April 28, 2008
A “moderating effect” from the Hajj?Religion
Last Friday’s Slate had an article summarizing a yet-to-be-published study titled, Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam’s Global Gathering, that examined two groups Muslims from multiple countries. The only difference between the two was that one group had been to the Hajj in Mecca and the other hadn’t:
So does the Hajj open minds, or does it expose Muslims to radical views that unite them against the non-Islamic world? To find out, researchers David Clingingsmith, Asim Khwaja, and Michael Kremer surveyed more than 1,600 Pakistanis, about half of whom went on the Hajj in 2006. In a recent, as yet unpublished study, they report that those who went to Mecca came back with more moderate views on a range of issues, both religious and nonreligious, suggesting that the Hajj may be helpful in curbing the spread of extremism in the Islamic world. [Link]
It might be more conventional for one to assume that Muslims who travel to a country in which the ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam is practiced might come back more conservative (or radicalized). However, the true point of going to the Hajj is the pilgrimage, or the journey there. It therefore makes sense that a journey in which you’d come across people from many walks of life might enlighten a Hajji or make them more accepting of different or more mainstream views.
In 2006, nearly 140,000 applicants vied for 80,000 visas through the Pakistan government’s Hajj program. In order to decide who gets to go, the government holds a lottery. As a result, among the visa applicants, there’s a group of people randomly selected to participate in the Hajj and a comparison group of would-be pilgrims who applied but didn’t get to go. The two groups look very similar—the only systematic difference is that applicants in one group won the lottery and those in the other group didn’t. If the Hajjis come back from Mecca more tolerant than those who didn’t get to go, therefore, we know it’s the result of the Hajj, not something else.
Six months after the Hajjis of ‘06 returned home to Pakistan, Clingingsmith, Khwaja, and Kremer had a survey team track down 1,600 Hajj applicants, half of whom had been selected to go to Mecca and half who hadn’t. The Hajjis were asked questions on topics ranging from religious practices (frequency of prayer and mosque attendance, for example) to women’s issues. Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that after a monthlong immersion in communal prayer, the pilgrims were 15 percent more likely to report following mainstream Muslim practices, such as praying five times a day and reciting the Quran. This came at the expense of local Pakistani religious traditions—Hajjis were 10 percent less likely to follow local rituals like using amulets or visiting the tombs of local saints. [Link]
As the authors point out in their paper, they are simply taking a scientific approach to something others have already perceived:
“There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world…We were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white…[W]hat I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions” (Malcolm X with Haley, 1965).
Here is a sampling of some of the questions the authors asked the two groups:
We complement the harmony index by exploring the extent to which the Hajj leads to greater inclination towards peace. Hajjis exhibit a 0.11 standard deviation increase in peaceful inclination (Row 4). Questions in the index include views on the correctness of both the goals and methods used by Osama Bin Laden, on suicide bombing and attacking civilian targets, and on the importance of peace with India and support for those fighting the Indian government in Kashmir. We also ask whether it is appropriate to inflict punishment on those who have dishonored the family, to indirectly explore views on honor killings. [Link]
And some of the results:
Even more surprising, Hajjis were 25 percent less likely to believe that it was impossible for Muslims of different ethnicities or sects to live together in harmony—a finding that would seem to be of particular interest for those trying to bring peace to the streets of Baghdad. This greater sense of goodwill among peoples even extended to non-Muslims (who were obviously not represented in Mecca). Hajjis were more likely than non-Hajjis to hold the opinion that people of all religions can live in harmony. Hajjis were also less likely to feel that extreme methods—such as suicide bombings or attacks on civilians—could be justified in dealing with disagreements between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The findings of the study suggest that the Hajj may help to improve the lot of women in Islamic countries as well. Fewer Hajjis thought that men are intellectually superior to women, and a greater fraction expressed a concern for crimes against women in Pakistan. [Link]
The bottom-line here is even more basic than going to the Hajj: Get out and experience the world and mix with different people and we’ll all be better for it.
abhi on April 28, 2008 11:46 PM in Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I think even Tancredo would agree, and would certainly love to see more Muslims going to the Hajj.
Yeah, Mecca is a great place to do that--they're so welcoming to anyone.
People of other faiths are officially forbidden from entering the city.
It might be more conventional for one to assume that Muslims who travel to a country in which the ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam is practiced might come back more conservative (or radicalized).
saudi arabia is relatively new. remember that the gulf coast is shia, and the hijaz around mecca has a very different identity from the saudi heartland around riyadh. mecca is an international city, and i recall that in the hijaz women have long driven in rural areas sureptitiously because they perform work.
thanks for the pointer to the paper.
1) i can't help but wonder whether the lottery is influenced by bribes (being a south asian, i can't help it :))
2) why is abandoning local customs a good idea and how does it promote global peace (i don't mean peace between just shia and sunni)?
Previous link didn't work--this one should.
Well duh.
Look what happened to Malcolm/El Hajj Malik El Shabazz...
Get out and experience the world and mix with different people and we’ll all be better for it.
thank god for the iraq war then. half of the people who were sent to manage iraq post-war had never even applied for a passport before they were selected to run a foreign country.
2· rob
Hey, at least they were considerate enough to build an off-ramp for non-believers.
