This book is remarkable in the relevance of the authors experiences in the early 80s to the present day context. The author visits a cross section of countries in the Islamic world , moving from revolution in Iran to foment in South East Asia. Its a great book to get a fair understanding of Islam in a political context as envisioned by citizens in the countries that he visits. The author starts of with Iran and comes across a cross section of individuals who are hopeful and disillusioned by what the revolution has delivered. The most remarkable is his visit to the city of Qom (the Oxford of Persia), in the month of Ramadan. His meetings with leading theologians, one of whom personally shot the Shah's prime minister lends a touch of the macabre. The setting shifts to Pakistan which after three decades of independence is still struggling to deliver on its promise of being the land of the pure. The shariat has been imposed by Zia, but there's very little which seems to have been changed for the lay citizens. With the setting moving to South East Asia, the book loses its edge, compared to the surprisingly diverse perspectives of Islam that the author manages to extricate in Iran and Pakistan, both Indonesia and Malaysia offer a unidimensional perspective.
Its remarkable that the author manages to get access to the people that he finally interviews for the book given that he is a non-Muslim. Though a lot of the discussions are laced with his perspective, there seems to be minimal prejudice. A good book to get a broad perspective of the implementation of Islam in a political context

Naipal begins his journey in Iran, just after the its revolution. Then he visits Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia and returns to Iran just after the taking of the hostages at the US embassy. He meets educators, writers, government workers, students and the unemployed in cities and rural areas. Some he seeks out, others he meets serrindipituously. He asks them about their lives and their hopes for the future.

Two refrains emerge. One is cognitive dissonance regarding the west. It is a despised place of indulgence and evil and a preferred place for an education, trustworthy medicine, consumer products and residence. The other is the view that an Islamic state is perfect. Despite the example of Pakistan, where citizens scheme and lineup to leave, most believe that once a true Islamic state is achieved everything will work out. Naipaul observes that Islamic government as practiced in Pakistan is about punishing with whips and stones, military rule and poverty. Naipaul summarizes the understanding among those he meets as to what it takes to run successful "institutions", "it's as though the world is running itself." He sees some schools merely teaching the young how to be poor. For one school he makes a Dickensian comparison to Nicholas Nickleby.

It may be that the quotes are selectively edited, but they all seem to be within context. Sometimes, concerning the refrains, speakers are asked to clarify, or for others to clarify what was said, or are given a pithy question. In these cases, the original point was usually emphasized and never denied. Some reviewers have implied that Naipaul had preconceived notions before this trip. If Naipaul did begin his trip with a bias, his speakers confirmed it.

Naipaul presents almost no women's voices. They must be half the population of the countries he visited, but they comprise far less than 5% of the book.

The only females with full interviews are two school girls identified by the color of their robes. One woman is described more than interviewed; however, had she not been a member of a sect of interest, she might not have been included at all. The gender issue is the most obvious example of the disconnect in Islamic culture. Naipaul misses or skips over all the chivalric language of his interviewees. They talk of Islam protecting women. They debate whether women should do this or that. Naipaul is not shy in calling them on their western disconnect, but gives them a pass here. Whether or not the interviewees themselves oppress women, their disconnect here, is every bit as important, if not more important than the issues Naipaul emphasizes in this book.

Naipal begins his journey in Iran, just after the its revolution. Then he visits Pakistan, Malaysian and Indonesia and returns to Iran just after the taking of the hostages at the US embassy. He meets educators, writers, government workers, students and the unemployed in cities and rural areas. Some he seeks out, others he meets serrindipituously. He asks them about their lives and their hopes for the future.

Two refrains emerge. One is cognitive dissonance regarding the west. It is a place of indulgence and evil and yet a place for an education, trustworthy medicine and consumer products. The other is the view that an Islamic state is perfect. Despite the example of Pakistan, where citizens scheme and lineup to leave, most believe that once a true Islamic state is achieved everything will work out. Naipaul observes that Islamic government as practiced in Pakistan is about punishing with whips and stones, military rule and poverty. Naipaul summarizes the understanding among those he meets as to what it takes to run successful "institutions", "it's as though the world is running itself." He sees some schools merely teaching the young how to be poor. For one school he makes a Dickensian comparison to Nicholas Nickleby.

