New studies reveal scientific miracles in the fly Hadith

[Philosopher]

please be polite. I am not twisting statements, rather i am pointing out the twisting of statements.

Now please be civil. I have not been rude to you and i expect the same.

You havent pointed anything noteworthy. You are indeed twisting the facts stated and have posted nothing but intellectually unethical and deceptive waffles.

 

[ranma1/2]

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. "


now how am i reading or twisting these words?

The prophet is said to have said that if a fly falls into a food or drink you should immerse it completely.

and he then says that under onewing is venom and one the antidote.

Is this true? No it is not.
Scientific prediction? No.

If you care to explain how I am twisting the words please do. But I am not lying as you have accused me of doing. I am just pointing out the flaws in your arguments and logic.

 

[Philosopher]

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. "


now how am i reading or twisting these words?

The prophet is said to have said that if a fly falls into a food or drink you should immerse it completely.

and he then says that under onewing is venom and one the antidote.

Is this true? No it is not.
Scientific prediction? No.

If you care to explain how I am twisting the words please do. But I am not lying as you have accused me of doing. I am just pointing out the flaws in your arguments and logic.

I''ll elucidate the concept later, i need to go to sleep now!

Good Night!

 

[lyesh]

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. "


now how am i reading or twisting these words?

The prophet is said to have said that if a fly falls into a food or drink you should immerse it completely.

and he then says that under onewing is venom and one the antidote.

Is this true? No it is not.
Scientific prediction? No.

If you care to explain how I am twisting the words please do. But I am not lying as you have accused me of doing. I am just pointing out the flaws in your arguments and logic.

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.

its been proven true by science now... that's what this whole thread is about..:rollseyes

 

[ranma1/2]

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.

its been proven true by science now... that's what this whole thread is about..:rollseyes

Thankyou for making a good comment. "and not going off on me"
Many creatures carry pathogens and "antidotes"

Now one of my problems with the article isthat the verse says specifically on one wing this and the other that. Which is not true.

The verse would also lead someone to believe that a fly could poison you and in turn cure you. This also isnt true.

Now lets just take the fly idea and put it to more realistic means.

Lets say if you were living back in the days of Muhammad "cool experience if you ask me" and you had many flies infecting your food would his advices work.

Lets say thatthe flies have actually contanimated your food with some sort fo pathogen would taking the flies and dunking them in the food then make the food safe to drink or eat? No it wouldnt.

 

[جوري]

The same way using a Live attenuated vaccine from the disease-causing organism -- can help mount an immune response in the host receiving it... and yet in contrast in an immuno-compromised person can actually again turn virulent... Unless you have studied this area in depth I suggest you not make any random assumptions and pass them as facts...

 

[lyesh]

Thankyou for making a good comment. "and not going off on me"
Many creatures carry pathogens and "antidotes"

Now one of my problems with the article is that the verse says specifically on one wing this and the other that. Which is not true.

Explain why it's not true please... (btw, its not a verse.. it's a hadith)

The verse would also lead someone to believe that a fly could poison you and in turn cure you. This also isnt true.

why?...

Now lets just take the fly idea and put it to more realistic means.

Lets say if you were living back in the days of Muhammad "cool experience if you ask me" and you had many flies infecting your food would his advices work.

Lets say thatthe flies have actually contanimated your food with some sort fo pathogen would taking the flies and dunking them in the food then make the food safe to drink or eat? No it wouldnt.

yes ofcourse this idea would work... like you already know, we use bacteria for a lot of medicines in the world today. now... we all tell our kids to stay away from it.. lol.. but still some of them are the best cures for our health problems! some bacteria in the world are so useful for our body!

yea so the flies contaminated the food one day.. and we dunked the fly back to food and would it be safe to drink or eat? like u just said no it wouldnt.. i'll just say "YES! IT WOULD!"

 

[Trumble]

You havent pointed anything noteworthy. You are indeed twisting the facts stated and have posted nothing but intellectually unethical and deceptive waffles.

Without twisting anything he has merely pointed out that, as is the usual with such 'miracles', far more is being read into a passage than is actually there. Not to mention that what doesn't happen to fit it is totally ignored. Were this advice

"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."

followed literally, the consequence would be increased typhoid and cholera; more disease not less of it. The interesting new research doesn't change that.

