Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey

"Among the believers" stands in same league with Naipaul's famed trilogy on India, replete with glimpses of history, critical perspectives and thought-stirring (unanswered) questions. As Paul Theroux pointed once, Naipaul never uses any word without exercising forethought, and his usual diligence in presenting sensitive subjects without even trace amounts of exaggeration applies to this book too. It will be a travesty of truth if people liken his writings to anti-Islamic bigotry or stance. I think such allegations are nefarious and conspiratory to discredit the momentous work he has done. He has been equally critical/questioning of the (Hindu) civilizational millstones that beseige India.If at all one could ascribe any pre-determined judgement that Naipaul makes in this book, it is his unequivocal committment to the superiority of (current) Western traditions like Democracy, Individualism, Freewill, Science, Market Economics etc. He does not exhibit any particular preference among the Eastern civilizations. His predeliction toward Hindu-Buddhist civilization, if at all, is due to the apparent space these cultures provide to accommodate western values and certainly not because Naipaul derives solace from the theism/morality of these religions.In sum, "Among the believers" is as honest an inquiry into the predicaments of tumultuous Islamic revival as much as his other travelogues are about other geographies. A must read for all (Muslims and Non-Muslims) those who want to enter into a transparent and protracted dialogue to contain Muslim disgruntlement in different quarters.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 assault, America, egged on by its liberal intelligentsia, went through a typically oversensitive and overgenerous phase of wondering what we had done to cause such hatred of us in the Middle East. However, the level of public anger that the murders awoke greatly shortened this period of angst and left only a few inveterate self-haters asking these questions...Meanwhile, the rest of America quickly moved on to the more accurate question of..."What Went Wrong?" with Islam to reduce a once great religion to an ideology of little more than hatred of the West. Oddly enough, the search for answers to this question sent us scurrying back twenty years, to a couple of books and essays by V. S. Naipaul that were roundly condemned at the time they were written, particularly in the Muslim world, but which can now be recognized as brilliant and prophetic...Among the Believers recounts the author's seven month sojourn across Muslim Asia, from Iran to Pakistan to Malaysia to Indonesia and back again to Iran. It should be remembered that he traveled in the immediate wake of the Iranian fundamentalist revolution that had overthrown the Shah, with at least implicit approval from Western intellectual elites, and ushered in a supposed new dawn of reform. But instead of finding cause for hope in the post-Colonial muscle flexing of Islamic regimes, Mr. Naipaul warned instead that the Islamic world was unreconciled to modernity and perhaps irreconcilable. Here we find Naipaul's assessment of Islamic fundamentalism, one that is finally coming to be accepted, though two decades too late for the folks murdered last September : In the fundamentalist scheme the world constantly decays and has constantly to be re-created. The only function of intellect is to assist that re-creation. It reinterprets the texts; it re-establishes divine precedent...The doctrine has its attractions. To a student from the University of Karachi, from perhaps a provincial or peasant background, the old faith comes more easily than any new-fangled academic discipline. So fundamentalism takes root in the universities, and to deny education can become the approved educated act. In the days of Muslim glory Islam opened itself to the learning of the world. Now fundamentalism provides an intellectual thermostat, set low. It equalizes, comforts, shelters, and preserves. In this way the faith pervades everything, and it is possible to understand what the fundamentalists mean when they say that Islam is a complete way of life. But what is said about Islam is true, and perhaps truer, of other religions--like Hinduism or Buddhism or lesser tribal faiths--that at an early stage in their history were also complete cultures, self-contained and more or less isolated, with institutions, manners, and beliefs making a whole. The Islamic fundamentalist wish is to work back to such a whole, for them a God-given whole, but with the tool of

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 isola

Seems from the bitter tone of the negative reviews that Naipaul has struck a nerve, which means he probably got it right. Naipaul makes no pretensions to scholarship; he is a skeptic who calls it as he sees it. Early on in the book, he calls himself a "seeker," which by itself undercuts accusations that he is a biased Hindu nationalist with an axe to grind. Regardless, Naipaul doesn't condemn Islam; he expresses his doubts about a particular interpretation of Islam and its political manifestations in particular societies at a very specific time in history. Iran's recent softening of its stance toward the West especially highlights Naipaul's prescience vis a vis his analysis of that nation's complicated ambivalence toward the United States and Europe. Similarly, any anti-Muslim bigot who uses Naipaul to rationalize an irrational hatred cleary refuses to acknowledge the profoundly sympathetic tone of Naipaul's portrayals of the people he meets and places he goes. Naipaul doubts ideology, not individuals. Outstanding travel writing.

I was pleasantly surprised with the sincerity and honesty with which Naipaul engages his subjects, especially towards the end of the book and his journey, when his conclusions have started to form and he is looking for reaffirmation of his earlier impressions. He knows that the pattern that is emerging is critical of the people he is talking to, yet he listens to each person earnestly, trying to understand how they see themselves and the world around them. Sometimes he is merely an interviewer, yet to the main characters through whom the story evolves, he is like a friend, telling them when he disagrees with them and making them think through their own feelings.I do not see any hate or malice in this book, either towards 'the believers' or Islam. He is definitely sympathetic towards the believers he talks to, which should not and does not prevent him from criticizing their human frailties just as he celebrates their strengths. His critique of Islam too, follows from his analysis and should be refuted similarly. Coming back to read these reviews after reading the book, I find that some of the emotions expressed in the severest reviews fit the pattern described by the author. Ironic!There is a natural flow in the narrative in moving from Iran through Pakistan and Malaysia to Indonesia. Was that a deliberate choice ?