refuting silly defenders of flies in cups!

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

Refuting lies and fake junk science from wahhabis; from link: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/flies.html
FLY(W)ING MEDICINE?

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." (Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537)
Here is what the medical world says:
There are many bacteria and parasites that infest the fly, making flies a major factor in spreading many diseases by touching surfaces with their legs or their saliva. After walking on much excrement, flies may carry up to as many as 6 million bacterias on their feet. SO BE WARY OF FOODS THAT HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY A FLY! Here's some information on the diseases some flies are known to help spread. (Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117442/html/diseases.html (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117442/html/diseases.html); emphasis mine)

Even if there should exist such a disease that is only carried on one wing of a fly, and the antidote always coming on the other wing (any scientist of bacteriology will reject such a theory as impossible), what about all the other diseases on the feet of the fly? Why is Muhammad talking about the wings, when the main source of infection are the feet of flies?
Why is Muhammad making sure with his instruction that the fly gets a full body ablution in your drink, transfering the maximum number of bacteria and diseases into it?
Another website has this to say about flies: ... The two-winged flies constitute a larger order of insects and well over 110,000 different species are known throughout the world. This group forms one of the most highly specialized of insect orders and many species are of the utmost significance in regard to human welfare. If there is anything as "harmless as a fly", it is certainly not the common housefly or any of its relatives.
Diseases, e.g., malaria, dysentery, sleeping sickness, onchocerciasis, elephantiasis and yellow fever are carried or transmitted from man to man by bloodsucking dipterous flies. Many other diseases are transmitted mechanically by flies due to the habit exhibited by many species of sucking liquid from excreta and other decaying organic matter and then settling on and vomiting on your food.
The fly was made to distribute quantities of pathogenic disease organisms. Its 6 feet are equipped with bristles and sticky pads and its proboscis is hairy. A sticky liquid comes out of the hollow hairs on their feet allowing them to walk upside down and on glass, etc. The fly's digestive tract is an incubator for germs! My mother began to teach me IPM control when I was a very young boy. She said, "Shut the door you are letting in the flies!" This is still good advice - even better is to have a second entry door as an extra barrier against fly invasion.
... A well fed fly defecates at least once every 5 minutes! (Source: http://www.thebestcontrol.com/bugstop/control_flies.htm (http://www.thebestcontrol.com/bugstop/control_flies.htm); bold emphasis theirs, underline emphasis mine)

No doubt, the stress put on a fly by drowning it, would only cause it to vomit and defecate even more, releasing an extra portion of germs into your drink! The first of the above links provides an even more detailed list of diseases that are transmitted by flies:
Leishmaniasis
This disease is found in South America, Africa, Indian Subcontinent and Europe.
It's caused by a parasitic protozoan transmitted by the bite of sand flies.
Symptoms of this disease usually includes fever, weakness, swollen spleen, and skin sores.
There is no treatment for this disease; it eats away at your skin.

Onchocerciasis
Onchocerciasis, also known as River Blindness is an infectious cause of blindness.
It is carried by a minute nematode worm that is spread by the Simulium black fly.
Found in South America and Africa, a bite from this insect can transmit the worm to its victim.
The drug invermectin has helped stop the progress of the disease.

African Trypanosomiasis
This is a sleeping sickness and epidemic caused by a protozan blood parasite Trypanosoma.
It is transmitted by the salivary glands of infected Tsetse flies in Africa.
Symptoms include a boil- like sore at the site of the bite, fever, headaches, and severe illness.
Treatment should apply in the early stages of the disease by anti-parasitic drugs.

Bartonellosis
Found in South America, this disease is caused by the rickettsia organism transmitted by the bite of a Sand Fly.
Victims are usually exhausted from anemia, and experience a high fever and wart-like eruptions on the skin.
Treatment is available.

Myiasis
This disease occurs mostly on animals such as dogs and sheep and cows, but sometimes it may occur on humans, more frequently carried by the Cheese Skipper fly.
It is transmitted by a fly that lays its eggs on the skin of another organism. The larvae can burrow into the skin or penetrate itself in open wounds.
Symptoms include violent abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea with bloody discharge.
There is currently no treatment for this disease (on humans, that is; on animals insecticides are used), except to either let the larvae grow and leave at its own accord, or to remove it by enticing it.

Typhoid
Flies rummaging around excrement may come across bacteria known as Salmonella Typhi, which may come from a person shedding it.
This disease is a type of fever. Symptoms include a body temperature of as high as 103° to 104° F (39° to 40° C), weakness, stomach pains, headaches, and/or loss of appetite.
This disease can be found all over the world except in industrial countries such as United States, Western Europe, and Japan.
Treated with the drug chloromycetin, or ampicillin for those infected with bacteria that is immuned chloromycetin.

Dysentery
This is a chronic disease that affects the large intestine in humans.
The parasite Entamoeba histolytica is the cause of this disease. This particular parasite can be found in uncooked meats, and may be transported by flies.
This disease is characteristic of severe diarrhea and severe stomach cramps.
Treatment with drugs containing metronidazole or ementine is recommended.

Leprosy
Leprosy, also known as Hansen's Disease, is a chronic disease that affects mainly the skin.
It is caused by the bacillus Mycobacterium leprae, which may be carried by flies from rotted foods.
An early symptom is anesthesia (or the numbness) of a patch of skin. Some muscles may be paralyzed. Because of the numbness of some nerves, injuries to the area are not noticed.
This disease is generally rare nowadays, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A vaccine for leprosy is currently being developed.

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

From scientists and scholars at Richard Dawkins forum; link:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50173&p=1078069&sid=138df82e936443da38edf0be0544be72

DNEH wrote:From the very first line of the "web site"


<CITE>some moslem fundie nutbar wrote:</CITE>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.


1) Malaria is not a bacterial disease and is therefore unaffected by bacteriophage. It is also not spread by the "common fly" any 5th grader can tell you that

2) Typhoid and cholera are diseases caused by bacteria but are rarely spread by insects but rather poor sanitation.

3) Bacteriophages are NOT fungi.



After that it just gets silly.

Debunked enough for you

...
Zaghlul El-Najjar, a very popular egyptian apologist, also insists on the correctness of this hadith (one of the wings of the fly contains the sickness & the other the cure http://richarddawkins.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif ). he claims it has been tested in western medical institutes & was approved!!! I have the interview in my PC!

Another claim by him in the same interview is also the correctness of another mohammedan hadith, where camel urine is supposed to be a great medicine [NO KIDDIND!]. Zaghlul El-Najjar assures that there are Swiss medicine companies which NOWADAYS include significant portions of camel urine in their drugs & medicaments, after they have discovered how amazingly beneficial it is
When asked by his host to name some of these companies, Al-Najjar claimed he doesn't want to turn the program into commercial advertisement

Those fundies are so funny! Usually they refer to Eurpoe & America as [the infidel West!]. But when it comes to claiming scientific proofs, it's there where they claim they resort to

[Ibn malik]

Lol, do all Nuh Keller fans reject "Muhammad's" (s) "silly" advise which is apparantly 'refuted' by theoretical science??

Perish in your rage you filthy animal, Allah and His messenger spoke the truth while your laughable intellect has lied!

[Shaghuri]

Oh I see. Sh. Nuh Keller would make takfir of you.

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

Have fun with your silly hadith of drinking camel urine and eating poison flies created by your tyrant leaders of the Umayyads and Abbasids. Your hadith books are lies created by these dictators and their pet "scholars".

[Umm Ahmed]

Oh my , you should have wrote non muslim under your avatar .

Are you an atheist ?

[Ibn malik]

Oh, I understand. That must've been the shortest lived career for an undercover troll. Congradulations on blowing your cover in 5 posts you imbecil! LOL

['Abd al-Kareem]

You idiot bafoon. May Allah make a mockery out of all those who attempt to make a mockery of this Deen.

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

typical wahhabi lies and bad speech you truly are all uneducated taliban-like idiots and terrorists. Again flies carry their diseases on their feet mostly, up to 6 million per fly (on their feet). No scientists agree with your idiots like psuedo-"scholar" dr. el-naggar the wahhabi propagandist.

[Umm Ahmed]

typical wahhabi lies and bad speech you truly are all uneducated taliban-like idiots and terrorists. Again flies carry their diseases on their feet mostly, up to 6 million per fly (on their feet). No scientists agree with your idiots like psuedo-"scholar" dr. el-naggar the wahhabi propagandist.

Your welcome to your opinions, but don't take away our freedom on the right to also hold our opinions by coming here and trying to force-feed us your guff, then having the audacity to call us uneducated.

[asharee_salafi]

Yawwnnnn that camel urine one was answered a long time ago!

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/rebuttals/urine

u know, u really should have a good glass of urine, it would do u good! actually don't, you homosexuals go one step further then piss...but lets not go there! hehehe

As for the hadeeth of teh fly.


http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=351&main_cat_id=34


that answers ur silly research on flies.

so 'fan' do you beleive in God? lets take the discussion from there. I see you quote form your prophet dawkins...surely u could of done a better job lol

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

What a joke again NO scientists agree with you. You post from islamtoday a wahhabi apologist site that just happens to use only Muslim "scientists" that are obviously biased and talking out their rear-end. Again real scientists refute you. And again about flies; From Christians here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/flies.html
Here is what the medical world says:
There are many bacteria and parasites that infest the fly, making flies a major factor in spreading many diseases by touching surfaces with their legs or their saliva. After walking on much excrement, flies may carry up to as many as 6 million bacterias on their feet. SO BE WARY OF FOODS THAT HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY A FLY! Here's some information on the diseases some flies are known to help spread. (Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117442/html/diseases.html (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117442/html/diseases.html);
end quote.

It's the feet silly! Not even wings in the first place!

[Shaolinmaster]

**Yawn**

If you're gonna do Taqiyyah at least do it properly. When will these majoos learn to follow simple instructions from their Ayatul-Laat wal'Uzzas?

[Sharif10]

Someone ban this guy please. He is obviously just going to cause trouble.

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

Also regarding urine this another lie given by wahhabi apologists. There is NO raw untreated urine in any medicine! Any medicine that is said to include some kind of urea or similiar product is made clean with pasturzation, heating, or other type of boiling done by professional companies. Your silly hadith of camel urine says to drink raw untreated camel urine which is disgusting and harmful.

