Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey

by V.s. Naipaul

Release Date: 12 July, 1982

Edition: Paperback

Price:

More Info

Struck a nerve?

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.

Poor Mr. Naipaul, Nobody Likes Him

First of all I must state I didn't finish this book: Mr. Naipaul, as ever in his non-fiction, is so anxiously meticulous that, unless you are pretty darned interested in the topic at hand, and also familiar with the geography, you can get lost in all that fine detail.

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.