Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Religion: preaching tolerance, practising tolerance
- Noor Ahmad (12 April 2008)
-
Physician, heal thyself
- Hugh Mann (13 April 2008)
-
Sweeping misrepresentation and stereotypes
- Jamila Sherif (14 April 2008)
-
Not a medical problem
- Shazad Amin (14 April 2008)
-
Islam teaches respect and sanctity of human life
- Salehuddin Samsudin (17 April 2008)
-
Nothing more than idle, but dangerous, speculation
- Bu'Hussain Hayee (17 April 2008)
-
Double Edge Sword.
- Ahmad Rafiq (18 April 2008)
-
Muslim doctors, fundamentalist extremists or caring professionals?
- William A.M. Cutting (18 April 2008)
-
Plurality or simply arrogance?
- Kazi R Akhtar (19 April 2008)
-
Tabligh is one of the best things that ever happened to me
- Munir Ali-Zubair, 2 Macdonald road, London E174BA (19 April 2008)
-
religion: misunderstood and hijacked
- Noor Ahmad (19 April 2008)
-
This is not the way
- Bu'Hussain Hayee (21 April 2008)
-
Re: Double Edge Sword.
- Christopher H Maycock (21 April 2008)
-
'Moderate' religious faith is still a problem
- Colin Brewer (23 April 2008)
-
Re: 'Moderate' religious faith is still a problem
- Kazi R Akhtar (26 April 2008)
-
Re: Kazi's response to 'Moderate' religious faith is still a problem
- Abhijit M Bal (27 April 2008)
-
Re: This is not the way
- Christopher H Maycock (28 April 2008)
-
An Unhelpful and Confusing mix up of Issues
- Abdullah F. Mobeireek (6 May 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Noor Ahmad, Primary Care Physician London
Send response to journal:
|
I am a Pakistani British Muslim doctor living in London and i am very proud of been British and grateful to this country for what it has given me including, education, “free” health service, security, and most of all allowing me to practice my religion openly and freely. In a lot of the so called Muslim countries in the world, sectarian differences causes violence and discord and fear in the land, not so in Britain. Britain like other “secular” states is a bastion of free will, democracy and fairness. British values have come from Christianity and the fairness we see now is because of distilled Christian values, over the centuries, in my opinion. As a Muslim i should be proud of this. Christianity, after all, is one the Abrahamic religions which i have a tremendous affection and respect for. There are those who will say, and this can be said of all systems, there is always room for improvement; but this is happening at an accelerated pace via the channels of openness, transparency and governance. I don’t see these honourable values in a lot of other countries! I feel a sense of deep loyalty to Britain and i feel very ashamed of what some of my fellow “Muslims” in this great country of ours, and abroad, have done. Terrorism, double standards, madness, creating discord in the land, has no place in Islam or for that matter, any Godly religion- its simply plain common sense! It must however me stated, that these so called “muslims” are in the minority and these are facts. May it be a small token of us smoking this pipe of peace for me to say that there are a lot of Muslims in the UK, England, who are doing very good work locally and nationally to build bridges across communities. We are raising monies for local, national non Muslim charities, we talk to our neighbours, and we invite them to the local Mosques. We hold religious forums and are in constant dialogue with community leaders and the leaders in our society. Good work is always going on...behind the scenes and away from all the noise. I am afraid the public communication tool called the media may not deem it worthy of publication, because i presume good news does not sell news. Peace and goodwill to all Noor DOI- i am not an apologetic, i am not a self hating Muslim.Thank you. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hugh Mann, Physician Eagle Rock, MO 65641 USA
Send response to journal:
|
It's more humane to cure your enemies than to kill them. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jamila Sherif, Primary Care Physician London
Send response to journal:
|
Al-Alawi and Shwartz suggest that many of the world's Muslim doctors are followers of a fundamentalist and radicalised Islam. I find this an offensive and sweeping misrepresentation and stereotype that will fuel fear and prejudice. The authors' views are clouded by their concentration on the idea of an 'intra-Islamic "jihad" to impose an ultra-militant outlook on more than a billion Sunni Muslims across the globe.' They state that radicalisation of elite professionals is more of a product of conflict within Islam itself rather than of social conditions in Britain. This completely disregards other factors such as the significant and accepted role of foreign policy on radicalisation. As an example of 'the role of Muslim doctors in taking extremist ideology to the masses', the authors cite the Islamic code of Medical Ethics, published by the Organisation of Islamic Medicine, Kuwait, which states that "The physician should be in possession of a threshold knowledge of jurisprudence, worship and essentials of Islamic religious law, enabling him to give counsel to patients seeking guidance about health and body condition with a bearing on the rites of worship." To me this is an example of the interface between faith and health and trying to deliver holistic and religiously/culturally sensitive healthcare. Doctors, Muslim and non-Muslim, will be able to improve the experience of health care for Muslim patients if they have the knowledge to advise appropriately on specific matters that relate to health and worship, for example managing the Ramadan fast. The authors call for the monitoring of 'radical Islamist groups'. But in the article they fail to correctly differentiate between apolitical groups, such as the Tabligh-I Jama'at which they misrepresent as 'an Islamist movement' and fringe elements such as al-Muhajiroun. I believe the doctors who are alleged to have been involved in last year's bombing attempts in London and Glasgow do represent a disturbing, freak phenomenon and are worlds apart from the thousands of hard-working and humane Muslim doctors that contribute so much to the NHS on a daily basis. