The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The “market appeal” of Ramadan

Why demanding religions win.

By Sholto Byrnes Published 15 August 2010 22:00

Mehdi has already posted informatively about Ramadan, concluding that the month of daily fasting "is an act of worship and a spiritual act; it is also an act of social solidarity". As he indicated from his comment about his groaning stomach, it is a testing time, as well as one whose shared nature lends it other joys -- as anyone who has witnessed the breaking of the fast can testify. A drink and a nibble on a date is often soon followed by a lavish spread, certainly at the Buka Puasa dinners in Kuala Lumpur I've attended.

Not all Muslims necessarily deserve such indulgence of an evening during Ramadan, of course; not everyone is that rigorous in their fasting. I mention this because some people seem to think that Muslims are uniquely strict in their religious observance. "Drinking alcohol -- but they're Muslim!" is an interjection I've heard more than once. But both Pakistan's Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Malaysia's Tunku Abdul Rahman were fond of whisky, and Jinnah of pork, too.

And last Ramadan, the former's distant successor as his country's leader, General Musharraf, was spotted tucking into Peking duck washed down with a bottle of Châteauneuf-du Pape 2006 in a Kensington restaurant at lunchtime. Not halal at all.

It would be wrong to suggest, however, that any of the three did not consider themselves "proper" Muslims. Why should it? After all, probably a majority of Mass-attending Catholics in western Europe cheerfully ignore their Church's rulings on contraception, and consider themselves none the more sinful for it.

I digress, however, as the point I wish to concentrate on is the demands that Ramadan places on Muslims. The very word "demand" suggests an onerous quality. Something to be avoided, surely? In their new book, Selected: Why Some People Lead, Why Others Follow, and Why It Matters, the academic Mark van Vugt and the journalist Anjana Ahuja appear to be of that view . . . and then demonstrate why the opposite may be true.

"Paradoxically," they write, "the costlier the rituals associated with a belief system, the more enduring it is. One study of religious communes in 19th-century America showed that those making the most extreme demands on their followers -- giving up worldly goods, celibacy, shunning contact with outsiders, relinquishing certain foods and alcohol -- were the most enduring. Such sacrifices ensure that only the most loyal and committed adherents become followers. After that, the follower remains tied to his leader through the wish to be consistent with his previous, group-oriented actions."

This echoes a similar point made by the philosopher (and friend of Dawkins) Daniel Dennett in his 2006 book Breaking the Spell: Religion As a Natural Phenomenon. He quoted a University of California study by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke in which they wrote: "Herein lies the secret of the strength of higher-tension religious groups: despite being expensive they offer greater value; indeed, they are able do so because they are expensive."

Explains Dennett: "An expensive religion is one that is high in 'material, social and psychic costs of belonging'. It doesn't just cost time spent on religious duties and money in the collection plate; belonging can incur a loss of social standing and actually exacerbate -- not ameliorate -- one's anxiety and suffering. But you get what you pay for; unlike the heathen, you get saved for eternity."

Going back to Stark and Finke, who lack Dennett's sarcastic endnote: "Not only do more expensive religions offer more valuable product, but in doing so, they generate levels of commitment needed to maximise individual levels of confidence in the religion -- in the truth of the fundamental doctrines, in the efficacy of its practices, and in the certainty of its other-worldly promises."

I can't say I particularly care for the use of words such as "product" and "value" in this context, but the argument is persuasive -- as is Dennett's noting that affiliating to more demanding religions can isolate and make life more difficult, demonstrated in England by the experience of Catholics, Muslims and Jews over the course of many centuries. Whatever persecution those groups suffered, they still deemed it worth holding to their "higher-tension" faiths rather than succumbing to an Anglicanism whose demands I have always found bewilderingly minimal (however attractively broad-minded its liberal prelates).

So, to return to my starting point, there is yet another benefit to Ramadan from the Muslim perspective. It may be too late for the declining C of E to think about whether it should demand more of its followers rather than seek further compromises to keep a fracturing Anglican Communion together. What, however, can atheists draw from this? What demand can they make, and what can they offer?