Yep, I quoted Malcolm above
4 · circus said
Haven't read it through fully yet, but from the article (p. 10):
Unbelievable--hey I guess that is why I am a non-believer.
>>Get out and experience the world and mix with different people and we’ll all be better for it...
And create an environment at home where people from all over the world can come over and mix with you in restaurants, theaters, science symposiums, software conferences, beaches etc etc. Ya can't have one set of rules at home and another set of rules outside.
It takes two to tango.
M. Nam
i understand the frustration of non-muslims that want to go to mecca, but there are a lot of reasons that don't involve a "hatred of kaffirs" or however it may be perceived. there is hardly enough room for the millions of muslims that want to perform hajj each year. besides, this is a place for strict worship not tourism. with the nightmare of immunizations, sanitation, and crowding, the local governments don't have the time to worry about pandering to tourists.
non-muslims (or even arabs) may not realize this, but most muslims don't care for saudis. saudis are extremely rude to foreigners (w/ darker skin). also, wahhabi-ism is more of a saudi thing (AFAIK) and most muslims don't care for such a strict (read: skewed, militant and downright crazy) brand of islam.
i think the great thing about hajj is that people get to come out of their villages or deserts or small enclaves from all parts of the world to meet other muslims. local culturo-religious rituals are shed here, and i also think thats a great thing. most often, the local rituals of other islamic cultures evolve into complicated customs such as reverse dowry, excessive prayer, and ridiculous impositions on women's freedom. (example: my cousins in bangladesh told me, the ABCD, that it was a sin to shave my legs. which is pretty funny since most of the muslims girls i knew in america were quite proactive w/ waxing and threading, and they were taught by their non-American mothers!)
anyway, it really is all about getting out to experience the world and seeing how others live.
It might be more conventional for one to assume that Muslims who travel to a country in which the ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam is practiced might come back more conservative (or radicalized).
I performed the Hajj in 2002 - we were the first Hajj group after 9/11. And one thing struck me, that I've heard others who went after me: when you are there, the last thing you notice is what is happening politically locally and internationally. I read newspapers every single day, and I am fairly obsessive about knowing what's happening globally. Yet the three week period I was there, I never felt the urge to buy a newspaper, to get online and read BBC. Towards the end, I went ahead and bought a paper, just because, and I glanced through it, but I didn't read it like the way I would normally devour the news. News was an earthly thing and I was dealing with the Divine. I didn't want to waste time with earthly matters.
And Hajjis are so isolated from the general population, it's really hard to even get a sense of what Wahhabi Islam, or what Saudi Arabia is like. In the airport, we are in our own terminal, seeing only other pilgrims. We chatted with some of the locals (hotel employees and shop keepers, mainly) living in Mecca, but it was more on a practical "living in Mecca" kind of thing, and not about politics. I remember my mother asking me, "Why do people complain about Saudi Arabia? It's nice here." I had to explain to her that Mecca is not like the rest of Saudi Arabia - it's too filled with people from other countries to enforce any of those rules. Everyone is following their own dress code, following their group of people, praying, and completing rituals. The segregation of sexes in Mecca is non-existent in the mosque, which was a far cry from Medina, or even many places here in the States.
There's no question about whether or not women can go out without a male chaperone - in Mecca, you either go from your hotel to the mosque to pray, or go shopping. We rarely saw the morality police, because who are they going to harass? They were pretty much relegated to just directing the flow of foot traffic.
So with all that, it's actually less likely that you will come back radicalized or more conservative - there's nothing you see that's the "real" Saudi Arabia. All this is just to say, yeah, I agree with the researchers - when you are surrounded by all these other people, it's easier to mellow out and realize, hey, wow. Look, we are all together, and different, and it's okay!
2 · rob said
Rob, your comment above misses the point. Most of these Pakistani Muslims do not meet Muslims from the diverse countries and cultures that Muslims come from. For them to meet Muslims from so many places and races, it is itself a humbling and mind opening experience. The fact that non-Muslims are not allowed at Hajj doesn't take away from the fact that these Pakistanis are meeting people from Nigeria, and Indonesia and America. Someone I know who went to Hajj recently told me he saw a tent with a giant Puerto Rico flag over it!
Word.
From the slate article: "Familiarity seems to breed tolerance and respect."
When that familiarity is on even-ground and equal terms. I don't think familarity by itself breeds tolerance and respect.
Say what you want about Islam but the Hajj is a very unique spiritual & communal experience where people from so many diverse ethnicities, backgrounds and classes are effectively forced by the ritual of it to humble themselves, and to see & treat one another as equals (or at least that is the ideal).
It's fairly easy to see why such an experience would cause folks to mellow out on "differences".
The bar is set very low. Baby steps I guess
"And create an environment at home where people from all over the world can come over and mix with you in restaurants, theaters, science symposiums, software conferences, beaches etc etc. Ya can't have one set of rules at home and another set of rules outside.
It takes two to tango."
MoorNam, This is one of the most sensible things you've said.
Except you posted it on the wrong thread. Whoops. Shoulda been on the "Unhardening the
headheart" thread...>>Hajj is a very unique spiritual & communal experience...such an experience would cause folks to mellow out on "differences".
