The mosque Obama visited was segregated by sex; Muslim feminists object

February 5, 2016 • 9:30 am

As I noted on Wednesday, President Obama visited a mosque in Baltimore (see New York Times story here). At the time I thought that was, on the whole, a good thing to do, assuring nervous American Muslims that they have the government behind them, and that are just as “American” as everyone else. My only beef was Obama’s statement that “An attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths,” which I saw as a gratuitious bit of faith-coddling.

Since then I’ve found something else that’s disturbing: the mosque that Obama visited and addressed is segregated by sex, so that normally men can pray in the big fancy room (the musallah), while women are relegated to a drab back room. And even during Obama’s visit, girls were herded into the gym, while boys were allowed in the main room where Obama spoke.

(This reminds me of a time I took a female visitor to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Brooklyn: she was not Jewish and I wanted her to see the frenetic davening and strange behavior of the Orthodox. While I was led onto the main floor of the synagogue, full of davening men, where I was quickly wrapped in a tallit, tefillin, and capped with a yarmulke, my friend was taken to the “women’s section”: a dark room above the floor where the women were forced to sit, watching the action below through a barred window.)

Apparently two-thirds of American mosques are segregated by sex. What kind of message, then, does Obama send when he visits one of them? If he’s arguing that Muslims hold to American values, well, that’s not the case when it comes to their houses of worship.

Were I Obama, I would have either visited a non-segregated mosque or had some public meeting with Muslims in another place. (I don’t expect that Obama will be visiting a Lubavitcher synagogue any time soon, though, on a per capita basis, America Jews suffer twice as many hate crimes as do American Muslims.)

In fact, in the New York Times‘s “Women in the World” section, two Muslim feminists, Asra Q. Nomani and Ify Okoye, objected strenuously to what they call Muslim “gender apartheid”, describing what happened during Obama’s visit:

The girls, shrouded in headscarves that, in some cases, draped half their bodies, slipped into a stark gymnasium and found seats on bare red carpet pieces laid out in a corner. They faced a tall industrial cement block wall, in the direction of the qibla, facing Mecca, a basketball hoop above them. Before them a long narrow window poured a small dash of sunlight into the dark gym.

On the other side of the wall, the boys clamored excitedly into the majestic musallah, their feet padded by thick, decorated carpet, the sunlight flooding into the room through spectacular windows engraved with the 99 names of Allah, or God, in Islam. Ornate Korans and Islamic books filled shelves that lined the front walls.

. . . President Obama should be aware that on any given day a woman or girl worshiping in the mosque would be dispatched away from the musallah where he will stand to speak out against “Islamophobia,” to the “prayer room for females,” as one worshipper described it. In much the same way that he wants to mitigate Americans seeing Muslims as the “other,” we have to challenge the Muslim systems that segregate women as the “other.” He should know that promoting women’s rights in mosques is a key part of fighting the ideology of extremism — a fight that he asked American Muslims to help wage in an address to the nation in December. A theology of Islamic feminism is our best answer to the extremism of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim militant groups. Even the most conservative of Islamic scholars acknowledge that, in the 7th century, the sunnah, or tradition of the prophet Muhammad, was to allow women to pray in the main hall of his mosque in Medina without any barrier in front of them.

. . . As women and girls, we should be supported by policies that allow us to be part of such conversations. The president can support this urgent cause by speaking out against gender segregation in American mosques. In the spirit of the civil rights moment when whites stood with blacks, we hope men and women will refuse the privilege that “interfaith” events give them, and, in act of solidarity, stand outside with us on Johnnycake Road and the other pathways leading to the mosques in our world, advocating for equal rights for all.

Among those Muslim feminists protesting on Johnnycake Road was a coauthor of the piece above: Asra Nomani, journalist, cofounder of The Muslim Reform Movement, and author of Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of IslamBelow is a video from MSNBC of Nomani debating the segregated-mosque visit with journalist and correspondent Jonathan Alter. I think Nomani won the exchange handily.

Alter says that the purpose of Obama’s talk was to tell everyone “what it means to be an American.” Well, one thing it should mean to be American is to reject women being given second-class status.

