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.

Myopic and racist.

"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."

Written with lot of understanding for human fallibility, vanity and ambition to become something impossible.

great scholar that naipaul is, he provides a general overview and characterization of islam in key countries from back in the day. definitely learned a lot from this book.

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.

Beyond Belief

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.

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!

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.

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.

Pretty enlightening...There are especially vivid descriptions of Indonesia's countryside (and social problems). The long chapters on Pakistan and Iran are particularly relevant even though the book was written in 1995.