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shazad Amin, Consultant Psychiatrist Trafford General Hospital, Manchester
Send response to journal:
|
The title of Al-Alawi & Schwartz' article 'Radical Muslim doctors and what they mean for the NHS' suggests there is a 'problem' with muslim doctors working in the NHS. Reading it one might be forgiven for thinking that many muslim doctors (a phrase used by the authors) are part of a 'fifth column' within the NHS and are actually subversive radical imams who happen to hold medical degrees, and are more powerful than the 'actual' imams in their communities. I read the report referred to by the authors (Scientific Training and Radical Islam) for evidence of this 'problem' in the NHS. Sadly there was none available, not even an estimate of what these 'many doctors' in the NHS comprise of in terms of numbers. Pure speculation of this kind is actually quite dangerous. Even though the authors dismiss the notion of 'vetting of muslim doctors' this is precisely what patients, colleagues and managers will informally and perhaps unconsciously do. Any social or ethical comment from such doctors will be viewed through a prism of them being a potential terrorist. Yes, there are a small proportion of muslims in the UK who may subscribe to such extemist ideology, and yes, some may be doctors, but to classify this is as a medical problems that needs to be addressed is inappropriate. The authors may wish to reflect upon actions of the muslim doctors who attacked Glasgow Airport. What medical training do you need to drive a jeep into an airport? (I obviously missed this lecture in my medical degree course). The answer is none; these were criminals who happened to be doctors. Competing interests: The author is a muslim doctor working in the NHS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Salehuddin Samsudin, SpR Paediatrics St John's Hospital, Wood St, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 9BG
Send response to journal:
|
I feel obliged to express my views with regard to the above article written by Al-Alawi and Schwartz. 1. The concept of killing or hurting innocent civillians is clearly against islamic ideology. Islam teaches respect and sanctity for human life. The prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) says that whoever saves the life of a human being it is as if he has saved all of humanity and whoever that takes the life of another human being without just cause is as if he has killed all of humanity. As muslim doctors, we must show solidarity and uphold the physician's oath and the Islamic faith that we hold dear by condemning all acts of violence that is aimed at the innocent whether in the UK or anywhere else in the world. 2. It is wrong to imply that there is a problem with "radicalism" amongst muslim doctors on the basis of the Glasgow incident. Muslim doctors are appalled as much as their non-muslim colleagues or even more about what has happenned. The media has been careful not to incite fear and panic toward muslim doctors in the NHS but this article in the BMJ is blowing this issue out of proportion. Muslim doctors have contributed hugely to the NHS and the UK for generations and it is for this that we should be regarded not for the deranged view of some criminal who happenned to be a doctor. Competing interests: Muslim doctor in the NHS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bu'Hussain Hayee, SpR WC1E
Send response to journal:
|
This article is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and lazy reporting. There is not a single piece of objective evidence, quantitative or qualitative, to support the authors' claims and accusations. The claim that Muslim doctors are able to usurp authority from imams and ulama are, quite frankly, ludicrous. The authors quote... "the best missionary service to be rendered by a medical doctor is to behave at the time in accordance with his Islamic teachings" from an 'Islamist' author rather negates their entire argument. Even, by their own reckoning, this is a prime example of an Islamic extremist - yet he is espousing nothing more than setting a good example of behaviour. A number of other examples: 1. "A member of our centre, Khaleel Mohammed, has noted that in the Muslim diaspora in the English speaking countries "Muslim leaders have not traditionally been chosen for their Islamic knowledge but for their stature in society—a medical doctor, a computer scientist" 2. the ordinary Muslim may consider the successful Muslim doctor to be superior to the mainstream cleric". I challenge the authors to provide a well-conducted survey of attitudes in the 'diaspora' to support these claims. In summary, this appears to be an article founded entirely on personal opinion of friends and colleagues. Inclusion of such articles is dangerous in the extreme, given the already volatile atmosphere surrounding Muslims in the UK. By all means lets have an open, honest debate - but one centred around well-considered facts. I would welcome it to help us make this country a safe, but libertarian, example to Europe and the rest of the world. Competing interests: A muslim doctor, born and bred in the UK and proud to be British |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ahmad Rafiq, social worker hull