Really, what’s the difference between Muslim women being relegated to second-class space during prayers, and black people being forced to drink at separate water fountains during the era of segregation? The only difference is one is based on religion, and that one is still with us.

A so-so quiz on DNA

February 5, 2016 • 8:30 am

Reader Diane G. called my attention to A Quiz on DNA at Now I Know quizzes.  Some questions were easy, others were harder, and one question is really, really dumb. You get 8 minutes to answer 19 questions.

As a geneticist of sorts, I better have gotten them all, and I did (see below; click on screenshot to go to quiz), but for a few questions I had to enter several answers before I got the right one. (You can’t proceed until you get a question right, but you can give up and start all over again.)

The questions are mostly on DNA structure, and I don’t expect non-scientists to get all of them.

Try it yourself and report the results in the comments. I bet you can figure out what the dumbest question is, but that one’s not so easy to answer!

Screen shot 2016-02-04 at 3.51.00 PM

Spot the spotted woodpecker

February 5, 2016 • 8:05 am

“But it’s already spotted!”, you’ll say. Well, I just forestalled that smart-ass answer. Reader Robert Seidel sent this photo that contains a spotted woodpecker (Dryobates minor).  Can you spot it—at least further than it’s already been spotted?

The answer will be up at 1 p.m. Chicago time.

Click photo to enlarge:

IMG_2180

And, as an extra quiz, guess who this is holding the cat:

Cat Holder

Readers’ wildlife photographs

February 5, 2016 • 7:15 am

Today’s bird photos come from reader Karen Bartelt, with her caption:

Reflecting on that age-old bromide, “Birds of a feather flock together.”

Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), Washington, IL:

0209_strut5

Galapagos finches, mixed flock, Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos, Ecuador.  Home of Gil de Roi, whose mother began to feed them years ago:

IMG_3356

Black-headed parrots (Pionites melanocephalus), Rio Ucayali, Peruvian Amazon:

P1010608BlackHeadedParrot

Cedar waxings (Bombycilla cedrorum), High Cliff State Park, Wisconsin:

P1020221cr

Mostly northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Washington, IL:

P1030128cr

Tricolored munias (Lonchura malacca), Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge.  Escaped cage bird first seen on Kauai in 1975:

P1030689cr

Nene (Branta sandvicensis), Hanalei NWR. [JAC: these are flightless geese endemic to Hawaii, and the state bird. Remember that flightless birds are found largely on oceanic islands like Hawaii. Do you remember why? You’ll know if you read WEIT.]

P1030707sm

 ‘Apapane (Himatione sanguinea sanguinea), Alakai Swamp.  I was roughly 2 football fields away from these birds and did not have a big lens.  The only really neat thing is that there are five of them.  This is by far the most common honeycreeper, and I’ve seen them lots closer around Hawai’i Volcanoes NP, but I’ve never had a shot at five at once.

P1030866cr

JAC: Here’s a closer picture of the bird from Wikipedia:

Himatione_sanguinea

 

Friday: Hili Dialogue (and lagniappe)

February 5, 2016 • 6:15 am

It’s Friday, and tomorrow I’m off to Old Blighty. Just for one week, though, an unpleasantly short trip, as I’d prefer to stay longer. But shortly after I return I’ll be off to Halifax, Ottawa, and Montreal, where I will eat poutine, bagels, and smoked meat. On February 5, 1909, the invention of the first plastic (Bakelite) was announced; it was very brittle and is no longer used, but the clarinet I had as a teenager was made from it.  On this day in 1939, Franco became the head of Spain; he remains dead. And on this day William Burroughs was born in 1914, Hank Aaron in 1934, and, in 1956, Betty Ong—a flight attendant on AA flight 11, who reported from the plane via cellphone before it was flown into the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is dissing poor Cyrus again. Malgorzata is not sure what Andrzej (who writes the dialogues) was on about, she guesses that “Ants can be satanists – they can bite and it is painful as hell. Ants, with their totalitarian organization in the nest, cannot be sceptical.”

Cyrus: Shall I tell you a story how a satanist ant met a skeptical ant?
Hili: You are lying. There are no sceptical ants.

