Customer Reviews

Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 assault, America, egged on by its liberal intelligentsia, went through a typically oversensitive and
overgenerous phase of wondering what we had done to cause such hatred of us in the Middle East. However, the level of public anger that the
murders awoke greatly shortened this period of angst and left only a few inveterate self-haters asking these questions...Meanwhile, the rest of
America quickly moved on to the more accurate question of..."What Went Wrong?" with Islam to
reduce a once great religion to an ideology of little more than hatred of the West. Oddly enough, the search for answers to this question sent us
scurrying back twenty years, to a couple of books and essays by V. S. Naipaul that were roundly condemned at the time they were written,
particularly in the Muslim world, but which can now be recognized as brilliant and prophetic...

Among the Believers recounts the author's seven month sojourn across Muslim Asia, from Iran to Pakistan to Malaysia to Indonesia and back
again to Iran. It should be remembered that he traveled in the immediate wake of the Iranian fundamentalist revolution that had overthrown the
Shah, with at least implicit approval from Western intellectual elites, and ushered in a supposed new dawn of reform. But instead of finding
cause for hope in the post-Colonial muscle flexing of Islamic regimes, Mr. Naipaul warned instead that the Islamic world was unreconciled to
modernity and perhaps irreconcilable. Here we find Naipaul's assessment of Islamic fundamentalism, one that is finally coming to be accepted,
though two decades too late for the folks murdered last September :

In the fundamentalist scheme the world constantly decays and has constantly to be re-created. The only function of intellect is
to assist that re-creation. It reinterprets the texts; it re-establishes divine precedent...The doctrine has its attractions. To a student from
the University of Karachi, from perhaps a provincial or peasant background, the old faith comes more easily than any
new-fangled academic discipline. So fundamentalism takes root in the universities, and to deny education can become the
approved educated act. In the days of Muslim glory Islam opened itself to the learning of the world. Now fundamentalism
provides an intellectual thermostat, set low. It equalizes, comforts, shelters, and preserves.

In this way the faith pervades everything, and it is possible to understand what the fundamentalists mean when they say that
Islam is a complete way of life. But what is said about Islam is true, and perhaps truer, of other religions--like Hinduism or
Buddhism or lesser tribal faiths--that at an early stage in their history were also complete cultures, self-contained and more
or less isolated, with institutions, manners, and beliefs making a whole.

The Islamic fundamentalist wish is to work back to such a whole, for them a God-given whole, but with the tool of faith alone--
belief, religious practices and rituals. It is like a wish--with intellect suppressed or limited, the historical sense falsified--to work
back from the abstract to the concrete, and to set up the tribal walls again. It is to seek to re-create something like a tribal or
a city-state that--except in theological fantasy--never was. The Koran is not the statute book of a settled golden age; it is the
mystical or oracular record of an extended upheaval, widening out from the Prophet to his tribe in Arabia. Arabia was full
of movement; Islam, with all its Jewish and Christian elements, was always mixed, eclectic, developing. ...

The West, or the universal civilization it leads, is emotionally rejected. It undermines; it threatens. But at the same time it
is needed, for its machines, goods, medicines, warplanes, the remittances from the emigrants, the hospitals that might have
a cure for calcium deficiency, the universities that will provide master's degrees in mass media. All the rejection of the West
is contained within the assumption that there will always exist out there a living, creative civilization, oddly neutral, open to all
to appeal to. Rejection, therefore, is not absolute rejection. It is also, for the community as a whole, a way of ceasing to strive
intellectually. It is to be parasitic; parasitism is one of the unacknowledged traits of fundamentalism.

There in a nutshell...is as good a description as anyone is offering today, some two decades later, of why Islam has turned
so radical, so violent, so anti-Western : it has come to be a kind of retrograde utopianism which locates its Utopia not in some bright and idyllic
future but in the temporary medieval community created by the Prophet Mohammed fourteen hundred years ago. It is not the West per se that
Islam is at war with, but the progressive tendencies of the West which keep bearing the whole world ever further away from a past that Muslims
long to return to. At first glance the attacks of September 11th may appear to be a kind of mindless nihilism, but from the perspective that
Naipaul grants us, we can see that they were a thoughtful form of nihilism. It becomes obvious that at least fundamentalist Muslims believe
that for Islam to return to its former glory, the West must be destroyed.

I've enjoyed several of V. S. Naipaul's novels, found others less effective, but this is the best book of his that I've read. He combines a
novelist's gift for characterization, with the observations and scene-sketching of the very best travel writers, then adds to the whole the kind of
insightful religio-political analysis that too few Middle East experts have offered us over the last quarter century of Islamic confrontation with
the West. It is altogether fitting that he was given his long overdue Nobel Prize in 2001, because this book does so much to explain the horrid
events of that year.

