Religion’s Grasp on Authors (Blog Summary 1)

Rhiannon Badgett

It seems as though literature hardly ever renounces from religion and the persistent authority that it has had amongst society for centuries, yet the question of whether the author views religion as a positive or negative aspect of our world is up to themselves. A recurring theme throughout the texts we have read so far this semester would have to be how religion impacts the way the narrators and those around them view orientalism and the choices that they make. For example, Joseph Pitts’ A True and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mohammetans, with an Account of the Author’s Being Taken Captive (1704) he is reluctant to be transparent regarding Muslim-Catholic anaologies but claims to respect Islamic faith, especially when compared to Catholocism. He writes, “And yet (which is strange) there is no punishment for those that do what is forbidden by the Mohammetan law or neglect what is commanded.“(259) Pitts consistently and even redundantly compares the two religions; showing incredible bias despite orientalist remarks throughout the text. While contradictory, Pitts’ view on religion is a constant within the text.

Yet, in Lady Mary Montagu’s Turkish Embassy Letters, she mainly mentions religion when it comes to the beautiful, materialistic, or beneficial factors of life. She notes that Greece had buildings worthy of homing a “Christian king” to emphasize the architecture’s enchantment. In The Wonders of Vilayet, Bengali diplomat L’tesamuddin supports both orientalist and counter-hegemonic views because he is driven by his personal faith and religion, yet supports the British (and the East India Company) by praising their level of intellectuality and creativity; assuming the both could be above his own. He writes, “I replied, ‘I am an impure creature from whom no advantage will come. It is owing to the mercy of Allah the Preserver that his servants aboard this ship are Sade and can hope to see green fields once again” (38). For L’tesamuddin, religion drives the way he decides to lead his life, no matter whether Captain Swinton has another job offer for him or not.

Bigger Fish to Fry: Joseph Pitts & his Conversion to Islam

Christopher Banda-Farrar

It is no secret the hatred Pitts’ possess for the Catholic religion in his writing. The parallels he forms between Catholicism and Islam seems to boil down to essentially which one can he belittle more. However it seems towards the final chapters, when Islam is literally being beaten into him almost to the point where he is on death’s doorstep, it seems the only thing he can do instea of belittle it, is try to resist it. Pitts’ portrayal of his being treated by the Muslims he ends up with really makes it seem like Islam is this infectious omnipotent thing that will end up getting to you, but that its something that you should let take you. 

It seems that at this point within Pitts’ recounting of his experience in captivity and slavery, he is more concerned with not only making it seem like he is still a good Christian to his audience, but that he truly tried everything in his power to preserve his own passion and faith in his Christian beliefs of his own and back home. For me, this makes it a much more personal aspect to the piece as he goes as far as to show excerpts from the letters between himself and his parents. In this I see less of a comparison between Catholics and Muslims, but more of a self-struggling preservation of what he was brought up to know before he was taken. Of course, we do see a little bit of slack given to him in references to his father forgiving him in a way and “going Turk” for basically survival since after all, he can’t praise God and carry out his will and be a good Christian if he is dead. I wouldn’t say he is caught out taking back what he’s stated before about comparing the two and essentially exploring which was he can be judgmental of more, but in that he has more prominent issues at hand like eternal damnation and self-shame in his turning Turk.

Do I Trust Pitts?

