[AbraxiaAsus]

Yours truly has been trying to grapple with this book for quite some time.
The problem was that yours truly did have a feeling that he is calling a spade a spade.
But it was impossible to pinpoint that.
And there was not a clue as to why that is the case.
Some time back it dawned that the west has been at it, that is orientalism, for eons and hence considerable deftness is perceptible in these matters. As a result formulation of this problem, even as an academic exercise, was a task that required enormous amount of care.
Edward W. Said was exceptionally well placed to do that.
He was not a Muslim and thus will not be pooh poohed easily.
He was an Arab and hence had the sense, sensibility of and empathy with those people.
He was in west.
He was privy, being a professor of comparative literature, to enormous amount of relevant data in English literature.

No wonder a reviewer said that his case is not only persuasive but decisive.

One more question should be answered here. If Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Allama Shibli Nomani had already done the needful then what was left for Edward Said to accomplish.

The straightforward answer is that the west did not pay attention to Muslim refutation. In case of Said they have little option.

At a technical level also there is a difference. Sir Syed and Shibli Nomani presented the technical data about the absurdities hurled at Islam. Said drove home the point that there is physical evidence for existence of orientalism.