{"title":"Topological Tropology of V.S. Naipaul’s Islamic Travelogues and Daniel Pipes’ Islamic History: Ahistorical Historicism","authors":"Md. Habibullah","doi":"10.7771/1481-4374.3965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul’s (1932-2018) first Islamic travelogue Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey (1981) contains his experience of a visit from August 1979 to February 1980 to the four non-Arab Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Similarly, his last Islamic travelogue Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples (1998) has a description of another visit to the same countries for five-month in 1995. Concurrently, Daniel Pipes (1949-), an American historian, published his doctoral dissertation, Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a Military System (1981), which represents Islamic culture as the first instigator of military slavery in the world. Then, he wrote an analysis of modern Islamic history In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (1983), which historicizes Islam as a politically failed force all over the world. These travelogues and history are generically different. But a common topological relationality can be mapped in the anecdotes of Naipaul’s travelogues and the historiography of Pipes’ history, as they use identical tropological configurations to historicize Islamic cultures. This similar tropological historiography, this article argues, is covertly an offshoot of the contemporary spatiotemporal context in which they were produced. The context was networked by certain ideological implications, ethnocentrism, and some cultural misapprehensions regarding Islamic/Muslim culture, making the historicism of both Naipaul and Pipes seem ahistorical.","PeriodicalId":44033,"journal":{"name":"CLCWEB-Comparative Literature and Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLCWEB-Comparative Literature and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.3965","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul’s (1932-2018) first Islamic travelogue Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey (1981) contains his experience of a visit from August 1979 to February 1980 to the four non-Arab Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Similarly, his last Islamic travelogue Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples (1998) has a description of another visit to the same countries for five-month in 1995. Concurrently, Daniel Pipes (1949-), an American historian, published his doctoral dissertation, Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a Military System (1981), which represents Islamic culture as the first instigator of military slavery in the world. Then, he wrote an analysis of modern Islamic history In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (1983), which historicizes Islam as a politically failed force all over the world. These travelogues and history are generically different. But a common topological relationality can be mapped in the anecdotes of Naipaul’s travelogues and the historiography of Pipes’ history, as they use identical tropological configurations to historicize Islamic cultures. This similar tropological historiography, this article argues, is covertly an offshoot of the contemporary spatiotemporal context in which they were produced. The context was networked by certain ideological implications, ethnocentrism, and some cultural misapprehensions regarding Islamic/Muslim culture, making the historicism of both Naipaul and Pipes seem ahistorical.
期刊介绍:
The intellectual trajectory of CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture is located in the humanities and social sciences in the discipline of comparative literature and the field of cultural studies designated as "comparative cultural studies." Comparative cultural studies is a contextual approach in the study of culture in all of its products and processes; its theoretical and methodological framework is built on tenets borrowed from the discipline of comparative literature and the field of cultural studies and from a range of thought including literary and culture theory, systems theory, and communication theories; in comparative cultural studies focus is on theory and method, as well as on application; in comparative cultural studies metaphorical argumentation and description are discouraged; the intellectual trajectory of the journal includes the postulate to work in a global and intercultural context with a plurality of methods and approaches, and in interdisciplinarity in the study of the processes of communicative action(s) in culture, the production and processes of culture, the products of culture, and the study of the how of these processes; the epistemological bases of comparative cultural studies are in (radical) constructivism and in methodology the contextual (systemic and empirical) approach is favored (however, comparative cultural studies does not exclude textual analysis proper or other established fields of scholarship).