What do you think?
Rate this book
Poza wiarą. Islamskie peregrynacje do nawróconych narodów
Siedemnaście lat po napisaniu "Among the Believers" (1981) V.S. Naipaul, powieściopisarz, eseista, laureat nagrody Nobla, wraca do Indonezji, Iranu, Pakistanu i Malezji – krajów, w których potomkowie muzułmańskich konwertytów stworzyli jedyną w swoim rodzaju kulturę, łączącą wiarę w Proroka z elementami rdzennych tradycji i wierzeń. W trakcie pięciomiesięcznej podróży Naipaul obserwuje zwłaszcza wpływ islamskiego fundamentalizmu na życie społeczne i polityczne, ale przygląda się także temu, jak religijność kształtuje ludzkie losy. Zachowując reporterską bezstronność, opisuje spotkania z ocalałym bojownikiem brygad śmierci z wojny irańsko-irackiej, młodym intelektualistą szkolonym na marksistowskiego partyzanta czy starym małżeństwem, wspominającym lata utraconej rodowej potęgi. Ta mozaika ludzkich losów staje się punktem wyjścia do niezwykłej analizy kultury.
568 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1981
254 people are currently reading
3523 people want to read
About the author
V.S. Naipaul
190 books1,788 followersV. S. Naipaul was a British writer of Indo-Trinidadian descent known for his sharp, often controversial explorations of postcolonial societies, identity, and displacement. His works, which include both fiction and nonfiction, often depict themes of exile, cultural alienation, and the lingering effects of colonialism.
He gained early recognition with A House for Mr Biswas, a novel inspired by his father’s struggles in Trinidad. His later works, such as The Mimic Men, In a Free State, and A Bend in the River, cemented his reputation as a masterful and incisive writer. Beyond fiction, his travelogues and essays, including Among the Believers and India: A Million Mutinies Now, reflected his critical perspective on societies in transition.
Naipaul received numerous accolades throughout his career, including the Nobel Prize in Literature, awarded for his ability to blend deep observation with literary artistry. While praised for his prose, his often unsparing portrayals of postcolonial nations and controversial statements sparked both admiration and criticism.
He gained early recognition with A House for Mr Biswas, a novel inspired by his father’s struggles in Trinidad. His later works, such as The Mimic Men, In a Free State, and A Bend in the River, cemented his reputation as a masterful and incisive writer. Beyond fiction, his travelogues and essays, including Among the Believers and India: A Million Mutinies Now, reflected his critical perspective on societies in transition.
Naipaul received numerous accolades throughout his career, including the Nobel Prize in Literature, awarded for his ability to blend deep observation with literary artistry. While praised for his prose, his often unsparing portrayals of postcolonial nations and controversial statements sparked both admiration and criticism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 217 reviews
July 15, 2016
The book is sheer intellection. Naipaul proceeds by letting Muslim converts -- not those who were born to the faith -- speak for themselves. He questions them pointedly. The monologues are interspersed with sequences of analysis so brilliant, so penetrating, that they consistently astound, at times conveying insights that take the breath away. This is not classic travel narrative. This is not Dalrymple or Theroux, which is not to slight those writers. But there's very little description or sense of landscape here, no colorful characters appear to relieve the considerable tension. For Naipaul's questions are not always easy ones to answer and his interlocutors tend to squirm at times. Rather, one has the sense of being Naipaul, that is to say, of following his rigorous thought processes from inception to conclusion. I have never read anything like it. To my mind, it's an entirely new form. That it gives us Muslim points of view is important and necessary, especially today, but it is the book's structure and seamless execution, that is to my mind its true achievement.
May 4, 2025
This is another good book from the king of the critical travelogue, V S Naipaul. Here he gives his reflections on Muslim culture in four countries, circa 1980: Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. The theme is a study of places where fundamentalists have established Islamic states among converted peoples. His trademark terse writing and sharp observations are seen here in their full maturity. He would return in 1995 for another visit. Both books were controversial in their time, and deemed prescient by some following the events of 9/11.
Naipaul visits Iran shortly after the Islamic Revolution. Having replaced the Shah's autocracy with the Ayatollah's theocracy, business and government had ground to a halt. Highways and buildings were left unfinished, military contracts cancelled, hotels and restaurants emptied out. Naipaul depicts a nation living through a dystopian dream. Although the official rhetoric had changed, the torture and executions didn't stop. 'Conqueror of Egypt, rival of Greece, undefeated by Rome', Persia now bowed towards Arabia as the source of religion and law.
Next on his agenda is Pakistan, 'founded thirty years before as a homeland for India's Muslims'. Naipaul notes 'what was lacking in both countries, is science and the ability to run a state' and substituted by faith. Born in sectarian bloodshed the nascent democracy was ruled by the military a decade later. Pakistan's prime minister had been hanged three years earlier in a coup. After exports of cotton and rice, worker remittances from foreign countries were its biggest income source. Where oil wealth perpetuated Islamic rule in Iran, it was mired by poverty in Pakistan.
Naipaul moves on to Malaysia, less well known in the West. Unlike Iran and Pakistan, Islam entered Southeast Asia as a cultural import from India rather than at the point of sword. At first a syncretic faith that mixed with local beliefs, now missionaries visit from Pakistan to purify the religion. Its riches had come from tin, rubber and palm oil; its foreign educated youth return disillusioned to their villages. The descendants of 'people of the river and forest' are today's Islamic revolutionaries while non-Muslims are denied social and economic equality.
Finally Naipaul examines Indonesia, culturally colonized by Hindus and Buddhists in past centuries. Impoverished and overpopulated (4th largest people worldwide), it is plagued by political pogroms and Islamist insurrections. Its youth movements had driven Islamic conversions that swept the archipelago (now 90% Muslim and 2nd most worldwide). Although constitutionally secular, religious intolerance and sharia law loom large. A local variety of the middle eastern madrasa teaches Arabic language and basic village skills, 'the poor teaching the poor to be poor'.
Naipaul's impressions of these places are told through a series of interviews. His interactions with people juxtapose sensible questions with the sometimes absurd replies he receives along the way. It is a subtly comical approach, and devastating as a literary device. Words, actions and even settings speak for themselves, often without comment or critique made by the author. In Naipaul's opinion Islamic fundamentalism is 'the most uncompromising kind of imperialism' because the converted peoples are denied their local history, culture and religion.
Naipaul identifies Islam as a political and social system in ways other religions are not. Unlike Christianity or Judaism where faith is essentially a private matter he sees Islam as unable to readily coexist within a secular state. Reform is nearly impossible as there is no central authority. Although dependent on Western technology he notes countries under Islamic rule decline to participate in it's development. Held in common is a hatred for 'international zionism' pushed by the US, Israel and Europe. Naipaul argues strongly, but he is not without his critics.
Naipaul visits Iran shortly after the Islamic Revolution. Having replaced the Shah's autocracy with the Ayatollah's theocracy, business and government had ground to a halt. Highways and buildings were left unfinished, military contracts cancelled, hotels and restaurants emptied out. Naipaul depicts a nation living through a dystopian dream. Although the official rhetoric had changed, the torture and executions didn't stop. 'Conqueror of Egypt, rival of Greece, undefeated by Rome', Persia now bowed towards Arabia as the source of religion and law.
Next on his agenda is Pakistan, 'founded thirty years before as a homeland for India's Muslims'. Naipaul notes 'what was lacking in both countries, is science and the ability to run a state' and substituted by faith. Born in sectarian bloodshed the nascent democracy was ruled by the military a decade later. Pakistan's prime minister had been hanged three years earlier in a coup. After exports of cotton and rice, worker remittances from foreign countries were its biggest income source. Where oil wealth perpetuated Islamic rule in Iran, it was mired by poverty in Pakistan.
Naipaul moves on to Malaysia, less well known in the West. Unlike Iran and Pakistan, Islam entered Southeast Asia as a cultural import from India rather than at the point of sword. At first a syncretic faith that mixed with local beliefs, now missionaries visit from Pakistan to purify the religion. Its riches had come from tin, rubber and palm oil; its foreign educated youth return disillusioned to their villages. The descendants of 'people of the river and forest' are today's Islamic revolutionaries while non-Muslims are denied social and economic equality.
Finally Naipaul examines Indonesia, culturally colonized by Hindus and Buddhists in past centuries. Impoverished and overpopulated (4th largest people worldwide), it is plagued by political pogroms and Islamist insurrections. Its youth movements had driven Islamic conversions that swept the archipelago (now 90% Muslim and 2nd most worldwide). Although constitutionally secular, religious intolerance and sharia law loom large. A local variety of the middle eastern madrasa teaches Arabic language and basic village skills, 'the poor teaching the poor to be poor'.