Send response to journal:
|
I always had a very confusing question about Islam? What to choose and what to discard? Some people find it utterly offensive to discard or overlook verses of the Quran, others think it’s the only way for Islam to survive in the twenty first century, the century of quick, global, open communications, the century of intellect and freedom, of human rights and equality, of exposure and confrontation. Let’s face it, if we are to believe in the Quran in its entirety, we cannot escape many references to violence, terrorising enemies, humiliating people from other religions, forcing Islam by the sword, etc…and these are simply facts. Now, there are very peaceful people who believe in the Islamic faith, but those people whether they know it or not, stick to the so called peaceful Islam, they subconsciously ignore and deny all the teachings that go against their nature, ie the teachings of violence, and keep focused on the peaceful and loving aspects of Islam (the Islam of Mecca). But what about radical Muslims, they also quote the Quran in every video of theirs, these people obviously wiped out all aspects of peace and civilization in Islam and chose to focus on the violent aspects of Islam, they want to kill the infidels (non believers in Islam) and they want to terrorise their enemies. Turkey is a secular country that recently realised the incompatibility of some Islamic teachings with the modern civilised world, and we all heard recently in the news, the Ministry of Religious affairs’ complete revision of the meanings of some of the Islamic teachings. Until we come up with a formula that truly unites all Muslims under the Umbrella of Peace, we are not going to see an end to radical violence, whether committed by Doctors, engineers, lawyers, or anybody else for that matter, etc… Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William A.M. Cutting, retired consultant paediatrician Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh
Send response to journal:
|
Radical Muslim doctors and what they mean for the NHS. Al-Alawi I. and Schwartz S. BMJ 2008;336:834. Muslim doctors, fundamentalist extremists or caring professionals? Al-Alawi I and Schwartz S. indicate a cause for concern in a Report from the Centre for Islamic Pluralism. They state that many Muslim doctors working in UK “are attracted to an ideology that projects a solution to all human problems in a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, .” Moreover their leadership position highlights “The role of Muslim doctors in taking extremist ideology to the Islamic masses . .” They conclude by appealing to strengthen “anti-extremist trends in the Muslim communities” in UK and plead for “new professional associations . . to repudiate extremist ideology.” My experience of many Muslims I have worked with over 50 years is at variance with the Report from the Centre for Islamic Pluralism. Most have been competent and caring professionals. This implies to me that they do not know or they do not take seriously some basic Qur’anic injunctions. Violence is written into the Qur’an and this is manifest in many countries where Islam is the dominant force in society and politics. If my friends and colleagues had taken these texts seriously, they should have ostracised, fought or even killed me as an “unbeliever”. It is time for the Centre for Islamic Pluralism and moderate Muslims to recognise the source of the problem and admit that the Qur’an may have been a revelation for the sixth century, but it is not appropriate for democratic countries in the second millennium. William A.M. Cutting retired reader in international child health, University of Edinburgh. 1. Al-Alawi I, Schwartz S. Radical Muslim doctors and what they mean for the NHS. BMJ 2008;336:834.(12 April.) 2. The Qur’an. Sura 4:74, Sura 8:12, Sura 8:38-39, Sura 8:59-60, Sura 9:5, Sura 9:123, Sura 47:4. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kazi R Akhtar, GP Registrar LE10 1DS
Send response to journal:
|
This article is intellectually flawed and I found it insulting towards practising Muslim health professionals. Al-Alawi and Schwartz cannot claim to defend pluralism by disparaging all lines of Islamic thought that happen to disagree with theirs. This is simply arrogance. It also promotes the idea that unless a Muslim doctor posesses 'tradition and spirituality' (whatever that means) he or she could be viewed as a part of a global extremist drive to use the platform of medicine to disseminate terrorist ideas. I find this repulsive and am in my chosen profession due to the deep teaching of compassion within my faith, belief in a merciful god and inspiration from illustrious medical icons in history such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and others. I do not deny that there are a very small number of Muslim terrorists who happen to be doctors. However, in reducing the role of most Muslim doctors as part of a conspiracy theory - Al-Alawi and Schwartz have lost all credibility in the debate for me. Competing interests: I am a British-born practicing Muslim Doctor who works in the NHS. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Munir Ali-Zubair, General Practitioner Forest Surgery, 2 Macdonald road, London E174BA