As it's supposed to be - but there's nothing unique about it. Pilgrimages in all religions have the same purpose - to be bonding both spiritual and worldly. And all of them bring about tolerance and understanding.
I'm sure if you take a similiar poll among Hindus, you will see that those North Indians who go to pilgrimage to Tirupati, Kanyakumari, Sringeri etc will be less likely to harbour intolerant stereotypes about SouthIndians (darkie Madrasi etc etc). Similiarly, SIndians who go to BadriNath, Hrishikesh will be less like to think of N.Indians as boorish, loud etc, and Bengalis who visit Dwaraka will be less likely to think of Gujarathis as money-mooching leeches.
But that's not the point. The point is: Pilgrimage is so yesterday when it comes to bring about understanding. Times have changed now. The whole concept of "Getting out to experience the world" is meaningless. You don't have to go out to experience the world - the world comes to you via TV, Internet, movies etc.
I probably watch more French movies (with English Subtitles) than in my own mother-tongue. I probably watch more Korean soaps than in my mother tongue. This has given me more insight into the respective societies than I would have gained by living there for six months (which is a near impossibility).
Rather than encouraging more more Pakistanis to go to Hajj, they should open up the airwaves, TV and the economy to let the world flow through. They have to stop the ban on Hindi soaps that "have Hindu women singing in front of idols". They have to lift the ban on Indian movies.
Let them start by lifting the ban on Lata Mangeshkar.
M. Nam
"Times have changed now. The whole concept of "Getting out to experience the world" is meaningless. You don't have to go out to experience the world - the world comes to you via TV, Internet, movies etc."
I call total bullshit on this. It's taking Marshall McLuhan very literally with his whole “Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either" Lame substitution for life and social experience.
Watching a Bollywood movie doesn't make me an authority on India, though I might learn some Hindi from it. Hiking the AT is not the same thing as watching it on a NOVA special.
I probably watch more French movies (with English Subtitles) than in my own mother-tongue. I probably watch more Korean soaps than in my mother tongue. This has given me more insight into the respective societies than I would have gained by living there for six months (which is a near impossibility).
Yes and to understand America just watch Hollywood movies and Seinfeld.
Rather than encouraging more more Pakistanis to go to Hajj, they should open up the airwaves, TV and the economy to let the world flow through. They have to stop the ban on Hindi soaps that "have Hindu women singing in front of idols". They have to lift the ban on Indian movies.
Let them start by lifting the ban on Lata Mangeshkar.
The movie ban is financial. Indian soaps and movies are ubiquitous in Pakistan.
M. Nam:
Honestly, you're right. It's not *that* "unique" but given Islam's global reach, the sheer number of people participating, the uniformity of the rituals undertaken to the point of requiring the pilgrims to wear the same dress it isn't just your run of the mill religious/communal gathering.
"point is: Pilgrimage is so yesterday when it comes to bring about understanding. Times have changed now. The whole concept of "Getting out to experience the world" is meaningless. You don't have to go out to experience the world - the world comes to you via TV, Internet, movies etc."
Now that's just plain silly. Going out and interacting with people in real life is quite different than learning about others through media or even chatting with them over the internet. Not to burst any blogger's bubble here, but I don't believe people have the same sort of life changing experience by reading & commenting on blogs as they do while on hajj or dancing in the streets of rio during carnival for that matter. I'll say that the new media gives people the opportunity if they chose to learn a bit about others on the surface level, but actual understanding takes real life exposure & interaction.
"Rather than encouraging more more Pakistanis to go to Hajj, they should open up the airwaves, TV and the economy to let the world flow through. They have to stop the ban on Hindi soaps that "have Hindu women singing in front of idols". They have to lift the ban on Indian movies."
I'll agree with this though but probably doing both wouldn't hurt!
CoachDiesel/PAFD,
Are you insinuating that a Brazilian will gain no understanding of the 2-gen Desi-American experience after reading Sepia Mutiny for a few months?
M. Nam
Are you insinuating that a Brazilian will gain no understanding of the 2-gen Desi-American experience after reading Sepia Mutiny for a few months?
Did I say 'no' understanding. I was taking you to task for suggesting that movies/soaps are a better substitute for actually living at a place. Nevertheless, Sepia Mutiny is not commericallly hyped fiction like Hollywood. So if you want to understand a country: 1.Go and live there for 6 months. Thats the best experience. 2. Not comparable to 1st at any level, but you can still get some understanding by reading a SM type blog. 3. Shows/movie would be a very poor substitute for both 1 &2. Yes, you will get some knowledge, but also a lot of nonsense.
This actually means that the Hujjis rejected their ethnic connections and started identifying more with the "Arab world". This is disastrous. This is one of the trends that lead to the radicalization of the 7/7 subway attackers, who were South Asian by ethnicity, but identified more with Arabia.
Very good point. Even Hindus are just as discriminating, if not more. At least non-Muslims like myself are allowed to convert to Islam. Many Muslim converts have become very influential as Muslims, such as the ustaad A.R. Rahman or comedian Dave Chappelle.