GRADE : A

I was pleasantly surprised with the sincerity and honesty with which Naipaul engages his subjects, especially towards the end of the book and his journey, when his conclusions have started to form and he is looking for reaffirmation of his earlier impressions. He knows that the pattern that is emerging is critical of the people he is talking to, yet he listens to each person earnestly, trying to understand how they see themselves and the world around them. Sometimes he is merely an interviewer, yet to the main characters through whom the story evolves, he is like a friend, telling them when he disagrees with them and making them think through their own feelings.

I do not see any hate or malice in this book, either towards 'the believers' or Islam. He is definitely sympathetic towards the believers he talks to, which should not and does not prevent him from criticizing their human frailties just as he celebrates their strengths. His critique of Islam too, follows from his analysis and should be refuted similarly. Coming back to read these reviews after reading the book, I find that some of the emotions expressed in the severest reviews fit the pattern described by the author. Ironic!

There is a natural flow in the narrative in moving from Iran through Pakistan and Malaysia to Indonesia. Was that a deliberate choice ?

First of all I must state I didn't finish this book: Mr. Naipaul, as ever in his non-fiction, is so anxiously meticulous that, unless you are pretty darned interested in the topic at hand, and also familiar with the geography, you can get lost in all that fine detail.

I just want to say, re all the negative reviews, that Mr. Naipaul certainly can't be said to be biased in favor of his own religion or cultural background (Hinduism) - Indians don't like him either. Try to find a Hindu who's read "India: A Million Mutinies Now" and liked it. I don't know anything about Muslim countries, but I am familiar with Indians (being married to one), and his writing on India, in my opinion, is extremely perceptive and straight-as-an-arrow honest. Of course, my husband (who refuses to read him), begs to differ.

Also - when he interjects stuff out of quotes, like, "He was confused" or "He didn't want to continue this topic" or whatever - that's simply to make the narrative more readable by reducing 50 words of hesitation and body language into a short phrase. Yes, if you've already made up your mind against Naipaul, you're going to assume he's twisting the interviewee's words, but I believe Mr. Naipaul is almost neurotic about letting his readers decide for themselves. When he does opine, it's obviously his opinion.

He does tend to have a kind of naturally dyspeptic viewpoint on things, the emphasis of his inquiries are on what's not working and why. Also, he seems to especially enjoy poking fun (maybe too much) at people who take themselves seriously. This is a style of commentary that we Westerners like but I think is construed as inimical by people from the Eastern worlds. But I would defend him without hesitation against anyone who calls his integrity into question. He's writing extremely valuable stuff that's going to be used by historians for centuries to come. Sure, definitely, read someone who's sympathetic to Islam, but read Naipaul, too.

Mr. Naipaul's treatment of a what has now become a very contemporary issue is definitely commendable. He asks all the questions you'd like to ask and then some. While many have called this an opinionated piece of work, after reading the book I am truly surprised about such conclusions. Mr. Naipaul takes the reader on a journey through some of the bedrock Islamic societies to winnow fact from fiction and in doing so sets forth the state of affairs with remarkable practicality, bereft of either political correctness or feigned understanding of the tortuous evolution of religion and its convenient interpretation. What a refreshing change compared to the politically correct drivel we read everyday in the papers!!

The dialogs with everyday folk in Iran right after the revolution, the description of the abject conditions in Pakistan are indeed illuminating. The book has much to offer by way of insights especially into the Islamic way of life and origins of Islamic societies in Malaysia and Indonesia (e.g., the "statistical Muslim"). I only wish he had included the Middle Eastern countries in his book. It would have been quiet interesting to read what he has to say about the virulent strains of Islamic fundamentalism that has risen in those parts of the world.

In sum, the book is definitely a good read. I would ask the reader to set aside any prejudiced reviews before reading this book. For the most part Mr. Naipaul adopts a descriptive style of writing and lets the reader connect the dots and draw conclusions. Of course the book is peppered with the author's own interpretations but I did not find them overbearing in any way. It still comes across as a very balanced look at some parts of the Islamic world.

I would strongly recommend the reader to visit ...to view/listen/read Sir Vidia's Nobel lecture. It offers interesting insights into the writer's journey.

It's 1979. The second oil shock that will bring about the terrible recession of the 1980s has just begun. In the East, the masses are stirring and revolution is afoot. Only this time the inspiration does not come from nationalism (favourite in the 1800s) or political ideology (usual from the Mexican Revolution to the Vietnam War), but religion. Yes, religion, dead and buried along with God by secularists everywhere, has rattled out of its grave, and lifting its curved sword, has led a new wave of fervent sentiment. In Iran, Mohamed Rezah Pahlevi, the successful but brutal modernizer Shah, has been overthrown by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In Afghanistan, the Soviets are preparing to invade, setting in movement a chain of events that would end with the end of Lenin's Kingdom. In Lebanon, the civil war rages between Maronite Christians and Shi'ite Muslims.

