About book Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among The Converted Peoples (1999)
Empecé a leer este libro hacia 2002 o 2003. Lo dejé después de haber leído la parte correspondiente a Malasia e Indonesia y lo retomé en 2008 para leer la parte que trata sobre Irán, poco antes de realizar mi viaje a este país. La impresión que recibí en mi primer contacto con el libro es radicalmente distinta de la que tuve en 2008. La primera vez, mientras leía estas páginas no daba crédito a lo que contaba este buen hombre: además de su proverbial mal humor, hosquedad, sequedad y borderío de los que hacía gala en sus encuentros con los entrevistados (algo que ya había sufrido en su libro sobre la India), de su permanente desdén hacia pueblos y gentes que se lo montan tan mal, en fin, aparte de esto, defendía una tesis curiosa: los pueblos musulmanes no árabes son conversos, aunque se trate de una conversión de hace centenares de años. Por tanto, son pueblos sometidos, con una identidad aplastada, etc. etc. Entiendo que se critique al islam, como al cristianismo, al hinduismo o a cualquier otra religión, pero esta idea no tiene ni pies ni cabeza. Es como calificar a franceses, españoles, latinoamericanos y otros tantos pueblos de conversos al cristianismo. ¿Es la religión cristiana propia de estos países? ¿Fue aquí donde nació o no fue más bien impuesta hace quinientos o mil quinientos años? ¿Por qué los iraníes son conversos al islam y los británicos no lo son al cristianismo? ¿No deberían estos últimos estar adorando dioses sajones y germánicos? Calificar a un pueblo de converso es un disparate de impresión. Conversos son los hombres y mujeres que cambian de religión, no personas que tendrían que remontarse varias generaciones (a veces siglos) para encontrar un antepasado que no profesase la misma religión que ellas han mamado.Apuntes que tomé mientras leía las dos primeras partes:Parece que se regodea en ser borde (charla con sr. Wahid p. 57). Escasa empatía, falta de interés en resultar agradable. Cuenta cosas demasiado especializadas, sobre la enseñanza en escuelas rurales sin apenas explicar nada sobre el fondo del asunto, sin dar información complementaria y necesaria. Llega a conclusiones rápidamente, sin molestarse en explicar qué es lo que le parece criticable (p. 58). Deforma la historia (p. 58, 47) sobre la llegada del islam y Europa a Indonesia y el avance que estaba experimentando el islam imponiéndose como fuerza colonizadora.Entonces tomé muchas notas que en mi opinión reflejaban prejuicios sin argumentar del autor: pp. 47, 58, 73, 77, 81, 82, 83, 91, 98, 118, 122, 143.Como digo, en 2008 volví a retomarlo y leí el capítulo sobre Irán. En este caso, Naipaul me pareció mucho más comedido y no encontré ninguna salida de tono espectacular. Seguía siendo un tipo seco, pero ya no lo vi tan rematadamente borde y no aparentaba tener esos prejuicios tan salidos de madre. En sus entrevistas se limita a comprobar el estado calimotoso en que se encuentra el país y sus ideales revolucionarios. Ya había visitado Irán en 1979 y encuentra a antiguos revolucionarios desencantados y clérigos venidos a menos y con su esfera de poder e influencia muy mermadas. En este sentido, ofrece un interesante retrato del anquilosamiento del régimen.Una cita a este respecto:“En 1979 y 1980 (…) los apóstoles del renacer islámico no paraban de decir que el islam era una forma de vida completa, y cuando yo volví a Irán se veía que el islam político era una forma completa de control.” (p. 322)Sin embargo, Naipaul no puede dejar de lado su tendenciosidad, hasta el punto de defender lo indefendible: el colonialismo. “Irán nunca fue oficialmente una colonia. En diversos sentidos, su destino fue aún peor (…). Casi en cuanto pasó a ser colonia británica, la India empezó a revitalizarse, a recibir la nueva cultura de Europa, a acoger las instituciones que iban unidas a esa cultura. (...) Irán entraría en el siglo XX únicamente con la idea de la realeza oriental y la anticuada erudición teológica de lugares como Qom.” (p. 334)Intencionadamente, olvida la influencia que desde el siglo XIX ejercieron rusos, británicos y norteamericanos o la deposición del modernizador laico Mossadegh mediante un golpe de estado ejecutado con la imprescindible ayuda de anglonorteamericanos.De todos modos, me pregunto en qué medida las diferencias entre las dos primeras capítulos y la tercera corresponden al autor y en qué medida se deben a cambios en mi criterio. Para saberlo tendría que releer el libro entero y, sinceramente, estoy seguro de que hay millones de páginas que merecen más mi atención que estas.
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.
Do You like book Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among The Converted Peoples (1999)?
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.
—Sehar Moughal
Description: 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 Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia--lands where descendants of Muslim converts live at odds with indigenous traditions, and where dreams of Islamic purity clash with economic and political realities.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.Genre: Non Fiction | History | Religiont
—Bettie☯
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.
—Lauren