Send response to journal:
|
I have been deeply involved with the Tablighi Jamaat (TJ) for several years. As a UK born muslim doctor I can confirm that I found the author's discussion of various muslim groups and of the TJ in particular quite offensive. Articles such as these are likely to consolidate racial disharmony and increase distrust of muslim doctors by presenting Islam as a problem rather than as a solution. Now let's be clear - the terms 'terrorism', 'radicalism' (or 'fundamentalism') have very different implications. All good human beings abhor terrorism. And all good muslims know that Islam is a perfect way of life and adhering to its fundamentals is an expectation on muslims by God. ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM IS, IN FACT TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH TERRORISM. Much like the teachings of Moses and of Jesus (Peace be upon them), Islam is about fairness, respect for all life (with even animal rights declared 14 hundred years ago!) and honesty. It encourages adherence to the guidance provided by the GMC. The TJ is a non-political, practical school for muslims which specifically encourages prayer, knowledge, affection and fairness in society and relationships and sincerity as well as belief in one God. Why think about the few terrorism suspects who just happened to have some connection with the TJ? Didn't some of them just happen to be of a particular sex, have certain star signs or be of a particular height? Why not, instead emphasise how the TJ makes one a better person and a better doctor? We are in desperate need for harmony and acceptance in society - the TJ encourages it. Your article has the opposite effect. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Noor Ahmad, Primary Care Physician London
Send response to journal:
|
I feel it is important to explain some misunderstandings concerning the above Quranic verses quoted. My esteemed colleague Ahmed and William above seem to opine that the issue is not so much with Muslims or Islamists but rather the actual Quranic verses which allege to incite hatred etc. The first obvious counter-suggestion is if there is a God, and so the God of all of us, do we really think He would suggest such hate filled actions against those who do not believe in him? If we do then we have a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. According to the Quran itself, Allah (God) is All Forgiving and All Merciful and also another verse that "there is no compulsion in religion" also that "as far as the Sabians etc are concerned it is God who will judge them" It is not our job as Muslims or of any other faith to judge people! (I am already struggling with juggling my family life with work life that i am not at all suitably placed to judge people!) Look how many years our esteemed British judiciary system has to train before they are placed to put our verdicts. It is no small matter judging people! It needs to be said that the Quran was revealed piece meal over several years, often at times of active violence by the Meccans and others against the peaceful followers of early Islam. Note that in the early times of Muhammad, the Muslims were small in number and would often feel fearful of their future and their survival. At these and other times, God would reveal verses to remind them He was on their side. During times of active unjust conflict waged by wrong doers, verses would be revealed that you are given permission to protect yourselves and your families and livelihoods and to be firm at those times( positive psychology i presume for the Muslims who were very small in number against a huge and wrong opponent) I beseech you to approach these verses with an earnest and open mind: Please see the verses in the light of the customary and usual practice of the prophet Muhammad. I will give 2 examples. Once he entered a town called Taif where he was pelted with rubbish and stones, and an angle approached him to ask him if he wished the town be punished for their violent act. He simply forgave them. This is a historical fact. Secondly, when he returned triumphant to Mecca after emigrating to Medina because of persecution, he simply forgave all his "enemies". This truthful benevolent fact/act is often eluded to even by the staunch critics of Islam. There are verses in other non-Muslim Holy Scriptures which superficially allude to "incitement to hate", but again if they are taken out of context they do not do justice to the true underlying peaceful teachings of those scriptures. This then represents a bias towards religion itself. The fault line , i strongly feel, is not at all the Holy Scriptures which God has revealed over the centuries and for which i have a deep love and affection for, but those creatures called Human beings who lay claim to its interpretation, albeit wrong interpretations. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bu'Hussain Hayee, Specialist Registrar WC1E
Send response to journal:
|