[Nuh Ha Mim Keller fan]

ban me? Fo asking questions you can't answer! Truly pathetic shows the lack of strength you have in your wahhabi faith that you want to ban someone who can refute it!

[Umm Ahmed]

Well your not really up for debate are you , your scientists could very well be liars for all you know , it wouldn't be the first time they have lied , majority of them are funded by the goverment. And basically they have no religion so have no morals , we Muslims have the chains of narrators that have protected the Quran and the Sunnah , so I think I would rather go with that , and within the Quran there is a lot of science , Islaam does not go against science.
Lets see if your really interested or just talking tripe.
Go and read.

http://www.searchforislam.com/gsearch/?cx=001937304971163180674%3Ap9phzc6gctk&cof=FORID%3A11&q=science+&sa=Search#931

[WM]

If you accept that the hadith of the camel urine is authentic, you also accept the fact that those who drank it were cured.

[Abu Thar]

this guy is the product of 4 genereations of incest

[Hamza]

Anybody hear about the shiite imam who was found guilty cos he let kids whip themselves.

maybe something similar happened to this fella.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44964000/jpg/_44964296_zaidi_pa_226282.jpg

RAFIDI SCUMBAG WALKS AWAY FROM COURT

A Shia has been convicted of child cruelty after forcing two boys to beat themselves during a religious ceremony, in an unprecedented case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7584446.stm

[Brother_Mujahid]

Just like the rafidi filth that were using a masjid in Baghdad to torture Sunnis and those Shi'a that opposed their agenda.

[abu hafs]

Experimental Evidence

[Muradka]

You're an idiot ******, if you know how to read, the hadith says in the wings, and the article you posted pertains to the feet of the fly.

[Aboo Uthmaan]

I have attached a sample of some scientific research that was done in this regard, research that was supervised by the late Shaykh, Dr. Saleh as-Saleh:

[Aboo Uthmaan]

Whoops, it seems that Br. Abu Hafs has already posted it, I really should read past page one in future!

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

The new buzz on antibiotics

Tuesday, 1 October 2002

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5212/3433333pm9.jpg

Ugly but useful: The sheep blowfly is one of the fly species that might provide humans with new antibiotics. (Pic: BioTrack.)

The surface of flies is the last place you would expect to find antibiotics, yet that is exactly where a team of Australian researchers is concentrating their efforts.

Working on the theory that flies must have remarkable antimicrobial defences to survive rotting dung, meat and fruit, the team at the Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, set out to identify those antibacterial properties manifesting at different stages of a fly’s development.

"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 scientists tested four different species of fly: a house fly, a sheep blowfly, a vinegar fruit fly and the control, a Queensland fruit fly which lays its eggs in fresh fruit. These larvae do not need as much antibacterial compound because they do not come into contact with as much bacteria.

Flies go through the life stages of larvae and pupae before becoming adults. In the pupae stage, the fly is encased in a protective casing and does not feed. "We predicted they would not produce many antibiotics," said Ms Clarke.

They did not. However the larvae all showed antibacterial properties (except that of the Queensland fruit fly control).

As did all the adult fly species, including the Queensland fruit fly (which at this point requires antibacterial protection because it has contact with other flies and is mobile).

Such properties were present on the fly surface in all four species, although antibacterial properties occur in the gut as well. "You find activity in both places," said Ms Clarke.

"The reason we concentrated on the surface is because it is a simpler extraction.”

The antibiotic material is extracted by drowning the flies in ethanol, then running the mixture through a filter to obtain the crude extract.

When this was placed in a solution with various bacteria including E.coli, Golden Staph, Candida (a yeast) and a common hospital pathogen, antibiotic action was observed every time.

"We are now trying to identify the specific antibacterial compounds," said Ms Clarke. Ultimately these will be chemically synthesised.

Because the compounds are not from bacteria, any genes conferring resistance to them may not be as easily transferred into pathogens. It is hoped this new form of antibiotics will have a longer effective therapeutic life.

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s689400.htm

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

Sadaqa Rasool Allaah!

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

wa kadhaba ash-shaytan "Nuh Ha Mim Keller Fan"

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

New studies reveal scientific miracles in the fly Hadith

http://www.55a.net/firas/ar_photo/7/98.jpg

By Magdy Abd Al-Shafy

The Holy Quran and the traditional sayings of prophet Mohummed are the two legs of the Religion of Islam , 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 Mohummed 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 a lot of scientific miracles in Quran in addition to the Hadiths (prophet's traditional sayings ) Here is a wonderful miracle :

"Medically it is well known now that a fly carries some pathagens on some parts of its body as mentioned by the Prophet (before 1400 years. approx. when the humans knew very little of modern medicine.) Similarly Allah created organisms and other mechanisms which kill these pathagens e.g. penicillin Fungus kills pathogenic organisms like Staphalococci and others etc. 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.

Prophet Mohummed says "If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely (falyaghmis-hu kullahu) before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote".

The Prophet Muhammad - upon him and his House blessings and peace - alluded to both facts 1,400 years ago when he said, as narrated from Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by al-Bukhari and in the Sunan:

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.

The Prophet Muhammad - upon him and his House blessings and peace - alluded to both facts 1,400 years ago when he said, as narrated from Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by al-Bukhari and in the Sunan:

If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely (falyaghmis-hu kullahu) before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote.

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"?

Second, from the perspective of logic, if the fly did not carry some sort of protection in the form of an antidote or immunity, it would perish from its own poisonous burden and there would be no fly left in the world.

Further, the transmission of what the fly carries in or on its body is not an automatic fact. For example, the microbe responsible for ulcers and other stomach ailments can live on houseflies, although it remains to be seen whether flies transmit the pathogen.

There has long been evidence of bacterial pathogen-suppressing micro-organisms living in houseflies. An article in Vol. 43 of the Rockefeller Foundation's Journal of Experimental Medicine (1927) p. 1037 stated:

"The flies were given some of the cultured microbes for certain diseases. After some time the germs died and no trace was left of them while a germ-devouring substance formed in the flies - bacteriophages. If a saline solution were to be obtained from these flies it would contain bacteriophages able to suppress four kinds of disease-inducing germs and to benefit immunity against four other kinds".

Cited in `Abd Allah al-Qusami, Mushkilat al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya wa-Bayanuha (p. 42).

"More recently, a Colorado State University website on entomology states, "Gnotobiotic [=germ-free] insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica [houseflies] .... most relationships between insects and their microbiota remain undefined. Studies with gnotobiotic locusts suggest that the microbiota confers previously unexpected benefits for the insect host."

So then, flies are not only pathogenic carriers but also carry microbiota that can be beneficent. The fly microbiota were described as "longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside their bellies. These yeast cells, in order to perpetuate their life cycle, protrude through certain respiratory tubules of the fly. If the fly is dipped in a liquid, the cells burst into the fluid and the content of those cells is an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries." Cf. Footnote in the Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (7:372, Book 76 Medicine, Chapter 58, Hadith 5782).

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.

Bacteriophagic medicine was available in the West before the forties but was discontinued when penicillin and other "miracle antibiotics" came out. Bacteriophages continued to flourish in Eastern Europe as an over-the-counter medicine. The "O1-phage" has been used for diagnosis of all Salmonella types while the prophylaxis of Shigella dysentery was conducted with the help of phages. Annales Immunologiae Hungaricae No. 9 (1966) in German.

"Phage therapy" is now making a comeback in the West:

First named in 1917 by researcher Felix d'Herelle at France 's Pasteur Institute, bacteriophages (or just phages for short) are viruses that prey upon bacteria. They have a simple structure - a DNA-filled head attached by a shaft to spidery "legs" that are used to grip onto the surface of a bacterium. Once a phage latches onto a bacterium, it injects its payload of genetic material into the bacterium's innards. The bacterium then begins to rapidly produce "daughter" copies of the phage -- until the bacterium becomes too full and ruptures, sending hundreds of new phage particles into the open world.

Doctors used phages as medical treatment for illnesses ranging from cholera to typhoid fevers. In some cases, a liquid containing the phage was poured into an open wound. In others, they were given orally, via aerosol, or injected. In some cases, the treatments worked well - in others, they did not. When antibiotics came into the mainstream, phage therapy largely faded in the west.

However, researchers in eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union , continued their studies of the potential healing properties of phages. And now that strains of bacteria resistant to standard antibiotics are on the rise, the idea of phage therapy has been getting more attention in the worldwide medical community. Several biotechnology companies have been formed in the U.S. to develop bacteriophage-based treatments - many of them drawing on the expertise of researchers from eastern Europe."

Research on the medical application of bacteriophages is now considered to be in its most promising stage. A University of Pittsburgh researcher said in June 2001, "Given the sheer number and variety of bacteriophages lurking on the planet, the viruses may represent a sizable untapped reservoir of new therapeutics." Science 292 (June 2001) p. 2326-2329.

Possibilities for use of bacteriophages in disease control is discussed in the article "Smaller Fleas... Ad infinitum: Therapeutic Bacteriophage Redux" in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [PNAS] Vol. 93 No. 8 (April 16, 1996), 3167-8.

The fact that the fly carried pathophagic or germ-eating agents was known to the ancients, who noticed that wasp and scorpion stings are remedied by rubbing the sore spot with a decapitated fly as mentioned in al-Antaki's Tadhkira (1:140), al-`Ayni's citation of Abu Muhammad Ibn al-Baytar al-Maliqi's (d. 646) al-Jami` li-Mufradat al-Adwiya wal-Aghdhiya in `Umdat al-Qari (7:304), and al-Sha`rani's Mukhtasar al-Suwaydi fil-Tibb (p. 98).

Avicenna preferred the use of a live chicken slit in two and applied to the wound cf. Ibn al-Azraq, Tas-hîl al- Manafi` (1306 ed. p. 171=1315 ed. p. 147). A similar use is current even today for camel urine according to a University of Calgary website.

In the two world wars the wounds of soldiers exposed to flies were observed to heal and scar faster than the wounds of unexposed soldiers. Even today, fly larvae, or maggots, are used medicinally to clean up festering wounds. They only eat dead tissue and leave healthy tissue alone.

