Each year, some two million Muslims from around the world make a pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca. For some in the West, nothing could be scarier than two million Muslims, all dressed in white, touching their heads to the ground and shouting "Allahu Akbar." Reading the usual pundits, you get the idea that Mecca is a breeding ground of Islamic radicalism.
To figure out if this is true, a group of American researchers surveyed more than 1500 Pakistanis who went on the pilgrimage to Mecca in 2006. They discovered that these men had overcome great obstacles to make the trip. It costs arond $2500 to go to Mecca, and that's three times the annual salary of a typical Pakistani. Still, nearly 140,000 Pakistanis applied to go in 2006. Only 80,000 visas were granted by the Saudi government.
Since the Saudis granted their visas based on lottery, the researchers had the clever idea of comparing the attitudes of those who returned from Mecca to those who didn't get to go. They wanted to see if the pilgrimage to Mecca strengthened or undermined Islamic radicalism. Incredibly, the researchers found that the Pakistanis who went to Mecca returned with attitudes more moderate and less sympathetic to Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.
But isn't Mecca dominated by radical clerics who, when they aren't eating or sleeping, lead chants of "Death to America"? This is the propaganda you hear from groups like memri.org that selectively publish material intended to give an exaggerated picture of the influence of the Muslim radicals. In reality, the overriding theme of the visit to Mecca is the traditional theme of universal Muslim brotherhood.
No surprise: pilgrims returning fro Mecca were 25 percent less likely to hold that different tribes or ethnicities could not live in harmony. Remarkably, pilgrims were also more likely to believe that all religions can co-exist. Moreover, the Pakistanis who went to Mecca were less approving of suicide bombings and other such tactics as the Pakistanis who stayed back.
Call this the Mecca effect. I predicted it in my book The Enemy at Home, in which I argued that America can find common ground with traditional believers and not just anti-Muslim activists like Hirsi Ali. The results of the Mecca effet, and the study cited here, are beautifully outlined in a recent article in the online magazine Slate written by Professor Ray Fisman of Columbia University. You can read the article here.
Yes, I know that the Islamophobes will come back with their regularly-recyled quotations from the Koran about "killing all the infidels" and so on. But equally alarming quotations can also be found in the Old Testament. The important thing is to see how those texts have been interpreted and how people have acted upon them. Muslims have had many empires through the centuries: the Ummayad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. Tens of millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians have lived under Muslim rule. In any Muslim empire was it either policy or practice to systematically kill all the non-Muslims? No.
So we have to learn to think afresh and to take into account real evidence. Prejudice against practicing Muslims and against religious believers in general is rife in certain segments of Western society. But such prejudices should not be the basis of making public policy.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 19)
76. Interesting how he says to piss on liberals, and then calls me dogboy...
lolol....
What a fu#$ing moron, seriously. And one with a bad temper to boot.
Godnazi.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:06PM on May 30th 2008
77. While in years gone by Moslem empires tolerated Jews, Christians and Hindus, AT THIS TIME Moslems are hot to extend their empires throughout the world on a non-tolerence basis.
And even when "tolerated" Christians and Jews were second class "dhaemmis," forced to pay a special tax, wear distinctive clothing and live in ghettos. So the world needs an advance from that which the Moslems would impose on it and that's called Western civilization based on Judeo-Christian principles, exactly the system we have and which the Moslems wish to destroy, whether pre-Mecca or post-Mecca!
David S. Levine at 7:27PM on May 30th 2008
78. Tom; I'm assuming you've read Scott McClellan's book?
Ryan Anderson at 2:35PM on May 30th 2008
---------------------------------------------
Uh, let's tally up. He's a right-wing nutbag godnazi lying thug with delusions of intellect.
Nope. I don't see it happenning. Read? Why? So much easier to talk with no knowledge. Why let facts get in the way when you can parrot Rush and Malkin and Coulter and all the rest of the undead? Hate is so much more fun, when you're a troglodyte like Thomas is.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:14PM on May 30th 2008
79. He probably hasn't even listened to an interview.
Well, it makes sense. After all, MacClellan has exposed the neocons for the lying macchiavellian war criminals they are, and since Thomas is one of the neocons, what else can he say? To admit that MacClellan is telling the truth is to admit that he's a filthy liar. No can do. He has to lie even more now, just like the administration has to. The truth is not an option to this type of person, not in this situation. No character, you see.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:18PM on May 30th 2008
80. Brian; I was pretty sure that was the answer, but felt I should ask since he seemed so certain Scott M. had NOTHING to say.
Ryan Anderson at 3:18PM on May 30th 2008
81. Let me let the other shoe drop.
I've read Dinesh's books (no, I didn't buy them.)