P1030841

In Polish:
Cyrus: Opowiedzieć ci jak się mrówka satanistka spotkała z mrówką sceptyczką?
Hili: Kłamiesz, nie ma mrówek sceptyczek.

Reader Bruce sent this photo from the Millie LaRue Fan Club (note: Millie is a d*g, so you don’t have to “like: the page), and they’re asking for a caption. It smells like a setup photo to me. For one thing, the cup has clearly been moved.

12642960_1331552463537240_2425375685930457569_n

Here’s Gus:

IMG_4179

And here’s Leon, back in Wroclawek:

Leon: One has to rest before the weekend.

12687989_1092537750766825_5610284294182901016_n

Squirrel bonds with rescuer

February 4, 2016 • 3:30 pm

This goes up as today’s last post, celebrating National Squirrel Month (yes, I made that up).

I’m not sure what species of squirrel this is (readers?), but this video from the NowThis Facebook page (click on screenshot to see) is heartwarming. The text explains the situation, but note that the tame squirrel treats the man exactly as if he were a tree!

Squirrels don’t make good pets, but this sciurid/primate relationship is still lovely.

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 2.45.09 PM

h/t: Keith

Sarah Palin’s ungrammatical grammar

February 4, 2016 • 2:30 pm

If you want to see a tongue-in-cheek but also serious analysis of Sarah Palin’s public speeches mind dumps, have a look at Tuesday’s New York Times article “Sarah Palin’s English” by Anna North.  We’ve all heard Palin babble on many times, but when her words are put into print, they look even dumber. But North, a staff editor for Op-Talk, takes the grammar seriously, explaining what Palin is trying to do, although in the last line of the piece (not reproduced here) she gives away the game.

A few excerpts:

Mrs. Palin is also a big fan of the participial phrase. “And that blank check too,” she said on Monday, “making no sense because it’s led us to things, oh gosh, to pay the bills then, we have had to uh, print money out of thin air.”

In this case “making no sense” and everything that follows appear to modify “blank check”; though it can be a little hard to tell with Mrs. Palin, the participial phrase seems to function as an adjective. Elsewhere in her speech Mrs. Palin got more sophisticated.

“Politics being kind of brutal business,” she said, “you find out who your friends are, that’s for sure.”

Here, “politics being kind of brutal business” defines the circumstances under which the action occurs. It looks like a construction that will be familiar to anybody who took Latin in school: the ablative absolute.

An ablative absolute in Latin is a particular kind of clause that, according to one definition, “modifies the whole sentence as an adverb modifies the action of a verb.” An example, courtesy of The Latin Library: “His verbis dictis, Caesar discedit.” Translation: “With these words having been said, Caesar departs.”

In fact, a lot of what Sarah Palin says sounds like it’s been poorly translated from the Latin. With her “he who” and “one who,” she’d sound almost Ciceronian if it weren’t for the holes in her logic and the way those complicated sentences sometimes dribble off into vaguely sinister, possibly offensive nonsense.

One more bit:

. . . Here’s Mrs. Palin using both a dependent clause and a participial phrase to attack President Obama on Jan. 19:

And he, who would negotiate deals, kind of with the skills of a community organizer maybe organizing a neighborhood tea, well, he deciding that, “No, America would apologize as part of the deal,” as the enemy sends a message to the rest of the world that they capture and we kowtow, and we apologize, and then, we bend over and say, “Thank you, enemy.”

I honestly am not sure what’s going on in this sentence.

You’ll have to go to the piece to see North’s peroration.

Matthew Cobb battles with the faithful over my book

February 4, 2016 • 12:30 pm

Denis Alexander wrote a review of Faith versus Fact in the January 22nd Times Literary Supplement (TLS), and, to say the least, it wasn’t kind. But given his position as an evangelical Christian and the emeritus head of the Templeton-founded-and-funded Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, given his criticism of evolution as an “atheistic theory,” and given my repeated criticisms of his religious views on this site, to which he’s responded, I didn’t expect anything else. (Given his position and our history, though, I am surprised that the TLS religion editor chose him.)

I can’t link to his review as the TLS doesn’t have a free website, and I won’t really reply to it, as I adhere to Nick Cohen and Stephen Fry’s advice to never answer critics. But I’ll let someone respond: our own Matthew Cobb.

