Rating: 
Summary: An unbeliever visits the land of faith and doesn't like it
Review: It's 1979. The second oil shock that will bring about the terrible recession of the 1980s has just begun. In the East, the masses are stirring and revolution is afoot. Only this time the inspiration does not come from nationalism (favourite in the 1800s) or political ideology (usual from the Mexican Revolution to the Vietnam War), but religion. Yes, religion, dead and buried along with God by secularists everywhere, has rattled out of its grave, and lifting its curved sword, has led a new wave of fervent sentiment. In Iran, Mohamed Rezah Pahlevi, the successful but brutal modernizer Shah, has been overthrown by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In Afghanistan, the Soviets are preparing to invade, setting in movement a chain of events that would end with the end of Lenin's Kingdom. In Lebanon, the civil war rages between Maronite Christians and Shi'ite Muslims.Into this world (which is still clearly recognizable to us today, when the descendants of these fighters are still with us, but much more powerful and deadly than they were then) came an atheistic Trinidadian, currently known as Sir Vidia Naipaul. Naipaul visited four countries linked by one theme: they were countries that were conquered by Islam. They were separated from the Arab heartlands of the Prophet's Faith by heresy (as in Iran) or distance (as in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia). He tours the four countries far and wide. He speaks with common people (like waiters, taxi drivers, translators, hotel managers, salesmen, journalists), religious leaders (Mullahs, Ayatollahs, intellectual and political leaders) and dissidents (mainly communists). He begins with Iran. There he attends a mass prayer at Teheran University and is repelled by the spectacle of tens of thousands of people praying in unison. He also goes to the sacred city of Qom, where he meets the clownish (but very dangerous) hanging Ayatollah Kalkhalli. He travels by train with communists and is harassed by revolutionary guards (not too different from Red Guards). In Pakistan he goes from the coast to the Himalayas and visits the large cities in between. In Malaysia and Indonesia he mainly flies across jungles, to see Islamic seeds sprouting deep roots in the body politic of these countries (although much more ominously in Malaysia). He visits religious schools and is appalled at the medieval squallor that reigns and wonders what use will these learnings be to the students of the country (in fact he believes that all these schools will do is put out more zealots who won't be able to find productive jobs, because they don't know how to do anything else but become teachers of even more zealots, and so on ad infinitum). He meets many wise men who are willing to contemplate great commotions (this is a constant: the most extreme fanatics he meets always appear initially to be genial and harmless). He sees this islamic revival as the vengeance of the formerly isolated country people who, having benefitted from some education, feel isolated from their roots, and use religion as a cudgel to beat either their own elites (as in Iran against the Shah or in Pakistan against Butto) or minority groups that are more successful than themselves (as in Malaysia and Indonesia with the Chinese or the Christians). Naipaul sees most of the faithful he meets either as close-minded (virtually the only thing on which everyone agrees is that in an Islamic countries women should not appear on TV) or hopelessly confused (although many consider themselves "bad muslims" because they feel they are unable to live their faith properly they have no doubt that a whole state based on such a faith would work very well). He is bemused that most Islamists are absolutely convinced that things would be better under an Islamic order, in spite of their inability in showing how exactly things would differ, and their grudging admission that the only properly Islamic state only existed in the 35 years after the Prophet's death, under the first few caliphs. He is angered at the ease with which the believers are willing to use foreign artifacts (such as weapons, funds or laws) in spite of their absolute rejection of everything foreign civilizations stand for. He is outraged at how political Islam has managed to obliterate any remainder awareness among Iranians of their imperial Persian past, among Pakistanis of their Hindustan past, and among Malays and Indonesians of their Buddhist past. He sees they identify so totally with their own ideological conquerors, that they see themselves as their descendants, rather than those of the conquered peoples, whom they truly come from. Does he expect things to improve? Not really. He expects them to get worse, and he is convinced that the religious mindset (narrow, intolerant, violent) will be behind each and every commotion. Has he been proven right? Let each reader judge by himself. Many of the commentators in these pages criticize Naipaul for his negative attitude to religion. This is a fair point. Naipaul is hostile to religion, and specifically to Islam. In one of his first books, An Area of Darkness, he declares that he was brought up on the belief that Muslims were unreliable, even traitorous. His own antipathy to Islam is a consequence of his Hindu background (he is a Brahmin), but his own atheism has made it much sharper. He has also been accused (among others by his fomer friend Paul Theroux) of having missed much dogmatic subtleties because of his lack of Arabic language. Do these things weaken the book? I don't think so, because Naipaul is no one else's ambassador and is not supposed to be impartial, or even fair. All he must be is informative, insightful, and amusing. He is all these things, and he also writes superbly. The book is as much about himself (his likes, his hates, his hesitations, his curious obsessions) as it is about the countries he visits. It is even less about Islam as a religion, a subject that Naipaul does not understand (he usually tries to escape expositions of dogma and eludes gifts of religious books or articles) and doesn't care about. Good muslims should not worry about this book. It is not about religion. It is a travel book, a highly critical and surely biased one. But this reviewer enjoyed it very much.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Worth the Time
Review: Mr. Naipaul has succeeded in confiming his station of being yet another multicultural pseudointellectual. He claims to be a legitimate voice about a topic of which he thinks he has some remarkable insight. There are several writers who provide a much better insight into Muslims and Islam, such as John Esposito and Karen Armstrong, to name just a few. Unfortunately, the literary community has embraces this scholarly charlatan in this epoch of political correctness.
