I have just finished reading the book "Magic Seeds" by V.S. Naipaul.

For those of us who don't know who he is, a quick introduction first.Naipaul is a writer born in Trinidad of Indian parents; who migrated to Britain in his twenties, was educated at Oxford and is one of the most celebrated writers in the English language.He has won many prizes for fiction and non fiction, including the Nobel Prize for Literature. His writings or travelogues would be of special interest to DUers combining as they do his keen observations and elegant prose.I became a fan after reading his work "Among the Believers-- An Islamic Journey" which described his travels through Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

Naipaul is not a fan of Third World countries or their leaderships.He is especially searing in his remarks about the Islamic world.Although this may not square with the views of many people here at DU, I think we should read him because he is, above all, an honest writer who prefers to tell the ugly truth rather than comfortable lies.

In his latest book, Naipaul is unsparing in his condemnation of the Muslim world which, he compares to a million Jacks who planted the seeds of violence as an ennobling act only to find to their dismay that the magic seeds sprouted nothing but violence and chaos. He also castigates Western sympathizers of the Arabs/Muslims as narcissistic snobs,obsessed with their own status and class, who do not take a realistic view of the Arab/Muslim world and have instead romanticized them. " There is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim," he declares.

This book comes nearly a quarter of a century after his initial classic " Among the Believers" .That book was extremely prescient in predicting that the rage in Muslim societies, fed by Koranic teachings and the inability of Islamic societies to compete in the modern world, would erupt into violence and chaos.The new book, if nothing else, enhances Naipaul's reputation for fearless truth telling.His world view is that of an outsider, both in the Islamic world and the Western world. As such, I think we should consider him to be an impartial source.As usual his prose is the best.No living writer can match his eye for detail and observational skill.

.... "There is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim".

I don't care how many awards this fool has won, he is a moron. I personally know and have known many people who are living contradictions of his bigoted comment.

There are certain things a person can say that render me utterly disinterested in hearing another word from them. This asshat for example.

an Ayatollah who was known as an avenging judge.He described a meeting in his plush tent with his entourage sitting in a circle and sending them into delirious laughter after describing how many defendants he had personally beheaded.He has seen the despair and revolutionary rhetoric laying waste to many young lives and the Islamic culture, refusing to provide them with an education that would prepare them for the modern world. Instead, the Islamic elders blame Western influence for all the ills of their societies and say that the Koran is the best source for a cure to their ills.

I do not believe that we can dismiss a person of this type of first hand knowledge out of hand. We need not embrace everything he says, but we need to have an open mind towards impartial sources like Naipaul who have no axe to grind one way or another.

... but when a KKK member says "black people are evil", I do not consider him an impartial source. The very statement "there are no moderate Muslims" removes any vestige of a doubt I might have had about his "impartiality".

I mean, there are christians who say they are moderate.

And I guess if they really believe in Jesus's teachings then they could be moderate.

But still, any christian who believes in armageddon to me is not a moderate, no matter what they may claim to be.

So I can see where he might be coming from. sort of.

christian for muslim mentally as I read .....

... you've never met a reasonable Christian? If not, you should get out more :)

BTW, I'm not a Christian or a Muslim.

the young people in Islamic countries any favors by dwelling on the evils of Western Imperialism.He says that more than anything else it is Western technology and scientific method that holds the promise for a good future for these youngsters. When we turn off these younger generation on the possibilities inherent in technology and education, they resort to the Koran and the advice of the Mullahs.
Naipaul says that while the Westerners who badmouth our own past are well meaning, they have no real stake in the outcome and he calls them "return ticket liberals".

I think the effects of religion, whether Christianity or Islam are ultimately destructive to the masses in all societies that fall under their spell. Personally, I don't think there is much of a difference between the Mullahs and our own home bred Ayatollahs, Falwell, robertson or Dobson.

... I agree with your opinion (in the last paragraph), but will you address this?

Do you think it is reasonable and shows sound judgement and understanding of people to say "there are no moderate Muslims"?

For example, you mention Falwell et al. Do you think that MOST Christians are followers of those guys? I don't for a second.

They get lots of press, but are they really representative of masses of Christians out there? I doubt it, but even if they are it is certainly nowhere close to 100%.

"Among the Converted".

Is this the same one you were referring to or a different work.

It was pretty eye-opening.

It sent me to reading quite a few other books on the subject. The last one was truly frightening. It was called something like "My jihad" or "American Jihad" or something. It was by an American who fought with the jihadi warriors in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir, then worked with the CIA as an informant. Can't remember his name but something like Askai Johnson. He became an Islamic convert in prison in California. Incredible story -- very frightening.