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.

its been proven true by science now...

No, it has not. Please re-read the articles, if only for the sake of your kids. Nobody, anywhere, is saying anything today about dipping flies. The antibiotics are extracted from flies using scientific processes; there is no benefit from just dunking the fly which is just as much a health hazard as it has always been.

Or in other words, while using scientific techniques to extract antibiotics from flies may be smart, dunking them in your food or drink is not. The saying is therefore likely to be either a metaphor, or an old-wives tale from the Prophet's time, not a "miracle".

The fly is now trumpeted but nobody mentions the numerous "medical" references in hadith that are absurd, such as claiming no disease is contagious, that drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes is a good idea or that black cumin seeds can cure anything. It is that selectivity which is "intellectually unethical and deceptive"... or at least it would be if it were a purely scientific matter. It isn't, of course, it's a faith-based matter with a dollop of science that with insufficient care can be confused with the real thing. Seeking agreement is therefore pretty futile, those who 'believe' will see this as a 'proof' just like those equally tenuous 'proofs' related to embryos, the shape of the earth etc, etc, while anybody else will see it as an interesting coincidence at most.

 

[ranma1/2]

Without twisting anything he has merely pointed out that, as is the usual with such 'miracles', far more is being read into a passage than is actually there. Not to mention that what doesn't happen to fit it is totally ignored. Were this advice



followed literally, the consequence would be increased typhoid and cholera; more disease not less of it. The interesting new research doesn't change that.



No, it has not. Please re-read the articles, if only for the sake of your kids. Nobody, anywhere, is saying anything today about dipping flies. The antibiotics are extracted from flies using scientific processes; there is no benefit from just dunking the fly which is just as much a health hazard as it has always been.

Or in other words, while using scientific techniques to extract antibiotics from flies may be smart, dunking them in your food or drink is not. The saying is therefore likely to be either a metaphor, or an old-wives tale from the Prophet's time, not a "miracle".

The fly is now trumpeted but nobody mentions the numerous "medical" references in hadith that are absurd, such as claiming no disease is contagious, that drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes is a good idea or that black cumin seeds can cure anything. It is that selectivity which is "intellectually unethical and deceptive"... or at least it would be if it were a purely scientific matter. It isn't, of course, it's a faith-based matter with a dollop of science that with insufficient care can be confused with the real thing. Seeking agreement is therefore pretty futile, those who 'believe' will see this as a 'proof' just like those equally tenuous 'proofs' related to embryos, the shape of the earth etc, etc, while anybody else will see it as an interesting coincidence at most.

Thank you

 

[Malaikah]

such as claiming no disease is contagious,

Rubbish. That hadith is referring to that fact that no matter how contagious a disease is, if Allah does not wish for a person to catch it, he/she won't.

There are many other hadiths that refer to contagious diseases, such as the prophet forbidding people to leave a city that has a disease spreading through it to prevent it from reaching other places, and also forbidding people from entering places where their is a contagious disease spreading amongst the people.

 

[lyesh]

Seeking agreement is therefore pretty futile, those who 'believe' will see this as a 'proof' just like those equally tenuous 'proofs' related to embryos, the shape of the earth etc, etc, while anybody else will see it as an interesting coincidence at most.

coincidence?? hmmmm... I wonder if you were there at the times of the prophet, where there were no scientific equipments to prove these things, would you beleive a man who says these things..? a man who said what was happening inside a woman's womb when she is pregnant, and it couldnt be visible to anybody, whats going on there at that time! a man who told u about the shape of the earth is round, but you still see it as a flat ground! and you are saying all these things turn out to be a coincidence for those who dont believe after it is discovered true by science? lol... face the reality! how could a man that long ago discover these things only by himself?

 

[ranma1/2]

coincidence?? hmmmm... I wonder if you were there at the times of the prophet, where there were no scientific equipments to prove these things, would you beleive a man who says these things..? a man who said what was happening inside a woman's womb when she is pregnant, and it couldnt be visible to anybody, whats going on there at that time! a man who told u about the shape of the earth is round, but you still see it as a flat ground! and you are saying all these things turn out to be a coincidence for those who dont believe after it is discovered true by science? lol... face the reality! how could a man that long ago discover these things only by himself?

as stated before, he did not predict anything new or unknown at the time.
As shown in this thread the supposed predictions are nothing more than the taking of something and pulling it way out of context to fit something obscure.