Is the fly ritually filthy (najis)? No. The Jurists concur that the fly is pure (al-dhubab tahir) and does not defile a liquid even if its quantity is small and even if it dies in it except, according to al-Shafi`i, if one of the aspects of the liquid is affected (smell, color, taste) cf. al-Baghawi, Sharh al-Sunna (11:260-261) and al-Qastallani, Irshad al-Sari (5:304-305).

The Prophetic Sunna is an endless manual of healthy living and practical husbandry for people of all walks of life, especially the poor. The Prophet, upon him peace, at all times directed his Umma to avert waste and penury even in unsanitary conditions. 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.

Now researchers are developing a new antibiotic made of the antidode living on the fly's surface.

(Source: http://www.55a.net/firas/english/?id=133&page=show_det

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

"In Australia, a team from the Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, worked on a research to prove that flies have remarkable antimicrobial defenses. The team's leader, Dr. Joanne Clarke proved this discovery through a number of experiments.

"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 Dr. Clarke, who presented the team’s findings at the Australian Society for Microbiological Conference in Melbourne.

She added, "We are now trying to identify the specific antibacterial compounds which will be chemically synthesized from the surface of the flies."

Another researcher from Tokyo University, Dr. Juan Alvarez Bravo confirms that in the near future "People will be astonished to find that flies are being used as antibiotics in the hospitals."

He also assures that scientists are working on the flies to get a number of effective remedies for different diseases.

Working on this theory, scientists found that getting the remedy from flies is strange but acceptable in science. Other researchers from the United States are trying to find anti-pathogenetic ways from the flies. They also note that having the cure from the flies will be something reasonably acceptable by people the coming few years.

Researchers from Auburn University discovered a kind of protein in the saliva of the fly with ability to help recover wounds and cracked skin. Likewise, researchers from Stanford University discovered a fly substance with ability to strengthen the immunity system in human beings.

According to scientists, there is a big similarity between the heart of a fly and that of a human being, prompting them to use flies to produce a medicament for the human heart diseases.

Again, many scientists agree that flies carry lots of diseases but never get infected because of the antimicrobial defenses found in one of their wings.

When a fly has various harmful bacteria, it needs something defensible to continue its survival and that is why Allah creates the antibacterial supplies in its body. A fly puts its saliva into food as soon as it touches it. The fly makes some movements by its limbs from its head to its mouth to put the bacteria. Through these movements, it transfers the microbes and germs to food.

Researches and scientists proved that in the flies' stomach there are some parasites in the form of circular cells. These cells contain of a specific enzyme. In no time, those cells spread out to the surface of the fly through the joints of its stomach. Due to an inner pressure of each cell (caused for example by drowning the fly), it explodes and results its contents in a form of a liquid spray of this enzyme which has strong properties and abilities to dissolve all microbes. By drowning the fly, the inner pressure of the cell is occurred, so the enzyme will come out and kill all the bacteria caused by the fly and this is why Islam demands drowning the fly".

(Source: http://www.yemenpost.net/8/Health/2.htm

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

Imaam Bukhari relates from Allaah’s Messenger:

"When a fly falls into the bowl of somebody among you, he should dip it completely in the food before taking it out. For there is disease in one of the fly’s wings and cure in the other".

This hadith contains proof for the Prophethood of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings. For, first of all, no one at the time of the Prophet knew that flies carry microbes. Second, when a fly drops in a bowl, it tries to hold one of its wings off the food, so that it can take off again. In which case, it leaves in the food the bacteria it carries in its wing. But, when it is submerged in the food with a slight touch, the tiny bag on the other wing bursts open to scatter the anti-bacteria to kill the germs it has already left. This is one of the latest discoveries in medicine".

(Source: http://www.islambyquestions.net/Prophet/predictionsScience.htm

[asharee_salafi]

oh i thought he was a atheist kafir, he turns out to be a shia kafir.

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

Imaam Bukhari relates from Allaah’s Messenger:

"When a fly falls into the bowl of somebody among you, he should dip it completely in the food before taking it out. For there is disease in one of the fly’s wings and cure in the other".

This hadith contains proof for the Prophethood of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings. For, first of all, no one at the time of the Prophet knew that flies carry microbes. Second, when a fly drops in a bowl, it tries to hold one of its wings off the food, so that it can take off again. In which case, it leaves in the food the bacteria it carries in its wing. But, when it is submerged in the food with a slight touch, the tiny bag on the other wing bursts open to scatter the anti-bacteria to kill the germs it has already left. This is one of the latest discoveries in medicine".

(Source: http://www.islambyquestions.net/Prophet/predictionsScience.htm

Ok. Let just say: let's go w/ what Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, said without any further scientific digging.

[Tally_Ban]

i have recently read some of the quoted texts from nuh ha mim keller does anyone consider this deviant a scholar now? you can see some of the refutations at the nuh faithweb blog.

why hasnt this guy been taken care of yet

[heart4allah]

Usually when a dog barks I walk away.

I believe in the Hadith without any scientific research. Any how so called scientific research always contradicts itself.

This barking dog is seeking attention.

Actually am sorry many dogs would feel insulted at my analogy.

[Tally_Ban]

yea no doubts brother. but you know i am surprised that many people dont know keller has big following in west. i dont mean hardcore people, i think its even more dangerous because his texts are found readily available in wide variety of places and many people see his stuff as harmless introductions to the religion. anyhow i see some good refutations towards him

http://nuh.faithweb.com/

[Umm Ahmed]

yea no doubts brother. but you know i am surprised that many people dont know keller has big following in west.

Everyone does know that , he is a revert , white and speaks English, so of course he is going to have a large following in the west.
As was mentioned in an other thread the super salafis have gone from one extreme to followers of Nuh keller which is an other extreme.

[godf]

Your welcome to your opinions, but don't take away our freedom on the right to also hold our opinions by coming here and trying to force-feed us your guff, then having the audacity to call us uneducated.

He's not taking away your freedoms or rights, is he?




Why do Sunnis need to believe this and shias don't?

[Umm Ahmed]

He's not taking away your freedoms or rights, is he?

His way or the high way , everyone has an opinion, but if your not willing to listen at all to what the other is saying, especially on a forum, then he is not giving anyone or even himself any rights.

As for what your saying about shiaism and what the person posted , someone else can answer , as I don't know their stance on other aspects of Islaam.
What made you think he is shia ?

[godf]

I thought people here said he was shia. I may have misunderstood.

I still don't understand how you think he's taking away your rights. Are you saying he's taking away your right for him to listen to you, or your right to not listen to him? You seem to have implied both, although they're contradictory. And anyway, I don't think we have a right to either!

[Umm Ahmed]

but don't take away our freedom on the right to also hold our opinions by coming here and trying to force-feed us your guff,

A forum is a place to discuss , not to only see things one way , that's why your on here right ?
If a person posts something on a forum we have the freedom to answer back and refute what they are saying, but when a person insults you then he invades in your personal right to debate , he is not here to discuss he just wants to post that and say that's right and your all wrong.

[godf]

Many people speak disdainfully of those who do not share their beliefs - certainly many people here do.

It seemed like that guy was responding to the points being made. He certainly thought he was right, and the attempts to defend the fly command were wrong... but don't you think he's wrong and you're right? Neither way does it violate anyone's rights. That's sort of disagreement is just a natural part of talking to people with different beliefs to yourself. If such discussions are seen as inherently abusive, then we'll be unable to communicate honestly with each other.

[Umm Ahmed]

Well certain name throwing sends the wrong message, and many have been banned for just that.

look at post 12 . muslim scientists are nothing. When its well known that Muslims have a long history with science.

[godf]

Well... he didn't say Muslim scientists are nothing. He was certainly dismissive of attempts to defend this commandment by faux scientific means, but understandably so.

I don't think this commandment is terrible important, so don't feel especially motivated to discuss it, but it is wrong, isn't it? How many people here seriously think it's important to dunk a fly that's landed on their food back in? A basic hygiene rule to be taught to children? Does anyone here think that, if it were not a part of their religious faith, the evidence would have led them to believe it's best for their health to re-dunk flies?

As I said, I don't think it's a terribly serious point, but it is strange to watch people here who've previously been musing on the implications of quantum mechanics for Islam, to then start talking as if modern science has concluded flies should be dunked in your drink if they've gotten a wing in before.

As for the posters insults - he'd already been called gay, an idiot buffoon, and a filthy animal with laughable intellect. Surely it's a little odd to complain that him saying 'no scientists agree with you' is such an insult that it serves to violate your rights.

['Abd al-Kareem]

George, the issue here isn't about flies and cups. It's about someone claiming to be a Muslim, and rejecting an authentic saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

If the Messenger of God said dip the fly - and we know that he really said this (i.e. it's authentically attributed to him) - then we dip the fly. As Muslims we believe that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) spoke the truth, and he did not speak from desire. So if he tells us this fact about flies or anything else, we believe it's true.

If a fly landed in any one of our drinks, most of us would probably get disgusted and just spill the entire drink. Some people will just spill a bit out and drink the rest. Others will say "eh, who cares" and continue drinking, not bothered by the fly. I don't think anyone would think to dip it and continue drinking, right? Well, it's a test of faith. A Muslim who has read the hadith and knows it's authentic, if a fly lands in his drink, he has a few choices:


a). Consider it to be ridiculous. Come on, who on earth would believe something like that. He throws the drink out.

b). Reject the hadith, making excuses that it's probably not authentic or something of the sort. He doesn't feel comfortable accepting something like that. He does believe that the Messenger of God spoke the truth but he's making excuses because he can't get himself to accept this one. So in his mind, he's doubting something else, not the Prophet. 'Grasping at straws' you could say. He's letting his desires take control.

c). Believe the hadith to be true, but feels disgusted by the fly anyway, and just throws out the drink. He knows it's true though, but he's too disgusted to continue drinking after a bug landed in his cup.

d). Feel a bit disgusted, but his faith is strong so he dips it and continues drinking, though it's uncomfortable.

e). Feel giddy at the chance to follow the advice of the Prophet, so he quickly dips the bug in and then takes it out and continues drinking with a gleeful smile on his face, only interrupting to giggle victoriously now and then. He is 1,000% sure he cleansed his drink by doing that, and he didn't even have to throw it away. He's not worried in the least.


