral ground for any talks with an religiously charged atmosphere to be held. There would be no talk such as radical Muslims pronouncing " infidels at the gates", or the Western stereotype of the "deranged ideologically challenged" Muslim.

Last year, I saw the meeting of China and Taiwan in Singapore. It was a brilliant idea simply because it was an ideal neutral ground for two sides with Chinese ethnic composites and competing claims to meet in a neutral Chinese-majority Singapore.

This idea can be transplanted in resolving the West versus Islam/ Middle East conflict. A would be a great idea to remove two thousand years of fighting and to discuss issues in a place which swears off religion and is in itself a rising power of the world- China.

China can even gain some political capital from this meeting by establishing itself as a benevolent ally to both sides in a rather complicated and complex political and historical issue.

It would be interesting to see this pans out if it would ever materializes.