Naipaul's impressions of these places are told through a series of interviews. His interactions with people juxtapose sensible questions with the sometimes absurd replies he receives along the way. It is a subtly comical approach, and devastating as a literary device. Words, actions and even settings speak for themselves, often without comment or critique made by the author. In Naipaul's opinion Islamic fundamentalism is 'the most uncompromising kind of imperialism' because the converted peoples are denied their local history, culture and religion.
Naipaul identifies Islam as a political and social system in ways other religions are not. Unlike Christianity or Judaism where faith is essentially a private matter he sees Islam as unable to readily coexist within a secular state. Reform is nearly impossible as there is no central authority. Although dependent on Western technology he notes countries under Islamic rule decline to participate in it's development. Held in common is a hatred for 'international zionism' pushed by the US, Israel and Europe. Naipaul argues strongly, but he is not without his critics.
April 13, 2012
From the first page it was apparent that Naipaul arrived with some mission that he took very seriously. Instead of following the wind like a free-spirit Naipaul had meetings, interviews, appointments. But what were his aims, what was his mission? We aren't explicity told. Having followed him around and listened in on his conversations with Muslims of Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, I can make a few pretty close guesses though I can't help but think he left home with a conclusion and sought only to justify it. Through informal and formal interviews he critically reviewed the belief systems of the people he met, from hired drivers to Ayatollah Khalkhali, an Iranian cleric known for his fondness of execution.
He asks his subjects difficult questions about faith and seems to expect logical, rational answers. These are not, of course, forthcoming. Should they be? If you are part of a revolution or building a system of governance then I would say so. This is the strength of Naipaul's work, this revealing of the trembling foundations of Iran and Pakistan. Now, nearly 30 years after the book was published, one could argue that some of his predictions have come true. Iran still has not come to terms with the existance of the western world and Pakistan still oscillates between instability and corruption.
Critics of Naipaul have picked up on his sweeping generalisations. Naipaul's path is narrow indeed and from this he extrapolates whole nations and cultures. People he talks to are challenged and the words they fight back with aren't fuelled by a scolar's education, as Naipaul's are. And always, Naipaul gets the last word.
But Naipaul is a brilliant writer and reading this was a pleasure. He is so present on the page, he's honest and self-aware, he takes me with him even when, after a moment, I realise I disagree. He lets go of his ego and puts (some of) his prejudice and misconceptions out there: I admire that, I think it is courageous.
It's not perfect, it's an amazing armchair journey and it's still so relevant. Four stars.
He asks his subjects difficult questions about faith and seems to expect logical, rational answers. These are not, of course, forthcoming. Should they be? If you are part of a revolution or building a system of governance then I would say so. This is the strength of Naipaul's work, this revealing of the trembling foundations of Iran and Pakistan. Now, nearly 30 years after the book was published, one could argue that some of his predictions have come true. Iran still has not come to terms with the existance of the western world and Pakistan still oscillates between instability and corruption.
Critics of Naipaul have picked up on his sweeping generalisations. Naipaul's path is narrow indeed and from this he extrapolates whole nations and cultures. People he talks to are challenged and the words they fight back with aren't fuelled by a scolar's education, as Naipaul's are. And always, Naipaul gets the last word.
But Naipaul is a brilliant writer and reading this was a pleasure. He is so present on the page, he's honest and self-aware, he takes me with him even when, after a moment, I realise I disagree. He lets go of his ego and puts (some of) his prejudice and misconceptions out there: I admire that, I think it is courageous.
It's not perfect, it's an amazing armchair journey and it's still so relevant. Four stars.
October 17, 2024
This book is prescient. It was published in 1981 about a journey the author took to Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to examine the condition of Islam. His time in Iran was after the takeover and revolution by Ayatollah Khomeini; but before the seizure of the U.S. embassy in November,1979.
The author is a skeptic and questions the validity of faith, more so its ability to resolve problems in our contemporary society. He interviews various leaders and members of Islamist groups in these countries. He probes, usually gently, with questions, and is a keen listener and observer. In Iran, communism is being replaced with Islamic fervor. Each country has endured some form of Western imperialism and is now undertaking to establish its own identity. The Islamist groups want their own authority and rule.
But Islam as a replacement for corruption, nepotism, military dictatorship, etc,… was not working in the countries under scrutiny. Many Muslim groups wanted to have a pure form of Islam as expressed in the Koran to be the mode of governance. Both the new Iran and Pakistan (formed in 1947), are Islamic states. As the author discovers in his interviews, many religious adherents believed that faith and prayer would lead the way to a pure religious state. Unfortunately, this purview did not offer concrete solutions to the many inherent problems they have.
The words of the Koran were offered as a utopia. To achieve this, sacrifices were required and strict rules had to be followed – more so for women.
Page 379 my book
Good Muslims believed that the best time in the world was the time of the Prophet and the first four, good caliphs.
Islam is a total guide for all aspects of living. It permeates daily conduct. Many of the Muslim groups the author spoke with, saw themselves as missionaries and were spreading the words of the Prophet across the globe. It was a duty for them to gain converts and make a Muslim society. Many had worked and/or studied in Europe and the United States.
This was a compelling book to read. Except for Iran, all the other countries (Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia) have become more Islamic since the author’s visit in the late 1970s – with more and more rules.
I wish the author would have probed more into the status of women in the different Muslim groups he spoke with. He interviewed mostly men – and I assume it was mostly men who were in the leadership positions.
Page 303 Indonesia
He said [to his daughter], “But don’t you have a mind any longer? Do you have to go to that book every time? Can’t you think for yourself?” She said, “The Koran is the source of all wisdom and virtue in the world.”
The author is a skeptic and questions the validity of faith, more so its ability to resolve problems in our contemporary society. He interviews various leaders and members of Islamist groups in these countries. He probes, usually gently, with questions, and is a keen listener and observer. In Iran, communism is being replaced with Islamic fervor. Each country has endured some form of Western imperialism and is now undertaking to establish its own identity. The Islamist groups want their own authority and rule.
But Islam as a replacement for corruption, nepotism, military dictatorship, etc,… was not working in the countries under scrutiny. Many Muslim groups wanted to have a pure form of Islam as expressed in the Koran to be the mode of governance. Both the new Iran and Pakistan (formed in 1947), are Islamic states. As the author discovers in his interviews, many religious adherents believed that faith and prayer would lead the way to a pure religious state. Unfortunately, this purview did not offer concrete solutions to the many inherent problems they have.
The words of the Koran were offered as a utopia. To achieve this, sacrifices were required and strict rules had to be followed – more so for women.
Page 379 my book
Good Muslims believed that the best time in the world was the time of the Prophet and the first four, good caliphs.
Islam is a total guide for all aspects of living. It permeates daily conduct. Many of the Muslim groups the author spoke with, saw themselves as missionaries and were spreading the words of the Prophet across the globe. It was a duty for them to gain converts and make a Muslim society. Many had worked and/or studied in Europe and the United States.
This was a compelling book to read. Except for Iran, all the other countries (Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia) have become more Islamic since the author’s visit in the late 1970s – with more and more rules.
I wish the author would have probed more into the status of women in the different Muslim groups he spoke with. He interviewed mostly men – and I assume it was mostly men who were in the leadership positions.
Page 303 Indonesia
He said [to his daughter], “But don’t you have a mind any longer? Do you have to go to that book every time? Can’t you think for yourself?” She said, “The Koran is the source of all wisdom and virtue in the world.”
December 22, 2019
Given Naipaul's reputation as a biting and incisive critic of postcolonial societies and Muslim ones in particular, I expected to have strong feelings about this book. To my surprise I found myself relatively indifferent. "Among the Believers" is a compilation of Naipaul's travels from Iran to Southeast Asia, at a time in history, 1979 to 1981, that would later be seen as an inflection point for the Muslim world. Among other things he is a direct witness to the immediate aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and the so-called Islamic awakening that was birthed in part from that event.
Naipaul brings his familiar perspective to all the places he visits: that of the Anglophile and Brahmin. He sees the move away from the "universal civilization" of the West as an obvious folly, though one that itself is partly influenced by the Western Romantic tradition. I found some of his observations to be prescient and some to be shallow, particularly his reflexive belief that non-Arab Muslims are in fact living out a false consciousness that has been alienated in them by Arab imperialism. The political origins of this latter belief became evident later in his life when Naipaul revealed himself as a supporter of Hindutva ideology. Nonetheless, I didn't find this book to be "Islamophobic," at least not by the fevered standard of writing about Muslims today. Nor did I find Naipaul to be an unsympathetic interlocutor to the people that he meets. He just is who he is. For the most part he gives people their own space to express themselves and does his best to understand them on his own terms. I would say that he is a good journalist and a bad scholar.
