About book Among The Believers : An Islamic Journey (2003)
Buku Among the Believers (Bersama Kaum Beriman) mencatat “perjalanan Islami” V.S. Naipaul yang mencakup empat negara, yakni Republik Islam Iran, Republik Islam Pakistan, Kerajaan Malaysia dan Republik Indonesia. Pemberian nama lengkap masing-masing negara ini sepertinya diperlukan, untuk memberikan pelurusan terhadap istilah “negara islam” atau “Muslim countries” yang seringkali dipakai di konteks Ero-Amerika—Indonesia bukan negara Islam dan gerakan “negara Islam” merupakan salah satu gerakan subversif, begitu juga Malaysia yang selain penerapan banyak poin syariah Islam juga memiliki kebijakan resmi yang jelas-jelas bertentangan dengan hukum Islam. Sebagai seorang sastrawan yang juga pernah bekerja di BBC Karibia dan seorang yang mengaku tidak memiliki keyakinan agama, Naipaul memiliki pandangan yang cenderung menghargai nilai-nilai yang penting secara etika maupun politik, kurang simpati terhadap ritual, dan selalu mencurigai fundamentalisme.Perjalanan ini dimulai pada pertengahan tahun 1979 di Iran, ketika masih hangat-hangatnya Revolusi Islam di Iran. Iran, sepengamatan Naipaul, adalah sebuah negara yang masih “mati,” setelah ditumpasnya rezim Syah. Iran mengundang kembali Ayatollah Khomeini yang sebelum harus mengasingkan diri ke Perancis karena bertentangan pandang dengan rezim Syah. Dan kini, di mata Naipaul, Iran seperti negara yang masih belum pasti bagaimana akan menggerakkan motor pemerintahannya. Proyek-proyek yang dulunya dikerjakan oleh perusahaan-perusahaan asing kini mangkrak. Naipaul mengunjungi kota suci Qom, pusat pembelajaran Syiah di dunia. Ketika dipertemukan dengan para penggerak universitas tradisional tempat pembelajaran mahasiswa-mahasiswa dari segala penjuru dunia itu, Naipaul terheran-heran dengan “aura” jaman pertengahan yang ada dan juga publikasi yang cenderung mengajak perang (meskipun judul majalah itu Message of Peace). Dia berksempatan mengunjungi seorang Ayatollah Khalkhali yang merupakan tangan kanan Khomeini dan tidak simpati dengan sikap si Ayatollah yang membanggakan dirinya sebagai hakim yang memutuskan hukuman mati buat para mantan kroni rezim Syah, termasuk kebanggaannya memiliki senpi yang dipakai mengeksekusi Hoveida, Perdana Menteri terakhir Syah Iran. Atheismenya muncul pada sikapnya terhadap “tata kota Islami” yang mengharuskan tempat wudlu atau toilet menghadap ke arah tertentu, yang tentunya secara rasional tidak ada signifikansinya.Kemudian perjalanan berlanjut ke Pakistan—sebuah negara yang didirikan khusus pada tahun 1947 dengan harapan memberikan kebebasan semaksimal mungkin bagi Muslim India—yang juga masih segar dengan penerapan hukum Militer dan keputusan untuk menerapkan syariah Islam secara penuh. Di negara yang pemerintahannya baru saja menerapkan hukum militer di bawah pimpian Jendral Zia ul-Haq, Naipaul melihat bagaimana Pakistan adalah sebuah negara yang serba semrawut. Penerapan hukum Islam, yang dianggap para pemimpinnya sebagai konsekuensi dari sebuah negara dengan mayoritas penduduk Muslim, plus disertai semangat “memurnikan Islam kembali” seperti pada masa Rasulullah dan keempat khalifah pertama, yang sebenarnya bertentangan dengan cita-cita awal pendirian negara Islam di India