______

The funny thing is, if science proved the validity of the hadith, people - in general - would feel much more at ease following it. We as Muslims should take the authentic Sunnah as an independent proof. No need for backups. Even if it goes against our desires. That's a test of faith. Do you trust the Messenger or not?

______

As for the insults towards the poster, as you can see he titled the thread in a very rude and aggressive, arrogant manner. When you said 'idiot buffoon' I figured it might've been me, since that's a favorite of mine, (lol). And I went to the first page and sure enough...it was. Though I spelled it wrong (again!)

The insults weren't because he disagreed. Me and you disagree on a lot of things George. And William and I disagree all the time. It was his horrible, extremely arrogant way of addressing the topic.

Looking forward to your reply,
sorry about the length,

Allah knows best.

[godf]

I wasn't concerned by the insults, I just thought they made it difficult to also claim that the thread starter had violated anyone's rights by saying 'no scientists agree with you'. Although as you mentioned, probably best to spell check your insults if you're calling someone ignorant!

I'd be curious which of the above options you are.

Actually - I might ask for you to respond before I go further. I just wrote a post that was mainly guess work about what you believe. Better to just ask.

ta,

gf

['Abd al-Kareem]

It's okay; you can post what you wrote. I don't mind if you were assuming.

As for which of the options I would take, well it surely isn't a or b. As for what it would be exactly, I guess we don't know till we face such a situation, right?

[Umm Ahmed]

I wasn't concerned by the insults, I just thought they made it difficult to also claim that the thread starter had violated anyone's rights by saying 'no scientists agree with you'. Although as you mentioned, probably best to spell check your insults if you're calling someone ignorant!


Anyone on this forum can stifles someone's right, to have an other opinion, by calling him names, and not even entertaining the thought that they might be wrong or that they have proof that they are right.
I too have the freedom as you have, to reply and refute.

Also if I can comment about this topic , you said the following.

I don't think this commandment is terrible important, so don't feel especially motivated to discuss it, but it is wrong, isn't it? How many people here seriously think it's important to dunk a fly that's landed on their food back in? A basic hygiene rule to be taught to children? Does anyone here think that, if it were not a part of their religious faith, the evidence would have led them to believe it's best for their health to re-dunk flies?

In the Quran we have the details of Embryology

Then of that fluid-drop (nutfa) We created a leech-like clot" (23:14) .
Then We changed the Alaqa (leech-like clot) into a Mudgha (chewed-like lump) ” (23: 14).

Probably someone said the same things as yourself when reading the above, before ultrasounds and what not.

[godf]

Anyone on this forum can stifles someone's right, to have an other opinion, by calling him names, and not even entertaining the thought that they might be wrong or that they have proof that they are right.
I too have the freedom as you have, to reply and refute.

So you think him writing 'no scientists agree with you' violates your right to think that scientists do believe flies should be dunked in food?

Wouldn't that mean that, when you say Muhammad was a prophet, that violates other peoples right to believe he was not?

If you had evidence that flies should be dunked into food for health reasons, you were still free to post it.

Also if I can comment about this topic , you said the following.



In the Quran we have the details of Embryology

Then of that fluid-drop (nutfa) We created a leech-like clot" (23:14) .
Then We changed the Alaqa (leech-like clot) into a Mudgha (chewed-like lump) ” (23: 14).

Probably someone said the same things as yourself when reading the above, before ultrasounds and what not.

A chewed like clump?

Surely such vague details of the development of a fetus were known prior to Muhammad's time anyway. People have been giving birth for a long time, so it was not a complete mystery.

Indeed, this description is so vague, I have also seen Muslims claim it accurately predicts the evolution of life over millions of years.

You didn't say whether you dunked flies.

It's okay; you can post what you wrote. I don't mind if you were assuming.

As for which of the options I would take, well it surely isn't a or b. As for what it would be exactly, I guess we don't know till we face such a situation, right?

Well, I think C is an important one.

I think C shows the person does not really believe the Hadith. The want to. They feel emotionally committed to Islam, and would pay lip service to the accuracy of the fly hadith, perhaps even convincing themselves, to a point, that they believed it to be true. But they don't. If the medical and scientific evidence showed that a fly should be dunked in their drink, I think they would have done it.

I think the way you spoke of 'someone claiming to be a Muslim, and rejecting an authentic saying of Prophet Muhammad' shows that you were incensed by the explicit rejection of this hadith. If a Muslim had rejected the hadith by their actions, but paid lip service to its truth ("I know it is true, but I am too weak to follow it") I do not think you would have minded.

It seems there is something of a tension in the arguments on this board between a recognition that their religious beliefs are based on faith, and attempts to base them on evidence. To some extent, the conflict between this hadith and medical and scientific evidence is unimportant. The hadith is true because Islam is true - any evidence that conflicts with Islam should be thrown out as misleading you from the one true faith. Truth is defined by Islam, and there are no external criteria by which the truth of Islam could be judged.

Alternatively, there's the claim that it is a pursuit of truth and an examination of evidence that leads to Islam. It's claimed that the objective evidence corresponds to the claims of Islam, so this hadith needs to be true. Not just 'pretend it's true and dunk the fly as a sign of faith' - but really true. The evidence should show it is true.

I've started to ramble. I think I'll see what you say before I continue, as I'm afraid I'm doing a few things at once. Sorry if this post is a little confused.

[Umm Ahmed]

So you think him writing 'no scientists agree with you' violates your right to think that scientists do believe flies should be dunked in food?

Wouldn't that mean that, when you say Muhammad was a prophet, that violates other peoples right to believe he was not?

If you had evidence that flies should be dunked into food for health reasons, you were still free to post it.

That's some rant your having here , my post was regarding forums. When you call someone derogatory names debates go out the window.
Tha only rights that are supressed is your own and your families ,if you dont believe that Muhammed (saw) was a Phrophet, which you will find out on the day of judgement



A chewed like clump?

Surely such vague details of the development of a fetus were known prior to Muhammad's time anyway. People have been giving birth for a long time, so it was not a complete mystery.

Indeed, this description is so vague, I have also seen Muslims claim it accurately predicts the evolution of life over millions of years.

You didn't say whether you dunked flies.

Where is your documented proof that the facts were known ?

Chewed lump is the similtude given to a certain stage of the growth of a foetus.

You can read this

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

As for dunking flies , I haven't had a fly in my soup to dunk.

[abdulmuhsee]

Have fun with your silly hadith of drinking camel urine and eating poison flies created by your tyrant leaders of the Umayyads and Abbasids. Your hadith books are lies created by these dictators and their pet "scholars".

It should be very, very clear after reading this post that the argument has nothing to do with the hadith about the fly, but is simply an over-eager shi'ite using lame cover for his propoganda.

[godf]

That's some rant your having here , my post was regarding forums. When you call someone derogatory names debates go out the window.
Tha only rights that are supressed is your own and your families ,if you dont believe that Muhammed (saw) was a Phrophet, which you will find out on the day of judgement

I'm not ranting about anything. I'm just trying to understand why you complained about him violating people's rights.


Others called him derogatory names as much, if not more than he called them ones. Yet you complained about him violating your rights. What's more, you pointed to a post where he'd simply said 'no scientists agree with you'.

How can that be a violation of your rights, when you think it is acceptable to say I am suppressing my families rights by not being a Muslim? You seem to have higher standards for others than you do for yourself.


Where is your documented proof that the facts were known ?

Chewed lump is the similtude given to a certain stage of the growth of a foetus.

You can read this

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

As for dunking flies , I haven't had a fly in my soup to dunk.

I did not say I had any documented knowledge about this, only a hunch that ancient people would at least have had some understanding of the development of foetuses.

A quick google search would seem to back this up. Here's the first link that came up:

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijba/vol1n1/fetal.xml

Miscarriage would have been just as common in ancient times as modern. There were always people trying to understand the world arround them, creating pockets of knowledge.

That site mentioned no specific claims made by the Qu'ran which could not have been known at Muhammad's time through naturalistic means. Actually, really no specific claims one way or the other. Maybe they did not have the language then to allow a clear expression of their knowledge. Maybe 'like a chewed up clump' is the best description of a miscarried foetus someone from that time could have managed. Either way, it is no evidence of divine intervention.

[abdulmuhsee]

Well, like Maurice Bucaille said, the most amazing thing about the Qur'an, scientifically, isn't that it contains accurate scientific statements, but that it contains none of the myths and misunderstandings prevelant at the time. While there may have been ancient communities that got a few things right, it was inevitably mixed with error. This is not the case with the Qur'an, and purpose it even mentions these scientific things is for the reader to reflect on the Wonder of Allah; the scientific aspect is secondary and is miraculous in its own right.

[Umm Ahmed]

I'm not ranting about anything. I'm just trying to understand why you complained about him violating people's rights.


Others called him derogatory names as much, if not more than he called them ones. Yet you complained about him violating your rights. What's more, you pointed to a post where he'd simply said 'no scientists agree with you'.

How can that be a violation of your rights, when you think it is acceptable to say I am suppressing my families rights by not being a Muslim? You seem to have higher standards for others than you do for yourself.




I did not say I had any documented knowledge about this, only a hunch that ancient people would at least have had some understanding of the development of foetuses.

A quick google search would seem to back this up. Here's the first link that came up:

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijba/vol1n1/fetal.xml

Miscarriage would have been just as common in ancient times as modern. There were always people trying to understand the world arround them, creating pockets of knowledge.

That site mentioned no specific claims made by the Qu'ran which could not have been known at Muhammad's time through naturalistic means. Actually, really no specific claims one way or the other. Maybe they did not have the language then to allow a clear expression of their knowledge. Maybe 'like a chewed up clump' is the best description of a miscarried foetus someone from that time could have managed. Either way, it is no evidence of divine intervention.


Of course I have a higher standard for myself , but doesn't stop me reminding others of their own rights too. And as a forum moderator I can also remind others that we have the right to answer just as he has the right to post .
Quran has went into detail about embryology fourteen hundred years ago , is there anywhere from other sources that Our Phrophet was a scientist and studied embryology ? there isn't.

[godf]

I thought the source I provided about embryology from before Muhammad's time. I only flicked through, but that's the impression I got.