For Pitts to openly change his opinion regarding his former statements before chapter seven, it strikes the audience as that he could be an unreliable narrator or that he was writing to please several different audiences which leaves us confused as to whether he agrees with Muslim-Catholic analogy, and practices or not. I believe by citing the English translation of the Qur’an, Pitts has come to the conclusion that being a Catholic and one of Islamic Faith are similar despite the land they’ve originated from. Pitts seems to remain devout to Catholicism and the Christian God despite his captivity resulting in a genuine view of what different practices of faith can look and act like. Naturally, we are trying to figure out whether Pitts is a mastermind at deceiving his audience into thinking that he was always on one side or the other, when truly all we wanted all along was his honesty. Pitts doesn’t wholeheartedly respect those that he has met in his travels and while in captivity and his audience is well aware that it is more likely he’d like to retreat to his home. It is hard to decipher who he has more respect for in terms of religion because we see such an engulfed view of him with Islamic faith, however it seems to not be Catholicism as he says, “I wish to God that Christians were as diligent in studying the holy scriptures…as those infidels are in pouring upon that legend of falsities and abominable follies and absurdities” (Pitts 244). He doesn’t want to be viewed as a Catholic and would much rather be seen as an Englishman that had converted to Islam because he views Catholicism as a ploy/scam that worships and looks up to things that aren’t explicitly in the scripture itself. An interesting thing to note about this would be that if this hadn’t happened to him, this pilgrimage, adventure, captivity, whatever Pitts would call it himself, would he have converted to Islam on his own? Would he have been so open to new ideas, practices, and religion? I believe that Pitts writes himself as a hero that was held back due to unstoppable forces; writing his narrative as a piece where his opinion matters most regardless of bias.

A Lack of Confidence – The Inconsistency of Joseph Pitts

Personally, diving into Pitt’s writing portrays what kind of a person he really is. A piece and especially one that is on the recounting of a series of events, whether they be subjectively traumatic or not, there must be a kind of consistency and organization as to what the writer is trying to get across. With Joseph Pitts I do not get that organization nor do I get that consistency in what he is trying to portray for us, the readers. In the recent passage, he portrays in great detail his pilgrimage to Mecca. In the grand scheme of things a great rite of passage that every Muslim must take in their lifetime, so Pitts does what he has been doing throughout the piece. He describes everything in great detail down to what those around him are wearing to the accents of various idols in the rites he is taking part in. This I’ve taken initially as okay, since is simply observing and recounting his thoughts and for a moment it seems that he actually was immersed in this foreign culture that is quickly becoming a sort of identity in the young man Pitts He tells the vastness of the great structures of Cairo and the grandeur that he is experiencing on this… well once in a lifetime pilgrimage. It is at this point where I become irritated at the writing style of Pitts as he recounts his experiences. I feel like his arrogance is reflected as he looks back on what he has been through and seen. At first I felt as though he was trying to give us a portrayal of the Muslim culture as one who has not known this way of living all of his life and awestruck as he himself becomes part of this culture that is so raw and real and takes part in their rites. Numerous times even her references and to put it informally, they practice what they preach by showing devotion in their time of fasting and passion when diving themselves in the practices of the Islamic religion. The truth for me here is that he is taking jabs at the land he has found himself in which gave a complete turn around for me when reading the piece. He references the Muslims being inconsistent with their practices in drinking wine and eating when the New Moon comes into view. A quote stood out to me as I couldn’t really comprehend what it is that Pitts is referring to. It hath been affirmed by some that the slaves that are sold in this country are never compelled to turn to the Mohammetan religion (though I suffered enough from them God knows)”. I took this as Pitts saying that he is in a way, doing a solid for the slaves around him by immersing himself in the Islamic lifestyle and now that he is recounting his experiences, the self conscious side of him wants to judge and take potshots in a way at the life he was seemingly becoming so accustomed to in the Middle East. This for me is something a writer cannot do, since is is portraying for us that he seemingly grows to become part of this land and the religion that is Islam and yet as he recounts more and more he takes subtle jabs at the practices of their people and especially something so prominent as Ramadan.

Blog Summary 2: Not Just the Oriental Voice

The texts that we read in this half of the class are told from the perspectives of Muslim men traveling the western world and the comparing and contrasting their two different worlds. Even though all these texts were generally coming from a unified perspective (that of the East), I also saw another commonality popping up. Unsurprising of an ethnographic account, the texts juxtapose the East and the West, and (as is unavoidable) critique the British on customs, religion, acquisition of knowledge, and their Imperialism. In doing so, they all reveal not only their identities in their nationality, but also their identities in their class and religion. It is these differences between the ethnographies that give them their unique voice and allow the reader to recognize them as their own entity rather than just an Oriental voice. I’tesamuddin, Sake Dean Mohamet and Mirza Khan therefore reject a still picture of the Oriental; their penchants and qualms with the British culture vary from person to person, and the reasons behind each are not identical.