This piece is all well and good, but it then leads to the next question: Why do the fundamentalists attack us so much if Islam, as shown in the mecca effect, is more likely to be peaceful than violent? The answer? Sexual liberalism and rampant cultural immorality portrayed by hollywood and our media outlets. So it's not ISLAM's fault that we were attacked on 9/11. It's rampant tolerance for homosexuality and perversity that lead to our being attacked on 9/11.
Dinesh makes an even slimier argument: America as a whole is moral and good but allows our media to let the perverted aspects of our society disporportionate exposure. His solution: ban sex and smutt and make the gays and lesbians go away by punishing them for being out of the closet through tax incentives and social shaming. Once the fundies see that we're just as intolerant as they are, they won't want to attack us any more!
There. I just saved you the agony of having to read his book.
Somber at 3:18PM on May 30th 2008
82. Basic reading between the lines and wavy lines at that.
For a minute there I thought Dinesh actually wrote something I could actually agree with him on but alas, this rambling post is finally revealed in the end as a subtle but clumsy argument against the separation of church and state. We also learn that ole Dinesh just can’t refrain from bashing someone outright, subtly or by inference.
I am somewhat surprised that Dinesh would choose to criticize a conservative organization (MEMRI) and I hope he did not mistake it for a liberal organization (as I secretly suspect) because this means there is hope for him yet. I should point out that MEMRI is a non-profit organization and as such enjoys a tax-exempt status while also partially subsisting on a small subsidy courtesy of the US Government (we taxpayers). This makes me wonder about the likelihood that Dinesh would have failed to mention these points if they were a liberal organization.
Dinesh claims he predicted the Mecca effect in his book The Enemy At Home (a highly unbalanced, heavily slanted and shamelessly prejudicial liberal-bashing screed) but I have to one wonder how he can claim to have predicted something that was already occurring on a regular basis of which he was merely just not aware.
Of course I can’t prove this, but based on previous posts I believe that Dinesh’s failure to mention that MEMRI is a conservative organization in juxtaposition with the shameless promotion of his hateful The Enemy At Home, probably hoped to mislead his conservative fan base as to the truth of MEMRI’s ideological slant.
As for Hirsi Ali, I was already somewhat familiar with her via a profile on 60 minutes and other TV appearances and bio’s so, as for his description of Hirsi Ali as anti Muslim, I find it very telling that Dinesh failed to mention that Hirsi was herself a Muslim who only began to seriously question Islam after 9/11.
To be Sure, Hirsi had her problems with Islam before 9/11 but only in regards to what was expected of her as a woman in the more extreme Islamic societies but even there she was still a believer albeit a more moderate believer.
Dinesh also fails to mention that in spite of the fact that Hirsi ultimately became an Atheist as a direct result of the 9/11 tragedy the Somali refugee turned Dutch citizen and former Dutch Parliamentarian is currently a member of the very conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
That’s right a conservative Atheist, who would have thought? I can only imagine the marvelous mental gymnastics Dinesh had to perform to go ahead and list both MEMRI and Hirsi (individually) as examples of Islam bashing. Now I know that Dinesh hates people like me first as an Atheist and secondly as a liberal.
Even though I am an Atheist I myself am not against religion per se, I only have a problem with radical extremist (even the Atheists kind who dare to believe they can dictate what a person should and should not believe in) and while I can‘t say that I agree with Hirsi’s blanket condemnation of Islam I must say that Dinesh could have chosen a better example to cite as Hirsi is essentially a disheartened Muslim, a disposition further ingrained by the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (a direct descendent of Vincent Van Gogh’s brother), with whom she collaborated on a film called Submission.
In Submission, staunch Islamic attitudes towards women are criticized and Van Gogh was murdered at the hands of a radical Muslim who took exception to this criticism, this coupled with the subsequent fatwa (a call for Muslims to kill a particular person) against Hirsi Ali for scripting the film renders Hirsi Ali’s condemnation of Islam somewhat understandable (tough not acceptable). Ironically, when Hirsi Ali was younger she agreed with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
I guess my ultimate point here is to illustrate once again just how disorganized Dinesh’s thinking must be as evidenced by the poorly constructed arguments and the half-baked reasoning behind them and when one considers that often these posts have no real point to them. I can’t help but think that the ultimate reason for this is that Dinesh just can’t let go of his own prejudices and that he is in fact he is ruled by them.
This particular post could have been about intolerance in general even intolerance against Atheists and Liberals but this will never happen until Dinesh can look beyond Dawkins and look upon regular Atheists and liberals in general for what we really are: Moderates with a slightly different point of view who believe in those particular principles codified in our ideology that have benefited all mankind in the same way that some conservative and religious principles have.
But there are other things to consider with this post. Why did he chose to single out Hirsi Ali and not, oh, lets say… Pat Robertson?
Pat Robertson June 12th 2007: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law."
