Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples

by V.S. Naipaul

The Nobel Prize-winning author offers an insightful follow-up to his landmark travelogue Among the Believers : a "brilliant … powerfully observed, stylistically elegant exploration" ( The New York Times ) that’s the result of a five-month journey through Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia, countries where dreams of Islamic purity clash with economic and political realities. 

Fourteen years after the publication of his landmark travel narrative Among the Believers , V. S. Naipaul returned to the four non-Arab Islamic countries he reported on so vividly at the time of Ayatollah Khomeini's triumph in Iran. Beyond Belief is the result of his five-month journey in 1995 through lands where descendants of Muslim converts live at odds with indigenous traditions.

In extended conversations with a vast number of people—a rare survivor of the martyr brigades of the Iran-Iraq war, a young intellectual training as a Marxist guerilla in Baluchistan, an impoverished elderly couple in Teheran whose dusty Baccarat chandeliers preserve the memory of vanished wealth, and countless others—V. S. Naipaul deliberately effaces himself to let the voices of his subjects come through. Yet the result is a collection of stories that has the author's unmistakable stamp. With its incisive observation and brilliant cultural analysis, Beyond Belief is a startling and revelatory addition to the Naipaul canon.

Genres: Nonfiction, Travel, Islam, Religion, History, Iran, Pakistan

432 pages, Paperback

First published May 7, 1998

About the author

V. 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.

Reviews

[Ashish Iyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautiful prose. Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples is a non-fiction book written by V. S. Naipaul in 1998. This book is a sequel to Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey which was written in 1979. I find Naipaul's observation very non judgemental. He let the people talks. He meets people in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia which he defines as the converted countries that is non-Arab but converted to an originally Arab religion, Islam. Every muslim who is not an arab is a convert. A convert's world view alters. His holy place are in Arab land. His sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own, he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. This book also gives me idea of their culture. The section on Pakistan intrigued me, I did find some similarities with Indian Muslims as well. I hope in future i read more of Naipaul's work.

[Dmitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

V S Naipaul returned to Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia in 1995 to revisit the Islamic states featured in his 1981 travelogue 'Among the Believers'. The countries are portrayed as wounded survivors of past empires, subjected to 'the most uncompromising kind of imperialism', Islamic rule. The thesis drew howls of rage from defenders of the faith and apologists for theocracy. A new millennium and the spread of Islamist militancy lent credibility to his concerns, however. Naipaul was never political, and spoke only of his personal experiences.

In his earlier non-fiction books Naipaul was part of the story, participating in the exploration of people and places that he encountered. Here, he stays in the background, yet the analysis of what he sees is more pronounced. "Among the Believers" (1981) is more akin to "An Area of Darkness" (1964) in it's idiosyncratic iconoclasm. "Beyond Belief" (1998) belongs alongside "A Million Mutinies Now" (1990) in the sweeping panorama of characters interviewed. In Islam as with India, an initial cultural shock was replaced by a reaching out to understand.

Naipaul guides the reader through a landscape of late 20th century parables. A Muslim scientist is persecuted by a secular regime, an Indonesian poet is troubled by his return to the countryside, an Iranian newspaper publisher struggles during the hostage crisis, a Pakistani guerrilla fights against the Zia military junta, a Malaysian son turns away from the shamanism of his father. Each story augments a mosaic of people who lost their native identity in the currents of Pan-Islamism. He sees a culture imported from Arabia, a land distant to their home.

In his thesis Naipaul conflates 7th-11th century conversions with a modern rejection of local customs and beliefs in favor of Islam. The possibility that Islam has become indigenous to many areas in the world, or that people's beliefs are no longer limited by regional boundaries does not seem to occur to him. In this regard Islam may be closer to Christianity or Communism, existing as international ideologies. But for Naipaul there is a longing to return to a purity of place and culture, undisturbed by the displacement of modernity, to the homeland that was once lost to him.

[Jayakrishnan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Imaduddin was a lecturer in electrical engineering at the Bandung Institute of Technology. He was also an Islamic preacher."

These are the first two lines in this non-fiction book by V.S.Naipaul. Just two seemingly unremarkable lines. But when read together, they say a lot. The book is about Naipaul's travels across Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia. And what do these countries have in common? They were all non-Muslim countries/areas which gradually became Muslim through proselytization, invasion or partition (in the case of Pakistan).

Naipaul interviews people from various walks of life to find out how Islam has affected their present, how it has changed the way they view their past and their hopes for the future. The people interviewed include peasants, poets, newspaper editors, writers, basiji (Iranian suicide bombers), freedom fighters (the Pakistani communist who aligned himself with the Baluch tribesmen), killers (Ayatollah Khalkalli), businessmen and religious teachers.

Naipaul always maintained that his writing was driven by concern and not contempt. He is no fan of Islam ("it had a calamitous effect on the converted people") or Islamic countries (he once called for the destruction of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran and recently called for the militaristic annihilation of ISIS). Naipaul's tone is grave. He knows that what he is witnessing is something that would not be easy to deal with and cannot be ignored. There is none of the cruel humor of his writings on India and Africa. Though he does take a dig at Western universities that provide security and free speech to Islamic preachers who want to give nothing in return. He is not like Henry Rollins or someone who went to Iran and said that he ate great ice cream.

Absent is the disgust (mostly at the squalor) with which he wrote about India. He even makes it clear that Indonesia is not like India - "We took the train to Jakarta. The Dutch-built railway station was well kept - Java was not like India". Though he is quite severe on a family of Pakistani honor killers.

I couldn't appreciate all of it because I know next to nothing about the history of Indonesia, Iran and Pakistan. And I'm no expert on Indian history either. I have also not studied Islam so I would have to take Naipaul's word on a lot of things.

But what I like about Naipaul is that he is like a hunter who only wants to hunt the big game. Some of the other major writers of his generation are happy hunting deer (borrowed from a quote by Julian Barnes). Naipaul is beyond such concerns. This is why his peers and even contemporary writers speak about him with a grudging respect. Everyone from John Updike and Hunter S Thompson to Marlon James are huge admirers.

It is not an easy book to read. Parts of it were irritating with some interviewees turning up late or not turning up at all. Some of the life stories were quite lengthy and contained boring details. But Naipaul is always observant and serious and nothing seems to escape him. And this book and its predecessor Among the Believers (which I read a few years ago) were certainly very prophetic when you consider the state of the world today.

