My critique on the article
“Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w) Hadith of the Fly is confirmed by Science”
at the request in a FB post by our Nayyar Usmani
A respectable member of our group, Nayyar Usmani had sent me a link on FB to"Prophet Muhammed's (s.a.w.) Hadith of the Fly is confirmed by Science" for my comments as I am known to strongly question this particular hadith. Here is my response.
Scientific data is collected over years and scrutinized by controlled and double blind trials on human beings.The material is then presented to a scientific journal who has very stringent rules for acceptance. Once published it is subjected to peer reviews from numerous centers. In due course it is ether accepted by the scientific and general community or rejected.
What we have here is a joke, to put it lightly. The article is published at a website “Top Stories; The Only Magazine For Stories”. The site does not introduce itself. At a glance at the Home page, it appears to be an Islamic location boldly displaying such questions as “Can I be treated by a non-Muslim (Christian, Jew) doctor whether male or Female ? Or Is it true that a person who utters kalima at-tawhid (La ilaha illallah) 70.000 times goes to Paradise directly?”
The author does not have a name (at least I could not fine one). Who is he? What is he? We do not know. His style, knowledge and manners are reflected in his statement “Principle skepticism of authentically transmitted narrations that pertain to facts demonstrated by ancient and modern science, or whose scientific worth is just now coming into view, is the wont of stagnant minds and diseased hearts for which there is no cure save the mercy of our Lord OR Even the muscaphobic critics of this hadith are forced to admit”
It is a long article. The major part involves a discussion of bacteriophages, potentially attractive therapeutic agents. However, there still remain many important questions that must be addressed before lytic phages can be widely endorsed for therapeutic use. Only the last short paragraph in the article mentions the “scientific evidence”.The author does not seem to have any inkling of the required strength of evidence for a scientific proposal. He has supported his big scientific claim solely on the basis of a thesis for PhD submitted by Ms Joanne Clarke a week earlier at Macquarie University, Australia! According to her, at a presentation at the Australian Society for Microbiology Conference in Melbourne recently “Our research is a small part of a global research effort for new antibiotics, but we are looking where we believe no-one has looked before”. All the excitement is because flies have been used as a source. The flies are treated by ethanol and crude extract is obtained. They are now trying to identify the specific antibacterial compounds which could ultimately be chemically synthesized. No further details are provided by the author. Nor has he given any references for independent verification.
To sum up, the author has given us incomplete information that a thesis for PhD has been submitted in a University in Australia suggesting that flies, like viruses and fungi may be a source for producing antibiotics. We do know of the thesis has been accepted. No reference or link has been provided for independent verification.
Nobody in the scientific world will ever accept this — mere presentation of a thesis for PhD — as scientific evidence for anything. It will not even be regarded as a serious material to go on. The thesis should be accepted, the group then should work on it, publish their experiment and results in a Scientific Journal. Now the scientific community will come into action. After arguments and counter arguments, the results may be accepted or rejected. All the excitement created by the author is because “flies” are being tested which immediately brings to mind the hadith. The organism is chemically treated. The crude extract obtained will then be tested for any specific antibacterial compound. It is wrong if not stupid to conclude that the thesis is upholding the suggestion that dipping the fly and then throwing it away will transmit antibacterial compound into the liquid. This is what the “hadith” has stated. It is hilarious if not baseless and misleading to create a headline on this basis at a website “Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w) Hadith of the Fly is confirmed by Science”. It is a far cry from extracting antibiotic from a fly by chemical treatment (if it is proved, hopefully) to dipping it into a drink, throwing it away and continue drinking. These art two entirely different procedure with completely disparate results.
This brings me to the point that the bright young Professor from AKU Saad Shafquat had made in his post. Why should those who believe in uncritical conformity with the full hadith literature, check out with science and google a hadith? If the Holy Prophet has said dip, throw and drink, then just do that. How does a thesis submitted in Australia make a difference? Does not this attitude, as a matter of fact betray a lack of confidence in our beloved Prophet? On the other hand, we consider, may the Lord Creator guide us this hadith as mu‘allal. Hence we throw the fly out and may or may not drink the liquid.
If you have the ime and desire, here is my critique on the full article:
The article declares:
[[“The Holy Quran contains scientific miracles that have been already confiremed scientifically . These Holy Scientific verses were revealed more than 1400 years ago , at the time of Prophet Mohammad there were many other different miracles to make people believe . Because Quran will be the last reveald Book till life ends , God has made it overflowing Book with miracles that suit every age and its kind of civilization . As we live now in the age of science , we find that there are ….”
