Prayer bumps, Muslim haters, and the danger of scientific popularization


Recently I came across a short article titled: The Muslim ‘prayer bump’ and Traumatic Brain Injury. Since I am interested in both religion as well as neuroscience, I eagerly read the short post. To my disappointment, I had to conclude that this was another, yet more sophisticated and insidious, attempt to demonstrate that Islam has horrible consequences for practising individuals. The gist of the article is as follows. Muslims pray five times per day, and as part of the Muslim prayer (salah), the Muslim prostrates and  touches the ground with his or her forehead and nose (sujud). The article proceeds to inform the reader that in doing so, millions of Muslims develop what, in Islamic jargon, is called  zebibah (Arabic for raisin), or a prayer bump. In other words, the repeated pressure of the head on the prayer mat will produce a discolouration of the skin in the area of contact, and in some cases, apparently, provoking a ‘bump’.

Now the article, after presenting a photo gallery of notoriously controversial, and in some cases criminal, people identified as Muslims, goes on to introduce some recent scientific research published by Oxford University, which advances a new hypotesis in neurotrauma arguing that repeated traumatic brain injury may result in cumulative damage to cells of the brain. The article, through selective quotations, informs us that this produces memory loss and alters cognitive function so that the affected individual is prone to violence and fanaticism.

Finally, we know why Muslims are terrorists, why they protest violently, why they mistreat women, why they commit honor crimes and are dangerous people in general. It is Islam. Of course, we have heard similar accusations before from people like Robert Spencer. However, this article has moved the argument one step further by creating the missing link that was needed to finally demonstrate the deeply dangerous effects of Islam.

In this case, the argument is supported by science, by neurotrauma theories. Science, today, is the holy grail of populist truth. When simplified and made accessible to a general audience, science can become a very powerful weapon since a majority of readers are likely to buy the argument without too much pause.    Many would not have the time, patience (much of scientific literature  can be rather long-winded or difficult for a non-specialist to follow), or will to read the linked literature and reflect on its application in any given article. Moreover, from our days at school, we have been taught to trust science and not to question it.

So, are millions of Muslims really brain damaged by Islam?  Of course not. The article misuses neurological research and provides misinformation about Muslim practices and Islam. Indeed, it is very simple to deconstruct this piece.

We start from the claim that millions and millions of Muslims have zebibah.  It is interesting to notice that academic literature about zebibah is practically inexistent. Yet for sure Muslim haters have paid more attention to the ‘prayer bump’ than academics (eg. here and here). Although the ‘pious mark’ can be seen among some Muslims in Egypt, it is rather unusual in other parts of the Muslim world, and very rare in Southeast Asia (the most Muslim region of the world).  Personally, I have never seen a woman with a zebibah and after asking some informants, they confirmed that women tend not to have itAn article in the New York Times shows that zebibah is fashionable in Egypt as a marker of piousness, that in certain contexts may be useful (to find a good wife, or a job or be respected as an imam and so on).

The Times article also mentions something very relevant. It sugests that some Muslims in Egypt may ‘facilitate’ zebibah by forcefully pressing their foreheads on the carpet during the prayer. Yet it is also alleged that some may ‘sandpaper’ the spot on their foreheads. I was not aware of sandpaper, but instead I remember being told more than once of other practices to ‘darken’ the skin on that spot.  Indeed, as part of a correct prayer, Muslims should not, and do not, ‘smash’ their heads against the floor during sujud.

Even if a person were to perform five prayers a day as well as non- obligatory prayers, the time needed to develop the zebibah would be substantial. Indeed, it is something rarely seen even in old men and in the case of Shi’a, who perform sujud with their foreheads against a piece of clay, I have almost never seen a zebibah.  So, can zebibah be used to detect, as some seem to believe, overly pious, or even fanatic, Muslims? Well, just check Khomeini or bin-Laden’s forehead and you may conclude that: 1) they were not pious, or 2) the zebibah has more than one explanation, including the possibility of make-up (some even told me about applying shoe polish to ‘darken the spot’!)

After exposing this point, I can also show that assuming that the Muslim prayer produces brain damage is a rather difficult allegation to make and also that to do so scientifically we would need much more data. The link provided to sustain the theory of the Muslim prayer causing the zebibah and ensuing mild traumatic brain injury (rMTBI), that would in turn cause Muslims to be stupid and violent, provides example such as:

In contact sports such as boxing and some martial arts [...] In collision sports, like soccer, ice hockey, rugby and American football [...].

Now, this is the level of impact spoken of. Other than in the case of a gravely mentally ill person, we cannot seriously imagine any Muslim in prayer knocking his or her head against the floor hard enough to create injuries like those sustained during boxing, martial arts or rugby!

The other reason for which the scientific paper was misused in a less than innocent way is that science, of course, should be based only on mesurable, experimental facts. One of the main problems of the popularization of neuroscience is the Pindaric flights that it allows to non-experts. In this case, not only does the paper present a hypothesis (so it may be incorrect or at least there is not enough evidence at present to consider it a fait accompli) but also the application of it to the case of zebibah implies a need for some testing.