I will end this review with a quote about Islam by Imaduddin, the Islamic preacher in Indonesia - "The Koran is a value system. It's like a car. A car is a system. If you have only the tyre and the wheel you don't have a car. Islam is a system. You have to have it all. Or you leave it. You cannot be half-way Muslim or third-way Muslim. You become a Muslim wholeheartedly or not at all."

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

When V.S. Naipaul aims his full rhetorical arsenal at you, the odds of coming out unscathed are essentially nil. Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples was Naipaul’s harshest critique of Islam and Muslims, written fifteen years after his more concilatory first book on the subject, Among the Believers. In this book Naipuaul visits the same four countries he did the first time: Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Indonesia. In some cases he even manages to connect with the same people he met last. Like most of his nonfiction, this is a travelogue mixed with his own opinions and ideas. There are clear elements of the ultraconservative political philosophy that he developed later in life. The result is a challenging, beautifully written, and at times infuriating book.

The subtitle gives an important signal of Naipaul’s own premises. These four countries are of interest to him because they are “converted peoples” to Islam. Naipaul views Islam as an essentially Arab religion; anyone who is not an Arab and follows the religion is a contingent Muslim at best. It never occurs to Naipaul that after fourteen centuries other peoples might consider Islam to be their indigenous religion, nor does he consider the fact that even Arabs themselves are converts to Islam from their pre-Islamic local beliefs. Naipaul was famously open about the fact that he did not spend much time in study. He simply went out and let people explain themselves to him in their own words. It’s undoubtedly part of what made him such a gifted journalist. But it also gave him significant blindspots, which were then filled in with his own ideological preconceptions. His ideology is worth interrogating.

For most of Islamic history the intellectual heartlands of the religion were in Central and South Asia, as well as Asia Minor. Islam ceased to be a primarily Arab religion in large part after the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in the 13th century. For centuries the greatest flowering of Islamic thought, philosophy and society occurred in places like Iran, India, Turkey and other non-Arab locales. Naipaul does not engage with or even seem interested by this. This leads him to make all types of erroneous assumptions, like seeing mid-century Indian Muslims wearing the fez as a sign of internalized Arab domination. In reality the fez was invented by late-Turkish modernizers to give a new civic uniform for Muslim identity. It then became widely popular as a sign of Islamic modernity, not premodern atavism.

Likewise, Naipaul scathingly claims that non-Arab Muslims have contempt for the places they actually live and invest all their spiritual energies in the sands of Arabia — the holy sites of another people. This is a remarkable claim to make for someone who spent so much time in South Asia, which, like most of the Islamic world, is overflowing with Sufi shrines dedicated to entirely local saints who would be unknown to most Arabs. Naipaul goes even further in revealing his ignorance by casually describing the late-Pakistani Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman as a “fundamentalist fanatic,” hypocritically taking advantage of the freedoms of the United States by teaching at the University of Chicago. This seems to suggest he knew nothing at all about the man, who was regarded as one of the preeminent Muslim modernists of the 20th century (Wikipedia him and see for yourself). Had Rahman been alive at the time of publishing he would’ve been well within his rights to seek damages for this slanderous drive-by. Naipaul was clearly so consumed with making his case that the facts became potentially irrelevant. This is the hallmark of an ideologue; a man who began slipping later in his career.

The question of his own beliefs are important. As curious as they seem, Naipaul’s ideas about Islam’s “converted peoples” are a consistent expression of contermpory Hindu nationalism. Indeed, this was an ideology that he was openly sympathetic with. The worldview of the Hindu nationalists in India considers Islam and its followers as undesirable remnants of past imperial conquerors. Those who are Muslim today are really Hindus who have developed false consciousness. It is clear from Naipaul’s writings that he views the existence of non-Arab Muslims (particularly South and East Asians) as something of an affront in itself. These misguided people are living reminders of past humiliations. They fail to see themselves as who they really are, and strangely choose to identify with their antique oppressor. It is not hard to go from that sentiment to the belief that the final stage of anti-imperialism would be to either forcibly convert them back to their supposed “primordial” religion, or get rid of them once and for all.

This idea is held closely by Hindu nationalists in India today, who are highly exercised over historical crimes committed by Muslim conquerors hundreds of years ago. A similar thought also helped animate the Bosnian genocide. That project was led by demagogues who convinced the Serbian people that their Slavic Muslim neighbors were actually the unfinished business of their old wars against the Ottoman Empire. This type of worldview is dangerous, but also just as misguided in its quest for purity as any kind of fascism. It fails to account for the fact that everyone is a convert from something at some point. There is no imaginary primordial point to return to. We must deal with each other as we are today and respect that other people’s identity is not an inherent assault against us. Anyone who mused about, or actually tried, forcibly converting Latin Americans back to their pre-Catholic religions would be rightly considered a maniac. In Naipaul’s case he also fails to account for the fact that most Asians became Muslim through trade contacts and itinerant preachers, rather than conquest. Many people then enjoyed being part of a universal community with the potential to transcend race or locality.

Having said that, Naipaul still has a point about many things. His chapter on Pakistan deftly takes aim at the present state of the country. But he also lands some sledgehammer blows against its very shaky ideological foundations. Even if Islam has not been an Arab religion for a long time, in the 20th century and with the discovery of oil wealth many have begun to interpret it that way. The poor people of Asia, impressed with the sudden wealth of the Gulf Arabs, became an easy mark. Pakistanis are a people with a massive identity crisis, a neurosis. This is because they are essentially Indians who — at the moment of entering the modern world — were handed a very unstable nationalist ideology and told to run with it. The main progenitor of the idea died within a year of the state’s creation. It has been difficult to make it make sense in the aftermath.

Almost all Pakistanis are people whose ancestors were Hindus, very few are direct descendants of Turkic, Irani or Arab outsiders. Islam grew in the subcontinent in an environment shaped by Hindu culture. The failure to acknowledge that and give Hinduism its due in shaping Indian Islam would understandably chafe at a proud Brahmin like Naipaul. An abstract Islam was never a solid basis for a modern nationalist ideology. The new state almost immediately went to war against itself over linguistic issues, as well as simple conflicts about land and power. Meanwhile the hundred million Muslims left behind in India found themselves fatally disenfranchised. Partition reinforced the clash-of-civilizations fantasies of demagogues on both sides. All of this is a calamity that South Asia has yet to recover from.

