Well, yeah, isn't there still a betting man's chance that a person with scripturally grounded belief in the powers of witches and men who hunted dinosaurs might be president within the next four years?

The thing is that the Dr Ahman Al-Muzain probably has the science right. I am no medic but a quick Google search turns up:

-- The prevalence of [urinary tract infections] as well as renal scarring was significantly higher in females, when compared to male diabetics.

linkinghub.elsevier.com/.../S0168822701002558

The popular press occasionaly has articles on UTI in women but I don't remember ever seeing one on UTI in men.

"Dr. Ahmad Al-Muzain: The Prophet Muhammad said that there is no need to wash off the urine of the male infant. Only the urine of the female infant should be washed. In the case of the urine of the male infant, it is enough to sprinkle water lightly over it. From this, the religious scholars have concluded that the urine of the male is less impure than the urine of the female. This gives rise to many questions: Why is there a distinction between the urine of the male and the female? What is the wisdom in this? Is this, as some Orientalists claim, discrimination against the female, even in infancy? God forbid that this is true. "

Ha!

I love his use of the term "Oreintalist."

Edward Said would have been proud of the koranic "doctor" Ahmad Al-Muzain.

Way to go all you peace loving anti-Orientlaists.

So, now Mackenzie is a doctor too and one who supports Islamic medicine.  I wonder if he would have posted something similar if the so called doctor would have been a Baptist Misinter or an Orthodox Rabbi?

However, it's typical of Mackenzie to defend Islamic nut cases.

And so what if more girls than boys are likely to get UTIs?

What's so difficult about cleaning the genital areas of all new borns?  Would Mackenzie or al Muzain want their boys to get the disease even if the chances were far lower than those of girls?

The lecture is not intelligent and it's not good science.  It has only one purpose to keep alive the notion that their damned prophet was right about everything as well as to again highlight the unbridgeable distinction between man and woman.  It's a good thing their prophet didn't know anything about cancer or their "doctors" today might decide that the multiplication of cells was a gift from the great Mikado in the sky, aka, Allah!

Oh, the Mikado! Fall on your faces you worms!  That’s better medicine than cleanliness.

How does science from "Islamic Nutcases" differ from Christian "science" (let's say, oh, a 6000 year old earth) or Jewish "science" (say a prohibition on eating horse meat)?

Not by much, I dare say.  All of these are leftover understandings of the physical world long since superseded amongst intelligent observers by better "science."  Religion that attempts to prescribe understanding of the physical and biological world is out of its element, I'm afraid.

It's always easy to find scriptural support for the idea that God stands on the side of human health and fecundity. That's why He was invented, for Christ's sake.

Could you get somebody to correct the headline? "E-Coli" is excruciatingly bad style.

This thread brings new meaning to the phrase "pissed off."

sdemuth said:   "How does science from "Islamic Nutcases" differ from Christian "science" (let's say, oh, a 6000 year old earth) or Jewish "science" (say a prohibition on eating horse meat)?"

Don't be an idiot, muth.

Christian or Jewish "doctors" who confuse science with religion are also nut cases.

Christian Scientists in my State have been put in jail, and rightly so, for refusing treatment to their underage children.

As to the laws of food Kashrut in Judaism (or I suppose Halal in Islam or not eating meat on Fridays among Catholics---I don't know if they still follow this practice) as far as I know are not based on health.

They are religious commandments or they function as cultural and social markers.  As long as these are voluntary and don't adversely affect the health of the individual I have no problem with them.

However refusing medical treatment in the name of religion that’s not Kosher, muth.

nbarry said: "This thread brings new meaning to the phrase "pissed off.""

No, it's the same old meaning, it just clarifies it.  

ndmackenzie, I don't think Peretz -- or any of us -- really feels the need to dispute the incidence of E. coli in male vs. female urine. The point is that this "doctor" is using this happenstance to somehow verify the truth of the words of Muhammad. You may very well understand this already, but you didn't give any indication that this the case.

ndmackenzie said: "The thing is that the Dr Ahman Al-Muzain probably has the science right. I am no medic . . ."

ndmackenzie certainly is no medic. In early infancy, urinary tract infection occurs more commonly in males than females. See:

Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics 1982;69:409-412.

Hoberman A, Chao HP, Keller DM, Hickey R, Davis HW, Ellis D. Prevalence of urinary tract infections in febrile infants. J Pediatrics 1992;123:17-23.

