6,633
edits
[checked revision] | [checked revision] |
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=2|Content=3|Language=2|References=2}} | {{QualityScore|Lead=1|Structure=2|Content=3|Language=2|References=2}} | ||
[[File:Phage.jpg|right|thumb|Electron micrograph of bacteriophages attached to a bacterial cell.]] | [[File:Phage.jpg|right|thumb|Electron micrograph of bacteriophages attached to a bacterial cell.]] | ||
This article analyzes the | This article analyzes the claim that the [[sahih]] [[hadith|hadith]]s concerning the wings of the housefly are [[Islam and Science|scientifically]] accurate. | ||
==Apologetic Claim== | ==Apologetic Claim== | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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. Nevertheless, a dissection of the fly wing hadiths is as follows: | 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. Nevertheless, a dissection of the fly wing hadiths is as follows: | ||
===Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote? === | ===Which wing contains the venom and which the antidote?=== | ||
Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on the hadith: | Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on the hadith: | ||
{{Quote||I found nothing among the variants to pinpoint the wing that carries the antidote but one of the Ulema said he observed that the fly protects itself with its left wing so it can be deduced that the right one is the one with the antidote.}} | {{Quote||I found nothing among the variants to pinpoint the wing that carries the antidote but one of the Ulema said he observed that the fly protects itself with its left wing so it can be deduced that the right one is the one with the antidote.}} | ||
This is | This statement is evidently mistaken, but is 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=== | ===They make erroneous assumptions=== | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
The way it works is as follows: | The way it works is as follows: | ||
*Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto itself. | *Fly lands on feces or rotting carcass – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto itself. | ||
*Fly lands on human food – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto human food. | *Fly lands on human food – transfers traces of feces or rotting carcass onto human food. | ||
*Fly flies away – human consumes contaminated food and becomes sick. | *Fly flies away – human consumes contaminated food and becomes sick. | ||
*Fly continues on as normal, free to repeat the cycle again. | *Fly continues on as normal, free to repeat the cycle again. | ||
C. They | C. They incorrectly assume relations that do not exist. | ||
{{Quote||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.}} | {{Quote||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.}} | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
{{Quote||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.}} | {{Quote||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.}} | ||
There are two | There are two mistakes here: | ||
A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/|title= Malaria|publisher= World Health Organization Media Centre|series= Fact sheet No. 94|author= |date= Reviewed March 2013|archiveurl= http://archive.is/U4B5i|deadurl=no}}</ref> | A. The common fly does not carry malaria – that is carried by and transmitted exclusively through the bites of Anopheles mosquitoes.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/|title= Malaria|publisher= World Health Organization Media Centre|series= Fact sheet No. 94|author= |date= Reviewed March 2013|archiveurl= http://archive.is/U4B5i|deadurl=no}}</ref> | ||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
{{Quote|1=|2=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.}} | {{Quote|1=|2=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.}} | ||
This | This states that the microbiota of insects protect them from their (i.e. insect) pathogens. It does not say anything about human pathogens carried by insects. | ||
{{Quote||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. | {{Quote||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. | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
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. | 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 == | ==Conclusion== | ||
The scientific evidence does not support the veracity of the fly wing hadith for the following reasons: | The scientific evidence does not support the veracity of the fly wing hadith for the following reasons: | ||
1. Contrary to | 1. Contrary to innovative interpretations of relevant hadith, bacteriophages are not limited to any specific wing of the fly. | ||
2. Contrary to | 2. Contrary to 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 could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice). | 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 could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice). |