More important that Naipaul's faltering and shallow attempts to explain or understand the religion of Islam, I found the real story of this book to be about the dislocations and identity crises that occur when fast-urbanizing, modernizing societies are being changed by forces beyond people's control. In such a world, men and women will inevitably reach out for old certainties, even if it means manufacturing them where they had not previously existed.
In the Muslim world this has meant grabbing onto fundamentalist Islam as a means of making confused peoples feel whole again. In my view this movement has failed and is already looking to have been a fad. The reason is that instead of making people feel whole, it has made them feel internally divided in new ways, particularly since they obviously cannot deny the universal civilization upon whose products and institutions (which, inevitably, are not themselves value-neutral) they still depend. When it comes to spiritual sustenance, people also need a form of religion that is not at odds with them. Otherwise it will inevitably fit them awkwardly, chafe, and eventually be cast off as too much trouble. No wonder so many fundamentalists seem to end up becoming atheists, or effectively atheist.
As usual, in these kinds of books Naipaul completely fails to self-examine the Anglophile civilization he embraces so uncritically. He never raises the question of whether anti-Western ideologies are even partly a reaction to aggressive foreign policies, or if they would have been able to gain traction in the Muslim world without them. To not even mention this, even perfunctorily, is a telling oversight.
Nonetheless, despite not being his greatest book, it's not a bad one either. As usual the writing is good and makes reading it feel like an inexpensive vacation across the world and back a few decades in time. He even takes you to some places that subsequent tragedies have made it no longer possible to visit.
Naipaul brings his familiar perspective to all the places he visits: that of the Anglophile and Brahmin. He sees the move away from the "universal civilization" of the West as an obvious folly, though one that itself is partly influenced by the Western Romantic tradition. I found some of his observations to be prescient and some to be shallow, particularly his reflexive belief that non-Arab Muslims are in fact living out a false consciousness that has been alienated in them by Arab imperialism. The political origins of this latter belief became evident later in his life when Naipaul revealed himself as a supporter of Hindutva ideology. Nonetheless, I didn't find this book to be "Islamophobic," at least not by the fevered standard of writing about Muslims today. Nor did I find Naipaul to be an unsympathetic interlocutor to the people that he meets. He just is who he is. For the most part he gives people their own space to express themselves and does his best to understand them on his own terms. I would say that he is a good journalist and a bad scholar.
More important that Naipaul's faltering and shallow attempts to explain or understand the religion of Islam, I found the real story of this book to be about the dislocations and identity crises that occur when fast-urbanizing, modernizing societies are being changed by forces beyond people's control. In such a world, men and women will inevitably reach out for old certainties, even if it means manufacturing them where they had not previously existed.
In the Muslim world this has meant grabbing onto fundamentalist Islam as a means of making confused peoples feel whole again. In my view this movement has failed and is already looking to have been a fad. The reason is that instead of making people feel whole, it has made them feel internally divided in new ways, particularly since they obviously cannot deny the universal civilization upon whose products and institutions (which, inevitably, are not themselves value-neutral) they still depend. When it comes to spiritual sustenance, people also need a form of religion that is not at odds with them. Otherwise it will inevitably fit them awkwardly, chafe, and eventually be cast off as too much trouble. No wonder so many fundamentalists seem to end up becoming atheists, or effectively atheist.
As usual, in these kinds of books Naipaul completely fails to self-examine the Anglophile civilization he embraces so uncritically. He never raises the question of whether anti-Western ideologies are even partly a reaction to aggressive foreign policies, or if they would have been able to gain traction in the Muslim world without them. To not even mention this, even perfunctorily, is a telling oversight.
Nonetheless, despite not being his greatest book, it's not a bad one either. As usual the writing is good and makes reading it feel like an inexpensive vacation across the world and back a few decades in time. He even takes you to some places that subsequent tragedies have made it no longer possible to visit.
September 11, 2012
The whole time I was reading this book I just kept thinking of this quote:
“If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion and avoid the people, you might better stay home.” ― James A. Michener
Naipaul is rude, he's elitist, and he came to these countries wanting to find reasons to dislike the Islamic faith. He got exactly what he wanted.
I did learn a bit of history though! So that's where the two stars come from...
“If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion and avoid the people, you might better stay home.” ― James A. Michener
Naipaul is rude, he's elitist, and he came to these countries wanting to find reasons to dislike the Islamic faith. He got exactly what he wanted.
I did learn a bit of history though! So that's where the two stars come from...
June 7, 2007
One of Naipaul's best and most prescient books. Naipaul travels through islamic Asia - Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia in 1980, just after the Iranian islamic revolution. The book contains his observations on Islam after meeting a lot of people in all these countries. The book is sympathetic in tone, contrary to the usual accusation of Naipaul as a sympathiser of Hindu nationalism.
Naipaul prophetically concludes many of the things which are fashionable today about islamic fundamentalism after 9/11. He investigates the ambivalence of moslems in western societies that they want its material wealth, scientific health care, technological advances and so on but at the same time being threatened by the advance of science and liberal democracy which are constant challenges to a pure, familiar and comforting 'islamic' way of life. One must remember that the book was written in 1980, just after Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran. While most commentators had a positive image of the future of Iran after the Shah's exit, Naipaul had practically anticipated the extremism into which it will slip in the coming years.
Excellent book and a must for all those interested in the subject of today's confrontation between the West and Islam.
Naipaul prophetically concludes many of the things which are fashionable today about islamic fundamentalism after 9/11. He investigates the ambivalence of moslems in western societies that they want its material wealth, scientific health care, technological advances and so on but at the same time being threatened by the advance of science and liberal democracy which are constant challenges to a pure, familiar and comforting 'islamic' way of life. One must remember that the book was written in 1980, just after Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran. While most commentators had a positive image of the future of Iran after the Shah's exit, Naipaul had practically anticipated the extremism into which it will slip in the coming years.
Excellent book and a must for all those interested in the subject of today's confrontation between the West and Islam.
March 31, 2013
I approached Naipaul's account of his travels through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia with some trepidation, expecting a screed based on what I have read about him and of his writings. My apprehension was unfounded. Naipaul is not as much vitriolic as repetitive and static in his reporting. His main thesis is that Islam, from its Shia incarnation in post Islamic-Revolution Iran to the animist incorporating version of Indonesia, offers only ideas; it fails to provide structure, institutions or a comprehensive political and legal system that is consistent and coherent for this century. This, in spite of the claims by those he meets and talks to, that Islam is a complete social system that has failed only because of men and not for any fundamental flaw in and of itself. This point is well made and I generally agree with the thesis, well expressed in the following excerpt -
"..Other people in spiritually barren lands will continue to produce the equipment the doctor is proud of possessing and the medical journals he is proud of reading.
The expectation - of others continuing to create, of the alien, necessary civilization going on - is implicit in the act of renunciation, and is its great flaw."
Naipaul returns to this theme over and over again -
"Wouldn't it have been better for Muslims to trust less to the saving faith and to sit down hard-headedly to work out institutions? Wasn't that an essential part of the history of civilization, after all: the conversion of ethical ideas into institutions?"
and
"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 fruits of fundamentalism."
Couldn't agree more. My trouble with the book is its absolute lack of sympathy. Mr. Naipaul seems to have formed a thesis, and then gone about his travels having conversations and encounters to prove himself right. He doesn't seem to step out of this framework at all, offers nothing besides this single, inflexible thesis. There are no people in this book, simply caricatures illustrating the point. Perhaps the closest Mr. Naipaul comes to expressing warmth for someone is when he narrates his encounter with the Indonesian poet Sitor Situmorang, and that's a part of the book that seems independent from the rest of the work.
"..Other people in spiritually barren lands will continue to produce the equipment the doctor is proud of possessing and the medical journals he is proud of reading.
The expectation - of others continuing to create, of the alien, necessary civilization going on - is implicit in the act of renunciation, and is its great flaw."
Naipaul returns to this theme over and over again -
"Wouldn't it have been better for Muslims to trust less to the saving faith and to sit down hard-headedly to work out institutions? Wasn't that an essential part of the history of civilization, after all: the conversion of ethical ideas into institutions?"
and
"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 fruits of fundamentalism."
Couldn't agree more. My trouble with the book is its absolute lack of sympathy. Mr. Naipaul seems to have formed a thesis, and then gone about his travels having conversations and encounters to prove himself right. He doesn't seem to step out of this framework at all, offers nothing besides this single, inflexible thesis. There are no people in this book, simply caricatures illustrating the point. Perhaps the closest Mr. Naipaul comes to expressing warmth for someone is when he narrates his encounter with the Indonesian poet Sitor Situmorang, and that's a part of the book that seems independent from the rest of the work.