In I’tesamuddin’s narrative criticisms and praise for the British culture are taken from an upper class zealous Muslim, that is to say, many of his opinions of the British stem from religious differences and class differences. I’tesamuddin cites several instances throughout his narrative where conflict with the British culture arises from a discrepancy in religion. I’tesamuddin however is not only critical, he also lauds the British for their technological achievements, remarking that it is a shame his own country did not express the same interest. This exhibits I’tesamuddin’s identity in class; being from the upper class makes him appreciative of luxury refinements. In Sake Dean Mohamet’s narrative, taken from the perspective of a Muslim man fighting for the British, criticisms and praises for Britain are seen only through the narrow lens of war: Mohamet’s identity is primarily shaped by the East India Co., and although Mohamet is Muslim, he does not show strict adherence to the faith. His narrative for the most part is indifferent about Britain culture, instead focusing on landscapes and the journal entries, though stealthily critical of the East India Co. Imperialistic nature. Religion in his text is almost absent, which in itself adds to the narrative and the moving picture of the Oriental (not all Orientals are strict Muslims). Mirza Khan’s opinions of the British culture, similar to I’tesamuddin’s, rely on religious differences but with a markedly different tone. Mirza Khan is a Sufi, meaning he is not strict to his faith’s rules, however him being a Muslim does influence several of his opinions. Like I’tesamuddin, Mirza Khan is from the upper class and that makes itself apparent as Mirza Khan criticizes the British for their sloth and their brothels.

While it may be easy to lump the three men together under the oriental perspective of the west, it is important to recognize that these narratives do not express the same findings. The oriental perspective on the west is not a single still perspective, but rather influenced by several different factors: class and religion, which were the ones that I mentioned here.

How the difference in circumstances affected the work of Islamic travel narratives

Looking at the two entries that comprise this summary, we have I’tesamuddin’s disparagement of Christian/British ideals juxtaposed with Abu Taleb’s delightful description of a dinner party that symbolically reveals how the English conquered India. At first glance, there is not much that can connect these two ideas. However, if we analyze each passage focusing on how it is a reaction to its author’s historical context, we can see the differences in tone between these travel narratives.

In the case of I’tesamuddin, his entire journey to “Vilayet” was soured by the betrayal of Robert Clive, making his travels pointless. I’tesamuddin’s distaste for the British comes through in his travel narrative, where his views on the differences between the religions of the two cultures always  ends with an explanation of why his religion is “right.” Because he was treated poorly by the British in regards to his diplomatic mission, I’tesamuddin feels the need in his travel narrative to treat the British poorly. Even the allegorical stories that he tells in his narrative are purposely built to this end. Either the story highlights the differences in values between the cultures (Painter story, 73) or differences in values in religion (parable of the three workers, 95). Because of I’tesamuddin’s mindset when writing this narrative, having been betrayed by Clive and realizing his travels were pointless, he feels the need to inform the reader that the culture that created him is better in multiple respects over British culture.

Abu Taleb’s mindset towards the British, on the other hand, is one of gratitude. Unlike I’tesamuddin, Abu Taleb was in a state of despair before his travels to Britain, and those travels not only lightened his mood, but he was even able to move to Britain permanently and create a (somewhat) stable career there. Abu Taleb’s respect for the British is apparent throughout his narrative, with some examples being the dinner party mentioned in my earlier blog post and his declaration that “Hospitality is one of the most esteemed virtues of the English; and I experienced it to such a degree, that I was seldom disengaged” (123). Abu Taleb feels the need to express such obligation because, unlike I’tesamuddin, his life was much improved by British intervention