Of those they wish to discard faith, they ask a very high price indeed: loss of belief can entail struggle, guilt and a sense of having thrown away a sacred treasure with which the believer had been entrusted. What they offer are the comforts of reason and then a long "mouldering in the grave".

Atheists may reject the very notion of having to compete in terms of "value". I sympathise with that view, but would also conclude that in this particular market their "product" has scant appeal -- even for those who have to spend one month of the year with an aching stomach and parched lips.

Tags: Ramadan Islam

More from Sholto Byrnes

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Mon, 2010-08-16 23:14 — Des Demona (not verified)

I think the NS should just change it's name to the New Islam and be done with it.

Mon, 2010-08-16 13:04 — Professor Jandriver (not verified)

Here we go gain! Felix with his made up anti-Muslim bull. I personally no longer practice any faith being an educated man of science but I was bought up in a Muslim family, I also use to fast for a number of years. It was extremely difficult to refrain from food and water, and smoking cigarettes in my case, one can sort of understand why practices like these can make one stronger minded.
As for Mehdi Hassan's eating disorder, in some people going for long periods without eating may create a slower metabolism and the body may be more susceptible to the calories that come later in the day causing the body to store those as fat and not use them.

I don't actually recall myself or anyone I knew or still know putting on weight, or having Christmas dinners(binge eating), or being told not to bring food into work in the month of ramadan. Where do you get this stuff from? you are twisting things and talking out of your back passage again boy...

Mon, 2010-08-16 15:47 — felix (not verified)

Jandriver More polite criticism,so much for the supporters of the religion of peace.Who said mehdi had an eating disorder I did not.

You did say one think of interest
"I personally no longer practice any faith being an educated man of science" implying that only THE UNEDUCATED ARE MUSLIMS!

You start your post with "Here we go gain! Felix with his made up anti-Muslim bull."
AT LEAST I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT ONLY THE UNEDUCATED CAN BE MUSLIMS what arrogance what stupidity from the 'professor'.
With supporters like these?
What a classic own goal!

Tue, 2010-08-17 10:49 — Muhammed (not verified)

felix your contempt for the religion of Islam and muslims is well documented within the many columns in this website.
I would urge all muslims to ignore felix as there are many within his own community,race call it what you will who are fighting the likes of felix.
Along with felix there are more and more who seem to copy and paste "comments" from anti muslim websites whilst attempting to sound knowledgeable about the sharia or sunnah when in fact they have no real understanding whatsoever.

Tue, 2010-08-17 11:54 — felix (not verified)

Muhammed
I challenge you oh wise one to disprove any one of my points using Islamic source's or better still logic.
TRY COPYING AND PASTING AN ARGUMENT OR MAYBE YOU CANT FIND ONE.
TRY GOOGLE.
As for contempt I will reserve that for you as you seem to like being a victim.
Your knowledge of your own religion is so poor that you are unable to present a coherent counter arguments.
As for all those people fighting me,I don't see many and those that try just resort to tired ad hominem
abuse which anyone with any intelligence knows is no argument at all.
Still no answer to my question,how many Muslim's can read and write Arabic with fluency?
Not merely recite like parrot.
As you seem to think that Arabic is a necessary prerequisite for understanding Islam.
As I pointed out the majority of Muslims were until very recently illiterate in their own language let alone in Classical Arabic.
Many still are in Africa,Pakistan and Bangladesh maybe they dont count as real Muslims.

Tue, 2010-08-17 12:25 — Muhammed (not verified)

felix your reply perfectly illustrates a person who is filled with nothing but hatred.
Being able to read and write arabic is not the most important part of our religion,Ask the many who have embraced Islam in this country who speak only the English language what is most important.
I accept your claim the majority of muslims are "illeterate".
Anything else?
We are all aware you are very intelligent unlike the vast majority of muslims!