However, one of our Brahmin friends told me, without a hint of bitterness in her voice, that "nobody can convert to Hinduism. You're only born into it." This, probably, explains why Hindus have a net conversion-out rate. At least the Muslims are enthused to share their culture and faith with infidels like me. The HIndus, on the other hand, don't really do this at all. Non-Hindus are not allowed into kitchens, at the dinner table, and their shadows are often times polluting, depending on their hue.
18 · ak said
notwithstanding all the other silliness in that comment, the notion that moornam has any insight into anything is the most ridiculous part of the statement.
28 · boston_mahesh said
No offense but your "Brahmin" friend should pick up a decent book on Hinduism. Many of the teachers and gurus at my temple were once non-Hindu. Also, just because your friend is Brahmin does not validate her statement.
"Even more surprising, Hajjis were 25 percent less likely to believe that it was impossible for Muslims of different ethnicities or sects to live together in harmony"
Look at UAE, Muslim (you could also add Hindus to that list) Indians & Pakis are the victims of human rights violations down there).
I don't know but this Desi-American gained an understanding of Brazilians after reading Sepia Mutiny for a few months.
No offense but your "Brahmin" friend should pick up a decent book on Hinduism. Many of the teachers and gurus at my temple were once non-Hindu. Also, just because your friend is Brahmin does not validate her statement.
LOL. i was thinking the same thing. it's not just ISKON either. in java during the 1960s there was a movement by abangan muslims (more "nominal" or "syncretistic") to switch their affiliation to hinduism.
re: excluding non-muslims from mecca. well, i think aside from partying in dubai there isn't much of a reason for most non-muslims to go to the arabian peninsula unless you work for an oil company IMO...but, what if the catholic church excluded non-catholics from major pilgrimage sites around rome? i mean, you can make the same sorts of rationales, but i think many people would be pissed because they value the culture of the roman catholic tradition and would like to appreciate it. additionally, if non-muslims were allowed into mecca i'd be willing to bet you'd get a substantial number of conversions overwhelmed by whatever nonsense religious people are so drawn to....
i think meeting people in the flesh really makes a difference. anyone who doesn't think that SHOULD GET OUT MORE! ;-)
This actually means that the Hujjis rejected their ethnic connections and started identifying more with the "Arab world". This is disastrous. This is one of the trends that lead to the radicalization of the 7/7 subway attackers, who were South Asian by ethnicity, but identified more with Arabia.
I dont think rejection of amulets and tomb visits per se leads to identification with the Arab world. The deobandis in Pakistan and North India also reject the amulets and tomb visits so this approach is home grown if you will at some level.
I do agree with your larger point about identifying with a more literalist interpretation of Islam. The 7/7 bombers actually went from visiting a barelvi mosque with its amulets and tomb visiting to a deobandi mosque and then eventually to a salafist mosque where they got radicalized.
Razib:>>i think meeting people in the flesh really makes a difference.
Tell me, how realistic is this for most people in the world? What is the proportion of people in the world who have travelled to another country or could afford to do so? I read somewhere that even today, a great majority of people live and die within fifty miles of where they were born.
This is one reason why pilgrimages were made compulsory in older times - it was a way to mandate people to get their asses off and go and meet people who were completely different from them.
It's almost impossible for most people to have the French experience, Brazilian cooking etc etc in person. This is where the internet, TV come into the picture. They may not fill the gap entirely (I certainly do not make that claim), but with proper selection they do their part.
M. Nam
I do agree with your larger point about identifying with a more literalist interpretation of Islam. The 7/7 bombers actually went from visiting a barelvi mosque with its amulets and tomb visiting to a deobandi mosque and then eventually to a salafist mosque where they got radicalized.
the mahathir mohammed in malaysia used to say that there had be an alternative to arab islam, and southeast asia was going to provide it. whatever happened to that? now the ahmadis in indonesia are being pogromed.
historically hajjis start "islamic reform movements." in a place like china this resulted in greater tension with their non-muslim neighbors, not less.
About the 7/7 subway radicals, I distinctly remember reading a great piece by Tavleen Singh's son in the Times of London that described how these guys had shunned the dress of their ancestral homeland (Mirpur) and adopted more Arabic dressing along with other traits, which indicated a rejection of ethnicity .
The anti-Muslim sentiment of Sepia readers is astonishing. I always thought we were tolerant, liberal, and open-minded. I guess not.
I'm sorry if my comment #2 comes across as anti-Muslim (I can see how it might, as it's critical, but I don't think criticism is in and of itself "anti"), but you have to admit that there's an irony waiting to be teased in celebrating the "learning from diversity" of the Hajj whilst it's occurring in a city that has the death-penalty for non-Muslims who trespass in the city!
Aside from the international and multi-culti spiritual experience something like Hajj can provide, I say that some of the attitude upon seeing so many people like you, and so many women so covered up, would be, "thank God there is variety in the world and not everyone is like this".
A pakistani friend of mine relayed how when he was on Hajj a moral police walla hit his wife on the arm for showing some arm skin while doing parikrama around the kaba or whatever. It pissed both of them off. Come on, they were meditating on the experience and some baton hits her on the arm and breaks her concentration at a holy place. All for showing some tiny bit of skin!!!