Rating: 
Summary: Calls a spade a spade!
Review: Mr. Naipaul's treatment of a what has now become a very contemporary issue is definitely commendable. He asks all the questions you'd like to ask and then some. While many have called this an opinionated piece of work, after reading the book I am truly surprised about such conclusions. Mr. Naipaul takes the reader on a journey through some of the bedrock Islamic societies to winnow fact from fiction and in doing so sets forth the state of affairs with remarkable practicality, bereft of either political correctness or feigned understanding of the tortuous evolution of religion and its convenient interpretation. What a refreshing change compared to the politically correct drivel we read everyday in the papers!! The dialogs with everyday folk in Iran right after the revolution, the description of the abject conditions in Pakistan are indeed illuminating. The book has much to offer by way of insights especially into the Islamic way of life and origins of Islamic societies in Malaysia and Indonesia (e.g., the "statistical Muslim"). I only wish he had included the Middle Eastern countries in his book. It would have been quiet interesting to read what he has to say about the virulent strains of Islamic fundamentalism that has risen in those parts of the world. In sum, the book is definitely a good read. I would ask the reader to set aside any prejudiced reviews before reading this book. For the most part Mr. Naipaul adopts a descriptive style of writing and lets the reader connect the dots and draw conclusions. Of course the book is peppered with the author's own interpretations but I did not find them overbearing in any way. It still comes across as a very balanced look at some parts of the Islamic world. I would strongly recommend the reader to visit ...to view/listen/read Sir Vidia's Nobel lecture. It offers interesting insights into the writer's journey.
Rating:
Summary: Fearlessly critical
Review: My favorite phrase is his description of Iranian weapons" "rendered Islamic by purchase." An insightful and very critical book from 20 years ago.
Rating:
Summary: One of the few worthwhile books on Islam.
Review: My reply to those amateurish readers who have deemed Naipual's work as a mere "travelogue": you have clearly missed the point;. If you have even tried to understand the travelogue-like structure, you will notice that every description is infused with symbolism and comment. Some have failed to take notice of this.
The journey begins in Iran, the "land of the revolution", where under the influence of orthodoxy, Ayatollah Khomeini proclaims a bloody revolution, a mass-frenzy, all in the name of to "cleansing." In the fundamentalist context, this term means uprooting all sources of reform, and rendering the nation Quranic, and the people into prophet-praising puppets. As anticipated, this event unleashed a lot of blood, a phenomenon which the ayatollahs deemed as "cleansing" act. Naipaul describes the breakdown of services and infrastructure as an aftermath, while potraying the lives of common people caught in the web. We come to see the true madness of Islam's draconic interpretation, which goads its followers to go back in time, regress, to a pure ideal.
In Pakistan, Islam achieves a new passion, a renewed 'rage'. Islam was introduced in the subcontinent through massive pillaging and intolerance. Pakistan was formed to realise the Islamic ideal of purity, and was born out of a people forcefully cut off from the past. But this vision of Utopia was quickly squashed by reality. Islam fails, but ironically, the people's longing for purity only intensifies. The ideal is to be achieved by any and all means; women are to be brutalized in the name of protection; jews are to be maligned; children are to be raised in the servitude of the Quran. People are to be tortured; public whipping is to be made compulsory; limbs are to be cut off. All laws are to be in concurrence with the Quran- the age at which a girl marries, the number of witnesses in the court, interest charged in the bank, etc. Questioning is to be equated to infidelity, an insult against the prophet. No individual thought, only submission. Yet, the people have not realized the fact that their Islam has failed. For them, it will always be the people who have failed.
In Malaysia, Islam is the religion of a failed population. It provides an illusion of equanimity, and self-satisfaction, an intoxicating drink that will magically provide a sense of identity. The Chinese (through their industriousnees) have come to control everything. The Malays have tragically remained backward. They find it difficult to adjust to new technological age. Many simply don't want to adjust. So, they will change the world around them. And Islam is their weapon!