sebagaimana digagas penyair Sir Muhammad Iqbal, sang bapak spiritual Pakistan, dan Mr. Jinnah, pendiri negara Islam Pakistan. Yang pada awalnya, menurut Iqbal dan Jinnah, bertujuan untuk memberikan kenyamanan hidup dan beribadah bagi kaum Muslim India, akhirnya menjadi sebuah negara yang pemerintahannya terjerumus memaksakan fundamentalisme. Naipaul sangat prihatin dengan pers yang semakin terjepit dan pemerintah yang masih kebingungan mencari cara menjalankan bank tanpa harus mengandalkan bunga yang “riba.” Dalam satu perjalanannya ke kawasan suku-suku nomaden, Naipaul prihatin dengan bagaimana sikap orang-orang lokal yang membenci pendatang.Selanjutnya Naipaul berkunjung ke Malaysia, yang ketika itu gerakan muda Islamnya mulai bangkit dan bergairah “menyucikan kembali Islam” dengan semangat syariah yang mengerupai Pakistan. Di sini Naipaul dikawani seorang pemandu yang merupakan tokoh pergerakan Islam yang berasal dari desa. Si pemandu sangat mendambakan kehidupan damai di desanya dan bagaimana kedamaian hidup di desa itu tidak lagi bisa ditemukan di kota, terutama karena persentuhan kaum Muslim di kota dengan orang-orang Malaysia lainnya, yakni keturunan Cina, India, dan Kamboja. Muslim kota mendambakan kehidupan yang tidak “terpolusi,” misalnya, oleh makanan yang bukan disajikan oleh Muslim. Mereka berusaha menciptakan lingkungan yang khusus berisi Muslim. Selain itu, mereka juga sangat bercita-cita menyerupai masyarakat Rasulullah, bahkan yang sangat menarik perhatian Naipaul adalah bagaimana Muslim fundamentalis Malaysia ini memakai baju Arab. Sayangnya, yang agak menonjol buat Naipaul, sepertinya orang-orang ini terkesan agak jorok, jubahnya kotor dan ketika ketika habis mengupil kotorannya ditolet-toletkan ke lengan kursi. Naipaul juga menyoroti ketidaktoleranan kaum fundamentalis ini, khususnya ketika mereka merusak patung-patung kaum Budha keturunan Kamboja yang membuat mereka akhirnya membunuh 4 di antara para perusak patung itu.Kunjungan Naipaul akhirnya sampai ke Indonesia, yang di mata Naipaul masih segar dengan kenangan pembantaian setengah juta (dan menurut sebagian sumber Naipaul, satu juga) orang yang dituduh komunis tapi juga memiliki gerakan Islam yang berpotensi menciptakan sejarah kelam lagi. Maka, pertemuannya dengan penyair Sitor Situmorang, yang pernah dipenjara tanpa bisa membaca dan menulis selama 10 tahun itu sangat berkesan baginya. Naipaul menyoroti kebingungan Sitor akan latar antropologisnya ketika dia sedang mencoba menulis otobiografinya. Naipaul mengunjungi pesantren di Jombang yang pernah dijadikan lahan studi Ivan Illych, tetapi kesan yang diterimanya kurang bagus karena guru ngaji pesantren itu tidak bisa berhenti dari tugas mengajarnya untuk menemui rombongan Naipaul. Selain itu juga dia berksempatan mengunjungi Gus Dur yang masih memimpin pondoknya sendiri waktu itu, tapi dia kurang simpati dengan murid-murid pondokan yang di matanya hanya “pura-pura” belajar waktu malam hari, atau dengan kata lain pembelajarannya tidak efektif. Dalam kunjungannya ke Jogja, bersama Umar Kayam dan penyair Linus Suryadi, Naipaul terpesona dengan unggah-ungguh Umar Kayam dan orang-orang Jogja dan bagaimana Islam di Jawa adalah Islam yang datang ke masyarakat Hindu-Bunda dan menggunakan