Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey (Paperback)

~ (Author) "Sadeq was to go with me from Tehran to the holy city of Qom, a hundred miles to the south..." (more)
Key Phrases: sufi centre, salt hills, rice goddess, United States, Kuala Lumpur, Holiday Inn (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Naipaul's controversial account of his travels through the Islamic world was hailed by The New Republic as "the most notable work on contemporary Islam to have appeared in a very long time."

About the Author

V. S. Naipaul was born in Trinidad in 1932. He went to England on a scholarship in 1950. After four years at Oxford he began to write, and since then he has followed no other profession. He is the author of more than twenty books of fiction and nonfiction and the recipient of numerous honors, including the Nobel Prize in 2001, the Booker Prize in 1971, and a knighthood for services to literature in 1990. He lives in Wiltshire, England.

Product Details

• Paperback: 448 pages
• Publisher: Vintage (July 12, 1982)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0394711955
• ISBN-13: 978-0394711959
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.2 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (51 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #476,236 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

111 of 125 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Struck a nerve?, August 21, 2001

By	followthemoney (Brevard, NC United States) - See all my reviews

Seems from the bitter tone of the negative reviews that Naipaul has struck a nerve, which means he probably got it right. Naipaul makes no pretensions to scholarship; he is a skeptic who calls it as he sees it. Early on in the book, he calls himself a "seeker," which by itself undercuts accusations that he is a biased Hindu nationalist with an axe to grind. Regardless, Naipaul doesn't condemn Islam; he expresses his doubts about a particular interpretation of Islam and its political manifestations in particular societies at a very specific time in history. Iran's recent softening of its stance toward the West especially highlights Naipaul's prescience vis a vis his analysis of that nation's complicated ambivalence toward the United States and Europe.

Similarly, any anti-Muslim bigot who uses Naipaul to rationalize an irrational hatred cleary refuses to acknowledge the profoundly sympathetic tone of Naipaul's portrayals of the people he meets and places he goes. Naipaul doubts ideology, not individuals. Outstanding travel writing.

104 of 123 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Cassandra, proven right, February 17, 2002

By	Orrin C. Judd "brothersjudddotcom" (Hanover, NH USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey (Hardcover)

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

27 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Perceptive, Honest, Disturbing, January 22, 2000

By	Mohit Dubey (Texas, USA) - See all my reviews

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 ?