February 24, 2009
I read this book when I was living in the Middle East and it was a refreshing depiction from an outsider of my world at the time, where I had thought everything was okay. I was grateful for the new perspective he gave me, leading me to realize that I could never make the Middle East my permanenet residence. Reading this book was one of the many gentle nudges I received during that time to try and find another place to call home.
February 6, 2021
I read Among the Believers when it appeared ('82), assigned bits on daily papers to my Freshmen worried about the American embassy takeover (mentioned p.395). I reassured them that the Iranians had, 150 years earlier, over-run another Empire's embassy: the Russians'. Then they killed the ambasador, a great writer, Griboyedev. Among the B-livers has many amusing passages, such as VSN pushing his stalled little Taxi half a block, then quitting and thinking, "This is NOT the way to the Holy City of Qom."
The book soon moves on to Pakistan, which occupies half of it, then the last hundred pages on Indonesia. Naipaul interviews journalists throughout, including Nusrat in Karachi, as Pakistan is building a new culture. Nusrat considers himself a bad Muslim for several reasons, like the 248 rupees he gains in interest, (forbidden to Muslim banks--how build a bank system without? 397). He goes to cover the slums in Clifton, not far from the Bhutto house, but gets irritated that, in 32 years, the poor people had not marched to the Bhutto house. I have a personal connection with Bhutto's daughter Benazir, whose pilot Aly Khan we dined with in London, over a few years, once at his flat there. He was in a different car from P.M. Benazir when she was shot by the government, the only ones who could shut off the electricity.
Nusrat's newspaper caused riots by printing an article about the Prophet's great-grand-daughter, whom the Shias reject. Some planned to amass a crowd and burn down the newspaper, but because of the savvy, though ill, editor, the paper survived. Nusrat reads Art Buchwald, wants to publish his columns in a book like the American's. VSN advises him, though very good as columns, they would not make a book. For instance, he writes without irony about a public flogging, how the buses break down, fail to bring witnesses. Though jaunty, Nusrat's columns are humorless, "It was part of his candour, his attractiveness"(399).
Naipaul interviews a medical doctor in Rawalpindi, twenty miles from the newer, British-built capital city Islamabad. VSN asks the doctor how his faith helped him in his profession, as he claimed.
An expert on bites-- donkeys', snakes', scorpions', mostly affecting the shoeless poor-- he'd been the Asst Medical Director for years, but when the director retired, the post remained open for six months. (He could cure viper bites, but not cobra and krait.) So he went to the General Manager, who thought he just wanted the big house and salary. The G.M. said if the bite expert didn't like his job, he should resign. Passing over the form, the doctor wrote out his resignation and signed it--buoyed by his faith. The G.M saw that, and rejected the letter.
By the way, I highly respect this doctor's idea of holy war, jihad, the fifth article of faith; for him, it was "the constant struggle in yourself to fight evil"(171). To myself, raised Protestant, Congregationalist (though fallen), the doctor's holy war is part of my faith, too.
The doctor's son Syed, who says he is not religious, was educated to become a doctor, but he also wrote poetry, and describes his process, "I am empty for three, four months--empty in terms of poetry. I am occupied, then it just comes, two or three poems. I don't want to do anything else, even if I'm supposed to be studying"(176).
The book soon moves on to Pakistan, which occupies half of it, then the last hundred pages on Indonesia. Naipaul interviews journalists throughout, including Nusrat in Karachi, as Pakistan is building a new culture. Nusrat considers himself a bad Muslim for several reasons, like the 248 rupees he gains in interest, (forbidden to Muslim banks--how build a bank system without? 397). He goes to cover the slums in Clifton, not far from the Bhutto house, but gets irritated that, in 32 years, the poor people had not marched to the Bhutto house. I have a personal connection with Bhutto's daughter Benazir, whose pilot Aly Khan we dined with in London, over a few years, once at his flat there. He was in a different car from P.M. Benazir when she was shot by the government, the only ones who could shut off the electricity.
Nusrat's newspaper caused riots by printing an article about the Prophet's great-grand-daughter, whom the Shias reject. Some planned to amass a crowd and burn down the newspaper, but because of the savvy, though ill, editor, the paper survived. Nusrat reads Art Buchwald, wants to publish his columns in a book like the American's. VSN advises him, though very good as columns, they would not make a book. For instance, he writes without irony about a public flogging, how the buses break down, fail to bring witnesses. Though jaunty, Nusrat's columns are humorless, "It was part of his candour, his attractiveness"(399).
Naipaul interviews a medical doctor in Rawalpindi, twenty miles from the newer, British-built capital city Islamabad. VSN asks the doctor how his faith helped him in his profession, as he claimed.
An expert on bites-- donkeys', snakes', scorpions', mostly affecting the shoeless poor-- he'd been the Asst Medical Director for years, but when the director retired, the post remained open for six months. (He could cure viper bites, but not cobra and krait.) So he went to the General Manager, who thought he just wanted the big house and salary. The G.M. said if the bite expert didn't like his job, he should resign. Passing over the form, the doctor wrote out his resignation and signed it--buoyed by his faith. The G.M saw that, and rejected the letter.
By the way, I highly respect this doctor's idea of holy war, jihad, the fifth article of faith; for him, it was "the constant struggle in yourself to fight evil"(171). To myself, raised Protestant, Congregationalist (though fallen), the doctor's holy war is part of my faith, too.
The doctor's son Syed, who says he is not religious, was educated to become a doctor, but he also wrote poetry, and describes his process, "I am empty for three, four months--empty in terms of poetry. I am occupied, then it just comes, two or three poems. I don't want to do anything else, even if I'm supposed to be studying"(176).
July 23, 2012
Naipaul's dour critique of four Islamic nations describes a world that is largely without history. One would never know to read it that the formation of autocratic states throughout the Muslim world occurred in relationship to a host of external pressures and factors, not the least of which being repeated intrusion of the most ignominious sort from the West. But for Naipaul, blame for the faults of the Muslim world must simply be rooted in nature of the religious culture. It's like writing a critique of Christianity after touring South Central.
His eyes scan the surface, and he does not like what he sees. Visiting Iran in the aftermath of Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power, he encounters and speaks with only zealots and petty bureaucrats, and one would hardly think there was anything more to the story. As if intellectuals and secularists, who were being executed by the tens of thousands in the dawn of the new regime, would simply disclose their misgivings and criticisms to a travel writer who passed through their land for a week.
It is perhaps no failing that he did not penetrate the mask of conformity and self-protection, but it is a severe failing that he wrote as if there was nothing more to the story than the surface, and gives a facile appraisal of the conditions giving rise to destitution and unrest in the Muslim world.
There are important and real critiques to be made of Islam, and of the political culture of despotism, but I seriously question whether Naipaul is in any position to make them, at arm's length, as a belligerent outsider.
His eyes scan the surface, and he does not like what he sees. Visiting Iran in the aftermath of Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power, he encounters and speaks with only zealots and petty bureaucrats, and one would hardly think there was anything more to the story. As if intellectuals and secularists, who were being executed by the tens of thousands in the dawn of the new regime, would simply disclose their misgivings and criticisms to a travel writer who passed through their land for a week.
It is perhaps no failing that he did not penetrate the mask of conformity and self-protection, but it is a severe failing that he wrote as if there was nothing more to the story than the surface, and gives a facile appraisal of the conditions giving rise to destitution and unrest in the Muslim world.
There are important and real critiques to be made of Islam, and of the political culture of despotism, but I seriously question whether Naipaul is in any position to make them, at arm's length, as a belligerent outsider.
October 1, 2015
I have always believed that, if one wants to learn, one should travel. Cause no matter how many books you read about a place, no matter how many documentaries/movies you see about its culture, history and people, no matter how many stories you hear, nothing gives you more understanding that the experience you gain when you visit that place.
How I wish I could go everywhere. But alas, we can't go everywhere, can we?
And that's why we read books, we watch documentaries/movies, we discuss with people.
One reads travelogues for two reasons - to gain insight of a place he has never been and to relive the memories of he had visited.
In this travelogue, Naipul recounts his visit to four countries - Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia - the lands of the believers in Islaam, in the late seventies/early eighties. Like his most famous travelogue - India, a million mutinies now - in this book also Naipul tries to explore the country's culture, tradition, life, ideas through the numerous encounters with the locals and leaders.
I approached this book with much expectations to learn about the two countries I have never visited and the other two I have had the opportunity to have business travel to. Unfortunately, this book didn't live upto that expectations. Naipul's writings came to me as not explorative, but like from a person who has already have got strong opinions about something and then tries to conform those opinions by the selective research.
