04-20-2004, 06:29 AM
Quote from somebody
---------
i agree with naipaul's analysis of the dangers of islamic fundamentalism. ultimately, however, this is a baseless analysis, because as haroon says above, naipaul is a fanatic. he hates islamic fundamentalism because it's just like his own. islamic fundamentalism is obsessed with perceived and actual muslim weaknesses, especially compared to the past, and how islamic momentum has been "stolen" by an ascendant western world.
many hindus blame islam for keeping india down, though of course this doesn't analyze the simple fact that: if india was indeed "kept down" -- and that is very, very debatable, as who would consider the taj mahal a sign of being kept down? (naipaul in fact does: he hates the taj mahal) -- then something kept it down. that you do not mention this explains clearly what muslims have been so irked about all along. only their fundamentalism is paid attention to. the united statess' sanctions on iraq have killed more people than islamic terrorism has in the last 30 years together, yet who claims the US is a great danger to the world (other than so many muslims, peaceful or not).
here are some quotes re: naipaul, from the article Naipual's Middle Passage to India, Sagarika Ghose:
1. "On the one hand, he states that the BJP movement is a âmovement from the earthâ, that the destruction of the Babri masjid was a manifestation of âHindu awakeningâ."
2. "Sir Vidia believes there can be no âreturn to the pastâ. Yet he also celebrates Indiaâs return to the past. He believes firmly in the BJP, but he doesnât tell us how he is going to safeguard his views from becoming an apologia for the VHP mob. At the recent Bharatiya Pravasi Divas celebrations he thundered that Indians must shed their sense of victimhood. But in A Wounded Civilisation, he had written that unless Indians wake up to a racial sense, of a sense of being a single race against other races, it will be calamitous for India.
3. "He believes âinherently fanaticalâ Islam was the greatest calamity to befall India yet says nothing on contemporary Hindu fanaticism. He urges the intelligentsia to reclaim Hindutva from the mob, but has no ideas on how this can be done."
He is a great writer, do not get me wrong. But he is also an apologist for terrorist thought-processes, his hatred for the islamic variety no different than a member of Gush Emumim's views would be towards, say, Palestinian Islamic movements in their totality.
If you can read Naipaul's analysis of Islam in this light, you have a better perspective. Even then, he overwhelmingly contradicts himself in his books...
---------
i agree with naipaul's analysis of the dangers of islamic fundamentalism. ultimately, however, this is a baseless analysis, because as haroon says above, naipaul is a fanatic. he hates islamic fundamentalism because it's just like his own. islamic fundamentalism is obsessed with perceived and actual muslim weaknesses, especially compared to the past, and how islamic momentum has been "stolen" by an ascendant western world.
many hindus blame islam for keeping india down, though of course this doesn't analyze the simple fact that: if india was indeed "kept down" -- and that is very, very debatable, as who would consider the taj mahal a sign of being kept down? (naipaul in fact does: he hates the taj mahal) -- then something kept it down. that you do not mention this explains clearly what muslims have been so irked about all along. only their fundamentalism is paid attention to. the united statess' sanctions on iraq have killed more people than islamic terrorism has in the last 30 years together, yet who claims the US is a great danger to the world (other than so many muslims, peaceful or not).
here are some quotes re: naipaul, from the article Naipual's Middle Passage to India, Sagarika Ghose:
1. "On the one hand, he states that the BJP movement is a âmovement from the earthâ, that the destruction of the Babri masjid was a manifestation of âHindu awakeningâ."
2. "Sir Vidia believes there can be no âreturn to the pastâ. Yet he also celebrates Indiaâs return to the past. He believes firmly in the BJP, but he doesnât tell us how he is going to safeguard his views from becoming an apologia for the VHP mob. At the recent Bharatiya Pravasi Divas celebrations he thundered that Indians must shed their sense of victimhood. But in A Wounded Civilisation, he had written that unless Indians wake up to a racial sense, of a sense of being a single race against other races, it will be calamitous for India.
3. "He believes âinherently fanaticalâ Islam was the greatest calamity to befall India yet says nothing on contemporary Hindu fanaticism. He urges the intelligentsia to reclaim Hindutva from the mob, but has no ideas on how this can be done."
He is a great writer, do not get me wrong. But he is also an apologist for terrorist thought-processes, his hatred for the islamic variety no different than a member of Gush Emumim's views would be towards, say, Palestinian Islamic movements in their totality.
If you can read Naipaul's analysis of Islam in this light, you have a better perspective. Even then, he overwhelmingly contradicts himself in his books...