Naipaul claims that in carving an unprecedented zone of religious homogeneity out of India, a land of traditional heterogeneity, the land that became Pakistan “ceased to be India” for the first time in its history. This is an accusation worth contemplating. Unlike the Christian world which totally supplanted its pre-Christian inheritors, the pre-Islamic world still lives in Asia. Instead of studying it, many Muslims have merely dismissed it as “jahiliyya.” Even worse, the so-called jahili people are still around to hear these often rude dismissals. This is both ignorant — harmful to Muslims who should study their antiquity instead of merely scorning it — as well as offensive and fertile ground for xenophobic attitudes.

The nation of Pakistan was the brief, poorly-thought out dream of a few idealistic men. It has been a painful experience and it may yet end painfully. Nonetheless, it exists now and the best should be made out of it. Naipaul is right to harshly appraise its contemporary state. The medieval cruelty of rural feudalism and the socio-political strife of the cities is the ugly reality. People are confused and cut off from much of themselves. Despite that there are gifted and humane people there who have made the country survive, even achieve a few things, and who continue to do so. Ironically, the only sympathetic figure he seems to find in the country is one man who has quietly become an atheist. I consider this to be the product of Naipaul’s own blinkered perspective; he simply identified what he was hoping to find.

Naipaul almost always manages to keep an even keel, but in this book he borders on the venomous. People invite him into their homes and apparently treat him with exquisite courtesy, only for him to denounce them, sometimes with much ignorance, in his writings. It is well known that later in his life his politics took on an almost unbearable cast. I found myself cringing at points while reading this. But it softened the blow that despite his increasingly cantankerous nature over the years, Naipaul’s prose remained as sublime as ever. It may have even gotten better. This book is gorgeously written. And in between his accusations about Islam and Muslims — some contentious and some painfully on the mark — he also drops some captivating general reflections. Among them is about the false belief that the “New World” lacked for holy sites compared to Asia. In reality the people to whom this world was holy, the native peoples, were simply wiped out. The necessity of honor and code in a society without reliable law (he references this in the case of the Pashtuns) is another true and sobering thought. Even at his most unpleasant as a travel companion, Naipaul still has many gems of wisdom.

This is a book that people should reflect on without uncritically accepting all its claims. Reading it as a Muslim is a strange experience. It’s like reading the words of someone who was simultaneously an enemy and a teacher. Naipaul did not like Muslims; if he had a magic wand he would have gladly converted them all back to their supposed primordial beliefs. Nonetheless, given the pitiful state of the Muslim world it’d be good to listen to the words of some of its more eloquent and aggressive critics. You always have to give Naipaul his due: his opinions were not cheap.

[K.C. · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the beginning itself Naipaul asserts that the USA is the land of freedom and opportunity, where a Muslim preacher goes to theologically indoctrinate the university students of Indonesia. Islamic organisations in Kuwait and Saudi A finance him.
In detail Naipaul goes on to describe how rigourously the devouts of Islam are expected to undertake the rituals of it. But, on a closer scrutiny, most of the religions are like that. None could be said to be more liberal, considered at a fundamental level.
The author talks of the people converted to Islam being more fundamentalist. It is similar with the people who are converted to Christianity, who outnumber by far the Islamic converts.
Hinduism, which has no place for conversion, if considered at its ritualistic level, has a strong violence concealed behind it. The ritual of animal sacrifice being one of the cases to mull over.
So, a discourse on religions is fraught with looking farcical, more so when an author wants to present one religion as superior than another, the one who belongs to neither. Such type of writing may be entertaining to read for some people. But it must not be considered a serious literature, as it inherently is prejudiced to serve the purpose of a few opportunists waiting to grab power, once this conflict of religions becomes more wide spread. It is more important to single out this flaw of the writers like Naipaul, as the 'war against terrorism' is becoming more wide-spread and consuming almost the whole world.

Also that Gandhi learnt his social welfare ideas from Christianity, though he has been a devout Hindu all his life, is mentioned in this book. Naipaul said it only in one sentence, without substantiating it in any manner. The Hindu way of life depends a great deal on the idea of society and family. How painfully Naipaul had described it in 'A House For Mr. Biswas'.

Without a critical scrutiny, these two kind of opinions, supporting Christianity while criticizing Islamism rigourourly and Hinduism passingly, I am not able to push down my throat.

In his lifetime itself, most of Naipaul's non-fiction could become irrelevant, as it dwells too much on the conflicts of religions. Also it is over-rated, for having claimed various literary awards, from a literary world too keen to find a work which confirmed to its long-held, fossilized notions of literature.

Unless you have a constituency of the readers, you can not do this kind of writing. It is like preaching what you already know, or pretend to know, instead of exploring deeper the people you seem to interview in the course of writing a travel-book. There is hardly a moderate, common man or woman, met by Naipaul, in this book so far. So, it all depends on the kind of people you want to meet. If they are in or around the offices of supreme power of a country with religious leaning, the opinions you discover might only conform your own prejudices.


The power writing has occasionally becomes over-bearing even for the best ones, and you want your share of the political-cake, instead of mere readership.

Two stars are for keeping the language simple.
Shall the later part of the book be any better?

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I felt compelled to follow up reading V.S. Naipaul's Beyond Belief soon after reading Among the Believers. so as have a sense of continuity. In this book, he re-vists the four converted Islamic countries (Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia) that he went to 14 years prior and tracks down some of the previous people he had interviewed before, as well as some new subjects. It seems as though he came away with a more negative impression than before, but perhaps I am mistaken. People in Iran are ruled by fear, the young generation seems to be rebelling against the repressive society. But it seems that the ruling elite are still in control in light of the recent election of a hardliner as Prime Minister. In places like Indonesia and Malaysia-Islamic influences do not mesh easily with the former animistic beliefs of the people who have essentially been colonized by a foreign "arabic" culture through Islam. Time and time again he emphasizes how the polygamy of the religion has traumatized countless families and made so many abandoned families miserable. He also emphasizes how this religion mistreats women who are discouraged from having any sort of independent life and regaled to the back rooms of the house to cook, clean, and raise the children while being discouraged to get any education. In Pakistan he looks at how Islamic justice is meted out by mutilation of women, honor killings, and the like. He discusses how impoverished people who have little are more strongly tied to honor and respect since there is little else in their lives. All this is recorded in great detail in a highly readable and engaging narrative. I'm looking forward to reading more of Naipaul's nonfiction.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having just reviewed its predecessor, taking place around 1979, "Among the Believers," I thought that this, from Naipaul's follow-up to not only Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Malaysia in the early '90s but some of those he interviewed in his first travels, would pull me in deeper. As he mentions, he tried to listen to the stories of those he encountered, more than analyzing the shifts to Muslim belief and Islamic power. These, as he reiterates, leave these Middle Eastern and "South Asian" (the latter term not yet in vogue outside the Commonwealth when he penned these books) adepts cut off from their own morals and tradition, to elevate Arab icons, sites and language above their own way.