Did I get more insight than before about those countries? Yes.
But, have I expected to learn more? Oh yes.
How I wish to visit those countries , especially Pakistan and Iran , and explore it myself!
I haven't been everywhere, but it is on my list.
~Susan Sontag
How I wish I could go everywhere. But alas, we can't go everywhere, can we?
And that's why we read books, we watch documentaries/movies, we discuss with people.
One reads travelogues for two reasons - to gain insight of a place he has never been and to relive the memories of he had visited.
In this travelogue, Naipul recounts his visit to four countries - Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia - the lands of the believers in Islaam, in the late seventies/early eighties. Like his most famous travelogue - India, a million mutinies now - in this book also Naipul tries to explore the country's culture, tradition, life, ideas through the numerous encounters with the locals and leaders.
I approached this book with much expectations to learn about the two countries I have never visited and the other two I have had the opportunity to have business travel to. Unfortunately, this book didn't live upto that expectations. Naipul's writings came to me as not explorative, but like from a person who has already have got strong opinions about something and then tries to conform those opinions by the selective research.
Did I get more insight than before about those countries? Yes.
But, have I expected to learn more? Oh yes.
How I wish to visit those countries , especially Pakistan and Iran , and explore it myself!
April 24, 2013
It is easy to dislike Naipaul. His misanthrophy, his Islamophobia, his class prejudice, his palpable unease with his own identity. They could all make him a thoroughly unpleasant companion. Yet there is something quite refreshing about a writer who can be so oblivious to reader sensitivities, so indifferent to the demands of political correctness. Such a disposition could fit a boor. But no boor could write prose as fine as Naipaul's. In the end, despite the unconcealed prejudices, despite the dogmatic insistence on presenting Islam as the religion of the sword, Naipaul remains compulsively readable because there are few writers who have Naipaul's facility with the English language. Don't look into this book for insights; because there are none. Read it for the prose; because this side of Hemingway, you'd not have seen it put to better use.
January 16, 2025
Revisiting this many years after it appeared, I find its prognostications on the incompatibility of the demands of Islam as a missionary Arab-rooted imperative to erase family ties to tradition, to uproot cultural and mental foundations of peoples, prescient. As it takes place around 1979, it's before the bigger bursts of terrorism exported by malcontents within Islamist camps and madrasas (he examines well their quasi-equivalent in Indonesia, praised by none other than a now-mostly forgotten Ivan Illich) with the obvious outlier of the US hostage crisis as the Ayatollah's movement ousts communists, secularists, feminists as "Western" foes, of persistent ideologies ruling today.
Naipaul as he notes in the sequel (also reviewed when I finish it soon) "Beyond Belief," in the mid-90s, in this first travelogue didn't listen enough to the faithful, the wavering, and the duplicitous. But he does analyze astutely, as in his fine trilogy on India which took a similar approach balancing deftly nuanced critique with transcription of testimony, the pressures which attracted billions to purported attractions of a faith which sought to abolish corruption from the developed world while taking advantage of tech, luxuries, and aspirations for overthrowing despots in the name of liberty.
He goes to Tehran and Qom, then to Karachi and--in my favorite excursion if it admittedly veers near conjuring what the blank ilk engendered by Edward Said denigrate as Orientalism, but I admire Naipaul's ability to capture the strangeness and remote drama of these enclaves nearing the Afghan frontier--the Kundar mountain fastness of the invented Muslim nation of Pakistan (he missed a chance to explain the acronym embedded in P-A-K-I). On to the relatively recent intrusions of the followers of the Prophet into Malaysia and Indonesia, in turn, before he returns in a coda to some of the contacts he'd visited, in the wake of the crackdowns of Khomeini in its regressive revolution.
He offers telling instances of not romanticizing the spread of the Qu'ran and its 'five principles' at the tip of a sword. The wiping out of the lands of the Sind-Buddhist northern stretches of India's subcontinent, by the eastern-bound warriors bounding out of Arabia through Persia and beyond, detailed in the Chachnama (I wondered how many assign this history of the elimination ca. 710 of "indigenous" by fellow-Asian "settlers" on their seminars among a cadre of tenured true believers) is indicative of the skill with which Naipaul can channel his studious bent towards unsettling truths.
Despite some lapses for me in pace and verve, these must be measured fairly against the astute look that Naipaul must assume, as a layered outsider himself, taken for Muslim given of course his own ethnicity, but neither a devout Hindu on the other hand nor a Christian convert, not English per se, but not "South American" either from his Trinidad birth. He has to dissemble a bit, but he reasons later not to, and he channels a portrayal of his rationale for undergoing at forty-three (he seems much older in his perspective, experience, and expertise gained, a testament to his acumen and his wisdom along with his worldly smarts and street senses as a veteran cosmopolitan traveller devoid of the leftist cant and facile rhetoric endemic then and now to most in his class, who lack the poised verities of his education in an earlier "post-colonial" Commonwealth in many senses mid-20c era).
Naipaul as he notes in the sequel (also reviewed when I finish it soon) "Beyond Belief," in the mid-90s, in this first travelogue didn't listen enough to the faithful, the wavering, and the duplicitous. But he does analyze astutely, as in his fine trilogy on India which took a similar approach balancing deftly nuanced critique with transcription of testimony, the pressures which attracted billions to purported attractions of a faith which sought to abolish corruption from the developed world while taking advantage of tech, luxuries, and aspirations for overthrowing despots in the name of liberty.
He goes to Tehran and Qom, then to Karachi and--in my favorite excursion if it admittedly veers near conjuring what the blank ilk engendered by Edward Said denigrate as Orientalism, but I admire Naipaul's ability to capture the strangeness and remote drama of these enclaves nearing the Afghan frontier--the Kundar mountain fastness of the invented Muslim nation of Pakistan (he missed a chance to explain the acronym embedded in P-A-K-I). On to the relatively recent intrusions of the followers of the Prophet into Malaysia and Indonesia, in turn, before he returns in a coda to some of the contacts he'd visited, in the wake of the crackdowns of Khomeini in its regressive revolution.
He offers telling instances of not romanticizing the spread of the Qu'ran and its 'five principles' at the tip of a sword. The wiping out of the lands of the Sind-Buddhist northern stretches of India's subcontinent, by the eastern-bound warriors bounding out of Arabia through Persia and beyond, detailed in the Chachnama (I wondered how many assign this history of the elimination ca. 710 of "indigenous" by fellow-Asian "settlers" on their seminars among a cadre of tenured true believers) is indicative of the skill with which Naipaul can channel his studious bent towards unsettling truths.
Despite some lapses for me in pace and verve, these must be measured fairly against the astute look that Naipaul must assume, as a layered outsider himself, taken for Muslim given of course his own ethnicity, but neither a devout Hindu on the other hand nor a Christian convert, not English per se, but not "South American" either from his Trinidad birth. He has to dissemble a bit, but he reasons later not to, and he channels a portrayal of his rationale for undergoing at forty-three (he seems much older in his perspective, experience, and expertise gained, a testament to his acumen and his wisdom along with his worldly smarts and street senses as a veteran cosmopolitan traveller devoid of the leftist cant and facile rhetoric endemic then and now to most in his class, who lack the poised verities of his education in an earlier "post-colonial" Commonwealth in many senses mid-20c era).
February 7, 2015
V.S. Naipaul’s nonfiction book, Among The Believers, about his trips to four Islamic countries at the end of the 70s is a compelling narrative and a fascinating look at countries and a religion that has spawned intolerance and terrorism ever since. It is essentially a travelogue in which he interviews various people, students, religious leaders, taxi drivers, hotel workers, interpreters, etc..., in order to get a idea of what is going on in these Islamic countries and how the people feel about it. When the journey begins Naipaul is interested in visiting Iran after the revolution that has ousted the unpopular Shah and ushered in the new Islamic government led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. From there he travels to Pakistan, the first state specifically designed for India’s Muslim population, where he finds corruption and structural disarray. The next destination is Malaysia where anti-Chinese bias is rife within the Muslim foundations that only seem to helping the populace marginally. He then moves onto Indonesia where violence first erupted in 1965 with Sukarno’s takeover of the government and the legacy of which was manifested in the Bali Bombings. At the end of the book he returns to Iran during the hostage crisis, where fundamentalist students have taken over the American Embassy along with hundreds of hostages. Naipaul sees a non-reflective rejection of western values, despite their reliance on western technology, education, etc… It’s this attitude that allowed thousands of Muslims to study abroad and return almost unchanged by their environments. The insular Muslims have had little interaction with neither the people nor the ideas of the free western countries that they see as the root of evil in the world and the greatest threat to their religion. In addition, he sees that most of the leaders he talks to are more concerned with destroying or tearing down the current governments rather than building or re-constructing governments. There is a fundamentalist obsessions with the Koran as the source of all knowledge and the guide to proper living-people seem to have lost their own capacity for critical and reflective thought. I found this book fascinating in that it is essentially the first wave of Islamic fundamentalism that would eventually result in 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities of recent years. I am looking forward to reading his sequel, written 14 years later in 1995, where he retraces his steps and evaluates what has changed or has not changed.