elemen-elemen Hindu Budha yang masih layak pakai, demikian juga dengan agama Kristen, agama keluarganya Linus Suryadi. Satu hal yang menarik perhatian Naipaul lainnya adalah gerakan Imaduddin di Institut Teknologi Yogyakarta, yang mengajarkan Islam dengan cara yang benar-benar berbeda dengan yang dilakukan Muslim di negara lain. Selain itu, Naipaul juga menyinggung adanya kecurigaan pemerintah Indonesia akan adanya “penyakit Malaysia,” yakni fundamentalisme Islam ala Malaysia yang mulai menyusup ke Indonesia. Setelah perbincangan dengan seorang pengusaha asal Sulawesi di Hotel Borobudur, yang memiliki sentimen sangat negatif terhadap orang-orang Cina dan pengusaha internasional, yang berbicara dengan emosi meledak-ledak, Naipaul berasumsi bahwa tragedi pembantaian komunis pada tahun 1965 memang sangat mungkin terjadi di Indonesia. Naipaul mengakhiri lawatannya dengan kembali ke Pakistan dan kemudian ke Iran, di mana ketika itu penyanderaan historis Kedubes Amerika oleh mahasiswa Muslim tengah berlangsung (penyanderaan itu dimulai pada bulan November 1979 dan baru berakhir pada bulan Januari 1981, di mana kabarnya Ahmadinejad juga terlibat, tapi tentunya waktu itu Naipaul nggak kenal Ahmadinejad dan sama sekali tidak disinggung soal dia). Pemilihan Presiden sudah dilaksanakan dan kelompok para ulama kalah dengan calon presiden dari kalangan non-ulama.Pandangan paul yang sangat sekuler (dalam artian paling positif dari kata sekuler ini) ini tidak begitu saja lolos di hadir di rak buku pembaca dunia tanpa menuai kritikan. Menurut tulisan kang Sigit Susanto Napak Tilas V.S. Naipaul di majalah Pantau tahun 2001-2002(?), ada beberapa kritik pedas yang dituai Naipaul. Salah satu kritik yang paling banyak didengar pembaca internasional adalah kritikan dari Edward Said yang mengkritik Naipaul dengan mengatakan:"Naipaul bukan seorang orientalis apalagi seorang pencari fakta yang handal. Dia adalah seseorang dari Dunia Ketiga, yang mengemas dan mengirim kembali dari Dunia Ketiga untuk dikonsumsikan pada pembaca liberal Barat, yang tak pernah mendengar mitologi Dunia Ketiga tentang gerakan kemerdekaan, revolusi, dan keburukan kolonialisme, yang mana dalam pendapat Naipaul tak diterangkan sama sekali tentang penderitaan negara-negara Asia dan Afrika, yang jatuh dalam kemiskinan, pendidikan yang buruk." (Edward Said diambil dari tulisan kang Sigit)Gus Dur dalam bukunya Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela, juga menurut Sigit Susanto (yang memang melakukan perbandingan antara Among the Believers, Beyond Belief, dan buku Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela), melontarkan kekecewaannya atas telaah Naipaul. Demikian saya akhiri postingan ini dengan kutipan dari Napak Tilas V.S. Naipaul.Gus Dur sendiri kecewa dengan Among the Believers. Dalam buku karangannya Tuhan Tidak Perlu Dibela, Gus Dur menyatakan kesannya terhadap Naipaul dengan menulis, "Sayangnya kunjungan Naipaul ke dunia pesantren tidak membuatnya memahami keadaan secara lebih baik, ironisnya kunjungan yang dilakukannya itu justru ke pesantren Tebuireng di Jombang dan Pabelan di Muntilan, tempat bermulanya upaya tersebut."Sumber:1. Among the Believers - V.S. Naipaul (1981)2. Napak Tilas V.S. Naipaul - Sigit Susanto (Pantau 2001-2002?)