That lesson unfolds in narratives of militants, peasants, entrepreneurs, and politicians. It's not very interesting, unfortunately. My highlights this go-around tally fewer. The insights are less arresting.

It's dispiriting to grasp the decline of Iran and Pakistan under their militaries and mullahs. And to see the devastation wreaked across the Malay and Javanese domains. But I can't say that I benefited from a lot I wouldn't have generally grasped in shorter pieces. Naipaul's skill is never absent when he summons his perspicacious acumen to apply to geopolitical change and psychological impacts on fragile mentalities, family ties, and personal ambitions thwarted by maturity, oppression, inequality and fervor. However, this isn't as highly ranked as his Indian trilogy, charting similar paths therein.

[Eric George · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a highly up to date travel study of four Islamic countries, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia. The journey was made in 1995, still the book has managed to stay applicable regarding it`s topic. The author V.S Naipaul traveled through Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia to meet people, and to talk with them, discovering their stories, their realities and lives. People have been prosecuted by their corrupt regimes and Naipaul reveals their stories with sharp insight and a tutoring approach. The title of the book inclines that there is a focus on the converted people of Islam. More precisely they might not have done the action of conversion themselves but becoming a product merely of the imperialistic actions of Islam. It is stated that the origin of Islamic culture and people are the Arabic people and that those who have been imperialized are not in the descend bloodline of the Prophet. On his chapter travelling through Pakistan we get to know his narrative style to the fullest, exploring the shanty towns of Lahore in search for terrorists, working girls, lepers, people with names and the rich. Reading the lines and in between them, this chapter shows immense injustice and the great difference between the have nots and the wealthy. The author manage to bring those little stories up at a time and place in the novel that seems very accurate and neat. The alternating between people and their stories like an original Pakistani Marxist, hidden love stories between peasants puting a whole lot at stake, and Nomadic people in Baluchistan makes the book interesting and keeps the reader alerted. Put to the point as a criticism of Islam one could say Naipaul get to the point when he quote Saleem, the grandson of a rich farmer and cricket enthusiast, whom is able to name drop several Trinidadian cricket players states "there is no free will in Islam, Islam meant obedience, submission". One of the strongest arguments Naipaul presents are the fact that the converted people must forget and wipe their own past once they have converted. " But Islam seeks as an article of the faith to erase the past; the believers in the end honour Arabia alone; they have nothing to return to". The reader might not totally agree on all of the authors arguments, as when he presents the link between honour and poverty for reasoning about killing for honour. Naispaul is left with a quite shallow argument which could be more in depth as regarding logic and diversity. But it is as stated, a religion well for the people in position to misconduct their power and live an unmoral life, immoral maybe to the principles of Islam. The link between Islam and Arabic culture needs to be more thorough. But Naispaul statement is quite clear as he sees Islam as Arabic imperalism, because everything in Islam is founded out from Arabic culture and always looks in that direction. The non fiction book is also about people, their lives, their stories, and their hopes, whom despite religion are recognizable in everyone of us, as a human with compassion, self respeckt and knowledge.

[Drayton Bird · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got this book out of the library and put off reading it as it sounded like it might be hard work.

How wrong I was. Once I started I couldn't stop.

If you want to know why Islam has grown, and how and why so many happily kill themselves for it, this tells you - even though it was written well before the current lunacy.

That sounds a rather depressing recommendation, but the book is utterly fascinating - and made me understand why Naipaul won the Nobel Prize.

He goes into prodigious detail, never criticizes, only describes people's astonishing lives with a quiet but sympathetic irony.

As it happens I have spent time in three of the four countries he covers - Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia - and recognised many of the things he talks about.

His description of what had happened in the one I don't know - Pakistan - was deeply disturbing. It makes you realise what a disaster partition was -with the most appalling consequences, many surely yet to unfold.

[C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1995, Naipaul traveled through the four non-Arab Islamic countries (Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia) to explore how life has changed since the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. His portraits are riviting and beautiful, though one must keep in mind Naipauls very conservative politics back home in India.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Naipaul has an amazing ability to get people to reveal intimate details of their life stories - and then to thread the stories together to reveal deeper truths about a particular society. The section on Indonesia (where I live) was good, but the sections on Iran and Pakistan were particularly thought provoking and kept me reading late into the night.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific, 1999 sequel to Among the Believers (1981). Naipaul revisits, over a decade later, some of the men and women he interviewed for his first book, and many others, living in Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. He reports on the pro-Westerners, followers of Islam all, as being if anything more embattled, while the Islamists are still more incongruous in their strenuous, sometimes hypocritical, attempts to follow and apply the admonitions of a fifth century book of spoken religious poetry literally to their own lives and behavior within the modernizing world. His depictions of Iran are a bit sad, but his observations of Indonesia, where the regime is more tolerant, can be quite comical. His observations of Islam in general, arriving as they did immediately prior to Al Quaeda's 2001 attack on America, I found chilling.

[Patrick]

I only read the section on Iran, but much of that section -"Justice of Ali" - was fascinating (despite my reservations about Naipaul going into the book). It is extremely moving in its discussion of the 8 yr. war between Iran and Iraq. My big complaint is that Naipaul does not give Iranian women a voice. He only includes the voices of the men he has interviewed, and though he has the opportunity to interview women, he inexplicably chooses to leave their voices out (even as he acknowledges throughout the oppression and silencing of women in Iran).

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrific look at Islam's effect on non-Arab countries that previously had different histories and cultures (e.g. Iran, Indonesia). Naipaul is a tremendous observer of the human condition and above all, a true humanist. Hard to disagree with his conclusion that Islam is the most comprehensive form of imperialism, in that it erases any history that precedes it. The chapter on Pakistan is devastating, and that was written over ten years ago.

[Aggrey Odera · Rating 2 out of 5]

Facile, and so idiotic it reminds you that intelligent individuals are even more prone to saying stupid things because they’re used to being listened to unchallenged. The envoi of Edward Said’s review of the book from when it came out (1998) is exactly correct: Naipaul’s gifts have been squandered, and in this book, his reputation props up arguments of the most uninteresting kind. The book is an insanely long and inefficient method for Naipaul to declare that he hates Muslims, but unlike in his earlier, more energetic works (equally insulting and hateful though these were), the prescience is gone. He’s become boring.