January 5, 2015
I really don't understand why any publisher would have been interested in publishing this book. I had a lot of expectations from the book, given that V.S. Naipaul is such a celebrity when it comes to travel writing. However the book was painful. I had to drag myself to finish, given my compulsion to finish books.
It is hard to believe that a writer can be so ignorant of a society he is writing about. Naipaul makes no effort to go beyond the stereotypes. Talking to a few people he makes generalization of the entire community. It appears at several points in the book that he is not interested in learning more about the communities he is covering but is simply there to reinforce his own stereotypes. As a reader if you have biases against Islam, this is the book for you. It will reinforce every stereotype you have ever held about this religion and its adherents.
To give you one example of how idiotic this book is let me quote something from the book. He gives the example of Maulana Maududi from Pakistan and emphasizes how hypocritical it is of him being a proponent of Islamic fundamentalism on one hand and then running to USA to seek "Western" medicine. Does medicine or science for that matter have addresses? Can we simply differentiate between Western science and Islamic science? Naipaul is clearly unaware of Ibn-e- Sina and his contribution to "Western" science.
At another point he talks about Islamic institutes in Iran and repeatedly calls them medieval schools. The use of the word implies that he like a crude Postivist has a linear view of history. History of every society passes through the stages that the European society passed through. History, sir, is much more complicated. Not every society follows a similar trajectory.
It is hard to believe that a writer can be so ignorant of a society he is writing about. Naipaul makes no effort to go beyond the stereotypes. Talking to a few people he makes generalization of the entire community. It appears at several points in the book that he is not interested in learning more about the communities he is covering but is simply there to reinforce his own stereotypes. As a reader if you have biases against Islam, this is the book for you. It will reinforce every stereotype you have ever held about this religion and its adherents.
To give you one example of how idiotic this book is let me quote something from the book. He gives the example of Maulana Maududi from Pakistan and emphasizes how hypocritical it is of him being a proponent of Islamic fundamentalism on one hand and then running to USA to seek "Western" medicine. Does medicine or science for that matter have addresses? Can we simply differentiate between Western science and Islamic science? Naipaul is clearly unaware of Ibn-e- Sina and his contribution to "Western" science.
At another point he talks about Islamic institutes in Iran and repeatedly calls them medieval schools. The use of the word implies that he like a crude Postivist has a linear view of history. History of every society passes through the stages that the European society passed through. History, sir, is much more complicated. Not every society follows a similar trajectory.
January 23, 2015
V.S. Naipaul's prescient depiction of Islam in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia where Islamic fundamentalism is growing. V.S. Naipaul doesn't paint a very pretty picture of Islam.
July 11, 2015
This book is about Naipaul's travels to Muslim countries which are not Arab. The prose is smooth and it flows like a tranquil torrent.
Naipaul's main theme is, and it is repeatedly quoted, almost to an annoying degree, how Muslims of these countries wanted to reject the encircling Western civilization while enjoying its fruits. However, they had little of their own civilization, in fact nothing but a dream to relive and enact 7th century Arabia. And the struggle for it.
I particularly read the part of the book about Pakistan with interest because this is where I live. If you expect to find the book's Pakistan you'd be astonished to discover that the country has changed a lot. The book focused mainly on Karachi which was a peaceful metropolitan then, now it's one of the most unstable and violent areas of Pakistan with ethnic, sectarian and religious strife.
Then, Naipaul talked about the interior Sindh which is now almost as undeveloped as it was then, he actually recounted the whole Chachnama with his own interpretation of that histroy. Then, he skipped the main hinterland, Punjab which he described as marshy, waterlogged and covered with salt. And he only came back from the North to Punjab to find something about Raiwand and Ahmadis in Rabwah, amid salt hills of Punjab. Now-a-days, Punjab is the most developed part of Pakistan with the most agricultural produce. When he skipped Punjab, he quickly reached the foothills of Himalayas, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. They were two little towns then, now they have sprawled into each other and just last month connected by a high speed metro bus.
Like the urban geography, attitudes have also changed. People are less prone to bring in Islamic law in the country. Many of the Islamic laws that were promulgated during the period of Zia-when Naipaul visited the country- have been repealed and more are about to go( can't rule out the possibility of a reversal though).
There is a second democratic government in office and a strong democratic tradition is developing. Global and local events have also affected the way people's attitudes have changed. Extremists who want to impose strict Islamic law are at war with the Pakistan Army and have targeted civilians and state apparatus numerous times with terrorist attacks. ISIS which has implemented strict 7th century law in Iraq and Syria is much derided. There are people still, who want to see 'Islam in action' as a character in the book put it, however, more and more people are becoming keen on the separation of the faith and the state.
My point is that the book has become part of the history now. It is not contemporary, but still it gives us a peak into that era and what captured the minds of people of this region and faith at that point in history.
Naipaul's main theme is, and it is repeatedly quoted, almost to an annoying degree, how Muslims of these countries wanted to reject the encircling Western civilization while enjoying its fruits. However, they had little of their own civilization, in fact nothing but a dream to relive and enact 7th century Arabia. And the struggle for it.
I particularly read the part of the book about Pakistan with interest because this is where I live. If you expect to find the book's Pakistan you'd be astonished to discover that the country has changed a lot. The book focused mainly on Karachi which was a peaceful metropolitan then, now it's one of the most unstable and violent areas of Pakistan with ethnic, sectarian and religious strife.
Then, Naipaul talked about the interior Sindh which is now almost as undeveloped as it was then, he actually recounted the whole Chachnama with his own interpretation of that histroy. Then, he skipped the main hinterland, Punjab which he described as marshy, waterlogged and covered with salt. And he only came back from the North to Punjab to find something about Raiwand and Ahmadis in Rabwah, amid salt hills of Punjab. Now-a-days, Punjab is the most developed part of Pakistan with the most agricultural produce. When he skipped Punjab, he quickly reached the foothills of Himalayas, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. They were two little towns then, now they have sprawled into each other and just last month connected by a high speed metro bus.
Like the urban geography, attitudes have also changed. People are less prone to bring in Islamic law in the country. Many of the Islamic laws that were promulgated during the period of Zia-when Naipaul visited the country- have been repealed and more are about to go( can't rule out the possibility of a reversal though).
There is a second democratic government in office and a strong democratic tradition is developing. Global and local events have also affected the way people's attitudes have changed. Extremists who want to impose strict Islamic law are at war with the Pakistan Army and have targeted civilians and state apparatus numerous times with terrorist attacks. ISIS which has implemented strict 7th century law in Iraq and Syria is much derided. There are people still, who want to see 'Islam in action' as a character in the book put it, however, more and more people are becoming keen on the separation of the faith and the state.
My point is that the book has become part of the history now. It is not contemporary, but still it gives us a peak into that era and what captured the minds of people of this region and faith at that point in history.
May 13, 2013
Naipal begins his journey in Iran, just after the its revolution. Then he visits Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia and returns to Iran just after the taking of the hostages at the US embassy. He meets educators, writers, government workers, students and the unemployed in cities and rural areas. Some he seeks out, others he meets serendipitously. He asks them about their lives and their hopes for the future.
Two refrains emerge. One is cognitive dissonance regarding the west. It is a despised place of indulgence and evil and a preferred place for an education, trustworthy medicine, consumer products and residence. The other is the view that an Islamic state is perfect. Despite the example of Pakistan, where citizens scheme and lineup to leave, most believe that once a true Islamic state is achieved everything will work out. Naipaul observes that Islamic government as practiced in Pakistan is about punishing with whips and stones, military rule and poverty. Naipaul summarizes the understanding among those he meets as to what it takes to run successful "institutions", "it's as though the world is running itself." He sees some schools merely teaching the young how to be poor. For one school he makes a Dickensian comparison to Nicholas Nickleby.
It may be that the quotes are selectively edited, but they all seem to be within context. Sometimes, concerning the refrains, speakers are asked to clarify, or for others to clarify what was said, or are given a pithy question. In these cases, the original point was usually emphasized and never denied. Some reviewers have implied that Naipaul had preconceived notions before this trip. If Naipaul did begin his trip with a bias, his speakers confirmed it.