I said you have higher standards for others than yourself. You think it is unacceptable for others to bluntly present their ideas as fact, but you seem to think it is acceptable for you to do the same.

[Umm Ahmed]

A couple of century's later is what it said Science of life , it also said Yoga was introduced by the Arabs , maybe someone would be interested in that part of the piece ,as I was led to believe Yoga was from Hinduism.

[godf]

Even if it was a couple of centuries later, I still think that would have shown that people of Muhammad's time could have known of foetal development through non-miraculous investigation, and actually, I think the text is from 3 centuries before Christ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaka_Samhitā

It is Unani, a sub-section of Indian medicine that was introduced in the 10th century by Muslims.

This is all just going from the links provided, and I have no prior knowledge of any of this, but that would seem to show that people from before Muhammad's time had quite specific knowledge about the development of the human foetus. Far more specific than the stuff found in the Qu'ran.

[Umm Ahmed]

Hard to say when the addition of embrology was added because in the first piece it said the Arabs brought it over.
The Quran has been memorised since its revelation , so I think its fair to say that in the case of embryology its a good historical reference , and the importance of that shouldn't be ignored. Perhaps some of the more learned brothers and sisters here can give some insight into the time of revelation ect of the chapter.

[godf]

I think you misread the part talking about Unani as being about Charaka Samhita.

The Charaka Samhita was compiled into its current form, including all the information about foetal development, three centuries before Christ. Much of the information within it is drawn from even earlier periods though. (According to those sites anyway.)

I really wouldn't be surprised if further searching turned up other ancient sources for this information either. It's certainly not impossible to imagine early scientists and doctors investigating miscarried children, or women who died while pregnant.

['Abd al-Kareem]

Well, I think C is an important one.

I think C shows the person does not really believe the Hadith. The want to. They feel emotionally committed to Islam, and would pay lip service to the accuracy of the fly hadith, perhaps even convincing themselves, to a point, that they believed it to be true. But they don't. If the medical and scientific evidence showed that a fly should be dunked in their drink, I think they would have done it.

I think the way you spoke of 'someone claiming to be a Muslim, and rejecting an authentic saying of Prophet Muhammad' shows that you were incensed by the explicit rejection of this hadith. If a Muslim had rejected the hadith by their actions, but paid lip service to its truth ("I know it is true, but I am too weak to follow it") I do not think you would have minded.Not really. He believes it but his faith is weak. Or he simply is disgusted by flies. For example, it is permissible to eat squid. Some people might be disgusted by the prospect of eating squid. They believe it's permissible though. Also, it's permissible to eat locusts. I wouldn't try it personally, but I'm not doubting that it's okay.

So for a person who chooses option C, he can feel and truly believe (not tricking himself) that the cup doesn't have any diseases, because his dunking cleansed it. But he is just disgusted by the prospect of a fly entering his drink. So he dumps it. He doesn't doubt that it's free from whatever harm the fly could've brought, but flies disgust him in general. Under some other circumstances (i.e. he was thirsty/it was his favorite drink/etc.) he'd probably drink it after dunking the fly.

When I sin, and when any other Muslim sins, we know we are doing wrong. We don't doubt for a second that we are wrong. It is a moment of weakness, or we are inclined towards it due to habit, external factors and pressure, and so on. Yet if you were to ask us whether it is a sin we wouldn't have a doubt in our hearts... And we would definitely warn others from doing it. And we try to avoid it.

Similarly, in the case of C, the person knows that after he dunks the fly, his cup will be good for drinking again. But he doesn't act upon it. Weakness of faith, not an absolute lack of it. He didn't reject the hadith.

I hope you see what I mean.

It seems there is something of a tension in the arguments on this board between a recognition that their religious beliefs are based on faith, and attempts to base them on evidence. To some extent, the conflict between this hadith and medical and scientific evidence is unimportant. The hadith is true because Islam is true - any evidence that conflicts with Islam should be thrown out as misleading you from the one true faith. Truth is defined by Islam, and there are no external criteria by which the truth of Islam could be judged.If I am understanding you correctly, then yes. I agree. Islam is the truth. Everything that Islam came with is the truth. Simple as that. If a recent scientific theory or hypothesis disagrees, I don't even consider for half a second that the theory might be correct and Islam wrong. The theory is mistaken, without a doubt.

The hadith of the fly is enough proof for me. If scientists prove it somewhere down the line, it will only increase my conviction that Islam is the truth. However, if scientists come out with a theory 'disproving' it, I consider the theory mistaken without batting an eyelid.

Alternatively, there's the claim that it is a pursuit of truth and an examination of evidence that leads to Islam. It's claimed that the objective evidence corresponds to the claims of Islam, so this hadith needs to be true. Not just 'pretend it's true and dunk the fly as a sign of faith' - but really true. The evidence should show it is true.Yea, that's true. A few brothers posted some articles proving the hadith. For the past 1,400 years, Muslims have had to just accept the hadith, without any scientific research backing it up. Their faith in the words of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) - knowledge which he only learned from God - was their only proof, and it's enough for any Muslim.

So basically they had to 'accept (not pretend) it's true and dunk the fly as a sign of faith.'

The same goes for any other scientific fact mentioned in the Qur'an or authentic hadith. I, and every other Muslim, believe it. If, during my lifetime, scientists happen to research this topic or that and find that the Qur'an was correct, then all well and good. Due to our faith, we believed it before the scientists even decided to research the issue.

If during my lifetime no research is done on the subject, or research is done and they come out with a theory that contradicts what the Qur'an said, then simply: they're wrong and the Qur'an is right. In 10, 20, maybe 50, 100 years they may come to the conclusion that the old theory is wrong, due to more extensive research/better technology/etc. Whether they do or not, it doesn't affect my believing it.

But, if one were to follow the proofs, and follow his logic, and follow his fitrah (natural disposition), and be sincere in his search, it will all lead him to believe that Islam is the truth. The hadith of the fly is now proven by science. And there are many other similar facts in the Qur'an as well. So when a person sees A and B and C and D are all mentioned in the Qur'an and they're all correct, and these things couldn't have been known 1,400 years ago, then he comes to the obvious conclusion that this was revealed by One who knew, One who knows all things. And if A, B, C, and D are correct and proven today, then surely E, F, G, H, I, and J are also correct and they simply haven't been proven yet by modern science.

Allah knows best.

[Umm Ahmed]

I think you misread the part talking about Unani as being about Charaka Samhita.

The Charaka Samhita was compiled into its current form, including all the information about foetal development, three centuries before Christ. Much of the information within it is drawn from even earlier periods though. (According to those sites anyway.)

I really wouldn't be surprised if further searching turned up other ancient sources for this information either. It's certainly not impossible to imagine early scientists and doctors investigating miscarried children, or women who died while pregnant.


The two articles pertain to the same book. but dates differ , but the detail is more I think in the Quran . How do you think the Phrophet (saw) got that information ?

I am a revert right , and if someone had come to me so many years ago and told me this I would be sceptical like you are now . But everyone has their beliefs , but like a tree a belief is only as good as its roots. Islaams basic fundamental principles are so strong and deep , that what comes after it is easy to follow.

[Mu'awiya]

asalaam alaikum


guys, remember - Allah informs us of the miraculousness of a human being forming from just a few cells (which from the human eye just look like drops of water.) Thats even more amazing than this scientific advancement which is being mentioned in th thread.


Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary!

And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation: He says, "Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?"

Say, "He will give them life Who created them for the first time! for He is Well-versed in every kind of creation!-

[Quran 36: 77-9]

[godf]

Not really. He believes it but his faith is weak. Or he simply is disgusted by flies. For example, it is permissible to eat squid. Some people might be disgusted by the prospect of eating squid. They believe it's permissible though. Also, it's permissible to eat locusts. I wouldn't try it personally, but I'm not doubting that it's okay.

So for a person who chooses option C, he can feel and truly believe (not tricking himself) that the cup doesn't have any diseases, because his dunking cleansed it. But he is just disgusted by the prospect of a fly entering his drink. So he dumps it. He doesn't doubt that it's free from whatever harm the fly could've brought, but flies disgust him in general. Under some other circumstances (i.e. he was thirsty/it was his favorite drink/etc.) he'd probably drink it after dunking the fly.

When I sin, and when any other Muslim sins, we know we are doing wrong. We don't doubt for a second that we are wrong. It is a moment of weakness, or we are inclined towards it due to habit, external factors and pressure, and so on. Yet if you were to ask us whether it is a sin we wouldn't have a doubt in our hearts... And we would definitely warn others from doing it. And we try to avoid it.

Similarly, in the case of C, the person knows that after he dunks the fly, his cup will be good for drinking again. But he doesn't act upon it. Weakness of faith, not an absolute lack of it. He didn't reject the hadith.

I hope you see what I mean.

Yes - but it would be vital to my 'character' that it could be that he think it's all true.

I said I was going to make a lot of assumptions here, and that is what I've done, in my rather crude attempt to psycho-analyse an imaginary character. It's slightly absurd for us to be discussing the motivations of this imagined individual, but so long as we're aware of that, I think it could be a useful way of expressing our thoughts.

While it is possible that there are people who do believe, but due to some strange weakness, they behave as if they do not, I think a lot of people who claim to be like this, actually just don't believe.

Or at least, don't believe in the same way that they believe that Thatcher has been the Prime Minister of Britain. Our minds are complicated things, capable of 'believing' contradictory things, without us really being consciously aware of it. I think our motivations and calculations can be partially hidden from us. We follow our instincts and desires, often without fully understanding their causes.

To a certain extent, I think this is an evolved strategy to help us better survive in a social context. The best way to make people think you are a trust-worthy individual is if you really think you are too. I think there's a level of self-deception that is a natural part of humanity.

If you claim to believe something, but act as if you do not, I think it's quite likely that you are only pretending to believe it. You may also be pretending to yourself, and could really believe you believe it - but your actions reveal otherwise.

I think a lot of religious followers believe in this way. They profess to believe, enjoy the sense of solidarity, group membership and purpose that a religious faith can bring, but do not believe that the claims of their religion are 'true' in the same way that claims proven by the evidence are. Even if the think they do.