I know when I go on pilgrimage to a holy place where everyone is part of the same religion, it is a wonderful experience. But I'm also happy to leave and venture out to the rest of the world where not everyone has the same idiosyncricies and hang-ups that people in my religion share. So I think that has alot to do with it.
And I'm sure the women are happy to return to countries and atmospheres where they don't have to kep most of their body and heads covered.
Hence, the more liberal attitude of hajjis.
Salamalaikum!
41 · Dear Abhi said
parikrama, eh? someone's trying real hard to ruffle them feathers. are you danish, dear abhi?
I'm sorry if my comment #2 comes across as anti-Muslim (I can see how it might, as it's critical, but I don't think criticism is in and of itself "anti"), but you have to admit that there's an irony waiting to be teased in celebrating the "learning from diversity" of the Hajj whilst it's occurring in a city that has the death-penalty for non-Muslims who trespass in the city!
the problem is that you insist on judging them by western standards. we don't treat children as culpable as adults, do we? similarly, we have higher standards for westerners than for hindus (and higher standards for western europeans than russians, etc.), and higher standards for hindus than muslims. islamic societies are most hostile to the Other so you have to take what you can get.
if you want to put an optimistic spin on it a byproduct of muslims not killing each other over picayune differences might be that they kill the kufar a little less because they are out of practice. that being said, i'm generally skeptical about overreading these results though they don't surprise me (i've blogged about this topic before without seeing the social science). i tend to buy robert papes' assertion that there are usually local factors which are necessary triggers for islamic violence, so if you don't remove the local factors it might be for naught.
This study has Pomona/LSE written all over it
I had a brother-in-law who worked in Jeddah for a few months, and to this day, the Saudis never paid him for 2 months of labor. My BIL is a medical doctor, by the way, and this was very unacceptable.
From my experience and impression with oil-rich Arabs: They seem to be very nouveau riche, very debaucherous, and they have a cheapened view of humanity.
Regarding the pacifying effect of visiting Makkah: *ANY* body who has the resources and interests to travel is going to be less likely for violence than some inwards looking hick. So I'm sure that simply doing hajj at Makkah isn't going to make anyone more peaceful than if they had visited Budapest, Hungary. Also, those who visit Makkah as part of their fulfillments to Islam is an older person, anyways. She/He (mostly a "He") also has more wealth, and has less to gain or less to lose if they dedicated their life to violence.
13 · ensure said
45 · boston_mahesh said
From my experience and impression with oil-rich Arabs: They seem to be very nouveau riche, very debaucherous, and they have a cheapened view of humanity.
Regarding the pacifying effect of visiting Makkah: *ANY* body who has the resources and interests to travel is going to be less likely for violence than some inwards looking hick. So I'm sure that simply doing hajj at Makkah isn't going to make anyone more peaceful than if they had visited Budapest, Hungary. Also, those who visit Makkah as part of their fulfillments to Islam is an older person, anyways. She/He (mostly a "He") also has more wealth, and has less to gain or less to lose if they dedicated their life to violence.
13 · ensure said
The Saudi's are shafting us.
From my experience and impression with oil-rich Arabs: They seem to be very nouveau riche, very debaucherous, and they have a cheapened view of humanity.
non-oil arabs have the same views. gulf arabs are like Trouble.
Regarding the pacifying effect of visiting Makkah: *ANY* body who has the resources and interests to travel is going to be less likely for violence than some inwards looking hick
you should read the study or summaries. they used the natural experiment of people who were picked by lottery, so there was already a filter for those who *could* go.
For the people who decide to participate in the lottery shows a great amount of commitment indicating that they do plan on getting a new perspective after coming back from Hajj. One thing that would be interesting is comparing the difference of the reactions from American Muslims (who apparently get more priority in more comfortable accomodations} to the Pakistani Muslims after Hajj. Does having a more comfortable experience such as nice hotel rooms, always having food provided, still give a chance for the American Muslim to get the same experience of Hajj as someone who tries to get a visa from the lottery but is stuck in shoddy dwellings and concern about transportation? My mother went to Hajj this year and since she decided so late she actually went from Bangladesh to there and did not have the same luxuries she would have had had she gone from America.
For the people who decide to participate in the lottery shows a great amount of commitment indicating that they do plan on getting a new perspective after coming back from Hajj.
? again, you should read the study, the link is provided, it is free. what they did was simple: took people who participated in the lottery, and compared those who were selected to those who were not. to repeat: both groups wanted to go, and were ready to go. but because of quotas only a subset could go; that subset was decided randomly. around 10% of those who were not selected for the lottery still find other, much more expensive, means to go.
Sorry for the mistake there.
ak--C'mon, you're a lawyer--think analogically here--what's the 800-lb. gorilla in the room?! (Hint--think "gentlemen's clubs" in British India!) And, if you're "not a religious person," why are you (implicitly, at least) willing to give a religious group (that most people are born into, or out of!) a pass, as opposed to an ethnic one?
I realize that my question in #51 is provocative--the difficulty, I think, is in giving a principled answer, w/out defaulting to religious-exceptionalism--which only raises the question, what to do with/how to treat a culture that's based around ethnicity, rather than religion?
rob:
Yeah right, so do hindus welcome non-hindu mlecchas into their temples? Heck even hindus of the wrong caste arent welcome. Orthodox muslims are far more egalitarian than orthodox hindus. Anyone can convert to Islam and go on Hajj to Mecca.
