Among the Believers: An Islamist Journey [Paperback]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRADE : A

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

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

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

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

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