It may be that the quotes are selectively edited, but they all seem to be within context. Sometimes, concerning the refrains, speakers are asked to clarify, or for others to clarify what was said, or are given a pithy question. In these cases, the original point was usually emphasized and never denied. Some reviewers have implied that Naipaul had preconceived notions before this trip. If Naipaul did begin his trip with a bias, his speakers confirmed it.

Naipaul presents almost no women's voices. They must be half the population of the countries he visited, but they comprise far less than 5% of the book.

The only females with full interviews are two school girls identified by the color of their robes. One woman is described more than interviewed; however, had she not been a member of a sect of interest, she might not have been included at all. The gender issue is the most obvious example of the disconnect in Islamic culture. Naipaul misses or skips over all the chivalric language of his interviewees. They talk of Islam protecting women. They debate whether women should do this or that. Naipaul is not shy in calling them on their western disconnect, but gives them a pass here. Whether or not the interviewees themselves oppress women, their disconnect here, is every bit as important, if not more important than the issues Naipaul emphasizes in this book.

Naipal begins his journey in Iran, just after the its revolution. After visiting Pakistan, Malaysian and Indonesia, he returns to Iran just after the taking of the hostages at the US embassy.

He meets educators, writers, government workers, students and the unemployed in cities and rural areas. He asks them about their lives and their hopes for the future.

Two refrains emerge. One is cognitive dissonance regarding the west. It is a place of evil and a place for an education, trustworthy medicine and consumer products. The other is the view that an Islamic state is perfect. Despite the example of Pakistan, where citizens scheme and lineup to leave, most believe that once a true Islamic state is achieved everything will work out. Naipaul observes that Islamic government as practiced in Pakistan is about punishing with whips and stones, military rule and poverty. There is little understanding as to what it takes to run successful institutions, for his interviewees "It's as though the world is running itself."

Some reviewers have implied that Naipaul had preconceived notions before this trip. If he did, I don't fault him, because the speakers conformed to them. In this book the speakers, more than the reporter, are important. I DO fault Naipaul for having almost no women's voices.

The only females with full interviews are two school girls identified by the color of their robes. One woman is described more than interviewed; however, had she not been a member of a sect of interest, she might not have been included at all. The gender issue is the most obvious example of the disconnect in Islamic culture. Naipaul misses or skips over all the chivalric language of his interviewees. They talk of Islam protecting women. They debate whether women should do this or that. Naipaul is not shy in calling them on their western disconnect, but gives them a pass here. Whether or not the interviewees themselves oppress women, their disconnect here, is every bit as important, if not more important than the issues Naipaul emphasizes in this book.

Notwithstanding hysterical criticisms leveled in negative reviews here, Naipaul does a great job pointing out the basic emptiness of religious fundamentalism. Of course, it focuses on Islam, but blame that on the times: in the early eighties, where was Naipaul supposed to find--say--Catholic fundamentalism?

Naipaul presents his commentary as a travelogue--very creative! By letting his characters speak for themselves, he avoids overt and heavy-handed commentary. But the points he makes are very clear, very true, and--if your sympathies lie with the other side--fatal to fundamentalism.

The central insight--to me, anyway--was that Islamic fundamentalism is all about controlling women. In this respect, of course, it is similar to all fundamentalism, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, whatever. But it does reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy at the heart of all fundamentalism.

Great book!

I was reading this book on September 11th, 2001 in preparation for a trip to Cairo, Egypt that I subsequently cancelled. I literally had the book open as the first plane hit the World Trade Center - I know because I was exercising on a stair master in a gym on the Jersey side of the Hudson, with a clear view of the towers.

The attack on the towers was so stunningly awful (in part because I had 2 friends with an office on the 95th floor) that I left after I saw the huge fireball and forgot to retrieve the book. The next day someone had put it in the trash. I didn't bother to take it out because I had almost finished reading.

For some reason, I don't like Naipaul's fiction, but am not sure why. However, I found "Among the Believers" much more engaging: particularly with regard to its insights into the contradictions of life in Iran as well as the discussion of strict Islam in northern Pakistan.

If you find such topics interesting, and enjoy fiction, you might try a recently published novel, SAUDI MATCH POINT from Blacksmith Books. It's a thriller, set entirely in Saudi Arabia - the strictest of all Islamic societies. The writing is clear, concise, and suspenseful. Plus it gives insights into the cultural side of Islam and how the nation's interpretation of the religion affects different classes of people who happen to live there - from the underclass and women, to the privileged elite and Shi'ite minority, as well as to foreigners working in separate enclaves.