Just as the hadith on camel milk and urine reveals knowledge of dietetics and natural medicine, so does the hadith of the fly reveal knowledge of preventive medicine and immunology. In this respect the command in these hadiths, as in many others, denotes an advisory Sunna of permissibility, not a literal obligation. “The command [of immersing the fly] denotes counsel (al-amru lil-irshad) so as to counter disease with cure.” Al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304).
Despite the abundance of supporting evidence for the authenticity of these medicinal narrations (camel and fly) on the one hand and for their scientific viability on the other, certain voices continue to reject them on both counts. Principle skepticism of authentically transmitted narrations that pertain to facts demonstrated by ancient and modern science, or whose scientific worth is just now coming into view, is the wont of stagnant minds and diseased hearts for which there is no cure save the mercy of our Lord.”]]
Our Holy Text is our treasure of the teachings of our Deen, its beliefs and doctrines; its basis of morality and ethical principles. It does not deal with any of the mundane subjects like medicine, finance etc. These are left to human effort and intelligence.
The article describes at length about Bacteriophage. A few of his remarks:
[[“Recently experiments have been done under supervision which indicate that a fly carries the disease (pathagens) plus the antidote for those organ-isms. Ordinarily when a fly touches a liquid food it infects the liquid with its pathogens, so it must be dipped in order to release also the antidote for those pathogens to act as a counter balance to the pathogens.
Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases.
These fly microbiota are bacteriophagic or “germ-eating”. Bacteriophages are viruses of viruses. They attack viruses and bacteria. They can be selected and bred to kill specific organisms. The viruses infect a bacterium, replicate and fill the bacterial cell with new copies of the virus, and then break through the bacterium’s cell wall, causing it to burst. The existence of similar bacteria-killing mechanisms in two bacteriophages suggests that antibiotics for human infections might be designed on the basis of these cell wall-destroying proteins. Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.
It is established that house flies are carriers of dangerous pathogens of animals and humans. Even the muscaphobic critics of this hadith are forced to admit that no one at the time of the Prophet, upon him peace, knew that flies carry such harmful organisms. Whence the observation that “under one of its wings there is venom”?
So then, flies are not only pathogenic carriers but also carry microbiota that can be beneficent.”]]
This is only a part of what the author has to say about Bacteriophage. I quote here the conclusions of an article "Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy;Bacteriophage Therapy" from “PMC: PubMed Central, a free collection of biology and medicine journal articles”:
“In summary, bacteriophages have several characteristics that make them potentially attractive therapeutic agents. They are (i) highly specific and very effective in lysing targeted pathogenic bacteria, (ii) safe, as underscored by their extensive clinical use in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and the commercial sale of phages in the 1940s in the United States, and (iii) rapidly modifiable to combat the emergence of newly arising bacterial threats. In addition, a large number of publications, some of which are reviewed in this minireview, suggest that phages may be effective therapeutic agents in selected clinical settings. Granted, many of these studies do not meet the current rigorous standards for clinical trials and there still remain many important questions that must be addressed before lytic phages can be widely endorsed for therapeutic use. However, we think that there is a sufficient body of data—and a desperate enough need to find alternative treatment modalities against rapidly emerging, antibiotic-resistant bacteria—to warrant further studies in the field of phage therapy.”
This subject of producing antibacterial drugs from organisms like virus, fungi etc. is an ongoing process. Our author is over excited because one student in Australia has presented a thesis for her PhD to test for the first time that even flies can be a source of antibacterial substance. The hadith also speaks of flies. The two are connected to produce a headline .
The author has delivered his main message in the last short paragraph:
[[“The latest research calls for a new antibody from the fly antidote
here is a new research titled “The new buzz on antibiotics” that was done only a weak ago …read this study:
at the Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University,
“Our research is a small part of a global research effort for new antibiotics, but we are looking where we believe no-one has looked before,” said Ms Joanne Clarke, who presented the group’s findings at the Australian Society for Microbiology Conference in Melbourne this week. The project is part of her PhD thesis.
The antibiotic material is extracted by drowning the flies in ethanol, then running the mixture through a filter to obtain the crude extract.
We are now trying to identify the specific antibacterial compounds,” said Ms Clarke. Ultimately these will be chemically synthesised.”]]
A student at Macquarie university in Sydney, Australia has presented a thesis for her PhD. We do not know if this has been accepted. Nobody in the scientific world is going to accept this — a thesis for PhD — as scientific evidence for anything. All the excitement is because “flies” are being tested. The organism is chemically treated. The crude extract obtained will then be tested for any specific antibacterial compound. It is wrong if not stupid to conclude that the thesis is upholding that dipping the fly and then throwing it away will transmit antibacterial compound into the liquid. This is what the “hadith” has stated.