The thesis is that Islam is an imported religion for non-Arab Muslims, so that these Muslims, by worshipping this foreign god, commit a self-betrayal of a sort. For Naipaul the Brahmin, Naipaul the Hindu fascist, you can only truly possess what you've inherited from your ancestors. The caste demarcations of the Brahmin have been extended, and everywhere men are denounced for not sticking to their lot in life. But because what Naipaul is is a bigot, he doesn't stop long enough to contemplate the logical endpoint of his position: the only viable Catholic is the descendant of Romans; the only real Anglican has ancestors from Westminster. One doesn't hear him taking the Catholics or the Anglicans the world over to task, and witnessing this, as well as how causticly and unpleasantly he writes about the people he interviews, one is led to a simple truth: If there's something wrong with Muslims in Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran, twenty years after Naipaul paid them his first unwelcome visit (in “Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey”), we don't learn it from Naipaul.

[Vatsal Gupta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you are a believer or a disbeliever, you cannot ignore the fact that religion drives not just a believer's conscience but also geopolitics. A convert country becomes part of an implicit brotherhood. Naipaul writes in a concise way:

The cruelty of Islamic fundamentalism is that it allows only to one people – the Arabs, the original people of the Prophet – a past, and sacred places, pilgrimages and earth reverences. These sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places of all the converted peoples. Converted peoples have to strip themselves of their past; of converted peoples nothing is required but the purest faith (if such a thing can be arrived at), Islam, submission. It is the most uncompromising kind of imperialism.

Islam is not like Christianity, Iqbal says. It is not a religion of private conscience and private practice. Islam comes with certain ‘legal concepts’. These concepts have ‘civic significance’ and create a certain kind of social order. The ‘religious ideal’ cannot be separated from the social order. ‘Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.’

In pursuit of understanding how people in non-Arabic-Islamic countries identify themselves, Naipaul converses with several folks from 4 countries - Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. The good thing about the book is that there is no generalization. I always prefer knowing raw accounts of individuals than reading over generalized writings by self-proclaimed pundits. All stories are different yet bound by one common theme - how communities across all 4 countries are witnessing growing fundamentalism though still reconciling with their pre-Islamic pagan past and customs.

I personally liked the stories from Indonesia the most - Given a long Hindu history of the country, many anti-Islamic customs still continue - which creates a constant qualm in communities there.

Very aptly put by the author:
"For the new fundamentalists of Indonesia the greatest war was to be made on their own past, and everything that linked them to their own earth."

[S · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I had read this book a couple of years ago, I would absolutely disagree with Naipaul's observations. Now, I am not so sure. What has changed? Well, I know a few Arab Muslim people and I am inclined to agree with Naipul. This quote sums up the main premise of the book:
"The cruelty of Islamic fundamentalism is that it allows only to one people - the Arabs, the original people of the Prophet - a past, and sacred places, pilgrimages and earth reverences. These sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places of all the converted peoples. Converted peoples have to strip themselves of their past; of converted peoples nothing is required but the purest faith (if such a thing can be arrived at), Islam, submission. It is the most uncompromising kind of imperialism".
While reading this book, I was trying to steer clear of my own personal experiences and my interactions with Arab Muslim people. Looking back, I think I was asking too much of myself. This means that my review is dripping with bias (and possibly resentment). I never doubted that how non-Arabs (such as I) practiced Islam was wrong until disagreements revealed otherwise. So, I can feel the pain of people who shared their experiences with Naipaul. I think Arab Muslims have an image of what a good Muslim should look and act like - given our geographical dispersion and our genetic differences, non-Arabs can never be 'good' Muslims. Such a shame, me think.
In saying that, I think Naipaul misinterpreted conditions to suit the premise of this book. At the beginning he mentions that this book is not about opinions but personal stories. Fine. Few chapters (or pages), he verbalises very strong opinions about all the four non-Arab countries he visited (Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia). After reading the whole book, I feel his negative remarks were not only directed towards the Arab Muslims but the Non-Arab Muslims too. How he laid down history, he favoured the white man colonisation over the Arab Muslims. Not cool.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The stories are really interesting.

I don't think Naipaul's thesis is as accurate as he supposes (at least as he believed at the time he wrote the book). But there is truth there, I think, too. I think the religions and cultural heritages pre-Islam were probably quite as bad in some ways as Naipaul believes Islam is. But I don't think he takes this into account as much as he should.

In any event, I believe Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead 2000 years ago, so I believe in one truth, one reality, and my interpretation is going to be very different from Naipaul's and different from those of many of his critics.

I.e. I believe all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, we have all gone our own way. Every single one of us. This means that we need God's grace and this grace has come in and through His Son, who is God, through his dying for sins and His rising to new life. There is no room for self-righteousness in this truth, no room for self-honor, only room for God's grace and the righteousness based on God's sacrifice.

[Abhïshék Ghosh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Naipaul's keen sense of observation and ability to thread out the unspoken in the personalities he decides to interview is truly remarkable. He seamlessly zooms out of the events of one man's life to draw a broader commentary on the times and attitudes of an entire generation.

Naipaul is not leisure- reading. If you aren't paying enough attention, you might just feel like you woke up at midnight in the train bogey and realised that the train is suddenly moving in reverse and that you have no idea of where you're headed. Naipaul's chapters are not neatly arranged into an introduction, body and firm conclusion,. It's more like an encounter, an afternoon conversation and afterthoughts melding into the next chapter.

It adds to the sense of confusion that the characters in Beyond Belief themselves portray- a juggling of ancestral traditions, contemporary Islam and militaristic politics. Special mention to the sections on Iran and Pakistan- they're WAY more engaging than the erratic outbursts of the Indonesian chapter. This man's got a Nobel, so go ahead and give him a read already!

[E.T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A 1996-followup to Naipaul's earlier travelogue thru Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and Pakistan in 1981. This one is a little better and both have documented the times very well. All 4 nations r very different in their own ways and make for interesting reading.
It was interesting to note that while Pakistan was facing a horrible separatist revolt in Baluchistan and Karachi had turned into a war-zone in the 90s, it was exporting terror to Kashmir and militancy was at its peak in Kashmir then.
Wrt Indonesia (the nation of Indians ?) , it struck that they had local culture and customs all in the process of being white-washed by Islam ; the process which seemed to have been completed in Iran a while ago with the Iranian revolution. Indonesia struggles to trace its history, thankfully in India we had a handful of British enthusiasts who along with the Brahmins (some credit there) helped restore a good part of our history and culture.