Into this world (which is still clearly recognizable to us today, when the descendants of these fighters are still with us, but much more powerful and deadly than they were then) came an atheistic Trinidadian, currently known as Sir Vidia Naipaul. Naipaul visited four countries linked by one theme: they were countries that were conquered by Islam. They were separated from the Arab heartlands of the Prophet's Faith by heresy (as in Iran) or distance (as in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia). He tours the four countries far and wide. He speaks with common people (like waiters, taxi drivers, translators, hotel managers, salesmen, journalists), religious leaders (Mullahs, Ayatollahs, intellectual and political leaders) and dissidents (mainly communists). He begins with Iran. There he attends a mass prayer at Teheran University and is repelled by the spectacle of tens of thousands of people praying in unison. He also goes to the sacred city of Qom, where he meets the clownish (but very dangerous) hanging Ayatollah Kalkhalli. He travels by train with communists and is harassed by revolutionary guards (not too different from Red Guards). In Pakistan he goes from the coast to the Himalayas and visits the large cities in between. In Malaysia and Indonesia he mainly flies across jungles, to see Islamic seeds sprouting deep roots in the body politic of these countries (although much more ominously in Malaysia). He visits religious schools and is appalled at the medieval squallor that reigns and wonders what use will these learnings be to the students of the country (in fact he believes that all these schools will do is put out more zealots who won't be able to find productive jobs, because they don't know how to do anything else but become teachers of even more zealots, and so on ad infinitum). He meets many wise men who are willing to contemplate great commotions (this is a constant: the most extreme fanatics he meets always appear initially to be genial and harmless). He sees this islamic revival as the vengeance of the formerly isolated country people who, having benefitted from some education, feel isolated from their roots, and use religion as a cudgel to beat either their own elites (as in Iran against the Shah or in Pakistan against Butto) or minority groups that are more successful than themselves (as in Malaysia and Indonesia with the Chinese or the Christians). Naipaul sees most of the faithful he meets either as close-minded (virtually the only thing on which everyone agrees is that in an Islamic countries women should not appear on TV) or hopelessly confused (although many consider themselves "bad muslims" because they feel they are unable to live their faith properly they have no doubt that a whole state based on such a faith would work very well). He is bemused that most Islamists are absolutely convinced that things would be better under an Islamic order, in spite of their inability in showing how exactly things would differ, and their grudging admission that the only properly Islamic state only existed in the 35 years after the Prophet's death, under the first few caliphs. He is angered at the ease with which the believers are willing to use foreign artifacts (such as weapons, funds or laws) in spite of their absolute rejection of everything foreign civilizations stand for. He is outraged at how political Islam has managed to obliterate any remainder awareness among Iranians of their imperial Persian past, among Pakistanis of their Hindustan past, and among Malays and Indonesians of their Buddhist past. He sees they identify so totally with their own ideological conquerors, that they see themselves as their descendants, rather than those of the conquered peoples, whom they truly come from.

Does he expect things to improve? Not really. He expects them to get worse, and he is convinced that the religious mindset (narrow, intolerant, violent) will be behind each and every commotion. Has he been proven right? Let each reader judge by himself.

Many of the commentators in these pages criticize Naipaul for his negative attitude to religion. This is a fair point. Naipaul is hostile to religion, and specifically to Islam. In one of his first books, An Area of Darkness, he declares that he was brought up on the belief that Muslims were unreliable, even traitorous. His own antipathy to Islam is a consequence of his Hindu background (he is a Brahmin), but his own atheism has made it much sharper. He has also been accused (among others by his fomer friend Paul Theroux) of having missed much dogmatic subtleties because of his lack of Arabic language. Do these things weaken the book? I don't think so, because Naipaul is no one else's ambassador and is not supposed to be impartial, or even fair. All he must be is informative, insightful, and amusing. He is all these things, and he also writes superbly. The book is as much about himself (his likes, his hates, his hesitations, his curious obsessions) as it is about the countries he visits. It is even less about Islam as a religion, a subject that Naipaul does not understand (he usually tries to escape expositions of dogma and eludes gifts of religious books or articles) and doesn't care about. Good muslims should not worry about this book. It is not about religion. It is a travel book, a highly critical and surely biased one. But this reviewer enjoyed it very much.

"Among the believers" stands in same league with Naipaul's famed trilogy on India, replete with glimpses of history, critical perspectives and thought-stirring (unanswered) questions.

As Paul Theroux pointed once, Naipaul never uses any word without exercising forethought, and his usual diligence in presenting sensitive subjects without even trace amounts of exaggeration applies to this book too. It will be a travesty of truth if people liken his writings to anti-Islamic bigotry or stance. I think such allegations are nefarious and conspiratory to discredit the momentous work he has done. He has been equally critical/questioning of the (Hindu) civilizational millstones that beseige India.