In each of these two narratives we see an Oriental foreigner traveling throughout Britain and recording his reactions to the differences in culture. However, the tone of each narrative is different due to how the author feels they were treated by the British. I’tesamuddin, when he realized that Clive betrayed him, tells his readers: “If I had any inkling of this, I would not have undertaken it, but the matter was now out of my hands, the fateful step had been taken, the arrow had been shot from the bow and I could only watch helplessly as it sped along. So I helplessly surrendered to fate, and the will of Allah, and endured six months’ hardship on the sea before we reached England” (Vilayet, 20). In this passage we can see how I’tesamuddin understood that creating this memoir was likely the only good thing that resulted from his travels in England, and his anger and disappointment at this fact are apparent in the tone of his narrative. In Abu Taleb’s case, however, the invitation to travel to Britain was how the author was uplifted out of despair, and his gratitude to the English for this is apparent in how he describes his reception by the various social circles of British culture. As such, the critical difference between the two narratives is their perception of English culture, and how that perception is affected by the circumstances of the author. One was betrayed, and reflects their anger at that betrayal into the ethnographic description of British culture; the other was saved, and reflects that appreciation into their cultural study.

Sex and the City!

I thought it was a little hard to find a passage thta will correlat to this particular topic and that will also be a bit easier to picture not just for myself but for people. I think women have always been utilize as an object and as I was readin the second paragraph from page 215, Abu seem to recognize this topic too.

Abu Taleb Khan has a strong feeling the British, so he criticizes the culture along with its imperialism.  Mos of his critics is addressing to British women, which he portraits as an object for men. He thinks women play a significant role when it comes to imperialism. Women can play the role of being a luxury for people. He hiddenly explains how women are an object that makes men more appealing or more powerful to society in a way. Abu defines to women as ‘courtezans,’ which he identifies as the women who every famous or renown man want as an escort. Abu not only sees these women as a luxury for their body but because of the high price for their services. 

Abu, expresses his opinion about chastity being a recurrent vice for the nation as a whole. He thinks women should save themselves for marriage if were not to do so they ruin their life. He starts talking abput the “public houses” (215) in London and about the “great degree of licentiousness practised by numbers of both sexes” (215). Abu suggestes by these how men are men and that they have no code, rules or any type of expectations but thinks women are ruining their lives. He also cant stop seeing the irony behind the name of the places where prostitutes conduct their business for example “‘Paradise Street,’ ‘Modest Court,’ ‘St. James Street,’ ‘St. Martin’s Lane,’ and ‘St. Paul’s Churchyard’” (215). Abu does not considere a prudent thing to do to name public houses or streets where this houses where located with a religious name. 

 

 

Reverse Orientalism: Scrutinizing western society rewrite

In Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin’s memoir “The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir,” the narrative openly participates in the discourse of Orientalism and takes the opportunity to criticize the Hellenic society from his elite Mughal perspective. However, at times he does criticize his own country, even praising the English as, “the most powerful race on earth.” During his travels, the I’tesamuddin recounts his observations of Western societies in Britain. This narrative is a Western account, the “othering” of an Indian as experienced by I’tesamuddin – which has implications of reverse Orientalism. Although I’tesamuddin is steadfast in his Islamic faith, there are moments in some of the tales that have the reader as well as I’tesamuddin questioning his own culture and Islamic faith. One example of reverse Orientalism can be seen during the Dover dance party scene, the English treated him as a “spectacle” and thought he was a dancer or actor dressed in costume to entertain them. Without knowing the English insulted I’tesamuddin, but at the same time he was not completely disapproving of their culture as well, he says, “in such attractive company, I mused, even the wisest were apt to lose the wits.” (53) The English exoticized I’tesamuddin, in the following scene describes children screaming, “Look! Look! A black man is walking down the street… Many children and small boys took me for the black devil and kept away in fear.” (54) The Wonders of Vilayet are a compilation of tales for entertaining, and although he is reluctant at first because of the way Indian culture and society view performers as low class, he eventually becomes one almost unconsciously and consciously as well. He begins to see himself as a performer at Captain Swineton’s dinner parties, one in particular where he defend’s Islam on marriage, polygamy, religion, wine and eschatology. He refers to the British as his “guests” and says, “My audience was vastly amused and burst out laughing.” (100) The shift in his reaction in the beginning to being appalled and insulted at the thought of being an entertainer to kind of embracing it is interesting to see.