JD: I was deliberately not refereing to Christian Science, as in the sect, but christian "science" as in the "science" promoted by various interpreters of Christianity.  I would have thought that obvious from my syntax and the example I chose.

As for the Kashrut rules of Judaism - I think it is not known, really, whether particular rules laws originated from an attempt to differentiate the tribe of Abraham from their neighbors, as a social cohesion device, or as rules of hygiene.  It's pretty hard to argue that some of the rules were not in fact rules of hygiene, and thus of a biological world view (the rule that an animal that died naturally, or which has blemished organs, for example).  So were the prohibitions against horse and pig flesh of this nature, or were they just irrational rules whose value was in their setting Jews apart or keeping them together?

I don't know, obviously.  But my point was that religiously inspired world views are irrational and often counter-scientific, in all the major monotheisms.   I don't see how calling me an idiot is an argument against that.

And we obviously agree, Christian, Jewish or Islamic doctors who confuse religion with science are wrong.  I wouldn't call them nut cases though.  The doctrine of these religions claim access to truth every bit as absolute, or more, that that claimed by science.  What's a devout scientist to do?

JPKatz -

I'm not particularly interested in this topic but, since you bring it up, the operative words in the abstract for the Ginzburg paper are:

-- This experience in neonates is markedly different from that in older infants and children in whom infection occurs almost exclusively in females

Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics 1982;69:409-412.

www.cirp.org/.../ginsburg

Oh, and by the way, YOU could have provided the link.

Stuart Wild and sdemuth appear to have the appropriate level of respect for this post by Peretz.

ndmackenzie said:  "I'm not particularly interested in this topic but..."

But he wants to prove the Islamo nut case right.

"This experience in neonates is markedly different from that in older infants and children in whom infection occurs almost exclusively in females."  Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics 1982;69:409-412.

Almost is not an exact figure. One should know the exact numbers before one decided that it's ok to allow male babies to develop UTIs.

Had  your parents allowed you  to develop UTI by not caring about cleanliness then you would be singing a different song.

sdemuth said:    “As for the Kashrut rules of Judaism - I think it is not known, really, whether particular rules laws originated from an attempt to differentiate the tribe of Abraham from their neighbors, as a social cohesion device, or as rules of hygiene.”

Socio-religious customs often develop for one reason and then take on meanings beyond those originally envisioned.

Also meanings of social customs change according to actual social realities.

“But my point was that religiously inspired world views are irrational and often counter-scientific, in all the major monotheisms.”

Why only “major monotheisms?” Are they more scientific in polytheistic or minor monotheistic religions?

A custom originating in the pre-scientific isn’t really irrational or unscientific since its origins do not intend to answer any question posed by science.

And yes, religious worldviews are not scientific or non rational if you prefer. I prefer to use the term irrational for views developed to counter scientific claims such as the ones that reject evolution or other scientific theories.

The world view of religions need not be irrational. Some Christian and Jewish groups try very hard to align their views with those of science.  The rejection of modern science by, say, the Catholic Church went hand in hand with its acceptance of Aristotelian rationalism. The Jewish philosopher and Rabbi Maimonides likewise looked to Aristotle for scientific answers.

After Galileo and the enlightenment Christian and Jewish thinkers tried very hard to find a way of aligning their views with those of contemporary science and philosophy with various degrees of success.  

In any case, these questions can be very complicated and the picture you draw of religion is taken almost exclusively from the lowest common denominator of religious thinking. At the same time you draw from the most up to date theories of science.

During the Middle Ages there were advanced schools of Muslim theology every bit as sophisticated as those of Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides. However, since then most major Islamic theological centers in Cairo, Qom, Iran or the many schools of Islam in Saudi Arabia seem to be more interested in keeping Islam pure than in trying to smooth out the contradictions with modern science.

“And we obviously agree, Christian, Jewish or Islamic doctors who confuse religion with science are wrong.”

This goes without saying. It’s also dangerous for the health of individuals being treated by these retards. ( I am being polite.)

“I wouldn't call them nut cases though.  The doctrine of these religions claim access to truth every bit as absolute, or more, that that claimed by science.”

They are nut case because they either know that they way they practice medicine is wrong and endangers the life of their patients, or else they care more about their religion than their science.

“What's a devout scientist to do?”

What many devout scientists and doctors did in the past in Islam and are doing today among Christians and Jews. Either divorce your religion from science or try to find a way to modify your religion so that it won’t contradict scientific norms.