[Arzu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book made me fall in love with English language. Sir. Naipaul is indeed a master of English language. I am looking forward to read his other books.

[Rebecca · Rating 1 out of 5]

Myopic and racist.

[Jeruen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally, I have finished this book. As regular readers of my book review series might have noticed, I typically read fiction, and non-fiction book reviews here are mostly the exception than the rule. I picked this book up when I was browsing a used-bookstore here in Berlin, and since at that time, I had become aware of V. S. Naipaul (after reading his Nobel Prize lecture as part of a collection), so I decided to randomly pick this book up so that I could try his writing. Somehow, after reading this book, I have the feeling that it might not have been the best idea.

See, this book is a travel narrative. It chronicles the second visit of Naipaul to four countries who are mostly populated by people who were converted to Islam. Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia: all of these countries are non-Arab, yet Islam has a strong grip on its population. Naipaul shows how the local population deals with the conflicts that Islam brought upon to the community, mostly along the lines of ethnic and cultural tension. After all, the belief system that together make up Islam is not always compatible with the traditions and beliefs that the locals had before encountering this religion. And this book is basically a collection of stories about the people from these lands, and Naipaul shows how the converted populations deal with this conflict.

So I am confused. On the one hand, I see further evidence why religion is more a force of evil than a force of good. This book is a collection of evidence showing how Islam has altered the belief systems of these populations, demonstrating how rational thought has been surpassed for faith and submission. As an atheist, I read this and see how it is really better not to believe in a religion, due to its negative influences, which in my view, overrides whatever positive influences it might have.

However, on the other hand, there is this little thought in the back of my head that there must be cultural diversity in the world, and from an anthropological point of view, there is still some merit in the existence of cultures that are far and different from our own. Hence I still feel that I would be comfortable visiting a very religious community, as long as they tolerate my visit. See, that's the thing. What people don't have nowadays is tolerance. Everyone thinks that their imaginary man in the sky is better than the other person's imaginary man in the sky. I don't have an imaginary man in the sky, but if it would benefit you to have an imaginary man in the sky, then go ahead. As long as you don't think that people who don't have the same imaginary man in the sky as you should be killed.

Now why am I irritated with this book? Because reading it makes me feel that Naipaul had an agenda, that he wanted to show how Islam was detrimental to these populations, and therefore he went ahead and visited these countries, interviewing people who would show what he wanted to show. Maybe I was expecting a journalistic style given that it is a travel narrative. But then again this is not journalism.

Or maybe I was expecting something along the lines of what I would expect an anthropologist to write. Maybe I was hoping that there would be no judgment, and that it is up to the reader to judge whether the reader would like the Islamic influence or not. And yet, in many occasions, Naipaul writes how Islam has eradicated the local culture and replaced it with Arabian culture, how through Islam, the pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan are not attributed value, but rather, all important monuments are in Arabia, all holy deserts are in the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore there is nothing important and noteworthy in one's homeland. Effectively, one's cultural homeland isn't one's own, but in Arabia.

This book made me reflect how religion imposes these cultural beliefs on people. When I was in Jerusalem, I saw pilgrims from all over the world, visiting these holy temples and churches, kissing marble floors and granite stones. They came from Africa, from South America, all over the place. And most likely they have a special attachment to these holy places. The same can be said with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Somehow, the world headquarters of the Witnesses that until now are located in Brooklyn, NY are assigned some sort of holy Utopian status. Everyone just wants to go and tour that place, and everyone who does comes back all glowing and raving about it. Looking back, it was slightly mentally jarring, because I have come across Witnesses who would love to go travel and sight-see, yet they would think twice and sometimes even refrain from entering places like the Sagrada Familia or St. Peter's Basilica, reasoning that these are monuments that are not holy, instead, these are structures that belong to the wrong religion, and therefore are not worth our time. Why can't people simply see it as a cultural monument, something that is noteworthy due to its architecture? Instead, they look at it using religion-tinted glasses.

Overall, this is an interesting book. I am not sure whether I would recommend it to others or not, but it definitely made me think. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

See my other book reviews here.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I learned: Islam is an Arab religion and “it makes imperial “Arabizing” demands on its converts”. (Robert Irwin, Guardian - back of book)

What has this Arab Islam done to the histories of Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia?

What is Arab Islam’s affect on it’s converts and their futures in their respective countries?

These are just a few of the questions that are addressed by Naipaul in this compelling read. In 1979 he visited Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia and wrote the precursor to this book, “Among the Believers”. Then seventeen years after his first visit,in 1996, he revisited these same areas again and to some degree some of the same people he had spent time with on his first visit. He set out to discover for himself how the countries and peoples he had first visited had fared in the intervening years with the influence of Islam on their lives and their cultures.

As you read about the lives of people who were born in these countries and how they and their families have fared with the coming of Islam to their lands you become very much aware of the devastating affects that “imperial Arabizing” has had on the traditions of the cultures of each of these nations. It struck me as tragic to read about what has been lost in the histories and traditions of these areas of the world. Most especially the sense among these people about who they are. Naipaul says, “ . . . Islam seeks as an article of the faith to erase the past; the believers in the end honour Arabia alone; they have nothing to return to”.

Women are less than second class citizens in the cultures of these nations. Not all of it is attributed to Islamic influence. Some of it was decidedly due to the traditions of the cultures of this area of the world. But, Islam as it has been practiced in these countries during the time frame of this book (1979-1996) had not been kind or nurturing to the wives and daughters of these nations. You learn about concepts such as “purdah” which is, as per Wikipedia," ... a curtain which makes sharp separation between the world of man and that of a woman, between the community as a whole and the family which is its heart, between the street and the home, the public and the private, just as it sharply separates society and the individual.” At its most virulent it makes women a non-entity in the nations where it is practiced and according to Wikipedia, it is practiced in one form or another in all the countries where Islam is present.

To quote the comments on the back cover of this book, “ . . . it is not a book of opinions. It is— a very rich and human book, full of people and stories .. . skeptical, inquiring, sharply observant and unfailingly stylish in (its) formulations . . . “. I found this to be a disturbing, enlightening reading experience and it made me, once again, most grateful for the blessing of being born and raised in the USA in the twentieth century.