If at all one could ascribe any pre-determined judgement that Naipaul makes in this book, it is his unequivocal committment to the superiority of (current) Western traditions like Democracy, Individualism, Freewill, Science, Market Economics etc. He does not exhibit any particular preference among the Eastern civilizations. His predeliction toward Hindu-Buddhist civilization, if at all, is due to the apparent space these cultures provide to accommodate western values and certainly not because Naipaul derives solace from the theism/morality of these religions.

In sum, "Among the believers" is as honest an inquiry into the predicaments of tumultuous Islamic revival as much as his other travelogues are about other geographies. A must read for all (Muslims and Non-Muslims) those who want to enter into a transparent and protracted dialogue to contain Muslim disgruntlement in different quarters.

I read Beyond Belief and enjoyed it so much that I purchased and read his earlier book on the same topic, Among the Believers. This is probably the best book on Islam -- and especially on Islam in non-Arab countries -- that I have ever read. It is a depressing and moving book and even more relevant today than it was when written.

This book caused an uproar when it was first published, in 1982. After 9/11, it gained itself a whole new readership. Naipaul's first "Islam" book is a collection of opinions about the effect of Islam on what he calls the "converted" (non-Arab)peoples ... the Iranians, who woke up from history with the new knowledge of an surrounding infidel civilization, one that could not be dominated and so instead was to be rejected ... rejected, and depended upon, the Pakistanis, who threw out the rule of law that they inherited from their former British administrators and replaced it with nothing. This book also concerns itself with the Malay cultures of Malaysia and Indonesians, whom Naipaul seems to both admire and disdain. The admiration stems from their post-war economic achievements (which he attributes to their Chinese minorities); the distain stems from the short-sightedness of their "New Islam" leanings, and their iconoclastic reaction to their pre-Islamic history (which he seems to respect more than Islam ... no surprise, since they were Hindu cultures). As always, Naipaul uses the stories of ordinary people to prove what he considers Islam's cultural destructiveness, a sort of colonization no better or worse that the Western form that he experienced in his boyhood Trinidad.

That said, this is a great book, full of the clear-eyed truths for which Naipaul is so well known. But, as with this book's sequel, "Among the Believers," it has to be taken with a grain a salt: Naipaul, as a Brahmin, deeply resents the affect of Islam of his marble model of ancient India. But his assessments will resonant very clearly with those who approach the subject of Islam, especially "New Islam," with an open mind.

After living in islamic countries for 15 years I have tried to understand the rage that seems to affect radical muslims. This book is a great way to begin to get into the minds of these people who, in many cases don't fear the possibility of starting world war III.

Belief is a peculiar thing. It can promote optimism, unite people, provide social cohesion and stabilize governments, economies and cultures. Conversely it can fragment social systems, promote suspicion, stagnate progress and entrench a worldview so bound by its own circular logic, it begins to consume itself.
V.S. Naipaul writes convincingly, critically and often with a detached sadness of his journeys in the Muslim nations of Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia. Of intense interest to Westerners hoping to better understand these three non-Arab Muslim nations are a few key themes Naipaul hammers away at: How do these Muslim nations, with populaces often aggravated with the West, reconcile their use of Western technology, Western medicine, Western business theory and Western pop culture? How do Muslim emigrants and exchange students from the aforementioned countries reconcile their orthodox beliefs with the freedom and egalitarianism they encounter in the West? How do Western-educated Muslims reconcile their exploitation of Western openness, with their desire to suppress the very same freedoms in the countries they return to? How does Islam syncretize the cultural practices and regional religions that predated the introduction of Islam? What are the ramifications when an institutionalized faith supplants logic, ethics and the self-critique needed for national growth?

The answers to these questions are fascinating, illuminating, frightening and often humorous. Instead of broad anthropological observations, Naipaul actually finds the answers to these questions by spending an enormous amount of time with individuals at all levels of the social strata. He asks questions, interviewing incessantly, probing, prodding, finding out what makes the people in these societies tick. The results of his exhausting character profiles are fascinating.

Of intense relevance are the conclusions that Naipaul wasn't able to draw in 1981 when Among the Believers was published. We could expound upon Naipaul's observations then and hypothesize that as the exhausting attempts to create a romanticized, modern day "pure" Islamic state (complete with archaic Islamic law, Koranic-inspired science, usury-free banking, orthodox social customs, education, etc.) fail over and over again in places like Pakistan, Iran and Malaysia; extremism increasingly takes hold. The West with its obsession with modernity and radical free thinking becomes enemy number one. The "faith" must increasingly find outward enemies when attempts to succeed from within fail.

A fascinating, gripping journey into a world most of us will never know but increasingly need to understand.