When Orthodoxy Is Good for You: Making Sense of the “Hajj Effect”

Headlines about Islam usually write themselves: A Muslim blowing up innocent people is dog-bites-man. A Muslim acting thoughtful or funny or anything besides angry is man-bites-dog. The obvious headline from a recent academic study, “Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam’s Global Gathering,” fell into the latter category: Three economists found that Pakistanis who completed the pilgrimage were more likely than non-Hajjis to be more tolerant not only of other Muslims, including women, but also non-Muslims.

As the three authors wrote in an International Herald Tribune column, headlined ‘Mecca and Moderation,’ “The promotion of tolerance doesn’t need to be defined in immediate opposition to religious orthodoxy. There may be ways, as demonstrated in the hajj, to leverage religious beliefs to foster compromise and mutual respect.” In other words, practicing orthodox Islam doesn’t lead to being a terrorist. (Dalia Mogahed said Gallup research discovered the same thing: that radical Muslims who endorsed violence were not more religious than politically moderate counterparts.) This angle was also emphasized by Columbia Business School professor Ray Fisman in his article about the study in Slate, “Does Going to Mecca Make Muslims More Moderate?”

But what the authors found actually raises a series of other questions. Yes, the Hajj changed opinions and outlooks, but how and why exactly did that happen? The authors offer explanations based in social theory — mixing with others makes you more tolerant — but left aside more religious questions. Could it be that intense religious experience, regardless of context, leads to a more benevolent embrace of the world? Do the tenets of Islam itself in this context — the rites of Hajj require Muslims to be patient with one another — give rise to this new spirit of toleration that Hajjis discover?

First you should know the three authors — David Clingingsmith of Case Western’s Weatherhead B-school, Asim Kwaja of Harvard’s Kennedy School, and Michael Kremer of Harvard’s econ department — came up with an ingenious way to study the issue. Like any researchers who want to study causality, the authors had to be able to compare Hajj-goers with a control group that did not go on Hajj. But how to find such a control group? You can’t just pick any old non-Hajj-going Muslim, because maybe Muslims who go on Hajj are already tolerant or religiously orthodox to begin with. What the authors did, then, was draw research subjects from a single pool of Pakistanis who applied for visas to complete the Hajj. Because Saudi Arabia limits the number of pilgrims from a given country, the Pakistani government applies a lottery system to grant visas, and the authors could thus compare those who went on Hajj with those who tried to go on Hajj but were prevented by lack of visa. (To see the full methodology, complete with incomprehensible equations, you can download the whole paper.)

And here’s what they found: One, Hajjis remained more religious even five to eight months after returning, engaging more often in both obligatory and recommended observances, such as fasting and praying, sometimes even in the middle of the night. At the same time, they were less likely to practice “local” religious customs like wearing amulets or visiting the graves of holy men.

Two, as the authors write in their ???????? ????? ????????IHT column, “Hajjis have more positive views about people from other Muslim countries and are more likely to believe that different Pakistani ethnic and Islamic sectarian groups are equal and that they can live in harmony. Despite non-Muslims not being part of the hajj experience, these views also extend to adherents of other religions: Pilgrims are 22 percent more likely to declare that people of different religions are equal and 11 percent more likely to state that different religions can live in harmony by compromising over their disagreements.”

Finally, the authors write, “hajjis report more positive views on women’s abilities, greater concern for their quality of life, and are also more likely to favor educating girls and women participating in the workforce….and become more sensitive to crimes against women.”

So what causes these changes?

The authors look to social theory for explanation, theorizing that praying, sleeping and eating side-by-side with Muslims from around the world has a salutary effect. Malcolm X, of course, was transformed by just such experiences on his own Hajj. Write the authors in their study, “The evidence suggests that exposure to Muslims from around the world during the Hajj is important. While we find that Hajjis do not
acquire greater formal religious knowledge, they do gain experiential knowledge of the diversity of
Islamic practices and beliefs, gender roles within Islam, and, more broadly, the world beyond
Pakistan.”

This theory is confirmed by the fact that pilgrims in small groups were more affected by the experience (presumably they mixed more with others) and that Hajjis in particular had a changed opinion about Indonesians, who, as members of the world’s largest Muslim country, are most represented at the Hajj.

But the authors point out that interacting with others does not inevitably lead to a “smile on your brother” mentality. Common sense confirms this insight from social research: My husband, for example, dislikes Eagles fans and disliked them even more after we attended a game at Lincoln Field. And, of course, hanging out with your own — i.e. getting together solely with other Muslims for a month, or hanging out with fellow Eagles fans — can reinforce that “in-group” feeling. So what explains this “hajj effect,” in which Muslims seem to come back more orthodox but also more tolerant?

Unfortunately, the authors were not able to consider religious theories. One possible explanation is that the Muslims who went on Hajj engaged in intense religious devotion, and that devotion itself — the closest we come to direct contact with God — leads to the universally good and true values of tolerance and respect. Of course academics might not be able to ask this question, since it assumes some objective reality of God and some essential definition of what is “good.” But the question remains: Are these people simply returning from a transformative religious experience? And does such religious experience naturally open the spirit to a more expansive, loving view of the world?

Another religious aspect the article did not explore was the specific religious commandments relating to Hajj. In particular, to remain in the state of ritual purity required to make one’s pilgrimage valid in the eyes of God, one must refrain from being angry. In the Qur’an, for example, God tells believers that if they undertake Hajj, there should be “no obscenity, nor wickedness, nor wrangling” (2:197.)

I remember once years ago asking a Muslim friend in Sudan what the hardest aspect of Islam was: He replied, without hesitating, “Going on Hajj.” I was suprised: I assumed that the obligation to wake each morning before dawn to pray, or fast for an entire month, would be the most difficult. But Hajj, he explained, was an extreme physical and social trial: Not only does one cope with dust and heat and thirst, but also the stress of crushing throngs and pilgrims from other cultures who may have entirely different standards of personal hygeine. Yet one has to remain patient — indeed, there is a religious obligation to remain patient.

So maybe what’s being overlooked here is that it’s not just mixing with different people that is transformative. It’s mixing with them within a religious context where you are obligated to be patient with them.

Indeed, the authors do hint at the role the Hajj plays in the larger experience of Islam. It contributes, they write, to the capacity of Islam to function as a “unified world religion.” They continue, “Over time, religions with far-flung adherents tend to evolve separate strands which may eventually break away into different religions. Our analysis suggests that the Hajj may reduce dissent and splits in Islam by moving Hajjis toward a common set of practices, making them more tolerant of differences among Muslims, and by creating a stronger shared identity. This may be particularly significant for a religion, such as Islam, without a centralized hierarchy that can enforce common practices and beliefs and promote unity among followers.”

In other words, Hajj almost sets the standard for what it means to be Muslim around the world. And if Hajjis come back practicing their religion more devoutly, feeling more tolerant toward others, and holding women in higher esteem, I say “ameen” to that.