I am saddened by a couple of the responses above. They arise from a deep-seated misunderstanding of the basis of Islam and its scripture ... likely to be hand-me-down or received opinion (not meaning to insult the authors of the postings). The problem is one of the point of origin. If you start with the surmise that Islam is basically an evil, violent religion with some good people who happen to be Muslim, you are making a grave mistake. Grave because you will, at a stroke, alienate the vast majority of Muslims who believe the Qur'an, and let me be clear, IN ITS ENTIRETY. There is no conflict between the verses quoted and peace. If they are presented in a reasoned way, in the context in which they were revealed - with an understanding of Islamic history - then there is no problem. The challenge facing us as Muslims is to get this message to vulnerable young adults who might be swayed by individuals who deliberately misinterpret these passages. The challenge facing non-Muslims is not to take this as an opportunity to point score against Islam and belittle it - to what end? - but to help us get on with it and make sure that we can live together in peace and, perhaps more importantly, TRUST. This was possible in Muslim Spain (for several hundreds of years - a fact that cannot be 'spun'). It can be possible again. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher H Maycock, GP Retired EX17 5EP
Send response to journal:
|
How refreshing to read Ahmad Rafic's response to the British Medical Journal article 'Radical Muslim Doctors and what they mean for the NHS'. I travelled overland to India in 1963 and returned with considerable respect for Islam. But then the recent acts of terror made me read The Koran for myself. How I wondered can I square the inconsistencies and violent passages (e.g. Suras 8:12 & 33:26-27) with the favourable impression I had previously gained. The ideas of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism seem the only current practical hope for peace and reconciliation between the Faiths on the horizon, and should be enthusiastically welcomed. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Colin Brewer, Research Director The Stapleford Centre. London SW1W 9NP
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor. It is not just radical or fundamentalist Muslims who are the problem. Fundamentalists believe that an ancient anthology of often ambiguous or contradictory writings should be their principal guide to living and to relationships with others. Defining this anthology as ‘holy’ means that they become angry if anyone questions its origin or historicity. Some ‘moderate’ Muslims believe they need not follow all the anthology’s commandments. Others believe that some commandments can now bear interpretations very different from those that were taken for granted for many centuries. However, fundamentalists, moderates and modernists unite in believing that this anthology is terribly important and merits enormous respect. While a sustained desire for explosive martyrdom may be rare, recent surveys show that a disturbing proportion of British Muslims believe that abandoning their religion merits the death penalty. It last happened here in 1697 but is still the law in several Muslim countries. We know only too well that many ‘moderate’ Muslims have not adapted to the hard-won reality that in the West, religions (like other ideas) have no immunity from criticism or ribaldry. Doctors have often been rather sceptical of religious claims; even in medieval times, it used to be said that ‘where there are three physicians, you find two atheists’. The first openly unbelieving book in Britain was written in 1782 by a doctor.[1] Today the majority of eminent Western scientists largely share his views. To wonder if there is something out there is one thing. To be certain you know its name and what displeases it is quite another. REFERENCES. 1. Berman D. Atheism from Hobbes to Russell. London. Routledge 1990. p 113 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kazi R Akhtar, GP Registrar LE10 1DS
Send response to journal:
|
Colin Brewer's spurious arguments must be rebutted. He attempts to demote Islam (and thereby other organised religion) based on distorted logic and to promote atheism without presenting its fundamental flaw. This flaw is that atheism has no moral code, founding principles or guiding ethics upon which to mould one's life. It is therefore in no position to disparage organised religion which fundamentally spread morals considered universally to be virtuous. Within religious doctrine there are fringe issues which can be abused, such as apostasy within Islam, which appear to contradict this. However, this is no basis upon which to discount the whole idea. For example, Christians worldwide would be shocked if their religion were judged on the actions of the followers of the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints. If atheists were to concede that they promote any man-made ideology, let them ponder the actions of the physicians that performed atrocious acts under Nazi rule. They cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they have no moral standpoint to criticise religion, or they can give their opinion with knowledge that their own camp is just as bloody if not more. Competing interests: Practicing Muslim Doctor working for the NHS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abhijit M Bal, Consultant Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock, KA2 0BE