2001 Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul is a master of English prose. His travelogues are awesome piece of English literature. They give a glimpse of daily life of the people as well the history of the events leading to current situation. In last week i read his masterpiece, its a survey of the condition of Islam among the converted people of Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia. Among the believers: An Islamic journey is a thought provoking book as it was written in 1979-81 but it seems that its written in the current era. Naipaul starts his journey in Iran in 1979 (just after the revolution) and travels across Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia in a span of few months. His perceptions and experiences of these societies and the inherent struggle between the culture and religion is worth experiencing.Islam was founded by Prophet Muhammad and so it has all the ingredients of Arabic culture. It was a phenomenal revolution in the desert life and for the people with no sense pf civilization. Prophet gave them a way out from the eternal darkness. He brought the idea of unity without any caste, money, language or region based distinction. It is an absolute concept in its pure form. The problem started after the death of Prophet in 632 AD. Islam had to face its first great rival in the civilization of great Sassanian civilization. Islam overpowered that easily but in doing that it got a different version of its self. It is Shiite form of Islam that believes in the Shiite Imams. Almost all the Persians were converted to Islam (either willingly or by coercion). But they were successful in giving Islam a great civilization in arts, music, science etc. Arabia gave religion while Persia gave Islam its true glory. Iran (aka Persia) even today has the same language that they used to speak when Alexander the great decimated them although they had to change the script because of Arab imperial master. But in all the last 1360 years Iran never accepted the Arab imperialism. Lets talk about Pakistan. Pakistan was a home to world's first great urban civilization 5000 years back. It was home to the great king Porus who was able to hold against the mighty Greeks. It was land where great Kushanas ruled, where great Buddhists monasteries and caves flourished. The ancient land of Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians does not have any monument of that era and even if it has then its in great danger of extinction. The hordes of Mohammed Bin Qasim who decimated the power of Sindh is celebrated in that land. Pakistan has even named its missiles Ghori and Ghazni, the two notorious invaders who invaded Pakistan and destroyed and killed the people of Pakistan before then could get a foot hold into India. I can not understand how a country can glorify its invaders. This can only happen in subcontinent. People with no sense of history can not develop a civilization worth cherishing. Pakistan is suffering from that disease and if it really wants to cure itself then it has to learn from Persia. Islamization of a country does not mean destroying its old culture, art, monuments, music etc. But unfortunately its been happening in almost all the converted countries. Malaysia and Pakistan are prime examples. Every civilization is built on the ashes of others and this cycle is law of time. Be it Greek, Roman, Indian, Persian or Spanish but other ways are also possible. Civilizations can also co-exist and if this experiment was never done before then its worth doing now. The "Victory" of Islam should never mean the "defeat" of other religions.
Do You like book Among The Believers : An Islamic Journey (2003)?
This book is about Naipaul's travels to Muslim countries which are not Arab. The prose is smooth and it flows like a tranquil torrent. Naipaul's main theme is, and it is repeatedly quoted, almost to an annoying degree, how Muslims of these countries wanted to reject the encircling Western civilization while enjoying its fruits. However, they had little of their own civilization, in fact nothing but a dream to relive and enact 7th century Arabia. And the struggle for it. I particularly read the part of the book about Pakistan with interest because this is where I live. If you expect to find the book's Pakistan you'd be astonished to discover that the country has changed a lot. The book focused mainly on Karachi which was a peaceful metropolitan then, now it's one of the most unstable and violent areas of Pakistan with ethnic, sectarian and religious strife. Then, Naipaul talked about the interior Sindh which is now almost as undeveloped as it was then, he actually recounted the whole Chachnama with his own interpretation of that histroy. Then, he skipped the main hinterland, Punjab which he described as marshy, waterlogged and covered with salt. And he only came back from the North to Punjab to find something about Raiwand and Ahmadis in Rabwah, amid salt hills of Punjab. Now-a-days, Punjab is the most developed part of Pakistan with the most agricultural produce. When he skipped Punjab, he quickly reached the foothills of Himalayas, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. They were two little towns then, now they have sprawled into each other and just last month connected by a high speed metro bus.Like the urban geography, attitudes have also changed. People are less prone to bring in Islamic law in the country. Many of the Islamic laws that were promulgated during the period of Zia-when Naipaul visited the country- have been repealed and more are about to go( can't rule out the possibility of a reversal though). There is a second democratic government in office and a strong democratic tradition is developing. Global and local events have also affected the way people's attitudes have changed. Extremists who want to impose strict Islamic law are at war with the Pakistan Army and have targeted civilians and state apparatus numerous times with terrorist attacks. ISIS which has implemented strict 7th century law in Iraq and Syria is much derided. There are people still, who want to see 'Islam in action' as a character in the book put it, however, more and more people are becoming keen on the separation of the faith and the state. My point is that the book has become part of the history now. It is not contemporary, but still it gives us a peak into that era and what captured the minds of people of this region and faith at that point in history.