[Vikrant Rana · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5
Needless to say, a phenomenal intellect at work again!

This is basically a relook at the 'converted people' by Naipaul's keen eye, roughly 15 years after his first immersion in this world. It was actually surprising to find Sir Vidia explaining himself right in the prologue, where he explains the difference in tone of books constituting this duology. Basically, in this book he starts taking himself out of the equation. This includes his incisive observations, commentary and worldview. Sadly, this was also my favorite part simply because it was so illuminating for a reader.

While this makes the writing more mature by tempering down an author's instincts, it also steals (in bits and pieces) something 'that' was unique to him. 'That' can be best explained by what is called a 'beginner's mind' in Zen i.e. the fist instinctive reaction. Good part is, a reader can still find Naipaul's instincts scattered across this book as well.

After 15 years,
IRAN is mostly a disillusion after the Islamic revolution. This is further by the divergence between communists who supported the revolution out of convivence and in an attempt to ride and steal it at an appropriate time. Mullas didn't allow it to happen and the Iraq war only helped the latter's cause to further their stranglehold.
INDONESIA has just moved beyond Suharto. While there was an initial attempt to create a synthesis of Science and Islam, the religious zealots quickly took over the narrative. The initial blooms both at an institutional level - like a national aviation project, and at a personal level - like a creative poet, are all non-starters.
MALAYSIA is a hotchpotch of various interest groups but it is clear that again the passion of converts have taken over.
Lastly, PAKISTAN is clearly hurtling towards a difficult future. The Generals have taken over, used Islam to buy legitimacy and were in turn used to promulgate the cause of Mullas. It is a country at war with itself because of all the contradictions at so many levels, it is trying to carry forward. Some of these are - Regional (Sindhis vs Baluchs vs Punjabis), Social (Feudalists vs Serfs), Xenophobes (Mujahirs vs Others), Religion (Secular Islam as projected by the various fathers of the country, vs Fundamentalist Islam, vs Others).

I personally, would have loved to see a follow-up by Sir Vidia to bring some kind of closure to this roving eye among these people.

[Vera VB · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1979 bezocht Naipaul Indonesië, Iran, Pakistan en Maleisië. 15 jaar later heeft hij dezelfde reis nog eens gemaakt om te kijken wat er ondertussen veranderd is, ten goede of ten slechte.

Hij probeerde zoveel mogelijk dezelfde mensen te spreken, maar dat was niet altijd mogelijk omdat ze of overleden waren, niet meer te vinden of zo'n hoge maatschappelijke positie hadden dat ze niet meer voor gewone gesprekken open stonden.
Daarnaast probeerde hij ook terug te overnachten in de plaatsen waar hij toen overnachtte om het verschil in cultuur te voelen en dan vooral de invloed van islam.
Alhoewel ik het eerste boek niet gelezen heb, heb ik toch de indruk dat de invloed van de islam groter geworden is, maar dat het leven van de mensen er niet beter op geworden is.

In Indonesië en Maleisië bestond er vooral een anti-islam gevoel, maar door de opkomst van de islam is dat gevoel naar de achtergrond geduwd, mag het niet meer benoemd worden omdat de regels van de islam gelden. In Iran heerst dan weer veel angst en kijkt men uit naar verkiezingen in de hoop dat het land iets vrijer wordt.

Wat doorheen dit boek wel duidelijk wordt is dat polygamie voor veel ellende zorgt in de families en dat vrouwenrechten helemaal niets voorstellen want die zijn er gewoon niet.
In Pakistan komen daar dan nog eens de verminkingen van vrouwen bij.

Naipaul beschrijft ook veel van het verleden van zijn gesprekspartners, hun familie, grootouders, hoe die geleefd hebben en meestal van simpele komaf, moeite moeten doen om te overleven. Komt daar dan ook nog eens de verschillende overheersingen door andere culturen bij. Mensen waren erg zoekend.

[Amitava Mazumdar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my first book by Naipaul. Before I read it, I knew very little about him, except that he was known as a curmudgeon. I certainly didn't know about his anti-Muslim bias. I've learned that not knowing that is not understanding Naipaul at all.

I don't have a problem with criticism of Islamic teachings and practices. I have my own complaints, especially since 9/11. However, Naipaul seems to have spent a great deal of time and money in traveling through the Islamic world not to learn something new, but to try and prove a preconceived notion.

The notion is an interesting one -- that each non-Arab Islamic nation had to abandon its own pre-Islamic culture, unique or appropriate to its history. That is, each had to abandon its own history in favor of Arab history. This sounds like a sound theory to me; one that should be provable or not. But Naipaul travels through the Islamic world assuming its truth, not establishing it. As such, the book turns out not to be persuasive, and instead reads a little obnoxious.

It is, however, still educational. I learned much more about more about Indonesia, Malaysia, and other Islamic nations than I had known before. Furthermore, Naipual writes an excellent narrative. These two reasons might be enough to read the book, even if you disagree with its themes.

[André · Rating 5 out of 5]