As usual when commentators speak of Muslims, they seem to suggest that the entire Muslim population of this planet pray five times a day, fast for Ramadan, and follow a strict personal Shar’ia to the point of obsession.  Let me destroy the myth: few Muslims go to mosque and even fewer pray all five prayers. To assume that millions  of Muslims pray so intensely and with such ardor that they risk causing themselves rMTBI is rather ridiculous.

In contrast to previous blatant anti-Muslim arguments and campaigns, where Muslims have been presented as violent, stupid, barbaric, dangerous, and in particular irrational cultural objects (cf. some good examples here), in recent years, as in this case, I have observed change in sophistication and argument. Indeed, in the case of traditional anti-Muslim arguments, culture had the most relevant role.  The below diagram summarises this relationship.

New Map.vue-Muslim model 1Muslims are seen mainly as expression of culture, and in this case one controlled by the symbols of Islam, as expressed within the Qur’an. Such a cultural essentialist position suggests that all Muslims interpret the Qur’an in the same way, or at least that Islam has the symbolic power to induce a certain collective behavior which reduces the individual to his or her religion (i.e. cultural expression). Of course, as I suggested in one of my books,  not only does this approach reduce humans to cultural objects, but it is also constructed upon a serious mistake of logical typing.

Yet certainly, as we have seen in the discussed article, a new pernicious line of argument, which attempts to provide a scientific link to the culturalist stereotyping process, has appeared. A careful analysis will show, however, that even pseudo-scientific arguments have in reality the same culturalist reductionism at heart. Indeed, the new ‘scientific’ argument suggests:New Map.vue-mental model

In this case, as the figure shows, culture remains essential in the definition of what is human. Indeed it is Islam, through its cultural practice, that shapes even the most ‘human’ part of the Muslim: his or her brain. The central element here is in any case “abnormality”, which is finally explained scientifically instead of humanistically.

Of course even this time, as in the previous model, we have two problems: one is the fact that Muslims are not cultural objects so, for instance, they pray in different ways, with different styles, with different degrees of passion and in many cases, they do not even pray at all. Muslims are not defined by Islam, and again the above idea of ‘Muslim’ as being the essence of a person is nothing other than a severe mistake of logical typing; one unfortunately that is also spread by the misleading presentation of scientific research.

6 thoughts on “Prayer bumps, Muslim haters, and the danger of scientific popularization

  1. THIS is a finely argued blog article, if a little long for my taste. Agreed on most points. However, I don’t think the problem’s popularized science. The problem is sheer untruth.

    In short, the Islamophobes’ reasoning looks like this:
    (1) Science says repetitive brain injuries cause violent behavior.
    (2) Muslims injure their brains while praying.
    (3) Therefore, Muslims are likely to behave violently.

    Overall, this is a logically valid statement. Further, the “pop science” in statement (1) is pretty much true! The problem is statement (2), which is sheer untruth, and leads to a misinformed conclusion.

    Annnd that’s why the world needs anthropologists! So we can have experts that can authoritatively explain that “…as part of a correct prayer, Muslims should not, and do not, ‘smash’ their heads against the floor…” Lolz!

    P.S. This comment probably reads sarcastically, but I’m dead serious. Sometimes the Mainstream needs the Other explained to them. This is a fine example.

    — Ashkuff | http://www.ashkuff.com | How to use anthropology, in business and ADVENTURE!!!!

  2. Thank you for this article. I was honestly afraid what you were going to say about the head bump! I believe your assessment of the article and the Islam culture very realistic and accurate.

  3. Interesting! in reference to Islamic literature, it has been predicted that there will always be some who will do everything and in any way to hurt Islam and Muslim. So, for those who believe in those prediction, Muslims may not not bother much by Robert Spencer, because for them it is expected. For others, especially the scholars, an objective and critical look at such venture of scientifically proving that Muslims are violent because of Quranic teachings and practice of five daily prayers that damage their brain in the process of creating the bump on their forehead will not make much sense to the people of knowledge and objective soul.
    Interesting again. Not all Muslims have prayer bumps, because either they don’t pray five times a day or they cannot get the bump until they are old enough, it takes time even if they make delibarate effort to get the bump. Evidently, old Muslims are not that violent compared to young Muslims who do not even have the bump yet and are already acting violently against the occupation in Palestine and in other places for reasons of occupation, imperialism and coloniaolism, etc. what if the Palestinians never had to loose thier homeland to the occupiers, first, in 1917 and in the subsequent years of further occupation? If that did not happen, probably Robert Spencer and his associates would not have to prove Muslims being violent because of the Quran and ritual prayers.

  4. Pingback: Prayer bumps, Muslim haters, and the danger of scientific popularization | Spencer Watch

  5. Pingback: tabsir.net » Prayer bumps, Muslim haters, and the danger of scientific popularization

  6. Pingback: Arab News Blog » Prayer bumps, Muslim haters, and the danger of scientific popularization

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s