Sun, 2010-08-15 22:43 — EdWelthorpe (not verified)

I agree with Dennett. This is why some faiths really cannot co-exist (hence the two-state peace solution in Ireland) - the differences are too deep. One believes in rationalism, one believes in statues weeping blood. One believes in progressive sciences and reinterpretation, the other in following ancient rules like automatons. One believes in hierarchy, the other in horizontality. One believes is simplicity of worship, the other in 'smells and bells'. One believes that God is everywhere and in everything, the other in special food eaten on special days, in holy water with magic powers.

Crucially - one steers towards a more liberal, relaxed attitude, and the other believes in unbaptised children burning in hell. In the event of a mixed marriage - which of those two will types of faith will win out? The more devout and dogmatic of the two, of course.

Therefore any relaxed and liberal faith, simply to prevent itself being bred out of existence, almost needs to match the dogmatism of the other. It forms fraternities and orders, goes on marches and asks for state protection. Just to survive.

Still, "throw away a sacred treasure"? Homophobia, jawdropping sexism and cruelty to animals? "Faith - the Abrahamic years" isn't even worth recycling.

Tue, 2010-08-17 12:42 — plumber (not verified)

@Muhammed.
As always, any criticism of Islam is defended by the faithful by saying "You don't understand Islam". I don't understand Islam but I do Know as human being that public beheading,stoning to death.amputation.Etc,Etc. Are wrong, Over to you.

Tue, 2010-08-17 12:51 — felix (not verified)

Muhammed
On a previous post you indicated that I could not understand Islam because you suggested I could not read and write Arabic.
Therefore my views would be false.
You have now completely reversed your opinion.
Its now possible to understand Islam without understanding Arabic.
TRUE OR FALSE,WHICH IS IT.
Please make up your mind.

Sun, 2010-08-15 23:13 — 9xzulug

just having a spiritual faith in the divine is in itself surely a religion.there are so many similarities in all denominations of faiths which is why i stay spiritual only.what gauls me is why do these same religions battle amoungst themselves to portray with people's minds that they are thee chosen ones.there is only one creator bickering and fighting for religious superiority will not gain anyone THEE CHOSEN title.peace n unity 4 all

Sun, 2010-08-15 23:15 — Des Demona (not verified)

SHOLTO

This article is an insult to the NS and what it used to stand for.

Since when did 'marketing' stand above reasoning?

Only in religion.

You are an idiot. Hopefully in time you will recognize that.

Mon, 2010-08-16 00:33 — felix (not verified)

Sholto Byrnes -"- even for those who have to spend one month of the year with an aching stomach and parched lips."

hhahah dont make me laugh,many Muslims put on weight over Ramadan.Its one month of after dark 'Christmas' dinners.

Mon, 2010-08-16 01:32 — Dolly Mixture (not verified)

Felix

Regardless of how much you eat afterwards (not that all muslims DO then choose to eat to excess, as you suggest), it is still a challenge to keep away from the things that you think you need all day.

It's a challenge that I find beautiful. Fasting causes me to reevaluate what I consider to be needs and what are simply desires; it teaches me self-restraint and makes me hyper-aware of my thoughts and actions. Every day I accomplish a feat I wouldn't otherwise have thought possible, and I feel strong, grateful and humbled.

The scales have nothing to do with it.

Mon, 2010-08-16 01:39 — William (not verified)

@EdWelthorpe
"I agree with Dennett. This is why some faiths really cannot co-exist (hence the two-state peace solution in Ireland) - the differences are too deep. One believes in rationalism, one believes in statues weeping blood. One believes in progressive sciences and reinterpretation, the other in following ancient rules like automatons. One believes in hierarchy, the other in horizontality. One believes is simplicity of worship, the other in 'smells and bells'. One believes that God is everywhere and in everything, the other in special food eaten on special days, in holy water with magic powers.

Still, "throw away a sacred treasure"? Homophobia, jawdropping sexism and cruelty to animals? "Faith - the Abrahamic years" isn't even worth recycling."

Mr Welthorpe, i can safely say that you are the most biggoted fantasist i have ever met in my life.

You don't actually have a clue about nothern ireland do you?