V.S, Naipaul, geboren in Trinidad in 1932 uit Indische ouders wordt beschouwd als een van de belangrijkste Britse schrijvers dietrouwensookal laureaat werd van de Booker Prize met de roman In a free state uit 1971. Als romanschrijver weet hij boeiend werkafte leveren, maar op zijn best is hij toch in zijn reisdocumentaires en zijn so
ciaal geengageerde essays. Naipaul heeft een hekel aan
geschiedvervalsing. In rhe loss of Eldorado uit 1969 beschrijft hijgedetailleerdhetdramavandekolonisatievanhetCaraïbisch gebied. In dit lijvig werk zette hij menig historisch misverstand recht en onthulde hij ook massale slachtingen die met puur racistisch inzicht werden gepleegd op niet blanken. Dit werk kreeg wereldwijde belangstelling en leidde ook tot een hernieuwde kijk van politici op kolonialisatie.
In 1981, Iran leefde toen nog in de euforie van een zeer sterk islamitisch getinte revolutie, publiceerde hij zijn reisdocumentaire Between the Believers(Onderde gelovigen), waarin hij enkele landen, waaronder Iran, die bekeerlingen van de islam herbergen, bezocht en observeerde. Volgens V.S. Naipaul en zijn bronnen is de islam van oorsprong een Arabische godsdienst, en is bijgevolg eenieder die moslim is en geen Arabier een bekeerling (dit is een stelling waar heel wat discussie rond bestaat). Op dat ogenblik wist V.S. Naipaul weinig of niets van de islam maar dat leek hem als overtuigde atheïst een gezonde basis om de bijzonderheden van een geloof dat mogelijkheden in zich droeg om een revolutie te ontketenen te verkennen. Toen al was het thema van bekering steeds aanwezig maar dat drong toen niet zo tot hem door als op zijn tweede reis, bijna twintig jaar, later doorheen dezelfde landen. Between the Believers werd als een informatief boek over een godsdienst in volle evolutie ontvangen. Onder de indruk van zulk een doorwrocht werk zag men het steeds terugkomend woord
'bekering' over het hoofd. In het vervolg van dit boek Beyond Belief (Meerdan geloof), dat in 1997 verscheen heeft het woord 'bekering' naar de islam een angstaanjagende bijklank gekregen.
V.S. Naipaul heeft een afkeer van alles wat nog maar enigzins naar godsdienst riekt, dus heeft hij nog meer dan in Onder de gelovigen de schrijver naar de achtergrond verdrongen. In interviews, die meestal nog via een tolk moeten gebeuren, laat hij de bewoners van het desbetreffende land zelf aan het woord. De ondervraagden zijn meestal wel afkomstig uit hogere standen of studentenmiddens maar dat komt ook omdat juist die mensen in de islam meer dan een geloof zien. De vrouwelijke stem is slechts zelden aanwezig omdat helaas de vrouw in een fundamentele moslimgemeenschap nog altijd geen'stem', laat staan een mening, mag hebben.
Het eerste land dat we in gezelschap van V.S. Naipaul bezoeken is Indonesië. In Indonesië is in tien jaar tijd de islam van religie naar een soort statussymbool geëvolueerd. Heel wat voormalige communisten hebben zich tot de islam bekeerd omdat die meer welstand en macht biedt. De scheiding tussen kerk en staat, een staat waarin ook Hindoes, Boeddhisten, Christenen en atheïsten leven, wordt alsmaar kleiner omdat er verschillende ministers moslim zijn en vanuit een religieus islamitisch standpunt beslissingen nemen. Ook de president zelf is de moslims erg genegen. In Indonesië, waar de persvrijheid onbestaande is, vrije meningsuiting en emancipatie nog altijd mooie maar utopische dromen zijn, is de sympathie van de president natuurlijk erg belangrijk. Het mag dan ook verwonderlijk heten dat de vrouw niet onmondig wordt gehouden, belangrijke functies kan bekleden, vrouwenbladen bestaan en niet meer of minder dan andere bladen gecensureerd worden. Er bestaat zelfs een'milde' vorm van feminisme. Toch zijn heel wat intellectuelen niet gelukkig met de islam als brenger van alle heil en welvaart.
De essayist Gunawan Mohammed doet in dit verband volgende toch wel veelzeggende uitspraak: "De schrijver die zich aansluit bij een of ander groot publiek ideaal als communisme of islam, met al die duidelijk taboes, wordt al heel gauw tot vervalsingen gedwongen!" (blz. 92). Iran stapte na de dictatuur van de Sjah over in de dictatuur van Khomeini. Velen hadden gehoopt dat na de revolutie de Mullahs zich zouden terugtrekken in de heilige stad Oom Oom. Helaas gebeurde dat niet. Khomeini en zijn aanhang maakten de communisten die mee hadden gekozen voor een islamitische staat mond en soms ook helemaal dood. Hij hanteerde een islamitische dictatuur waarin enkel wet was wat hij al dan niet in de naam van Allah verkondigde.
De 'Heilige(?) oorlog' tegen buurland Irak en het weren van Westerse invloeden primeerden. Na de dood van de Ayatollah bleef het land in diepe rouw om zoveel oorlogsdoden en in volledige economische en sociale chaos achter. Het huidig regime is iets minder streng maar de oorlogsveteranen geloven niet meer in het oprichten van een rechtvaardige islamitische staat. Zelfs erg gelovige mensen durven wel eens beweren dat Khomeini een spion van het Westen was, gezonden om Iran in de afgrond te storten. Er komen nieuwe rijke eliteburgers en bewegingen die om seksuele vrijeheid vragen en zich vreemd genoeg Nazi's (?) noemen steken her en der de kop op.
Pakistan is een van die landen waar de religie als wraakmiddel kan gehanteerd worden. Het land lijdt nog altijd onder de afscheiding van India en Bangladesh. Het ideaal om van Paki
stan een vreedzame islamitische staat te maken is door aller. hande revoluties, burgeroorlogen en eeuwenoude vetes,jam~ merlijk in rook opgegaan.
Het laatste land dat V.S. Naipaul bezoekt is Malesië. In Malesic I is nog steeds een sterke populatie van Chinezen aanwezig die kapitaalkrachtig zijn. Maar de Maleisische kampongbevolking die sterk islamitisch is of werd begint meer en meer naar de steden te trekken. Net als in Indonesië betekent ook hier islamitisch zijn een vorm van macht hebben.
Meer dan geloof is zeker geen boek dat mensen die islamitisch zijn wil vingerwijzen of in een kwaad daglicht stellen. Wat het boek ons wel duidelijk wil maken is dat de islamitische wereld zich als een soort nieuwe beschaving naar de 'oude wereld' toe wil profileren en dat zou wel eens een culturele oerknal geven waarvan de oude wereld zich niet van bewust schijnt te zijn.
(André Oyen)

[Niklaus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un'analisi scritta in tempi non sospetti e da una persona non sospettabile di avere una "visione crociata" o essere un agente imperialista, a seconda dell'interlocutore di turno.
Uno scrittore che ha saputo vedere molto meglio di tanti una realtà fino a poco tempo fa minimizzata dai giornalisti (o sottaciuta ... vero Bernardo Valli di Repubblica !?). Consiglio sul tema (e per capacità di analisi) l'ottimo giornalista Ahmed Rashid, uno che scoprì il fenomeno Taliban prima ancora che mettessero piede in Afghanistan.
Da un punto di vista stilistico ho notato alcune pecche nella eccessiva prolissità in alcune parti derivante, immagino, dal suo non essere avvezzo ad una prosa giornalistica. Solo per questo non do le 5 stelle.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating account of Islamic movement in the world, in particular Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia. V.S. Naipaul interviews the number of people of all walks of life in these countries who share their stories. This is the followup of his original book Among the Believers which was written a decade and a half earlier. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did and I learned much about the radicalism of Islam and its roots, topics that are so current in our present political environment.