Heck if they take off that fancy black cloth covering the Kaaba in Mecca and reveal the primitive, unimpressive square house underneath, and allow pilgrims to look inside that sorry structure, many hajis might come back as kafirs :)
idol
many of them already know that the Kaaba has nothing in it and it wont make any change
many pilgrims bring back pieces of the old cloth covering for luck/tabarruk
I believe it is common knowledge (razib can correct me) that Kaaba has nothing inside it, isn't there a Hadith that says Mr. Muhammad broke all the idols inside Kaaba personally after defeating the polytheists of Mecca.
I believe it is common knowledge (razib can correct me) that Kaaba has nothing inside it,
True. They have to open it up to clean in from the inside anyway.
isn't there a Hadith that says Mr. Muhammad broke all the idols inside Kaaba personally after defeating the polytheists of Mecca.
The Meccans didnt put up much fight. He could have just removed the idols from there or made some accomodation for the non-Muslims Meccans like he did in Medina for the polytheists and Jews of Medina. He didnt break the idols in Medina and in his other conquests.
Muhammad did end up destroying most of the idols in Kaaba. The breaking of the idols was a symbolic act to let the Meccans know that there was a new Sheriff in town. The power structure of Mecca at that time had a lot invested in the Kaaba and those ancient gods. For a couple of centuries before Muhammad, various tribes would come to Mecca and perform Hajj by worshipping those ancient Gods. They got their legitimacy as a trading place from those anicent gods.
I have just finished a few books on Muhammad and it seems to me that Muhammad didnt particularly care about the polytheists or the Jews. His primary interest was in expanding his territory and consolidation.
Any good ones you recommend? I read "No God but God", and I got the sense from it that trade and territory were big motivators in his destruction of the Kaaba idols.
Rob - Your point is valid. However, your tone reeks of intolerance and hatred.
If I ruled the world, I would only allow Muslims to enter Mecca during the Hajj. This is due to the sheer volume of people who want to perform the Hajj. During other times of the year, I would allow non-Muslims to enter the city and visit the mosque. What a great way to learn about people who are different from you.
The Saudi government didn't take a poll of global Muslims (or even Saudi citizens) before it came up with its policies. They are an oppressive regime. Don't attribute the Saudi government's attitude and practices to Muslims as a whole, or even Saudis as a whole.
Yeah, Mecca is a great place to do that--they're so welcoming to anyone.
People of other faiths are officially forbidden from entering the city.
Don't worry, I trying to get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to lead a protest outside of Mecca for all non-believers.
That would be quite a solid argument if the practice in fact emerged from the Saudi government. But does it in fact precede it?
I had an Arab professor once, and she told us how Saudi women shouldn't drive cars. From the whole lecture, she seemed cool about women having less rights in Arab countries.
53 · Idol said
Yeah right, so do hindus welcome non-hindu mlecchas into their temples?
The ones who properly practice Hinduism let anyone in.
If what you say is true, does that give Muslims a ticket to violence or oppression? Obviously not. It's quite foolish to compare actions of different groups. With that logic, my alibi for theft will be "But Mr. X committed murder. Comparatively my crime is that of a much lesser degree". But it's still a crime, right?
non-muslims (or even arabs) may not realize this, but most muslims don't care for saudis. saudis are extremely rude to foreigners (w/ darker skin). also, wahhabi-ism is more of a saudi thing (AFAIK) and most muslims don't care for such a strict (read: skewed, militant and downright crazy) brand of islam.
Whenever Reza Aslan appears on TV, a fun game to play is seeing how many minutes before he talks before ripping into Saudi/Wahhabism. Not that I think he's necessarily wrong to do so, mind...
I read that Guru Nanak-ji actually made a pilgrimage to Makkah with a Mirasi (a Muslim musical caste of Pakistan). As the saying goes: "Nanak went from Makkah in the west to Dhaka in the east..." I believe that it was at this time that his feet were pointing to Makkah, while he was lying down. When a Muslim told him not to have his feet pointing towards Makkah, Nanak performed a "miracle" after saying "point my feet where God is not there."
Anyways, Nanak-ji wasn't a Muslim, but how did he travel to Makkah?
60 · Suki Dillon said
Don't worry, I trying to get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to lead a protest outside of Mecca for all non-believers.
hey there,
of all the posts and comments that ive been reading in sepiamutiny.......this is the best!
rob, I wasn't excepting for religion - I was just musing out loud. And I don't think I implied anywhere that I was giving religion a pass while not doing so for ethnicity (in fact to my knowledge, I didn't mention ethnicity all, so I'm not sure why you thought this was even implicit). The balance of the quote you posted continued some thoughts on the other side of the argument. Since you know I'm a lawyer, you should also know that I've been trained to put out arguments that I don't necessarily believe in. Of course it's discriminatory to prohibit non-Muslims from Mecca, just as it is to prohibit non-Hindus from temples. But I don't know how I feel about either, esp. since I am not a religious person - it could be argued that it's somewhat hypocritical of me to criticize religious policies of any religion when I don't believe in one myself. The thing that bothers me about organized religion in general is that, to a great degree, there is no freedom in any of them. There are certain basic tenets in each one that if, not abided by, seem to negate one's 'belonging' to that religion. So, in a way, I implicitly acknowledge the undemocratic and unequal nature of nearly all religions.