Naipaul presents almost no women's voices. They must be half the population of the countries he visited, but they comprise far less than 5% of the book.
The only females with full interviews are two school girls identified by the color of their robes. One woman is described more than interviewed; however, had she not been a member of a sect of interest, she might not have been included at all. The gender issue is the most obvious example of the disconnect in Islamic culture. Naipaul misses or skips over all the chivalric language of his interviewees. They talk of Islam protecting women. They debate whether women should do this or that. Naipaul is not shy in calling them on their western disconnect, but gives them a pass here. Whether or not the interviewees themselves oppress women, their disconnect here, is every bit as important, if not more important than the issues Naipaul emphasizes in this book.
Two refrains emerge. One is cognitive dissonance regarding the west. It is a despised place of indulgence and evil and a preferred place for an education, trustworthy medicine, consumer products and residence. The other is the view that an Islamic state is perfect. Despite the example of Pakistan, where citizens scheme and lineup to leave, most believe that once a true Islamic state is achieved everything will work out. Naipaul observes that Islamic government as practiced in Pakistan is about punishing with whips and stones, military rule and poverty. Naipaul summarizes the understanding among those he meets as to what it takes to run successful "institutions", "it's as though the world is running itself." He sees some schools merely teaching the young how to be poor. For one school he makes a Dickensian comparison to Nicholas Nickleby.
It may be that the quotes are selectively edited, but they all seem to be within context. Sometimes, concerning the refrains, speakers are asked to clarify, or for others to clarify what was said, or are given a pithy question. In these cases, the original point was usually emphasized and never denied. Some reviewers have implied that Naipaul had preconceived notions before this trip. If Naipaul did begin his trip with a bias, his speakers confirmed it.
Naipaul presents almost no women's voices. They must be half the population of the countries he visited, but they comprise far less than 5% of the book.
The only females with full interviews are two school girls identified by the color of their robes. One woman is described more than interviewed; however, had she not been a member of a sect of interest, she might not have been included at all. The gender issue is the most obvious example of the disconnect in Islamic culture. Naipaul misses or skips over all the chivalric language of his interviewees. They talk of Islam protecting women. They debate whether women should do this or that. Naipaul is not shy in calling them on their western disconnect, but gives them a pass here. Whether or not the interviewees themselves oppress women, their disconnect here, is every bit as important, if not more important than the issues Naipaul emphasizes in this book.
July 29, 2016
The money quote:
"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 fruits of fundamentalism."
Islamists blame the West for all their troubles. Yes, colonialism had a lot to do with their current conditions. But there is an enormous amount of history BEFORE colonialism. In fact, Islam was probably one of the first "colonizing" civilizations. Islam gave up its dynamism and intellectual curiosity in favor of "the book" and "the prophet" as sources of truth, goodness and purity for all time. If it were not for the West, Islamic countries would still be living in mud huts with no electricity, clean water, modern medicine, fuel-powered transportation or even the weapons they are using to kill "unbelievers" all over the world.
As Naipaul points out, those "goods" did not just "appear" in the "world bazaar." They were imagined and invented because of a THOUGHT PROCESS that Islam cannot support.
At the same time, I agree with some of the other reviewers here that Naipaul seems to have gone in with an agenda, and I kept thinking as I was reading that he was not really being fair to the people he was interviewing. He, after all, is the one who got to choose which parts of their interviews got published. I can't help thinking there was more to their thought processes than Naipaul let on.
"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 fruits of fundamentalism."
Islamists blame the West for all their troubles. Yes, colonialism had a lot to do with their current conditions. But there is an enormous amount of history BEFORE colonialism. In fact, Islam was probably one of the first "colonizing" civilizations. Islam gave up its dynamism and intellectual curiosity in favor of "the book" and "the prophet" as sources of truth, goodness and purity for all time. If it were not for the West, Islamic countries would still be living in mud huts with no electricity, clean water, modern medicine, fuel-powered transportation or even the weapons they are using to kill "unbelievers" all over the world.
As Naipaul points out, those "goods" did not just "appear" in the "world bazaar." They were imagined and invented because of a THOUGHT PROCESS that Islam cannot support.
At the same time, I agree with some of the other reviewers here that Naipaul seems to have gone in with an agenda, and I kept thinking as I was reading that he was not really being fair to the people he was interviewing. He, after all, is the one who got to choose which parts of their interviews got published. I can't help thinking there was more to their thought processes than Naipaul let on.
March 9, 2011
TLDR: Expected better. A lot of very bitter criticism from someone with a bone to pick. It is scary though how Iran has not changed since post-revolution until my recent visit, if anecdotes are based on any truth whatsoever.
You know, I like to think I have seen a fair chunk of this so-called Islamic world Naipul describes. As I mentioned to a friend, and even one guy on a bus in DC who asked how the book was, this is Naipul at his most bigoted. It is not hard to see he had real insight into the shortcomings of the newly politicized, self-proclaimed Islamists. It was new and nebulous, and the average activist clearly had no clue on how to formulate an alternative socio-economic system, even to justify his own action. My problem is he takes these informants (I mean that in the linguistic sense) too seriously just to tear them down as straw men. There is nothing but negative quips about the nature of their self-defeating system, and that is all because he could not be bothered to read literature from or meet someone known for truly discussing political Islam at a serious level. I mean, he mentions people like Qutb once, but makes it quite clear he never read him. The only figure of Muslim background he mentions with any familiarity is the poet Iqbal, and that does really help either. Even he kind of admits this.
I have to say, for a guy who grew up in a colonial system, he barely related to these people he meets in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia as they all try to find meaning in a post-colonial existence. The only reason he gets off easy is he was perhaps born into a society and civilization (e.g. "the West") where self-criticism is assumed. Heaven forbid he shows some of it by example in his own book though. I have not read his fiction, but will shortly to see if it is the same kind of colonial apologetics. That would surprise me given what I had heard of him.
You know, I like to think I have seen a fair chunk of this so-called Islamic world Naipul describes. As I mentioned to a friend, and even one guy on a bus in DC who asked how the book was, this is Naipul at his most bigoted. It is not hard to see he had real insight into the shortcomings of the newly politicized, self-proclaimed Islamists. It was new and nebulous, and the average activist clearly had no clue on how to formulate an alternative socio-economic system, even to justify his own action. My problem is he takes these informants (I mean that in the linguistic sense) too seriously just to tear them down as straw men. There is nothing but negative quips about the nature of their self-defeating system, and that is all because he could not be bothered to read literature from or meet someone known for truly discussing political Islam at a serious level. I mean, he mentions people like Qutb once, but makes it quite clear he never read him. The only figure of Muslim background he mentions with any familiarity is the poet Iqbal, and that does really help either. Even he kind of admits this.
I have to say, for a guy who grew up in a colonial system, he barely related to these people he meets in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia as they all try to find meaning in a post-colonial existence. The only reason he gets off easy is he was perhaps born into a society and civilization (e.g. "the West") where self-criticism is assumed. Heaven forbid he shows some of it by example in his own book though. I have not read his fiction, but will shortly to see if it is the same kind of colonial apologetics. That would surprise me given what I had heard of him.
June 13, 2014
V.S Naipaul's journey through the heartland of Islam takes us close to the truth of what the people of Islamic countries have come to think of Islam. Sadly though as in any religion of the past, Islam too does not offer much.
One could easily misunderstand Mr Naipaul as an irritated Brit in Islamic countries of Middle East and Asia , but below the irritation is a genuine disappointment of a man who went in search of something good or beautiful that so many believe, but found only hypocrisy as in any religious society; nevertheless he travelled in earnest and inquired with sincerity.
I enjoyed reading the simple questions and the template answers he got in his travels.
Mr. Naipaul is a keen observer, he has shown Incredible insight that could only come from a serious thinker.
Over all this book was a great read!
One could easily misunderstand Mr Naipaul as an irritated Brit in Islamic countries of Middle East and Asia , but below the irritation is a genuine disappointment of a man who went in search of something good or beautiful that so many believe, but found only hypocrisy as in any religious society; nevertheless he travelled in earnest and inquired with sincerity.
I enjoyed reading the simple questions and the template answers he got in his travels.
Mr. Naipaul is a keen observer, he has shown Incredible insight that could only come from a serious thinker.
Over all this book was a great read!
December 12, 2023
Many years ago, I read "Beyond Belief", in a way a continuation of this work. Since "Beyond Belief" continiously refferences "Among the Believers", I was somewhat familiar with this work, none the less this was Neipaul at his best, prophetic, clear, emphatic and entertaining.