—Ali Gilani
I approached Naipaul's account of his travels through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia with some trepidation, expecting a screed based on what I have read about him and of his writings. My apprehension was unfounded. Naipaul is not as much vitriolic as repetitive and static in his reporting. His main thesis is that Islam, from its Shia incarnation in post Islamic-Revolution Iran to the animist incorporating version of Indonesia, offers only ideas; it fails to provide structure, institutions or a comprehensive political and legal system that is consistent and coherent for this century. This, in spite of the claims by those he meets and talks to, that Islam is a complete social system that has failed only because of men and not for any fundamental flaw in and of itself. This point is well made and I generally agree with the thesis, well expressed in the following excerpt - "..Other people in spiritually barren lands will continue to produce the equipment the doctor is proud of possessing and the medical journals he is proud of reading. The expectation - of others continuing to create, of the alien, necessary civilization going on - is implicit in the act of renunciation, and is its great flaw."Naipaul returns to this theme over and over again - "Wouldn't it have been better for Muslims to trust less to the saving faith and to sit down hard-headedly to work out institutions? Wasn't that an essential part of the history of civilization, after all: the conversion of ethical ideas into institutions?" and "The West, or the universal civilization it leads, is emotionally rejected. It undermines, it threatens. But at the same time it is needed for its machines, goods, medicines, warplanes, the remittances from the emigrants, the hospitals that might have a cure for calcium deficiency, the universities that will provide master's degrees in mass media. All the rejection of the West is contained within the assumption that there will always exist out there a living, creative civilization, oddly neutral, open to all to appeal to. Rejection, therefore, is not absolute rejection. It is also, for the community as a whole, a way of ceasing to strive intellectually. It is to be parasitic: parasitism is one of the unacknowledged fruits of fundamentalism." Couldn't agree more. My trouble with the book is its absolute lack of sympathy. Mr. Naipaul seems to have formed a thesis, and then gone about his travels having conversations and encounters to prove himself right. He doesn't seem to step out of this framework at all, offers nothing besides this single, inflexible thesis. There are no people in this book, simply caricatures illustrating the point. Perhaps the closest Mr. Naipaul comes to expressing warmth for someone is when he narrates his encounter with the Indonesian poet Sitor Situmorang, and that's a part of the book that seems independent from the rest of the work.
—Ubaid Dhiyan
There are two ways of writing about a country's history. One is to give a societal view at an aggregate level where chronological events give an overview of the country; the other is to narrate the history seen through the eyes of the people living in that country. The latter approach requires painstaking travel, meticulous observation, objective listening and faithful translation of the message from the countrymen. Naipaul has done a superlative job of this visiting the Islamic states of Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia in the seventies. The contemporary issues of revolution, religious fundamentalism, political anarchies and economic backwardness of these countries are vividly described along with the context of why they are where they are. Thoroughly enjoyable.
—Sambasivan
