[Hisham] Matar’s novel abounds in unusual emotional situations. Certainly few of its readers are likely to live next door to people who face torture and execution. Yet in his account there is no moral grandstanding, no glamour of victimhood. He seems to know that life goes on in the most intolerable circumstances—the terrible knowledge that can also be a consolation—and, confronted by extreme inhumanity, he notices gestures of everyday kindness and dignity.

That’s a quote from Pankaj Mishra’s piece in the New York Review of Books. And this is what Pankaj has to say about Laila Lalami’s novel:

Speaking of the corruption and injustice of the Moroccan elite, the student radical Faten says, “If we had been better Muslims, perhaps these problems wouldn’t have been visited on our nation and on our brethren elsewhere.” More often disappointed than realized, this sentimental vision of faith nevertheless remains popular among Muslims. Lalami seems as unsympathetic to it personally as some of the recent Western literary explorers of radical Islamism, such as John Updike and Martin Amis. Yet she is able to show why it remains attractive to so many people by describing it in a particular national setting, against the backdrop of political despotism, a stagnant economy, and deeply entrenched class divisions.

As long as we are on the subject of debating Muslims, in a properly national setting, of course, here’s a link to Salil Tripathi’s review of Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist. And here’s a link to my review of the same book in the Sunday Times of India. Also of particular interest in this context Kamila Shamsie’s review of Tahmima Anam’s A Golden Age.

pankaj-mishra-salil-tripathi-kamila-shamsie