I don't think either of our understandings necessarily means that the other’s is wrong. Maybe we're just discussing slightly different imagined individuals.

If I am understanding you correctly, then yes. I agree. Islam is the truth. Everything that Islam came with is the truth. Simple as that. If a recent scientific theory or hypothesis disagrees, I don't even consider for half a second that the theory might be correct and Islam wrong. The theory is mistaken, without a doubt.

The hadith of the fly is enough proof for me. If scientists prove it somewhere down the line, it will only increase my conviction that Islam is the truth. However, if scientists come out with a theory 'disproving' it, I consider the theory mistaken without batting an eyelid.

Yea, that's true. A few brothers posted some articles proving the hadith. For the past 1,400 years, Muslims have had to just accept the hadith, without any scientific research backing it up. Their faith in the words of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) - knowledge which he only learned from God - was their only proof, and it's enough for any Muslim.

So basically they had to 'accept (not pretend) it's true and dunk the fly as a sign of faith.'

The same goes for any other scientific fact mentioned in the Qur'an or authentic hadith. I, and every other Muslim, believe it. If, during my lifetime, scientists happen to research this topic or that and find that the Qur'an was correct, then all well and good. Due to our faith, we believed it before the scientists even decided to research the issue.

If during my lifetime no research is done on the subject, or research is done and they come out with a theory that contradicts what the Qur'an said, then simply: they're wrong and the Qur'an is right. In 10, 20, maybe 50, 100 years they may come to the conclusion that the old theory is wrong, due to more extensive research/better technology/etc. Whether they do or not, it doesn't affect my believing it.

But, if one were to follow the proofs, and follow his logic, and follow his fitrah (natural disposition), and be sincere in his search, it will all lead him to believe that Islam is the truth. The hadith of the fly is now proven by science. And there are many other similar facts in the Qur'an as well. So when a person sees A and B and C and D are all mentioned in the Qur'an and they're all correct, and these things couldn't have been known 1,400 years ago, then he comes to the obvious conclusion that this was revealed by One who knew, One who knows all things. And if A, B, C, and D are correct and proven today, then surely E, F, G, H, I, and J are also correct and they simply haven't been proven yet by modern science.

Allah knows best.

I’ve got to say, the links posted really didn’t show the hadith to be true. The evidence is very much against this one.

And anyway, do you not feel the tension between declaring the evidence is unimportant, and that any evidence contrary to Islam you would dismiss, and yet also claiming that, based on your assessment, the evidence supports Islam?

It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If your faith is such that evidence conflicting with Islam will not be acknowledged, then you have to accept that you’ve rendered yourself incapable of declaring what the evidence shows.

There seems to be this strange circular logic amongst some on this forum, where any evidence which concurs with Islamic belief proves Islam is true, but any evidence contrary to Islam is dismissed out of hand.

The two articles pertain to the same book. but dates differ , but the detail is more I think in the Quran . How do you think the Phrophet (saw) got that information ?

I am a revert right , and if someone had come to me so many years ago and told me this I would be sceptical like you are now . But everyone has their beliefs , but like a tree a belief is only as good as its roots. Islaams basic fundamental principles are so strong and deep , that what comes after it is easy to follow.

I think you may have misread.

Here is what it says:

“The various Indian systems of medicine – Ayurveda, Yoga, Siddha and Unani (Arabs introduced it in India around the 10th century AD), together provide a major source of medical reference for all classes of people. Ayurveda, which literally means ‘Science of Life” is considered to be the oldest natural medical practice on the earth. It deals elaborately with measures for healthful living during the various phases of life.
Here we give a portion of the detailed account of ‘in-utero' development of the foetus as mentioned in Charaka Samhita in comparison with the present day knowledge.”

Unani was introduced by Arabs in the 10th cenury, but the information about foetal development in that article was from the Charaka Samhita, which was compiled into its present form three centuries before Christ, and based on writings from even longer before that.

I think that the clarity and precision of this early medical text is far greater than the passages from the Qu’ran so far mentioned. Which is not surprising, as the Qu’ran was not intended as a medical text.

It is always possible that those sites were being misleading about the nature and content of the Charaka Samhita, but I’ve seen no reason to believe this is the case.

Seeing as this knowledge was available through non-miraculous means, I see no reason to believe Muhammad received it by miraculous means.

asalaam alaikum


guys, remember - Allah informs us of the miraculousness of a human being forming from just a few cells (which from the human eye just look like drops of water.) Thats even more amazing than this scientific advancement which is being mentioned in th thread.


Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary!

And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation: He says, "Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?"

Say, "He will give them life Who created them for the first time! for He is Well-versed in every kind of creation!-

[Quran 36: 77-9]

I’m not sure I understand what’s meant to be impressive about that. The knowledge that sperm leads to pregnancy?

[Umm Ahmed]

Am I losing my sight ?

Abstract
The ancient Indian Literature is a store of house of knowledge which lies yet untapped due to the limited number of individuals who can translate the scriptures and also due to a lack of awareness about the contents. Charka Samhita provides a detailed account of the fetal development in-utero and also gives a clinical account of the signs and symptoms associated with pregnancy. A correlation of the account given in this scripture, written at the time when microscopic or imaging techniques were non existant, with the modern day texts of embryology and fetal development brings forward two nearly identical descriptions. This attempt is intended to promote and encourage a detailed exploration of the vast ocean of knowledge contained in ancient Indian Literature in order to obtain pearls of wisdom.

Charaka Samhita, a treatise of Ayurveda, was used for teaching of Ayurvedic Sciences in the ancient Indian universities of Takshshila and Nalanda and continues to provide guidelines for treatment even in today's world of Modern Medicine. A section of Charaka Samhita deals with the ‘in-utero' foetal development, various signs and symptoms in the mother, and treatment guidelines at various stages of pregnancy. An attempt has been made in this research article to correlate the facts given in Charaka Samhita with the present day knowledge of ‘in-utero' foetal development. Only relevant text from Charaka Samhita has been used for this purpose and not the whole account, which is a vast sea of knowledge. Herein, the authors attempt to establish the fact that inspite of non availability of a concrete proof of availability of any microscopic instruments or techniques in the ancient times of Vedas, still the detailed account of the ‘in-utero' foetal development in the literature almost exactly matches the present day knowledge and at some places even presents some yet undiscovered facts.

The various Indian systems of medicine – Ayurveda Yoga, Siddha and Unani (Arabs introduced it in India around the 10th century AD), together provide a major source of medical reference for all classes of people. Ayurveda, which literally means ‘Science of Life” is considered to be the oldest natural medical practice on the earth. It deals elaborately with measures for healthful living during the various phases of life.

Here we give a portion of the detailed account of ‘in-utero' development of the foetus as mentioned in Charaka Samhita in comparison with the present day knowledge. The first stanza is of the only main text by Ayurvedacharya Shri Jayadev Vidyalankaren Pranitiya. Sharirasthanam (Chathurtha adhyaya). Charaka Samhita, Vol 1 (Motilal Banarsidas, Banaras, 1948) in Sanskrit followed by its translation in English, and then follows the comparison with our references.

Thats whats on the site you gave me http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijba/vol1n1/fetal.xml

You can also go to http://www.tafsir.com for a detailed explanation of the verses also.

Where would you think the Phrophet (saw) would get this information from , and also the other scientific things in the Quran?

[godf]

I understand why you'd be confused. It wasn't very clearly written. A number of sources say Ayureda pre-dates Christ though. I think it is only Unani which was introduced to India by Arabs in the tenth century.

[godf]

Just to try to make this as clear as possible:

"The various Indian systems of medicine – Ayurveda, Yoga, Siddha and Unani (Arabs introduced it in India around the 10th century AD)"

Arabs introduce 'it', not 'them'. I would take this to mean only Unani was introduced by the Arabs in the tenth century. This reading would seem to be backed up by the other sources which mention Ayurveda pre-dating Christ by some centuries.

[Umm Ahmed]

That could be a spelling error, and it says its a treatise , so we dont know what was actually in the book before the 10th century as unfortunately like so many text they just vanished.

Anyhow your looking at other avenues to seek answers. God willing there will be something in Islaam that will light a light and make you enter Islaam.

[godf]

I don't think there's any reason to believe the Charaka Samhita was written after Muhammad's time. The sources I've found on the matter have said it was compiled into its current form centuries before the time of Jesus. They could be wrong, but I see no reason to assume they all are.

Even without them, I still think it would be sensible to assume that people from long ago were able to develop a certain understanding of embryology simply through the examination of miscarried foetuses, or women who died while pregnant; rather than assuming that such knowledge can be taken as evidence of divine intervention.

[Umm Ahmed]

The resources are too dubious , We dont know what was in that book before the addition of what the arabs brought to it. So it can't stand , but the Quran can so we have something that we can go by.
Something might be sensible by our standards today, but be irrelevant thousand upon thousands of years ago. Which is why I don't think we should dismiss one wing being something and an other wing something else.

Also reading up on this through the internet is not sufficient at all especially for me , I don't have a medical background, so I don't know who are the leading pioneers in embryology

I was thinking earlier to day about something else that was given to us by our beloved Phrophet, so you could think about it.

When I had my first child you were told to let them sleep on their stomachs , yet Islaam says no its not good ,now children are put on their backs or sides . watch this .

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lieK4EzFCWA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lieK4EzFCWA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

We could keep going on with this I suppose , but the basic thing here is you doubt the source. So you should ask questions on that topic , if you haven't before on this forum

[Mu'awiya]

I’m not sure I understand what’s meant to be impressive about that. The knowledge that sperm leads to pregnancy?


The fact that two tiny cells can form into such a complicated organism, is an amazing miracle. This is more amazing than the fact that these verses were explaining this concept over 14centuries ago. [since Allah tells us to reflect on this wonder many times in the Qur'an.]


Atheists, like you yourself said - don't know how these cells originated;


No-one knows how life first formed, and we may never be sure. We're getting closer to understanding ways in which early life could have formed, and that's likely to be as good as we can manage for the forseeable. To claim that we know it's impossible is wrong. <!-- / message --> <!-- controls -->
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=19034


We say its a great sign from Allah.

[godf]

Isn't this a case where, anything that Muhammed said which corresponds with later medical evidence is seen as a miracle, and evidence he was in communication with a super-natural entity, but any time the medical evidence doesn't correspond, the evidence is dismissed.