Despite the fact that this work was writen in 1979/1980 ist is still very much up to date and truely revealing in the destructive force of radical islam, the infireority complexes it thrives on and and on how radical religious ideologies ultimately can only piggy back on an existing civilisation of non-believers who deal with the business, science, health-care and administration that funadamentalists want to enjoy whilst destroying the civilisation required to maintain them.
Despite the fact that this work was writen in 1979/1980 ist is still very much up to date and truely revealing in the destructive force of radical islam, the infireority complexes it thrives on and and on how radical religious ideologies ultimately can only piggy back on an existing civilisation of non-believers who deal with the business, science, health-care and administration that funadamentalists want to enjoy whilst destroying the civilisation required to maintain them.
January 8, 2021
Where we usually respond to ideologues by hurling back some counter-ideology, Naipaul just has rambling conversations, letting whatever turns up happen. It's illuminating, both of what Islamists show about themselves, and the process of listening.
December 23, 2016
Shortly after the 1979 Revolution toppled the Shah of Iran and established and Islamic Republic there, the journalist V.S. Naipaul took a journey through four leading, non-Arab Islamic countries. What did a modern Islamic society look like in Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and (of course) Iran?
Going back to this 1981 account, 35 years after its publication, is a fascinating experience: what seemed new then is all too familiar now (Islamic terrorism); what was important then is either irrelevant now (Pakistan as a model) or has been replaced by more urgent issues.
In 1981, Pakistan was not yet a failed state. Hope was embodied in the country’s name - the land of the pure [Muslims]. One of its spiritual leaders (the poet Iqbal, d. 1938) had seen a pure Islamic state on the Indian subcontinent as an answer – a rebuke, really – to the imperialism of the Arabs (p. 131). Alas, the oil embargoes of the 1970s reestablished the strength of the Arabs, and Pakistan, though a nuclear power, fell further behind.
Naipaul often records his irritation that Muslims want to have it both ways: “while Pakistan and the faith [could remain] what they were, special and apart, the outside world was there to be exploited” (392). You can’t have the technology, education, and the other benefits of an open society, he complains, while practicing an all-embracing, closed form of Islam. Still, he admits that Islam had given “a feeling of completeness” and "community" to many in revolutionary Iran and elsewhere.
As a secular cosmopolitan, Naipaul is attracted to the idea of a one big cultural mix. He believes there was a time when “people lived with everything at once: the mosque, the church, Krishna…No one, Umar Kayam said, could say precisely what he was” (p. 350). I’m deeply skeptical that the words of Kayam (an Indonesian sociologist) ever described reality, but they surely describe the wish of many in elite western circles. To me its appeal is as bland as the nondescript euro bills. However incisive his critique of Islamic societies, Naipaul’s alternative seems deracinated, incapable of sustaining a culture across generations.
Still, Among the Believers is more than just a cosmopolitan’s complaint. It’s a genuine effort by a highly cultured writer to make sense of a challenging phenomenon that he cannot sympathize with. After 35 years, the book makes us re-examine some first impressions of Islamicization. It’s sobering to realize how little progress we’ve made in figuring out a sustainable modus vivendi with this powerful movement.
Going back to this 1981 account, 35 years after its publication, is a fascinating experience: what seemed new then is all too familiar now (Islamic terrorism); what was important then is either irrelevant now (Pakistan as a model) or has been replaced by more urgent issues.
In 1981, Pakistan was not yet a failed state. Hope was embodied in the country’s name - the land of the pure [Muslims]. One of its spiritual leaders (the poet Iqbal, d. 1938) had seen a pure Islamic state on the Indian subcontinent as an answer – a rebuke, really – to the imperialism of the Arabs (p. 131). Alas, the oil embargoes of the 1970s reestablished the strength of the Arabs, and Pakistan, though a nuclear power, fell further behind.
Naipaul often records his irritation that Muslims want to have it both ways: “while Pakistan and the faith [could remain] what they were, special and apart, the outside world was there to be exploited” (392). You can’t have the technology, education, and the other benefits of an open society, he complains, while practicing an all-embracing, closed form of Islam. Still, he admits that Islam had given “a feeling of completeness” and "community" to many in revolutionary Iran and elsewhere.
As a secular cosmopolitan, Naipaul is attracted to the idea of a one big cultural mix. He believes there was a time when “people lived with everything at once: the mosque, the church, Krishna…No one, Umar Kayam said, could say precisely what he was” (p. 350). I’m deeply skeptical that the words of Kayam (an Indonesian sociologist) ever described reality, but they surely describe the wish of many in elite western circles. To me its appeal is as bland as the nondescript euro bills. However incisive his critique of Islamic societies, Naipaul’s alternative seems deracinated, incapable of sustaining a culture across generations.
Still, Among the Believers is more than just a cosmopolitan’s complaint. It’s a genuine effort by a highly cultured writer to make sense of a challenging phenomenon that he cannot sympathize with. After 35 years, the book makes us re-examine some first impressions of Islamicization. It’s sobering to realize how little progress we’ve made in figuring out a sustainable modus vivendi with this powerful movement.
February 24, 2011
In 1979 Vidya Naipaul, the future Sir Vidya, a Trinidadian writer of Indian descent, went to revolutionary Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. He met a great many Muslims, from a high-ranking Iranian ayatollah to an Indonesian who described himself "a statistical Muslim", and who was worried that when his daughter married a pious young man from poor background and became a "born-again Muslim", she lost her personality and sense of humor. He also met several non-Muslims living in Muslim countries, such as a young Iranian communist who believed that the only country that had known true freedom was Russia between 1917 and 1953, his revolutionary fervor matching the religious fervor of his Muslim compatriots. The way Naipaul perceives it, Islam as practiced by those he interviewed is a reaction against modernity and the West. The West produces superior science and technology, but Islam is better spiritually. The paradox of Islam, according to Naipaul, is that it is not self-sufficient. Life in Muslim countries, including the propagation of the true faith, depends on technology imported from the spiritually deficient parts of the world. The same is true of all the other religions; my favorite example for Judaism is the niddah calculator. Before Indonesia became Muslim, it was Hindu and Buddhist, as the temple complexes at Prambanan and Borobudur show. An Indonesian Muslim told Naipaul that too much attention was being paid to the maintenance of these old places; the preservation of Indonesian cultural heritage should be something for the international community (i.e. the West) to look after. Naipaul contrasts Hinduism, with its epics the Mahabharata and the Ramayana that give plenty of examples of moral ambiguity, with the moral certitude of the revealed religions Islam and Christianity. I am unpersuaded; the Indonesian who wanted to stop maintaining the old temple complexes reminded me of the BJP politician Gita Mehta wrote about who wanted to pull down the Taj Mahal.
January 12, 2012
I guess I'm just not ready to go on an Islamist journey. I let Naipaul take me into these converted lands and I met the folks Naipaul wanted me to meet. But I just don't really get any religion if you want to know the truth and one that treats women with such disdain and contempt is even more confusing so I just didn't join in with the lively conversation when these believers were paraded before me. In fact often times I was in the corner looking at my split ends and when I'd look up the room would be empty and by god (oh, so sorry) the author would be on to the next guest. I was ever so thrilled to complete the last page and move on. Not sure why I didn't shut down at page 100 like I promised myself I would. That's not true; I do know. I wanted to broaden and learn and understand. But it didn't happen. But I did find some stinking split ends.
July 17, 2012
A well written study of Naipaul's 1980 visit to Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Java. Naipaul relates that the Islamic movement is composed of people who want change but don't suggest an alternative to the materialistic Western ways. Although the Islamic movement differs slightly in each of these countries, all see the West as evil; at the same time they send their children to college here and buy Japanese electronics. The Islamic movement seems like Europe's Dark Ages when the Pope was ordering inquisitions and trying to recreate times that have long since passed. The movement seems to be growing in popularity only because the have-nots are promised retribution through violence. Islamic betterment through education would only lead to knowing the Koran better. There is only the spiritual life for Muslims.
November 13, 2016
Naipaul remains a sharp observer of the world around him as always and makes a lot of insightful (and what seems prescient) observations about Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Islamic states of the middle-east. However, his very thinly veiled prejudice, contempt and condescension for faith (and people of the faith) and absolute belief in the western, secular way of living makes the book difficult to take in as an open-minded dialog and exploration of the Islamic world. It comes across as someone who already has made up his mind and then explored the world to justify their assumptions. Still, it is undeniable that Naipaul is both a gifted writer and one of the best observers of the human condition - highly recommended reading for that reason.
October 19, 2016
Either in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia or Indonesia, Naipaul goes into the heart of the matter, using whatever raw materials that get in his ways of travel. A fine observer and a good writer, he makes the world which surrounds us more clear, more transparent and, unfortunately, more unsettling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 217 reviews