 

[جوري]

as stated before, he did not predict anything new or unknown at the time.
As shown in this thread the supposed predictions are nothing more than the taking of something and pulling it way out of context to fit something obscure.

That is actually written as if by someone who hasn't even read the cliff notes.. There is plenty in the Quran that not only wasn't known at the prophet time but wasn't even mentioned in scriptures preceeding the Quran for those who wish to rumor that he copied his scriptures from else where-- cities like Erum and what is modern day petra (thamud) to the female sex of the worker bees to the cave of seven sleeper in Ephesus Turkey to creation of man to high altitude hypoxia to geology....That plus setting a complete system that covered politics, economics, social structure and beliefs...quite remarkable I'd say to someone who was illiterate... So pls I urge you to spend some time studying before making these sweeping false generalizations.
I think if you want to convince someone of your argument-- the least you can do is be well read in the area you are about to argue.
Peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

That is actually written as if by someone who hasn't even read the cliff notes.. There is plenty in the Quran that not only wasn't known at the prophet time but wasn't even mentioned in scriptures preceeding the Quran for those who wish to rumor that he copied his scriptures from else where-- cities like Erum and what is modern day petra (thamud) to the female sex of the worker bees to the cave of seven sleeper in Ephesus Turkey to creation of man to high altitude hypoxia to geology....That plus setting a complete system that covered politics, economics, social structure and beliefs...quite remarkable I'd say to someone who was illiterate... So pls I urge you to spend some time studying before making these sweeping false generalizations.
I think if you want to convince someone of your argument-- the least you can do is be well read in the area you are about to argue.
Peace!

Is there anything in the quran that has created new knowledge?
Or is it all after the fact?

 

[Trumble]

coincidence?? hmmmm... I wonder if you were there at the times of the prophet, where there were no scientific equipments to prove these things, would you beleive a man who says these things..? a man who said what was happening inside a woman's womb when she is pregnant, and it couldnt be visible to anybody, whats going on there at that time! a man who told u about the shape of the earth is round, but you still see it as a flat ground! and you are saying all these things turn out to be a coincidence for those who dont believe after it is discovered true by science? lol... face the reality! how could a man that long ago discover these things only by himself?

The description of what happens inside the womb is innaccurate, and can be traced from (or at least, possibly, from a common source as) previous writings of Galen (De Semine, around 150 AD).

Contrary to popular belief, it was also well known at the time that the earth was round and not flat, that having been discovered by the Greeks hundreds of years previously. The 'flat earth' belonged in dark/age mediaeval Europe.

And so on, and so on. But this has all been discussed at great length in numerous threads before. The 'reality' is that people believe what they want to believe; if enough people believe these 'proofs' or 'miracles' are just that, then that's what they become. As I said that's why there will never be agreement on this topic.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Kinda ironic ^ since the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) never left Makkah while the verses regarding the earth and womb were being revealed, i wonder how the knowledge of the Greeks reached there when the arabs themselves were an illiterate nation.

 

[NoName55]

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.
As early as the time of Aristarchus, the heliocentric idea was denounced as being against religion in Europe. The issue did not assume any importance, however, for nearly 2,000 years.


Nicolaus Copernicus published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander stating that the system was a pure mathematical device and was not supposed to represent reality. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years.

There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther once said:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.

Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view. Pope Urban VIII, who had approved the idea of Galileo's publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo. Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.

The favored system had been that of Ptolemy, in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system, in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was "confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun." (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616, the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.

Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:
Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree. Catholic scientists also:
appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance, (Heilbron 1999).

In the 17th century AD Galileo Galilei opposed the Roman Catholic Church by his strong support for heliocentrism

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:
If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. (Koestler 1959, pp. 447–448) Therefore, he supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis. In 1616 he delivered to Galileo the papal command not to "hold or defend" the heliocentric idea. In the discussions leading to the ban, he was a moderate, as the Dominican party wished to forbid teaching heliocentrism in any way whatever. Galileo's heresy trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true".