Undoubtedly, of the things Muhammed said, many will be true. As is the same for most other people. I'd have thought it's likely there were people before Muhammed who recommended lying on your back for medical reasons too. Actually, the reason Muhammad gave for his command wasn't medical, but: “Do not lie like this, for this is how the people of Hell lie.”

It could be that concern about the sexual stimulation which can occur when a man lies on his front prompted this advice. It could be that Muhammad himself had noticed, or else been told by others, that lying on your front could lead to back-pain. Muhammad could have been given this information by an angel, but I think that such an extraordinary explanation would need far more compelling evidence before it could be reasonable accepted.

I don't understand what about the sources of information related to the Charaka Samhita you find dubious.

Neither of us knows much about the knowledge of embryology that was available to ancient civilisations, but surely that means we should not assume that knowledge about embryology would only have been available to them through divine means. Especially as the sources we have found seem to show that this is not the case.

[harbi]

The fact that two tiny cells can form into such a complicated organism, is an amazing miracle. This is more amazing than the fact that these verses were explaining this concept over 14centuries ago.

Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary!

It doesn't explain what the sperm does, besides saying man is created by sperm. Does the Quran even mention an egg is needed? My guess is an egg isn't mentioned - because the ovum isn't as evident to the human eye as sperm.

[Mu'awiya]

Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary!

It doesn't explain what the sperm does, besides saying man is created by sperm. Does the Quran even mention an egg is needed? My guess is an egg isn't mentioned - because the ovum isn't as evident to the human eye as sperm.


i dont mean that. i mean that the wonder in the creation of a human, and the human design etc. - all these are amazing wonders of Allah's creation.

Allah tells us to reflect upon these more than 'scientific discoveries' of which some may be portrayed correctly and others slightly biased.. :)


that's all i meant, i never really had any new info. i just wanted to point out that Allah tells us to ponder over our origin more than on scientific discoveries only. wa Allahu a'lam

[Ross]

Hi everyone. I saw this thread and just wanted to comment that clearly flies feet carry the disease not wings in the first place. Anyone who doubts see: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/flies.html

http://www.thebestcontrol.com/bugstop/control_flies.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117442/html/diseases.html

Also as for the regular fundamentalist claims about the scientific thing "bacteriophages". There is one important thing to know about theses that refutes all psuedo-scientist fundamentalist claims; I'll quote from a scientist refuting fundamentalist claims about this; Quote- Uh! I didn't know that laboratory-purified highly concentrated phages titres were a natural state. But I'm sure you'll tell us so.

The point is: even if the Eastern European phage therapy works (which it doesn't) it still doesn't prove the fly wing hadith correct because these phage therapies involve the use of massive quantities of purified phages not found in nature. You'd have to take the phages of thousands of flies just to cure one human, I would suspect. So instead of dipping the other wing in, you'd have to dip a thousand wings in.

end quote.

So again any psuedo-scientist or wackjob that attempts to claim "bacteriophages" defend this silly hadith; should now that any lab reports about "bacteriophages" in the first place involve highly purified non-natural phages these are 100% different then anything found in nature; unless your claiming your hadith was in a 7th century Arab labratory!

As for claims about science and your faith; the scientists that came in the "golden Age" were largely not religious and in many cases would be considered heretics by you and not Muslims. So you can't claim them as "Muslim" scientists!

['Abd al-Kareem]

Yawn. Ross, you sound like a rafidi.

[Ross]

I'm quoting science! I'm a freethinker also friend.

[gag order]

Refuting lies and fake junk science from wahhabisif you sincerely wanted to discuss this topic in the light of science you wouldnt be wielding it as a weapon to mock us with, surely if you're correct there is no need to be so scournful to begin with?

ban me? Fo asking questions you can't answer! Truly pathetic shows the lack of strength you have in your wahhabi faith that you want to ban someone who can refute it!

a banning request was clearly in response to your belligerence and animosity and when you made it clear to us that scientific debate was not your intention at all. lest see,

typical wahhabi lies and bad speech you truly are all uneducated taliban-like idiots and terrorists.well if thats the way you feel about it then theres absolutely no need to drag science in to it is there? you wanted to just vent your frustration and hatred by widening the topic with irrelevant matters and you expect people to refute your initial argument when you can't even stay on topic?

Why is Muhammad making sure with his instruction that the fly gets a full body ablution in your drinkhis statements pertaining to medicine started a course of scientific enquiry which later the muslims became famed for. "on one wing is the malady and on the other is the remedy" what he was alluding to could be better understood in the way snake venom antidote is produced, the venom is both malady and remedy.

What a joke again NO scientists agree with you. You post from islamtoday a wahhabi apologist site that just happens to use only Muslim "scientists" that are obviously biased and talking out their rear-end. Again real scientists refute you. And again about flies; From Christiansso christians are the only real scientists, nevermind their findings, muslim scientists are wrong becos they are muslims? wether one agrees or disagrees, the assertion that 'no scientists agree' with the muslim position is wholly untrue.

There has long been evidence of bacterial pathogen-suppressing micro-organisms living in houseflies, An article in Vol. 43 of the Rockefeller Foundation's Journal of Experimental Medicine (1927) p. 1037 stated:
"The flies were given some of the cultured microbes for certain diseases. After some time the germs died and no trace was left of them while a germ-devouring substance formed in the flies - bacteriophages. If a saline solution were to be obtained from these flies it would contain bacteriophages able to suppress four kinds of disease-inducing germs and to benefit immunity there you see, on one wing is the malady the other is the remedy. the hadith of the fly alludes to knowledge of preventive medicine and immunology. In this respect, scientific collaboration on this would be more fruitful than its use as a stick to beat muslims with.

['Abd al-Kareem]

George, what I had meant was a person who is objectively and sincerely searching for the truth will most definitely be led to Islam, God willing.

And a different person who has already found Islam and is 100% sure that it is the truth and he has no doubts about it, this type of person will reject any 'evidence' that contradicts Islam because in his view, what he knows to be true (Islam) is stronger and more sturdy than what is brought.

I hope it's a bit clearer now.

['Abd al-Kareem]

I'm quoting science! I'm a freethinker also friend.Friend now, is it?

Next time, try not to include the following in your first post:

1. wackjob
2. silly hadith

[Ross]

if you sincerely wanted to discuss this topic in the light of science you wouldnt be wielding it as a weapon to mock us with, surely if you're correct there is no need to be so scournful to begin with?

a banning request was clearly in response to your belligerence and animosity and when you made it clear to us that scientific debate was not your intention at all. lest see,

well if thats the way you feel about it then theres absolutely no need to drag science in to it is there? you wanted to just vent your frustration and hatred by widening the topic with irrelevant matters and you expect people to refute your initial argument when you can't even stay on topic?

his statements pertaining to medicine started a course of scientific enquiry which later the muslims became famed for. "on one wing is the malady and on the other is the remedy" what he was alluding to could be better understood in the way snake venom antidote is produced, the venom is both malady and remedy.

so christians are the only real scientists, nevermind their findings, muslim scientists are wrong becos they are muslims? wether one agrees or disagrees, the assertion that 'no scientists agree' with the muslim position is wholly untrue.

there you see, on one wing is the malady the other is the remedy. the hadith of the fly alludes to knowledge of preventive medicine and immunology. In this respect, scientific collaboration on this would be more fruitful than its use as a stick to beat muslims with.

phages that are spoken of in the thing you attempt to use are highly purified unnatural phages used in professional labs, i.e. not what is found in nature and our natural impure environment. Are you alleging that your hadiths from the 7th Century C.E. are speaking of labs and purified phages LOL!

[Umm Ahmed]

Isn't this a case where, anything that Muhammed said which corresponds with later medical evidence is seen as a miracle, and evidence he was in communication with a super-natural entity, but any time the medical evidence doesn't correspond, the evidence is dismissed.

Undoubtedly, of the things Muhammed said, many will be true. As is the same for most other people. I'd have thought it's likely there were people before Muhammed who recommended lying on your back for medical reasons too. Actually, the reason Muhammad gave for his command wasn't medical, but: “Do not lie like this, for this is how the people of Hell lie.”

It could be that concern about the sexual stimulation which can occur when a man lies on his front prompted this advice. It could be that Muhammad himself had noticed, or else been told by others, that lying on your front could lead to back-pain. Muhammad could have been given this information by an angel, but I think that such an extraordinary explanation would need far more compelling evidence before it could be reasonable accepted.

I don't understand what about the sources of information related to the Charaka Samhita you find dubious.

Neither of us knows much about the knowledge of embryology that was available to ancient civilisations, but surely that means we should not assume that knowledge about embryology would only have been available to them through divine means. Especially as the sources we have found seem to show that this is not the case.


Should we take something that's memorised from the time of Muhammed (saw) or that what's not so clear, heck even the Bible cant stand that test.

We don't dismiss all evidence especially science , because God made Islaam to last through all centuries , It's permissible for couples to enter into IVF but not for a woman to become an incubator for an other woman, or for the sperm to be from an other man, because Scholars deduce rulings from the Quran and Sunnah.

Did you listen to the short talk from Bilal Phillips ? but your problem is with the source of what we say.

I think you should focus on that.

[godf]

George, what I had meant was a person who is objectively and sincerely searching for the truth will most definitely be led to Islam, God willing.

And a different person who has already found Islam and is 100% sure that it is the truth and he has no doubts about it, this type of person will reject any 'evidence' that contradicts Islam because in his view, what he knows to be true (Islam) is stronger and more sturdy than what is brought.

I hope it's a bit clearer now.

But how can you say that the evidence leads to Islam, if you've already acknowledged that you would dismiss out of hand any evidence that was contrary to Islam? Or do you mean 'led' to Islam in some sort of spiritual, faith-based way? If you are looking for the truth, then at some point, Allah will come along and make you a Muslim? Surely that is also a fairly circular argument?

Or maybe you acknowledge that it is not really an argument, but rather, another article of faith? It is something your religion claims, so something you believe, and you do not need anything more than that. I am not sure.

Ta.

Should we take something that's memorised from the time of Muhammed (saw) or that what's not so clear, heck even the Bible cant stand that test.