Back to the original point - Mecca doesn't let in Muslims. So what? The post is about a moderating effect, not an all-accepting one. The very fact that there are different religions out there will inevitably lead to the conclusion that many people will be prevented from being 'accepted' in some form by those of other religions. To me, that prohibition only supports what I already know - Islam, like many other religions, is not completely democratic (at least, not in the ways that one fed on American democratic philosophy would identify). But it doesn't tell me that Islam is a completely un-democratic religion, even by said philosophical standards. And the post keys me into the fact that the hajj can actually liberalize the views of many hajjis, albeit within certain limits. And I still stand by my (other) point that the prohibition by authorities is not necessarily one shared by the population at large - whether or not that Saudi law was preceded by a similar one rooted in Islamic theory. There are plenty of Muslims who are simultaneously deeply religious and would disagree with the rule.
I hope this is principled enough for you ;)
Just on this specific point: while the Saudi government interprets the relevant Koranic passage as preventing Muslims from entering Mecca, there are other interpretations of that passage that claim that all People of the Book are in fact permitted to enter Mecca. I haven't seen anything to indicate that non book-people are allowed though, according to the Koranic passage.
It is not clear to me exactly when the prohibition started. It was definitely there around 1850 or so when Richard Burton famously entered Mecca, and even the Kaaba, in disguise. But there was an Italian who entered Mecca in 1580 or thereabouts, if I recall correctly. I don't know if he was in disguise or could go there freely (maybe based on the more expansive interpretation?)
There was a Slate article just this week about the rationality of suicide bombing. It made the fairly obvious and well-known argument about differing valuations of human life making suicide bombing rational in (or against) certain societies, but the interesting things to me were that there is actually an increasing, and importantly, vocal, opposition to suicide bombing from certain quarters of the Islamic world (Relevant passage: A former al-Qaida theologian, a senior Saudi cleric, and many other Muslims have confronted the group with messages of dismay. "How many innocents among children, elderly, the weak and women have been killed and made homeless in the name of al-Qaida?" asked one critic. In the last two months, Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued an audio and a Web book attempting to quell the complaints.). Much less convincingly, it makes a case that when counted appropriately, the number of suicide bombings hasn't actually increased, and that this might be related to this opposition.
Fair points, ak (#67).
For the record, I'm libertarian enough to be fine with non-Muslims being excluded for Mecca, but I think it's ironic to then celebrate the Hajj with a "diversity brings benefits" line. I guess empirically it appears that it might be true, though. Following Rahul's line of analysis, I'm pretty sure that non-Muslims were prohibited from entering pre-Saudi (e.g., under the Ottomans), for what that's worth. On the more meta point, I think it would be annoying (not discriminatory, but annoying) if, for example, someone mentioned any time Catholicism came up "well, but they don't allow women priests." On the other hand, it would seem negligent not to mention that fact if someone started arguing that Catholicism was admirably "progressive."
Any idea what he said to justify the suicide bombings?
Forget about diversity. I'm off to read Pat Buchanan's reasoning why diversity is bad.
71 · Amitabh said
The LA times article I linked to in my post has some details. One excerpt: "Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets," Zawahiri responded. The deaths of any innocents were the result of "unintentional error or out of necessity. . . . The enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims for them to be human shields for him."
Fair points, yourself, rob. And, by the way, even without Rahul's mention of the pre-Saudi law, the Ottoman Empire was most definitely discriminatory against non-Muslims, requiring them to pay a separate poll tax. This poll tax is very similar to the jizya under Islamic law, and this specific point of a tax on non-Muslims is often pointed to in the question as to whether or not the OE was Islamic. But my point about that issue in general is not whether the officials created some rule separate from Islam, but whether or not the average modern-day Muslim would agree with it - I suspect that many (can't speak to the percentages) would not.
just want to remind people writing about hindus. Pujaris in south indian temples do not ask people their caste. They may ask your gotra and if you don not know then you can say it as kasyapa gotra. In certain temples like tirupati, they may ask you to sign a paper saying that you respect the hindu religion, if you are a nonhindu. I ask people to refrain from concocting false info.
it's not always false. kerala, in particular, is known for its strict adherence to not allowing non-hindus entry. a relatively high-profile example is k.j. yesudas who, although a carnatic singer who sings many hindu devotional songs, was banned entry into guruvayoor temple in kerala and still is so banned because he is a christian. this is a rather extreme and infrequent occurrence, but it still does occur, and i was thinking of this when i mentioned hindu temples.
Why do you suspect that? Just a general belief in the basic goodness of people? A projection onto others because YOU would not agree with it? Because I'm skeptical in this case.
Not just Guruvayoor. Sabarimalai also has a proscription against women between the age of 10 and 50 (basically those are not prepubescent or menopausal), there was a controversy when some actress said she had done it in disguise.
PS That was a bit more on the offensive side than was necessary - you could have stated that exact same sentiment in a much less aggressive (and somewhat insulting) way.