Send response to journal:
|
Atheism is not a new idea born in the middle of the 20th century. Atheism has been an accepted philosophy in India from several thousands years ago. At least 4 major Indian philosophies namely Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika, and Charvakian philosophy were either agnostic or atheist. The followers of these philosophies were no less moral than the Hindus of India. The regimes of both Hitler and Stalin were responsible for killing millions but the murders were not motivated by atheism. Indeed, Stalin's victims were mostly atheists themselves! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher H Maycock, GP retired EX17 5EP
Send response to journal:
|
Bu'Hussain Hayee rightly praises the tolerance and high culture of Islamic Spain. Nevertheless neither Christians nor Jews living under its jurisdiction were permitted for one moment to criticise Islam itself. So the tolerance was limited, as it would have been also in the contemporary Christian West. Perhaps more importantly, translations of and commentaries on Ancient Greek texts particularly those of Aristotle, led to Averroes (Ibn-Rushd) emphasising the importance of reason for faith (e.g. applying analytical thinking to The Koran) and philosophy for religion. Regrettably, traditional Islamic scholars did not adopt his approach in the longer term, though ironically and crucially it was transmitted to Western Christendom, leading to Scholasticism and eventually to the Enlightenment. This is the kernel of our present predicament: Islam still remains essentially a pre-Enlightenment religion, where Faith and Reason do not live happily together. Until this can be remedied, as proposed in Turkey, the impasse will persist. Bu'Hussain Hayee encouragingly also appears to be supporting the shift in thinking towards 'Trust', enlightened by Reason. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abdullah F. Mobeireek, Consultant King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh 11211m Saudi Arabia
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Al-Alawi and Shwartz comments(1) on Muslim doctors are not based on any good evidence, but merely on subjective impressions and personal biases. At best, they base their conclusions on rare incidents such as what happened in Glasgow and London, when we that the case report is the weakest kind of evidence. Their report ignores positive contributions of thousands of Muslim professionals in the NHS and elsewhere. The truth is that extremism and terrorism are not confined to any religion, philosophy or profession. A recent paper in New England Journal of Medicine, that also commented on the Glasgow incident, makes one point clear; physicians are under-represented amongst terrorists.(2) As the scope is limited here, I will restrict myself to comment on a few important points, as examples of the poor methodology and the confusing mix up of the issues. In their allegation of the Muslim doctors’ involvement with radical organizations, authors frequently state that ‘many Muslim doctors....’ without mentioning any numbers or statistics (this includes in their long report they referred to on their web site). Also, to make a case that it is not the poor economy or foreign occupation that is radicalising doctors in they cite the example of Saudi Arabia. I would challenge authors to mention evidence of how many Saudi doctors, if any, were involved in terrorism. In addition, the authors made reference to the Islamic code of Medical Ethics’ recommendations that physicians ought to have some religious knowledge . This is needed to advice his patients regarding medical issues that are related with worship. Examples of this include the ability of patients to endure fasting if they have diabetes or renal disease, cleanness for prayers if they suffer from incontinence, and other ethical issues such as truth telling, respect for patients autonomy, confidentiality etc. Similarly, when Abu Saud write about Muslim doctors behaving in accordance with Islamic teachings, he is referring to things such being kind, honest, supportive to patients, virtues shared by many other beliefs. I do not see any relation of any of these issues to terrorism, rather an unhelpful and confusing mix up off issues. Finally, they confidently claim that “doctors may overtake the Imam’s role” . This is quite unusual, unless the doctor happen to have formal religious education. I believe if the doctors take a lead, their impact will be positive and repressive to the aggressive elements. There is no doubt that danger from terrorism should not belittled, and all possible measures should be taken to prevent civilian casualties. Equally dangerous, however, are attempts to divide the professional medical community, based on their religious or philosophic affiliations, because this undermines the human cooperation for a common cause. Furthermore, this mix up of tolerant and moderate groups of the mainstream Muslims with the radical ones, the Institute of Medical Pluralism seems to missing its mission, and will certainly lose credit, at least as far as Muslims are concerned. Abdullah Mobeireek FRCP
References 1. Al-Alawi I, Schwartz S. Radical Muslim doctors and what they mean for the NHS. BMJ 2008;336:834. 2. Wessely S. When doctors become terrorists. NEJM 2007; 357:635-637. Competing interests: A Muslim Doctor |
|||