Nothern ireland is only ever portraied as a struggle for religous purity by biggoted protestants, like yourself. Everyone else knows that it was a civil rights movement against racial discrimination.

There is no 'two state peace solution' in ireland based on religion, despite your bizzare claims. There are catholics and protestants in the south of ireland where there has never been any discrimination, and protestants and catholics in the north where there has been continious discrimination from day one.

You go live in northern ireland amoung the biggoted, evangelical born-again young-earth-creationist, hate-mongers and then lecture other people.

You'll find that compared with what protestantism in ireland and america regularly throws up, the Pope is an enlightend liberal.

It is not the catholics in ireland who are demanding the fossils be removed from the museums because they where forged by satan.

It is not the catholics in ireland who are calling for all homosexuals to be extermintated.

Your claim that the orange order was formed to protect protestants is a lie; it's like claiming the KKK was formed to protect whites from persecution by negros. Incidentally the KKK and the Orange Order maintain close links as sister organisations, it also organises with the BNP.

Intresting you mentioned mixed-marriage because, of course, the orange order that you so love, bans protestants from marring catholics.

"One believes in unbaptised children burning in hell" That is not now and never in history was a belief of the catholic church.

This woman represents an accurate portrait of protestantism in ireland:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/01/06/homo-hater-iris-robinson-says-jesus-...

or this appolgist for genocide,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley

If you want to find out what it's really like living a protestant-police-state, like nothern ireland or alabama, i advise you read The Scarlet Letter, or The Crucible, or read the histories of puritan england, where dringking, laughing, singing, dancing, playing musical instruments, swearing, and studying cartesian geometry got you burned at the stake.

Mon, 2010-08-16 01:50 — felix (not verified)

re
"Herein lies the secret of the strength of higher-tension religious groups"
see
listen and learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UDl3j8WZQ

Mon, 2010-08-16 03:03 — felix (not verified)

Dolly Mixture
You seem to have missed the word many I said 'many' not all,my point was that it was not a month of starvation and suffering as the sentence
"- even for those who have to spend one month of the year with an aching stomach and parched lips." seem to indicate.

I am glad it allows you reflect on you existence,something we all may benefit from but without the need for fasting during the day and then binge eating at night.

Just dont try to make me do it.As some try to do.In some work places they try to ban food and drink in the office over this period.
If you and your coreligionists wish to fast that is your business don't involve others in it.

Mon, 2010-08-16 03:06 — felix (not verified)

pointingtrade

Can someone do something about pointingtrade this is a blog not a flee market,

Mon, 2010-08-16 04:46 — Dolly Mixture (not verified)

Felix

I didn't miss your use of the word 'many', I was commenting upon the fact that you incorrectly suggested binging was part of the ritual, and you do so again in your second comment.

I think generalising is unfair and I certainly don't appreciate the manner in which you cast your generalisations towards myself. My colleagues don't even realise that I'm fasting most of the time. It's a personal thing, and I don't see the need to make a fuss about it.

People always seem to use negative examples as representative; perhaps because those that peacefully get on with their lives (the majority) actually go unnoticed.

Mon, 2010-08-16 05:03 — felix (not verified)

Dolly Mixture

"you incorrectly suggested binging was part of the ritual, and you do so again in your second comment."

This is my third and last comment
Mehdi comes to my support,he will I am sure kick himself.

"I can't speak for others but I always end up putting on weight because I eat so much every night, at iftar time, to compensate for not having eaten all day!"

from Mehdi intro to Ramadan.
Case closed.

Mon, 2010-08-16 08:42 — Barny

A thought provoking article. However, 'Atheists may reject the very notion of having to compete in terms of "value". I sympathise with that view, but would also conclude that in this particular market their "product" has scant appeal.' is not thought out. If 'atheists' are happy to compete, they may suggest that the existential and societal bravery of being a (thoughtful) atheist trump the religious.

Mon, 2010-08-16 11:31 — Dolly Mixture (not verified)

Felix

"I can't speak for others". It's at the very beginning of the sentence you quote.