Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies: Difference between revisions

This article analyzes the apologetic claim that the sahih hadiths concerning the wings of the housefly are somehow scientifically accurate.

Muslim Claim

The thesis put forward by some Muslims is that it has recently been proven by modern science that flies carry not only pathogens but also the agents that limit these pathogens, thus proving the fly wing hadiths:

They principally identify these agents to be bacteriophages, though they also sometimes refer to fungi.

To bring the layperson up to date, bacteriophages (“phages”) are viruses that infect bacteria. It is a generality that all natural bacterial populations are limited by phages and environmental conditions, but it is a leap to suggest that these elements are antidotes. Mammals, too, are limited by pathogens, but it is foolish to suggest these pathogens are antidotal to mammals.

Analysis

Dissection of the fly wing hadiths is as follows:

Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote?

Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on the hadith:

This is ludicrous, but also what must be the starting point in debating on this subject. For if they say that the presence of phages proves that the hadith is correct, then pointing out that phages are not limited to any one wing, right or left, immediately proves the falsehood in the hadiths.

They make erroneous assumptions

A. They assume that bacteriophages are antidotal to bacteria. Bacteriophages cause lysis of their bacterial hosts in the final stage of infection – thereby releasing new phage particles to infect other bacterial cells in the population. However, in the natural environment, this state is equilibrial – meaning that only a small proportion of bacterial cells is infected at any one time. Just like only a small proportion of humans is ever infected with the flu virus at any one time (except in a pandemic).

B. They assume that flies must carry the antidote to the pathogens they carry.

As far as we know, flies do not succumb to human pathogens – they are merely carriers. This shows that those who make these claims do not understand pathogenesis. Flies do not succumb to human diseases.

The way it works is like this:

• Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – gets traces of feces or rotting carcass on itself.
• Fly lands on human food – drops traces of feces or rotting carcass on human food.
• Fly flies away – human consumes contaminated food and gets sick.
• Fly continues on with its life, free to repeat the cycle again.

C. They falsely assume relations that do not exist.

The ability to design antibiotics that might utilize bacteriophage infection pathways does not prove that phages are antidotal to bacteria. Antibiotics are not phages. Further, these antibiotics are likely to be ‘artificial’ and do not reflect the natural state of fly-human disease interactions.

They make patently erroneous statements

There are two errors here:

A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.^[1]

B. There is no such thing as bacteriophagic fungi. This term may sound impressive to non-scientists, but bacteriophages are viruses and fungi are simply fungi.

They quote scientific articles that contain errors

A. Bacteriophages do not attack other viruses.

B. Not all bacteriophages encode cell-wall destroying proteins to lyse host cells.

They misinterpret scientific facts

This basically says that the microbiota of insects protect them from their (i.e. insect) pathogens. It does not say anything about human pathogens carried by insects.

This has just proven the existence of bacteriophages. What it has not proven is whether these bacteriophages protect humans against human pathogens carried by flies.

They make extension of claims

Now it is not only phages on the right wing, but the yeast cells inside fly stomachs and respiratory tubules. We assume it is the yeast antibiotics they are referring to. The presence of tiny amounts of antibiotics (produced by fungi) do not protect humans from enteric diseases. Apologists are confused about antibiotics – they do not understand how antibiotics work. Dosage is important. Modern antibiotics are artificial and highly purified. Treatment of bacterial infections involves ‘massive’ doses of purified antibiotics that are not found in the natural environment.

They confuse the use of bacteriophage

A. The O1-phage is used for typing (i.e. diagnosing) Salmonella infections, not treating it.

B. Bacteriophage therapy was subsumed by antibiotic therapy in the 1940s because it was largely ineffective. Before antibiotics, physicians were desperate for cures – they would try anything, even bacteriophage therapy – but that does not prove bacteriophage therapy works. In any event, one would need massive doses of phages to treat each case – which does not occur in the natural environment. A fly dipping its right wing, left wing, or its entire body, will not be sufficient.

They do not understand what they purport to be proof

A. This article they quote and link to highlights one of the main limitations of bacteriophages in therapeutics, i.e. it is rapidly taken up by the human body and destroyed in human spleen cells. Therefore, even when a fly should carry bacteriophages, normal human physiology precludes these phages from acting as antidotes.

B. Even if some biotechnology companies want to develop bacteriophage-based treatments, it does not prove the hadith to be correct. These bacteriophage-based treatments involve the use of genetic engineering and other advanced scientific techniques to utilize bacteriophage pathogenesis for the treatment of human diseases. Naturally-occurring bacteriophages are useless for this purpose.

They ignore non-bacterial enteric diseases

Even if the wings of flies were to provide humans with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could possibly infect humans with another non-bacterial disease. Flies also spread pinworm, tapeworm, viral gastroenteritis, amebic dysentery, giardia enteritis, and enteric hepatitis. Bacteriophages and fungi are totally ineffective against these diseases.

Conclusion

The scientific evidence does not support the veracity of the fly wing hadith for the following reasons:

1. Contrary to their innovative interpretations of relevant hadith, bacteriophages are not limited to any specific wing of the fly.

2. Contrary to their innovative interpretations of relevant hadith, bacteriophages in the natural state and concentration are not antidotal to bacterial diseases, particularly for temperate or lysogenic phages.

3. Bacteriophages are ineffective against non-bacterial diseases carried by flies, meaning even if the wings were to provide you with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they would possibly infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice).

4. Phage therapy is not a generally-accepted medical therapy at present because it is largely ineffective and requires large quantities of purified, possibly genetically-engineered, phages not present in the natural condition.

See Also

• Health - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Health

External Links

• Teachings of the Hadith: The wings of the fly - Answering Islam (archived), http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/flies.html 

Resources on Bacteriophage Biology

References