Belief is a peculiar thing. It can promote optimism, unite people, provide social cohesion and stabilize governments, economies and cultures. Conversely it can fragment social systems, promote suspicion, stagnate progress and entrench a worldview so bound by its own circular logic, it begins to consume itself.
V.S. Naipaul writes convincingly, critically and often with a detached sadness of his journeys in the Muslim nations of Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia. Of intense interest to Westerners hoping to better understand these three non-Arab Muslim nations are a few key themes Naipaul hammers away at: How do these Muslim nations, with populaces often aggravated with the West, reconcile their use of Western technology, Western medicine, Western business theory and Western pop culture? How do Muslim emigrants and exchange students from the aforementioned countries reconcile their orthodox beliefs with the freedom and egalitarianism they encounter in the West? How do Western-educated Muslims reconcile their exploitation of Western openness, with their desire to suppress the very same freedoms in the countries they return to? How does Islam syncretize the cultural practices and regional religions that predated the introduction of Islam? What are the ramifications when an institutionalized faith supplants logic, ethics and the self-critique needed for national growth?

The answers to these questions are fascinating, illuminating, frightening and often humorous. Instead of broad anthropological observations, Naipaul actually finds the answers to these questions by spending an enormous amount of time with individuals at all levels of the social strata. He asks questions, interviewing incessantly, probing, prodding, finding out what makes the people in these societies tick. The results of his exhausting character profiles are fascinating.

Of intense relevance are the conclusions that Naipaul wasn't able to draw in 1981 when Among the Believers was published. We could expound upon Naipaul's observations then and hypothesize that as the exhausting attempts to create a romanticized, modern day "pure" Islamic state (complete with archaic Islamic law, Koranic-inspired science, usury-free banking, orthodox social customs, education, etc.) fail over and over again in places like Pakistan, Iran and Malaysia; extremism increasingly takes hold. The West with its obsession with modernity and radical free thinking becomes enemy number one. The "faith" must increasingly find outward enemies when attempts to succeed from within fail.

A fascinating, gripping journey into a world most of us will never know but increasingly need to understand.

Naiapul has a keen sense of observation and the most astute mind to have a look at things that are not easily discernible to most of social scientists. In this seminal work, Naipaul shows how Muslims in Non Arab regions are twice colonized people. Naipaul covers the history , geography and culture of varied Moslems in this book. The books finds out how an Arab faith imposed on local peoples has destroyed their individuality and capability to think freely. Books like these have made Naipaul a NObel prize winner. This book is a must read for all who wish to understand the devastating effects of Islam

Why pick such a book and its sequel?
As a witness of growing current international tensions, my aim is to understand what makes the present Islamic world tick, and what drives its current evolution.
What source can best help do that?
A broad academic thesis/synthesis? A resident foreign correspondent's book? An independent on-site inquiry with a specific focus? I chose the latter option, on the chance that it would lend itself less to bias.
What author to trust and turn to?
This topic is hot, and more than ever politicized, today. Authors sensationalising the facts or pandering to current political correctness or social prejudice, just to boost sales, are rife on the market. What we need here is a bridge-man formed, through some accident of birth, by both East and West, a humanitarian, preferably agnostic, a universal man relatively at home everywhere and nowhere, a traveller and philosopher with no strong allegiance to any particular side but rich with the best values of both sides, with an empathy for men of goodwill and a commitment to truth wherever he finds it. I chose this learned man of integrity (whom l'Express calls: "the Diogenes of the East" and to whom Sweden has awarded a Nobel Prize). My `independent observer': J.S. Naipaul. (I know his stuff from "A Bend in the River": his fictionalised depiction as a marginalised Indian resident of an African country foundering into the corruption and anarchy of a failed state was detached, almost clinical, while remaining sensitive to the grim fate of the little people who are the ones who pay the dearest price of those struggles for political power in which most have no say).
What will you find?
VS.Naipaul's goal was to find out, through interviews of key local peoples, how effectively and successfully Islamic countries were implementing their revolutionary vision for maximum social good. VSN has an amazingly sharp eye and perceptiveness, never missing a clue. He has a capacity to follow up on intuitions with courteous but persistent intellectual curiosity, gently steering his interlocutors into rationalising their positions, with surprising results -- Results that reveal with unexpected depth the world of individual hopes, doubts, dreams, aspirations, as well as the occasional contradictions or delusions held by the encounters made in many walks of life. Discoveries that he eventually crystallises into insights of far reaching significance you want to keep in mind as hypotheses for further study. He leaves you with the rich and complex fabric that makes up key facets of the current psyche and mood of each of the countries or nations visited (Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia of 1990).
His assessment: fundamentalist movements may inspire a spirit of reform, unity and hope in the Islamic countries that embrace this ideology, but once in power, theocracies do not follow up with practical policies to implement those ideals as temporal social infrastructures and mechamisms that are essential to tap, channel and weave the creative energies of those respective nations into a promising future. This hiatus on the notion of government whereby religious fervour, exhortation and policing are considered the only answer required to restore a nation to socio-economic health is already showing signs of gravely stymying the potential of those nations.
In this mosaic of observations, some of the vignettes or profiles presented stand out as iconic of the tragic plight of those elites whose countries grope for advancement against formidable odds, a number of which appear unfortunately self-generated. This approach, conducted at face-to-face level leaves you with an unforgettable sense of fellowship with the various men of goodwill met, many of them courageous and admirable even if fallible, whether engaged in their life-long struggle for greater freedom for themselves and for their people, or caught in the turmoil of a social upheaval beyond anyone's power to manage successfully on the short term. This book presents with genuine empathy haunting snapshots of how painstaking and tortuous history-in-the-making can be in finding solutions that truly benefit the people's long term well being. Wishing you good reading! "Among the Believers: ...." is well worth the effort.

