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."

For a two month period, this was my "insomnia book", the one that I read 20 pages at a time on those nights when I was suddenly wide awake at 3am.
As an insomnia book, I give this four stars.

However, as a "regular" book, this is nothing special. Naipaul interviews various people in Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia. I was uncomfortable as I read this, because Naipaul seemed judgmental of the people that he was interviewing. He asked them rude questions. For example, to a man whose father had suffered from mental illness, and who fathered a number of children after the illness manifested itself, Naipaul replied: "It sounds murderous." Not nice. He also didn't attempt to draw any conclusions. I dunno, if you are passing judgement then you should at least try to draw a conclusion or two, right?

I know very little about this history of any of these places, but particularly not about Indonesia. I found the first section on Indonesia very difficult to get through, and I frequently had little clue what was going on. This was less a problem with the other sections, because I had previous knowledge of the Iranian revolution, of the partition of India and Pakistan, etc. I probably would have gotten a lot more out of this read with a bit more background information.

Anyway, I'm done with the book now. Woo Hoo.

A subdued,subtle portrait of ordinary people living ordinary lives, rendered in Naipaul's gently evocative prose. There is no plot to speak of, so it often rambles. Sometimes boring, but never unpleasant.

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.

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.

Wonderful - Naipaul's writing style is a treat. Gives one a wonderful understanding of the role of Islam in the lives of people in 4 countries: Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

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.

A very curious, questioning and clear thinking in one of the best travel books

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.

I liked reading the stories and history of the people he met, but I would have liked to see more of the theme of how Islam intertwined with older customs. There were moments, but the book mostly just felt like a travelogue (which was fine).

Good book. He tells the Islamic story that he left when writing Among Believers. It helps us to understand Islamic world better as there is division among Arab and non Arab Muslims and their way of thinking.

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.