"Why only “major monotheisms?” Are they more scientific in polytheistic or minor monotheistic religions?"

No.  They just don't interest me very much, because they do not  force themselves upon my consciousness, nor appear to be challenges to reason that significantly affect the world in which I live.  Islam, Christianity and Judaism do these things, so I commented on them.

"What many devout scientists and doctors did in the past in Islam and are doing today among Christians and Jews. Either divorce your religion from science or try to find a way to modify your religion so that it won’t contradict scientific norms."

That's the rub, isn't it?  You can attempt to modify your religion to reconcile it with science and reason, but only at grave cost to one or the other.  The story Peretz tells, or closer to home, the rise of "scientific" creationism and similar nonsense among Christians, are cases of bastardizing or emasculating science, in order to preserve the primacy of religious truth.  On the other hand, the scientists I know who are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, mostly either subscribe  to a very circumscribed notion of religion - eliminating its claim to knowledge and prescriptive truth and making it a mere choice of ritual and association - or even more bizarrely, subscribe to Stephen Gould's absurd "different magisteriums" formulation - accepting the inherent irrationality of simultaneous believing two contradictory claims of truth, thereby sacrificing the coherence of both.

I find Al-Muzain's wanderings absurd, just as I find creationism absurd.  But I at least understand them - they've chosen a way to understand the world, and are sticking to it, come hell, high water, or factual inconveniences.  On the other hand, I find those who "modify their religion so that it won't contradict scientific norms" to be mostly sad - chipping away at the foundation of something they wish to hold absolute and fundamental, but can't, and yet unwilling to let go of it either.

ndmackenzie,

You might find it useful to read the paper as well as the abstract; e.g.,

"During a 59-month period from March 1976 through February 1981, 100 infants with acute urinary tract infections were admitted to hospital from the acute care clinic of Children’s Medical Center or from the emergency room of Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas. The age of the patients ranged from 5 days to 8 months (mean 2.1 months). There were 62 boys and 38 girls (Figure). Male infants accounted for 75% of patients in the first three months of life compared with 11% of patients who were 3 to 8 months of age. Of 41 infants who were 30 days of age or younger, 33 (81%) were boys."

Obviously, this is not consistent with the blanket contention that the urine of a male infant contains much fewer bacteria than that of a female. But then, you are simply wrong in your claim that "Dr Ahman Al-Muzain probably has the science right".

Of course, it is all true.  E. coli, you see, comes from shit.  Really, E. coli IS shit or, better, shit is E. coli along with a bazillion similar microbes.  It's a true fact that by dry weight shit is north of 99% bacteria.  Allah, in His wisdom understands this,  Allah made E. coli, and Allah made assholes, and Allah understands that assholes and E. coli go together like peanuts and beer...er...peanuts and ginger ale.  But, you see, Allah had to find a way to keep the shit out of a man's generative apparatus.  He wasn't so much worried about the ladies.  We all know the ladies are already unclean.  All that bleeding...YUCK!!! So what Allah did was, in males he placed the out/in door--out for piss and gism, in for shit aka E. coli--as far as possible from the asshole.  He placed it right up at the end of this long, floppy stalk, and he made it so that any E. coli shit that tries to sneak in anyway has to make its way up a very long tube before it can find any sustenance in the bladder.  With dirty, dirty females on the other hand, Allah didn't waste His time.  He stuck that doorway right down next to the asshole with nothing but a little 'tain't between 'em to keep the shit from sloshing right across.

Seriously, though, Marty, do you really think Islam has a monopoly on sexism and irrationality?  You think it makes sense to sleep apart from your wife for a week after her period finishes?  You don't think a Mikvah is a little silly?  There are Lubavitcher guys here in East St. Kilda who are so full of manliness and giz they'll visit a brothel (prostitution's legal here in Oz) during Niddah and risk giving their wives the clap or worse but would tear their women new ones if they didn't take a freaking bath on time.  

It's all bollix.  Islam, Judaism, Christianity...bollix all.

Aeromonas nails it.  Bollix.  All.

"Seriously, though, Marty, do you really think Islam has a monopoly on sexism and irrationality?"