Naipaul's late 1970s travels and my own, Pakistan apart, must nearly have coincided. So I was especially keen to take succour from an older, wiser man possessing an historical and philosophical net I lack. He also had connections and introductions to make swift incursions into the social fabric. I was enthusiastic but lacking languages other than english, remained a 'rubber necked' tourist through most of my encounters. Like Naipaul, an unbeliever, the islamic cultures placed other veils, and 'mysterious' codes of behaviour before me, the transient outsider. And it is just these veils that his stately intelligence helps part, if not lift. The Sunni, Shiite division are outlined in any backpacker's guide. But the historical setting of their respective introductions to the countries under question and their cultural, geographic and economic bases are incisively dealt with for the common reader. The overriding impression his experiences make is that 'in the days of Muslim glory Islam opened itself to the learning of the world. Now fundamentalism provides an intellectual thermostat, set low. It equalises, comforts, shelters and preserves'. Time and again he cites examples of muslims who have embraced the rebirth of Islam yet been in various states of denial regards the dependence on the 'evil' capitalistic nations of the 'West'. Naipaul talks to taxi drivers, teachers and journalists. Not a few have benifited from travel and education in countries of the 'infidel'. The failure of Islamic societies to create successful economic and institutional structures compounds, in Naipaul's summary, the tensions between hopes and realisations, both personal and collective. Faith or submission to Islam is given as the salve by even the most stident critics within the societies. Naipaul's impression is bleak and I suspect his updated book would confirm these early 80s conclusions that faith alone will not rescue struggling Islamic societies.

This is a book that be surrenderes to a bias from the very first sentence in the book.

Mr. Naipaul, the Indian-born author, takes exception to many Islamic beliefs and allows him to fall in the trap of letting personal feelings come in the way of historical analysis.

The book unfortunately is therefore corrupted from that perspective.

Better bet would be to read: "Journeys in Islamic Countries" by John C. Bennett who unlike Naipaul isn't held hostage to his anti-Muslim passion but rather lets his impartial accounts do the talking.

This book brought Naipaul a lot of condemnation when it was first published. But his insights into the Islamic world, its backwardnesses its inability to deal with modernity proved to be prescient.
The fact is that what Samuel Huntington has called ' the arc of violence' in which Islamic groups are involved in violent conflict in a large number of places throughout the world, is something sensed by Naipaul.
At the time it seemed to many that this kind of ' vast generalization' about what is in effect a whole civilization must be mistaken. But 9/11 Al Quaeda, Darfur, the rise thoughout the Muslim world of violent totalitarian extremists calling for 'total war' on the West are confirmation of the vast dislocations in spirit and decency, Naipaul observed.

It helps that the author is not christian. Prepared to be depressed. You will have a better understanding than our president!!

When I first read this book, I enjoyed it. I was bothered, however, by Naipaul's peevish tone. After reading many other things by Naipaul I returned to this book. What I thought was simple peevishness, it seems clear to me now, is mean-spiritedness. And it is directed quite often toward Muslim people - not just fanatic Muslims, all Muslims.