SM Intern -- how did comment #53 not get deleted yet? Is it just me or is it obviously trolling? Or at least inadvertently trolling?
Otherwise, this is a very interesting discussion. Rahul, that's interesting about the temple that you mentioned, but the issue is whether members of a different religion can enter a holy place, not one of gender.
80 · lurker said
Sorry, was not aware of the syllabus :)
In many ways restrictions based on gender are worse than restrictions based on religion, since one cannot change one's gender quite as easily. But then hinduism has the same obsession with ritual purity that many strains of christianity and islam have with theological purity. Ultimately its the same human mental tendencies channeled into different directions.
Man, I really need to tone it down I guess...JOAT said the same thing on another thread...sometimes the tone of one's statements or questions are different when read by someone else than how they sound in your head...anyway, I guess I disagreed strongly with your conclusions so it came out like that...my bad.
If Pakistani Muslims give up Pakistani (or South Asian) models of Islam in favor of more mainstream or Arab ones, they'll turn their backs on some really beautiful and powerful stuff like this, that basically comes from the various Sufi shrines that hard-core Wahhabists so despise.
The above links to one of the most awesome qawaalis I've ever seen/heard (although it's in Urdu not Punjabi).
Part 2 is as awesome.
I met a Brahmin ABD who, in a bragging tone of voice, told me that the only people allowed in ancient Mughal-era temples were Brahmins and Muslim musicians. I can't find info on this, but I do know for a fact that Hindus are *NOT* accepting of people accepting their faith, unless the recent convert is photogenic with light-colored skin. Oh yeah, a "true" Hindu must pour moulten lead down the ears of Sudras if they listen to slokas (and keep in mind that all "Patels", Jatts, and in general 90% of Hindus are Sudras).
Moulten lead? Some Brahmin is probably thinking "that's a lot of money!".
76 · ak said
it's not always false. kerala, in particular, is known for its strict adherence to not allowing non-hindus entry. a relatively high-profile example is k.j. yesudas who, although a carnatic singer who sings many hindu devotional songs, was banned entry into guruvayoor temple in kerala and still is so banned because he is a christian. this is a rather extreme and infrequent occurrence, but it still does occur, and i was thinking of this when i mentioned hindu temples.
In an attempt to keep the focus on "South Asia," as opposed to "India," I would note that it is customary in Sri Lanka for non-Hindus to attend Hindu temples during festivals, etc.
I should qualify my comment in #87 by saying this is true of the aspects of Sri Lankan culture that I have experienced in Colombo and Kandy--I can't vouch for the entire nation.
an interesting recurring trend i'm seeing on these comments, (paraphrasing of course):
-"well, it's not like hindus don't discriminate against non-hindus"
-"well the ones that discriminate aren't real hindus"
wait- but you think that muslims that discriminate are 'real muslims'? because guess what gang, they really aren't. so can we please all recognize that terrible messed up parts about religion are often created by individuals that are getting it wrong? i really didn't expect Mutineers to be regurgitating that old neo-con bias of "muslims be crazy!"
That's a really nice sentiment, and I thank you for it--but--(and, I'm sincerely sorry for the inevitable "but") is there any real movement afoot to allow my non-"person of the Book" self to visit Mecca next year? Next decade? Oh, well, I will have to sit on the beach again in Galle. My loss. ;-)
well you've got me there, rob.
to reiterate what other posters above have said, (saying this as a paki gal whose been there several times):
saudi govt isn't all that "jiggy" with stuff like common sense, human rights, etc. etc. (and boy to they have a color-shade bias meaner than any matchmaking auntie) so I suspect you'll be spending a few more summers in Galle!
Breaking of the idols whether symbolic or not set a bad precedent that is followed even now (Bamiyan Buddhas). well, I agree that his primary interest was in expanding his territory and consolidation, but that could not have been done without opposing the polytheists/Jews of Mecca. There are a plenty of "verses" in Quran against Polytheists.
Thats interesting, I wonder what effect Hajj would-have/has had on Osama Laden and Dawood Ibrahim?
hajj definitely isn't a cure-all. plenty of corrupt money-grubbing politicians do hajj and come back sporting a beard but just as corrupt. i think a lot of what you get out of any experience is your intention going into it. im sure OBL didn't go to hajj expecting to be humbled by God, he thinks he is God.
>>im sure OBL didn't go to hajj expecting to be humbled by God, he thinks he is God.
Which means he's turned Hindu? Aham Brahmasmi!!
M. Nam
No worries. I only pointed it out because you're normally not like that :)
Wow. Is it just me or is boston_mahesh trolling pretty heavily, even if unintentionally? You can't find any info but you KNOW for a FACT, huh? Wow, you must be really smart or something. Paging SM Intern...
Moulten lead? Some Brahmin is probably thinking "that's a lot of money!".
Erudite indeed.
53 · Idol said
Yeah right, so do hindus welcome non-hindu mlecchas into their temples? Heck even hindus of the wrong caste arent welcome. Orthodox muslims are far more egalitarian than orthodox hindus. Anyone can convert to Islam and go on Hajj to Mecca.
So how many Hindu temples will kill a non-Hindu for entering?
97 · lurker said