Ignorance and culture

Submitted by Yusuf Smith (United Kingdom), Jan 5, 2007 at 01:27

This discussion confuses ignorance and cultural practices with Islamic and indeed "radical Islamic" ones.

While preparing a counter-argument to this I consulted a British Pakistani doctor friend, who is pretty strict in his practice of Islam. The city of Konya is well-known as a fairly conservative religious town, the main school of thought being the Hanafi, as in Pakistan and as among the Pakistani diaspora.

First: a substantial body of scholarly opinion does not hold that synthetic alcohol is impure; they hold that purpose-brewed alcoholic drinks are impure. (The type of alcohol concerned, ethanol, occurs naturally, including in fruit.) However, there are two common objections to these gels unrelated to religion.

The first is that they often have a very drying effect on the hands, which is why hospital staff themselves often refuse to use them (particularly if they have to several times a day). Soap and water is sufficient - then again, anyone who has been in communal male toilets often sees men walking out without washing their hands, or washing them properly. I'm not talking, necessarily, about Muslim men here. Second, such agents often lead to the resurgents of more drug-resistant infections, by killing all but those pathogens able to resist it - leaving room for the drug-resistant germs to flourish.

This is why, in the case of a recent outbreak of clostridium dificil in Kent (England), staff were told to stop using them and use soap and water instead. Add to this that I'm surprised alcohol, and not the meat derivatives often used as gelling agents, were the objection Muslims supposedly cited for not using the gel (consider that such gels often don't wash off the hands).

Regarding the incident in Turkey, those two doctors could not conceivably have reached the stage they had in their profession without treating and examining many, many male patients (which itself casts doubt on whether this story is accurate). As for why they suddenly decided they could not treat a young male with acute testicular pain and swelling, the only likely explanation is that they had suddenly "got religion" or had fallen under the sway of a particularly harsh religious leader or movement.

It is not known for British Muslim doctors to refuse treatment to patients on the grounds of their being the wrong sex, even when you consider that many of them are strictly religious as well. In this particular case, the likely reason for the lad's swelling is testicular tortion or twisting, which cuts off the blood supply and kills the testicle within five to six hours. Normal British practice is to send young men with signs of this condition straight to theatre, but I was informed that what is usually forbidden to a Muslim - looking at and touching a member of the opposite sex who is not closely related - is permitted in cases of medical necessity.

As for epidurals, again, culture seems to be at work here rather than Islam. My friend told me that there is a good reason for a woman to take an epidural, even from a male doctor; not only does it relieve the pain, but it may make a general anaesthetic unnecessary if a Caesarian is indicated, although the couples in this case may not be aware of this. I question, however, whether these men are present in order to object. Would a man who would put up such an objection really be such a "sensitive new-age guy" that he would be with his wife when she was in labour? If the women are not getting the epidurals, it is because they are refusing. ...

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".