Throughout his narrative, I’tesamuddin remarks on many aspects of the English culture and traditions both praising and denouncing them, but ultimately participating in the discourse of Orientalism.

Orientalism and Truth

Throughout the texts, orientalism and the way women are portrayed are reoccurring themes. The internal fight of the authors and narrators to stay true to their own cultures despite being immersed in the others could be seen as a conflict between Orientalism and the Western ideologies as well. Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu recount their experiences as Western English travelers while immersed in these Islamic and Muslim cultures of the Ottoman Empire. Both authors set out to give a truthful and unbiased account of events. However, we begin to see that there is this natural desire to belong and be accepted and as a result each of the writers begin to identify and relate to the cultures that they write about. Though, in some passages with more criticism indicative of the influences of orientalism. “Without any exaggeration, all of the women of my acquaintance that have been married ten year have twelve or thirteen children… and are respected according to the number they have reproduced”(152). This specific quote was from the post on “Female Reproduction”, there was a comparison on the way these women were depicted for their sexuality and reproductive habits, which Lady Mary also attributed to their power and amount of respect they garnered as a woman. Lady Mary actually began to respect these women as well, despite what the ideals of her own culture say about women’s power. Through each of the texts, there is an internal conflict of the narrators to stay true to their culture, so there is a lot of flip-flopping. This could be influenced by who they think or want their audience to be, which would be the readers back home. But it seems they always return to the notion that their own cultures are superior by the way they denigrate aspects of the Islam/Muslim cultures and religions. Specifically in the “Turning Turk” post with Joseph Pitts, where he struggles with his identity, and only describes his faltering as a result of his captivity and torture. Both of these authors and their narratives have influences of orientalism and western ideologies flowing through them, though Lady Mary tries to combat orientalism, she is influenced by it as well which can be seen in various passages throughout the Turkish Embassy Letters.

Orientalism and the Resistance of it

While discussing the topics British literature mentions about the Middle East, one particular theme cannot go unmentioned. Orientalism or the apparent resistance of, takes front seat in the three texts we have read thus far. We can first see this apparent support of Orientalism in Joseph Pitts’ journal when he perpetuates the idea that Middle East is an location of chaos in which barbaric Muslims live. However, in the latter texts, the journal of Lady Mary Montagu and The Giaour, written by Lord Byron, appears to combat Orientalism. Lady Mary in several instances subjugates British customs and culture to that of the Turkish, although her racism and classicism appears to argue otherwise. Similarly, although The Giaour appears to show the apparent conquest of western Hellenism over the tyrannical oriental, Lord Byron himself appears to resist Orientalism, seen in the final moments of The Giaour. While the three texts take different positions on the topic of Orientalism, they all discuss the juxtaposition of British cultures and customs and that of Middle Eastern.

 

In the account of Joseph Pitts, Pitts critiques the Oriental in paralleling it to the British. We see this in the beginning of his account, in which he condemns the culture as well as the religion Islam in relation to the British (the latter being more superior). Although he tries to appear as if he is only spreading geopolitical awareness, he continuously subjects the oriental world to the biases manifested by his political allegiance. It is this same political allegiance that Lady Mary appears to reject; she is articulate in mentioning her discrepancies with her own culture (primarily the lack of autonomy women have, that Turkish women appear to possess). She lauds the cultures repeatedly, though upon cursory glance, Lady Mary seems to berate it due to her classicism and racism. Lord Byron similarly may be mistaken for an Orientalist; his poem The Giaour concerns a Christian Venetian who kills the Muslim murder of his lover and then spirals into madness. Close reading of the poem however reveals that Lord Byron has prophesied the eventual conquest of the Middle East by the West, and that it is nothing to applaud. It is instead something that is sad, and regretful, as the Venetian was in the final moments of the poem. It is important to recognize however that Orientalism is not the only theme that these writers encounter; the three texts are intricate and informative texts highlighting the personal, political, and religious opinions of the authors depart from the country they represent.