The official opposition of the Church to heliocentrism did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar. In support of this effort it allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories called meridiane; i.e., they were turned into "reverse sundials", or gigantic pinhole cameras, where the Sun's image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral's lantern onto a meridian line.

In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which included all previous condemnations of geocentric books. An annotated copy of Principia by Isaac Newton was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians with a preface stating that the author's work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. Pope Benedict XIV suspended the ban on heliocentric works on April 16, 1757 based on Isaac Newton's work. Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.

are catholics not born out of Greek and Roman pagans?
if so why did they wait until 1882 to accept "knowlede of their forefathers" ?

 

[جوري]

Is there anything in the quran that has created new knowledge?
Or is it all after the fact?

New Knowledge for the time and for the ages.. since lots of these cities were only a modern find.... http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/37439-aad-thamud-erum.html#post660859

one of many that weren't known at the time of the prophet and certainly not until recently---
Now you'll excuse me if I don't entertain this more.. I have already taken my break just shrugging my shoulders in amusement over stuff read here :rollseyes

 

[Trumble]

Kinda ironic ^ since the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) never left Makkah while the verses regarding the earth and womb were being revealed, i wonder how the knowledge of the Greeks reached there when the arabs themselves were an illiterate nation.

I assume they weren't a totally illiterate nation, otherwise how was the Qur'an written down?

As I said, the 'round earth' may well have been widely known or even common knowledge. It certainly wasn't restricted to those who had read obscure Greek tomes in some library somewhere. The idea that belief in a 'flat earth' was universal is a myth, even in relation to medieval Europe.

Galen (a Roman BTW, although he wrote in Greek) was hardly obsure, either, indeed his works were a sort of equivalent of 'Gray's Anatomy' in his day, and for centuries afterwards. While I'm not suggesting for a moment that Mohammed read Galen it is likely anyone with pretensions to being a physician had some knowledge of what he had written, even if that knowledge was second or third hand. Over several hundred years it is more than likely such knowledge reached Makkah, and indeed most of the known world. Alexander had spread Greek culture as far as India a thousand years before, and Greeks (and Romans and their Byzantine successors) had travelled the known world since that time, particularly to anywhere that traded.

All of which is rather beside the point. The principle argument for these 'miracles' is not based on whether such knowledge could have reached Makkah but whether it could have existed in the world at all. It could, and did.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/37439-aad-thamud-erum.html#post660859

one of many that weren't known at the time of the prophet and certainly not until recently---

How on earth do you know that they "weren't known"? It seems a perfectly reasonable supposition that what might be a "fabled lost city" now was nothing of the sort 1400 years ago? Particularly if the culture that knew about it was as illiterate as everyone keeps saying it is.

 

[- Qatada -]

You could count the number of companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) who knew how to read and write with your fingers.

It was a minority, and still then - these people could only write or read arabic. The Greek works weren't translated in arabic until the Abbasid Caliphate which was around 200years after Hijrah [about 180 years after the passing away of the Prophet, peace be upon him.] And the Persian Sassanids nor the Byzantinian Romans cared about the arabs since they felt that they were useless people and the worst of society - due to the fact that there was continous tribal warfare among the arabs. The praise is for Allaah who united the arabs and within a century, the Persian and Byzantinian Empires were overthrown and the justice of Islaam spread within them lands.


Going back to the issue of the clot and womb issues, then we know that the first verses revealed were regarding the fact that man was created from a clot of blood [Surah Alaq - the first surah to be revealed], and the signs of the earth verses were mainly revealed in Makkah where it was the poor and down trodden who accepted Islaam, the elite hardly responded and actually tortured the muslims severely. Therefore these companions who were poor didn't know how to read or write either, nor did the Messenger of Allaah - so who could they have got their knowledge off?

The Qur'an was compiled fully one year after the passing away of the Messenger of Allaah, and that was after the conquest of Makkah [the conquest of Makkah was around 20years after Prophethood] - so one has to question how he had all this knowledge when the arabs themselves knew he couldn't read or write, and when he never had left the city of Makkah either?

All these explanations couldn't have merely been by 'chance.'