No. But there is a difference in how far  a religion goes with irrationalism and sexism and what kind of instructions are meted out to the believers. Humans as per definition have irrationality, sexism and racism embedded in their nature. They make a religion's work much easier to do.  The judgment should be how other religions get along with rationality and diversity. How come Christianity and judaism adjusted themselves, in  creative and genuine ways, to modernity, while Islam seems to want to . keep the dark ages alive and well.

What I don't understand is why the need to address this question in the first place; why mothers are encouraged not to clean their baby boys with the same care they give to their baby girls. Muslims are instructed to wash themselves before prayer, before and after sex. They take pride in the emphasis on cleanliness. This seems an extraordinary waiver, or something.

nogal writes:

-- How come Christianity and judaism adjusted themselves, in  creative and genuine ways, to modernity

If they have that will be news to many. The Anglican church has been struggling for years with the idea of females and gays in its ministry. The Catholic Church is rancidly homophobic - except when it covers up pedophiles - and has not exactly been a beacon on a hill to any woman wanting to become a priest.

Where would you rather be a homosexual, or a woman? In a Christian, Jewish or Muslim society? Your answer, ndmackenzie, only highlights the point I was making.

"How come Christianity and judaism adjusted themselves, in  creative and genuine ways, to modernity, while Islam seems to want to . keep the dark ages alive and well."  Noga

Mackenzie's bullshit notwithstanding, Noga's point is well taken.

Let's also remember that it wasn't Islam that gave us secularism and a foothold from which to criticize religious bigotry.

Yes, aeromonas, the Lubavichers' are anti-modernist but there is still a big difference between them and the religious culture that produced Jihadi sucide bombers and decapitators.

sdemuth  said: "Why only “major monotheisms?” Are they more scientific in polytheistic or minor monotheistic religions?” No.  They just don't interest me very much, because they do not  force themselves upon my consciousness, nor appear to be challenges to reason that significantly affect the world in which I live.  Islam, Christianity and Judaism do these things, so I commented on them.”

This isn’t about you, muth.

The discussion is about religion in general and not about the way religion impinges on your consciousness.

As a scientifically minded individual you should know that. Imagine discussing only evolution in the mammalian world because say insect evolution doesn’t impinge on your consciousness.

“You can attempt to modify your religion to reconcile it with science and reason, but only at grave cost to one or the other.”

This is also false. Trying to reconcile religion and science is a religious project. Scientists do not have to reconcile their theories with religion.

Science is the given and religion has always borrowed metaphorical and explanatory languages from science or even political reality to express it abstract beliefs.

Because of the sharp paradigmatic break between traditional science and modern science in the 18th century and beyond religion remained stuck in a view of the world that was contradictory on its own terms and contradicted our understanding of reality.

“The story Peretz tells, or closer to home, the rise of "scientific" creationism and similar nonsense among Christians, are cases of bastardizing or emasculating science, in order to preserve the primacy of religious truth.”

This isn’t what I had in mind. This is the vulgar way of reconciling oneself to scientific knowledge.

“On the other hand, the scientists I know who are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, mostly either subscribe  to a very circumscribed notion of religion - eliminating its claim to knowledge and prescriptive truth and making it a mere choice of ritual and association - or even more bizarrely, subscribe to Stephen Gould's absurd "different magisteriums" formulation - accepting the inherent irrationality of simultaneous believing two contradictory claims of truth, thereby sacrificing the coherence of both.”

Again you are missing the point.

The scientific world view has to do with the way we look at phenomenon and not at the conclusions (always subject to revision) such understanding reaches.

Religion and other humanistic disciplines look at the world quite differently: they are interested in transcendental questions of origins, meanings, and aims. These are not issues that would interest the scientist.

“I find Al-Muzain's wanderings absurd, just as I find creationism absurd.”

Yes, but this is too easy. The guy is an ignorant fool. So are the people who take the creation story as fact.

“But I at least understand them - they've chosen a way to understand the world, and are sticking to it, come hell, high water, or factual inconveniences.”

Here is the rub. The problem, muth, isn’t just religion it’s your misunderstanding of modern sophisticated notions about religion.  What is called the “new atheism” is just as ignorant as the old religious fundamentalism.

“On the other hand, I find those who "modify their religion so that it won't contradict scientific norms" to be mostly sad - chipping away at the foundation of something they wish to hold absolute and fundamental, but can't, and yet unwilling to let go of it either.”

This is an absurd conclusion, muth. You need to do some more reading in modern philosophy as well as theology. You may not agree with most of it, but at least you will get a better grasp of what they are about.