In Indonesia, Islam aggravates the political turmoil, adds to the existing intolerance. Millions are to be killed. The past is to be erased from the memory in the process. The nation is to be "cleansed".
Naipaul's observation is sharp,his analysis is impeccable; his style is compelling and captive. At times, the reader would yearn for a bit more elaboration, but this book is about what exists, and not about what the author thinks is going on. And this circumstance makes "Among the Believers" a truly worthy read.
Rating:
Summary: A tour de force
Review: Naipal exposes the frailities of the 'Islamic Revival' inspired by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Unfortunately the uprising of the righteous oppressed in Iran which inspired the downtrodden Islamic masses around the world led to only a change in the exploitative Muslim nations'elites' orientation from explicitly Western to lip-service Islamic; with political Islam promising much but delivering little. Islam remains a profound and powerful cultural and social force but in the sway of people like Iranian clerics, Philistine Pakistani Politicians, Malaysian Islamic malcontents Naipal shows us the sometimes naive often downright cynical manipulation of religion for self serving and selfish ends.
Rating:
Summary: A very pertinent work
Review: Naipaul has shown himself to be immensely readable. In addition to the anecdotal tenor of this particular book, it serves as a social commentary on perhaps the fastest growing group of people, i.e. those who subscribe to the faith of Islam. Considering the disturbing events over the last 15-20 years that this group has been associated with, one would tend to view this growth as alarming. Naipaul himself could perhaps provide fodder for the alarmists with his astute observation in pg. 355 :..." Islam raises political issues but no practical solution..." And that reliance on the prophet to settle every issue does seem misguided. He also goes on to say something often seen in TV images of, and editorial comments on, the middle east that "The political Islam of today is one of rage and anarchy.." But the one sobering observation that Naipaul touches upon and is also seen in Thomas Friedman's writings is that Islam when practiced under the statutory giudelines of civilized societies such as Turkey and India, can be softened and deemed acceptable.
Rating:
Summary: A very pertinent work
Review: Naipaul has shown himself to be immensely readable. In addition to the anecdotal tenor of this particular book, it serves as a social commentary on perhaps the fastest growing group of people, i.e. those who subscribe to the faith of Islam. Considering the disturbing events over the last 15-20 years that this group has been associated with, one would tend to view this growth as alarming. Naipaul himself could perhaps provide fodder for the alarmists with his astute observation in pg. 355 :..." Islam raises political issues but no practical solution..." And that reliance on the prophet to settle every issue does seem misguided. He also goes on to say something often seen in TV images of, and editorial comments on, the middle east that "The political Islam of today is one of rage and anarchy.." But the one sobering observation that Naipaul touches upon and is also seen in Thomas Friedman's writings is that Islam when practiced under the statutory giudelines of civilized societies such as Turkey and India, can be softened and deemed acceptable.
Rating:
Summary: NAIPAULish TWIST OF REALITY:DISTORTION
Review: Naipaul presents his informants as confused and unconfident, in contrast to himself. When he narrates his feelings about Behzad,Naipaul says: "...Behzad was neutral because he was confused." Naipaul believes that he himself is not confused and therefore he is not neutral(p.11) Naipaul puts the blame on Feri since she does not want to give in "power", and change herself. But at the same time he puts the blame on the Pakistanis since they change(p.134). Naipaul IS confused and bitter. He has a self-righteous attitude which makes him see things in terms of black and white. Naipaul's vision of Islam is narrow and selective. During his stay in Pakistan, he puts the blame on the Pakistanis for their selective teaching of history, and comments: "History as selective as this leads quickly to unreality."(p.135) It is tempting to turn this against Mr. Naipaul himself and say that such a selective and distorted representation of Islam and Muslims as this one leads to unreality as well. Naipaul does not deal with objective interpretation. He does not let the readers do it either. He presents his theatre play on a stage where his actors are Muslims. Muslims have their assigned roles which are defined in the manuscript written by Naipaul. When the actors utter words which do not fit in the manuscript, he interrupts the conversation like a director and sends them backstage, and then he takes command himself, as in the conversation where Naipaul is talking to an Iranian student (p.52). The student compares Protestants to Shias. Then Naipaul interrupts the conversation, and addresses his readers, saying: "he did not mean that." He is the controller of words and of his actors.He speaks for "them." This is a book of bitterness, hatred, confusion and distortion.
Rating:
Summary: Naipaul reveals the dishonest nature of Islamic Radicalism
Review: Naipaul shows how and why apparently intellegent people fall for Islamic fundamentalism. It reminded of "A Closed Circle" in its exploration of the way that Islam perpetuates feudalistic and oppressive societies. I particularly enjoyed the section on Pakistan
|