After reading Alexander’s piece claiming that my book was the most “consistently scientistic” book he’s read in a long time, and that there is indeed falsifiable evidence for religious claims (Alexander uses the Resurrection as an example), so that there are indeed religious “ways of knowing”, Matthew (unknown to me) wrote a letter to the TLS:

Sir—

In Denis Alexander’s review of “Faith vs Fact” (22 January 2016), my friend Jerry Coyne’s claim that theology provides no ‘real knowledge’ is dismissed as a ‘scientistic raid’. I wonder if Dr Alexander, or indeed any reader, could provide an example of knowledge gained through theology, and above all tell us how they know that knowledge is true?

Matthew Cobb
Faculty of Life Sciences
Michael Smith Building
University of Manchester

In the next issue, Alexander responded, as well as another believer, and Matthew kindly transcribed the letters for me. First, Alexander’s (why are all the letters titled “Sir”? Are there no women at the TLS?):

Sir—

Prof. Matthew Cobb enquires as to how knowledge is gained through theology. I am, like Prof. Cobb, a scientist, but I am happy to pass on what I infer through observation of theologians in their academic discipline here in Cambridge.

There are three types of theological enquiry. The first relates to reflection on the properties of the universe, a procedure known as ‘natural theology’. Inference to the best explanation points to a creative Mind underlying features of the universe such as its anthropic fine-tuning, its intelligibility (without which science cannot even get going), the mathematical elegance displayed in the properties of matter and energy, and the emergence of human minds by an evolutionary process that can gain some understanding of these properties. Theological knowledge here refers to interpretation not to description, but the scientific enterprise likewise involves much interpretation of data, so there are some interesting parallels, remembering of course that there are many ways of ‘knowing’.

Second, theological enquiry, at least within the Abrahamic faiths, involves historical enquiry and interpretation of their Scriptures. Christian theology includes textual analysis and study of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. For example, the belief of the early church in the resurrection of Christ, had it not occurred, could readily have been refuted by the discovery of the embalmed body of Christ in a Jerusalem tomb, easily recognisable by his family and disciples. The Apostle Paul clearly stated that his faith (and that of other Christians) was a waste of time if the resurrection had not occurred. Clearly we do not now have access to the data in the same way as the first century Christians, but again there are some interesting parallels here with scientific enquiry. The principle of refutation can apply (in some cases) to history as well as to science.

Third, theology (which means ‘knowledge of God’) also investigates religious experience, a widespread human trait. In the Christian tradition, knowledge of God is practiced through prayer, meditation, reflection, communal worship and, in some cases, ecstatic experience. There is no particular reason why personal knowledge of God should not be included as an important ‘way of knowing’.

Some scientists (I suspect a small minority) believe that the natural sciences provide the only reliable form of human knowledge. I suggest that this leads to an impoverishment of the human spirit.

Yours sincerely,
Denis R. Alexander
Emeritus Director,
The Faraday Institute,
St. Edmund’s College,
Cambridge

I will say one thing: I’m greatly amused by the scientific-ish evidence Alexander adduces for the Resurrection. Since we don’t have the embalmed body of Christ, Jesus must have risen! Think about that: Alexander’s “principle of refutation.”

UPDATE: Reader Pliny the in Between responded to Alexander’s new scientific principle with this cartoon on his/her website Evolving Perspectives:

SOURCE-CAPTION READY.001

My spirit must be impoverished. . .

There’s one other letter, too—from a pastor:

Sir—

In response to Matthew Cobb (Letters 29th Jan): Medical skill and science brought me through cardiac arrest and major surgery, yet in themselves offer nothing to live for. Theological language – passion, faith, hope, love, grace, glory – addresses why it is worth being alive. The truth of value-knowledge is lived, not “known”. It enables one to be deeply grateful and to appreciate the wonder of factual knowledge.

James Ramsay
St. Barnabas Vicarage
Browning Road
London E12 6PB

Clearly religion offers us the only way to see why life’s worth living!

My formal response to these two letters is thus this:  “Oy! And double oy!”