The above statement is the very antithesis of this particular posts and yet Dinesh failed to cite it or any other anti-Islam quotes from Pat Robertson. Why? Dinesh is sometimes a guest on the 700 club and if one were to suppose that his reasoning for not quoting Robertson was his desire to be invited back, what does that say about Dinesh’s morals and ethics?
rabidmccain at 3:45PM on May 30th 2008
83. Rabid; are you suggesting DD & Scott Mc are rowing the same opportunistic boat?
fanmanaf1 at 3:53PM on May 30th 2008
84. fanmanaf1
I Made no mention of Scott McKlellan.
But yes his book is opportunisitc and that in no way makes his accusations any less truthfull.
The timing is also suspiscious it's almost as if he wants the Republicans to lose the Whithouse.
rabidmccain at 3:59PM on May 30th 2008
85. you're right rabid; you didn't. I'm not trying to steer you off course, but there's been a lot of discussion about morals/ethics or the lack thereof and your last sentence seemed like an invitation. Are you genuinely as 'for' tolerance as you seem to suggest? And if so, who gets to draw the lines ('principles codified in our ideology')in the sand? Would it be fair to say 1 man's tolerance is another man's taboo?
fanmanaf1 at 4:12PM on May 30th 2008
86. fanmanaf1
I chose my words carefully when I wrote “those PARTICULAR principals codified in our ideology that have benefited all mankind…”
The problem with ideology as I see it is that too many people view their ideology as a path to a utopic society as they would define such and ideologies (in full) are woefully inadequate to address all the ills and concerns of any human society.
Societies are much too complex to adopt any single ideology to the extreme that certain pundits would have it. Liberals are generally pro-choice but there are many who are pro-life just as there are many conservatives who are pro-choice. You can find similar disparities along just about any other topic but eve there it can get muddled.
Ex: I’m against the death penalty only because of how unfairly it’s applied and the fact that there are too many instances of innocent individuals landing on death row. Fix those problems and I say fuck ‘em, if you killed them in cold blood you deserve to fry.
I’m also for limited gun control and am constantly amazed at liberals who are totally anti gun. If the shit hits the fan and we wake up to a totalitarian government liberals along with conservative libertarians are going to be the main targets for “reeducation”.
We all have different ideas as to what a utopia would be like and we have to recognize that there will never be a utopia, we’re all too different and none of us is going anywhere so just accept that, lets put a stop to all this liberal v conservative bullshit and at least try to fix the problems we have.
And yes that means that sometimes compromises have to be made but not the kind that are made just for the sake of compromising.
rabidmccain at 4:38PM on May 30th 2008
87. Thanks rab; a thoughtful response that deserves a better reply, but I gotta go. Maybe tomorrow.
fanman
fanmanaf1 at 5:08PM on May 30th 2008
88. Brians back slinging slurs
Remember christians who you serve
His deeds are evil as you can see
But Jesus loves him as you and me
His heart is hard and dead in sin
Prayers well help him deep within
Brian is a man of pride
From Gods judgemnet he can't hide
In shackles of sin he is jailed
But Jesus knows were he is held
His sinful record is on high
Mercy and grace is ever nigh
Your words are as great stones
The saviour watches from his throne
Life is short and this you know
With out Jesus you will go
To face your life once again
And then you'll pay for every sin
The fires of hell brun day and night
Will you see when there is no light
There the soul will never die
Then you'll know the devil lied
Once you get there you can't escape
That will be your eternal fate.
Observant at 5:48PM on May 30th 2008
89. All the intolorant people your talking about are the people that buy your books DD.
Larry at 6:37PM on May 30th 2008
90. Dinesh,
You wrote:
"he important thing is to see how those texts have been interpreted and how people have acted upon them."
Many Muslims TODAY interpret the Qu'ranic imperative to "kill all the infidels" in just that way. Whereas there is no worldwide group or groups of Christians or Jews plotting terror attacks and murders every day, THERE ARE ISLAMIC ONES. That is key, isn't it? Although not the point you were trying to make.
You wrote:
"Tens of millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians have lived under Muslim rule. In any Muslim empire was it either policy or practice to systematically kill all the non-Muslims? No."
OOOPS. Nice try, Dinesh, but first of all:
-They did systematically try to kill all the polytheists. Hence the 70 MILLION or so Hindus slaughtered in India. Isn't that where you're from? How come you don't know about that?
Secondly, you forgot about the real choice they were given: Convert, submit or die. If they submitted they were dhimmis. Look it up. That is the second-class status of "People of the Book" living under Muslim rule.
It was systematically enforced by making them pay the Jizya (a special tax--which was a great source of income--why kill all the people when you can rob from them?), making them wear special clothes, not walk on the same side of the street, not practice their religion openly, etc, etc, all punishable by beatings or worse.
Sure, they didn't systematically kill all of them, but they were oppressed--systematically.
Don't try to polish a turd. Muslim rule still stinks!
David at 6:53PM on May 30th 2008