I'm not really sure what you mean.

What is the 'that' which is not so clear? Why is it not clear to you? Do you just mean that you do not know enough about ancient medicine, so it is unclear? Surely our own ignorance is no reason to dismiss the evidence about about early medical knowledge. If you doubt the evidence, and then look into it and find a flaw, or contrary evidence, that would be one thing, but to dismiss it just because it relates to a topic we are unfamiliar with would be very weak.

We don't dismiss all evidence especially science , because God made Islaam to last through all centuries , It's permissible for couples to enter into IVF but not for a woman to become an incubator for an other woman, or for the sperm to be from an other man, because Scholars deduce rulings from the Quran and Sunnah.

No, but you'd dismiss all evidence which seems opposed to Islam.

I don't really see the examples you mentioned as being terribly important. Christian scholars make similar pronouncements, but this does not mean Christianity is especially responsive to scientific evidence (although elements of it are).

Did you listen to the short talk from Bilal Phillips ? but your problem is with the source of what we say.

I think you should focus on that.

I listened to the youtube clip, if that was Bilal Phillips.

I think the difference is both that I do not assume Islam to be infallible generally, but also, in specific instances, I think the evidence shows that claims made by Islam are wrong.

Ta.

['Abd al-Kareem]

But how can you say that the evidence leads to Islam, if you've already acknowledged that you would dismiss out of hand any evidence that was contrary to Islam? Or do you mean 'led' to Islam in some sort of spiritual, faith-based way? If you are looking for the truth, then at some point, Allah will come along and make you a Muslim? Surely that is also a fairly circular argument?

Or maybe you acknowledge that it is not really an argument, but rather, another article of faith? It is something your religion claims, so something you believe, and you do not need anything more than that. I am not sure.

Ta.Two different people:

Person A is not a Muslim. He is objectively and sincerely seeking the truth. The truth is Islam. If he is sincere in his search, not biased and leaning here and there, he will find Islam. Islam is the truth, and he will eventually come to that conclusion, God willing.

Person B is a Muslim. He doesn't need to keep re-checking all the evidences that led him to believe that Islam is the truth. After his long quest for the truth, and subsequently finding Islam, his belief is like a tree. Took a long time to grow but once it did, it became very sturdy and hard to take down. If someone brings a small evidence or two 'disproving' a hadith or confronting/contradicting a verse from the Qur'an, it's not going to chop his entire tree down! He'll probably look into it, but he's confident there's an answer for this particular situation.

I'd like to note that when I say a person with strong faith dismisses 'evidence' that contradicts Islam, doesn't mean he ignores it. Those who have the knowledge do refute these things when they are brought up. There are quite a few sites listing so-called 'contradictions in the Qur'an.' I've seen such sites. These so-called 'contradictions' are a load of trash, deception, avoiding context, and playing around with words. We don't just ignore them. We refute them and show the world that they aren't really contradictions.

Allah knows best.

[godf]

Two different people:

Person A is not a Muslim. He is objectively and sincerely seeking the truth. The truth is Islam. If he is sincere in his search, not biased and leaning here and there, he will find Islam. Islam is the truth, and he will eventually come to that conclusion, God willing.

Person B is a Muslim. He doesn't need to keep re-checking all the evidences that led him to believe that Islam is the truth. After his long quest for the truth, and subsequently finding Islam, his belief is like a tree. Took a long time to grow but once it did, it became very sturdy and hard to take down. If someone brings a small evidence or two 'disproving' a hadith or confronting/contradicting a verse from the Qur'an, it's not going to chop his entire tree down! He'll probably look into it, but he's confident there's an answer for this particular situation.

I'd like to note that when I say a person with strong faith dismisses 'evidence' that contradicts Islam, doesn't mean he ignores it. Those who have the knowledge do refute these things when they are brought up. There are quite a few sites listing so-called 'contradictions in the Qur'an.' I've seen such sites. These so-called 'contradictions' are a load of trash, deception, avoiding context, and playing around with words. We don't just ignore them. We refute them and show the world that they aren't really contradictions.

Allah knows best.

So does that mean that you can imagine evidence that would lead you to believe you should not re-dunk a fly in your food for health reasons? You just think the evidence you've seen so far is not strong enough? What would that evidence have to entail?

[Umm Ahmed]

What is the 'that' which is not so clear? Why is it not clear to you? Do you just mean that you do not know enough about ancient medicine, so it is unclear? Surely our own ignorance is no reason to dismiss the evidence about about early medical knowledge. If you doubt the evidence, and then look into it and find a flaw, or contrary evidence, that would be one thing, but to dismiss it just because it relates to a topic we are unfamiliar with would be very weak.

What's not clear, is what was in the book earlier, what's been added, what the arabs introduced, and its a treatise of this and that come on , how on earth can you take that unclear evidence yet you can dismiss the Quran ? so no I do not mean what you wrote in the latter part of your paragraph .

My point has been this throughout, is you should not dismiss anything in the Quran, just because it might not make sense to you. Because your sceptical of the source you wont accept a single thing , where as I as a muslim will read a new medical breakthrough and accept it because I know Islaam accepts the majority of science, except in the things like we crawled out of the water and stood up, or we evolved from apes .
There are only a few things that Muslim scientists have denied . but you refuse everything outright.

So its the source . The Phrophet Muhammed (saw) was not a liar, he was a trusted person before Islaam he kept peoples money. Now all of a sudden he will start lying and become this person who sneaks about from country to country seeking scientists. His life is well documented.


I think the difference is both that I do not assume Islam to be infallible generally, but also, in specific instances, I think the evidence shows that claims made by Islam are wrong.

Ta.

Yes to me it's perfect, because God would not create an imperfect book.

[godf]

What's not clear, is what was in the book earlier, what's been added, what the arabs introduced, and its a treatise of this and that come on , how on earth can you take that unclear evidence yet you can dismiss the Quran ? so no I do not mean what you wrote in the latter part of your paragraph .

My point has been this throughout, is you should not dismiss anything in the Quran, just because it might not make sense to you. Because your sceptical of the source you wont accept a single thing , where as I as a muslim will read a new medical breakthrough and accept it because I know Islaam accepts the majority of science, except in the things like we crawled out of the water and stood up, or we evolved from apes .
There are only a few things that Muslim scientists have denied . but you refuse everything outright.

So its the source . The Phrophet Muhammed (saw) was not a liar, he was a trusted person before Islaam he kept peoples money. Now all of a sudden he will start lying and become this person who sneaks about from country to country seeking scientists. His life is well documented.


All of the sources we have say that the book was compiled, into its current form, centuries before the birth of Jesus.

I do not doubt that the Qu'ran was compiled into its current form within the century or so after Muhammad's death. I just do not think he got it from an angel.

I don't refuse everything outright. I try to base my beliefs on what the available evidence indicates is most likely to be true. There's no blanket rejection of Islam. I'm sure there's much within Islam that is beneficial and true, but I do not think it is reasonable to assume that Muhammad was in contact with an angel. That is an extraordinary claim, and there is no compelling evidence to back it up.

The claim that early doctors studied foetal development is far less extraordinary, so if historians report having evidence that this was done, I am going to be more likely to think this is likely to be true, especially if there seems to be no reason to dispute the claim.

Muhammad did not need to be cynically seeking out little known knowledge from scientists. Knowledge tends to disperse itself quite naturally amongst and within human cultures. People who've never read a Batman comic will still know Bruce Wayne is Batman. You don't need to have read any Shakespeare to know of Romeo and Juliet, or Lady Macbeth. It seems Muhammad thought the pursuit of knowledge was important, so it seems strange to assume that when he reported knowing things which were known to people at the time, he could only have found them out through conversations with an angel.

Re Muhammad being a liar. I've discussed this many times. Within Islam, it reports non-Muslims talking about how trustworthy Muhammad is. But they still did not believe he was a true Prophet. When someone tells me that God speaks to them during prayer, I do not think they are lying, I think they are mistaken. Muhammad's visions began after a long period of meditation, and intense meditation is known to induce hallucinations.

I am not saying that I know what made Muhammad claim he was in contact with God. We can not be sure what makes anyone make this claim, and a great many people have, usually promoting different and contradictory messages. There is not compelling evidence to support any of their extraordinary claims, so I am sceptical of all of them., just as you would be equally (if not more) sceptical of anyone from outside the Islamic tradition.

[Umm Ahmed]

just as you would be equally (if not more) sceptical of anyone from outside the Islamic tradition.

No I have said this more than once , and you added ''if not more'' this time *shrug* Science and the Quran run very closely to each other I said there are very few things that Islaam has rejected. so no and no ,I am not sceptical of science

I highlighted in a few posts back what the article said , there was no mention in one article, of the book being from before Christ. In bold it was clear what was said. That's why its unclear to me , and in previous posts on this thread you implied yourself if they are to be believed and you understood why they would seem to be unclear , but now a few posts later your convinced they are the 100% true ?? what's the use of this conversation in that case?

Again I will say don't scoff at what's in the Quran or in hadiths regarding science because so far its come up trumps.

If you were sincere in saying that you dont flat out reject what Islaam says in everything .

Then please read these links

http://www.searchforislam.com/gsearch/?cx=001937304971163180674%3Ap9phzc6gctk&cof=FORID%3A11&q=science+and+the+Quran+&sa=Search#949

Then you can start a thread on questions regarding Phrophet Muhammed (saw) and Gabriel.

[godf]

I was talking about your presumed scepticism about religious claims from outside the Islamic tradition, not scientific ones.

I understand why the sentence you put into bold could be seen as unclear. But when you look at it more closely, I think you can see it could only be interpreted in one way. It is not well constructed for easy reading, but it's meaning is not ambiguous once you've looked at it properly. You said that in order for your initial interpretation to be correct, words would need to have been changed as a typo. It does not seem sensible to assume that words should be changed in order to alter the meaning of a sentence, and then claim that as this new sentence contradicts all of the other claims made about dating, the dating is in doubt.

If someone were to tell you that, if you changed some words in the Qu'ran, it would contradict itself, you would not see that as reason to believe the Qu'ran was contradictory.

[Umm Ahmed]

But the dating was crystal clear, 10 century .

You said that in order for your initial interpretation to be correct, words would need to have been changed