Saturday, 7 July 2018

fly in your drink


Question: Is it true that the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us to dunk the fly into our drink if it falls into it? If so, how do we explain this scientifically? Also, are we required in Islam to do this even if we do not want to? 

Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî

This is an authentic hadîth. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If a fly falls into the drink of any one of you, he should dunk it all the way in and then remove it, because on one if its wings is disease and on the other is its cure." [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3320, 5782)]

These are the words of our Prophet (peace be upon him).

As far as our scientific knowledge of the fly is concerned, we know that the fly is a carrier of numerous harmful microorganisms. We also know that the surface and internal environments of the fly are both complex biological environments in which thrive numerous microorganisms, some of which are harmful to humans, some of which are benign to us, and still others of which prey upon the harmful microorganisms or otherwise keep the populations of those harmful microorganisms in check.

The microbiota of the fly - as these microorganisms are collectively referred to - is very diverse and the ecology of that microbiota is extremely complex. 

R. J. Dillon of the University of Bath, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, mentions that new kingdoms of life have been found among the microorganisms living on or within insects. He writes:
Molecular studies have revealed unrecorded microbial sequences in many natural samples to the extent that new kingdoms of life have been discovered in the Domain Archaea.

He also writes, discussing how some of the microbiota of the housefly (Musca domestica) has the ability to suppress disease-causing bacteria:
A few studies have examined the impact of the gut microbiota on the establishment of human pathogens and parasites in their insect vectors. Gnotobiotic insects (Greenberg et al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of the microbiota of Musca domestica and Lucilia sericata.

We will not be so bold as to say conclusively that the microbiota of the housefly - both the disease causing microorganisms and the other microorganisms that suppress them - are exactly what the Prophet (peace be upon him) was referring to. We must show some caution and self-restraint when dealing with the sacred texts and interpreting what they mean.

This is especially true since our scientific knowledge is quite limited. What we know about the natural world is by far less than what we are ignorant of. There could be other qualities of the biological environment of the fly's surface and internal environments that we still do not know about. Therefore, it could very well be that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was referring to something else about the fly for which we have yet to acquire scientific knowledge.

*************************************

Some of us might find the idea of dunking a fly in our beverage, removing it, and then taking a drink unsettling to say the least. This is especially the case if we have had the privilege of living our lives in a modern society, free of hunger and starvation, where a certain standard of cleanliness is maintained in the environment and it is relatively easy to protect our food and drink from flies and other pests.

However, a ruling such as the one mentioned in the hadîth becomes painfully relevant to those who live with hunger and in less sanitary environments where protecting food from flies is not so simple and throwing away food and drink is not so easy an option. Such an environment was that of Arabia 1400 years ago, and regrettably, there are still many places in the world where we find scarcity and what by today's assessment are sub-standard living conditions.

People under such circumstances quite often do consume food and drink that has come in contact with flies. If they had to discard all such foods, it would impose a serious hardship upon them.

Also, this hadîth is not obligating Muslims to drink beverages in which flies have fallen. It is just advising them as to what to do in case they wish to do so. A Muslim does not have to eat or drink anything that he feels an aversion to consuming. Today, most of us would understandably be repelled by the notion of drinking a beverage from which a fly had taken a sip, let alone fallen into. 

Islamic Law takes such natural aversion into account. We can see how Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), when he was served a spiny-tailed lizard to eat, refrained from partaking of it. Khâlid b. al-Walîd noticed this and asked if eating the meat of the spiny-tailed lizard was unlawful. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "No. It is just that it is not found in the land of my people, and I find myself disinclined to it." He did not eat it, simply because it did not agree with his disposition. It was not a question of whether or not its flesh was permitted by Islamic Law.

We can apply the same ruling to a drink in which a fly has landed.

And Allah knows best.

-----------------

Narrated Abu Hurairah (RAA): The Prophet said,

“If a housefly falls into the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (all) in the liquid, for one of its wings has the disease, and the other has the cure.21”  Bukhari and Abu Dawud related it. Abu Dawud added in his narration, “It puts forward the one
containing the disease.22



21- It is not meant in this Hadith that the person must drink the liquid inwhich the fly has fallen, the Prophet  is only guiding the Muslims to the way in which to protect themselves from being infected by microbes, should they want to continue drinking after throwing way the fly.

22 - i.e. falls in the liquid with the wing containing the: disease (the microbes)


----------------------

The Hadith of the Fly: Muslim Perspectives on Scientific Assessment

T

Waqar Akbar Cheema

Abstract

This article critically examines the Hadith of the Fly, investigating its various textual forms and reviewing the possible meanings of key words used. It explores the historical engagement of Muslims with this hadith, spanning centuries, focusing on whether it laid out a legal obligation. The article also delves into the complex relationship between the hadith and scientific findings, arguing that while scientific evidence may not definitively prove the veracity of the hadith, it cannot outright falsify it either. Furthermore, the article presents research studies that offer substantial confirmation for the hadith, bolstering its significance. Through a comprehensive analysis, this article reflects on the possible positions held by Muslims regarding the scientific truth of the hadith while also reconnecting the discussion to observations on key elements of the hadith and its legal nature.

1. Introduction

The Hadith of the Fly, “If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it all (in the drink), and take it out, for one of its wings has a disease, and the other has the cure for the disease,” has become a highly debated and controversial topic in modern times. Many individuals view it as a prime example of what they perceive as the vulnerability of Islamic teachings. The religious directive that suggests intentionally dipping a fly in a drink before consuming it is not only regarded as scientifically inaccurate but also seen as a manifestation of dogmatic absurdity. Critics argue that it contradicts our current scientific knowledge and understanding of microbiology, and furthermore, it violates basic principles of hygiene.

This hadith has been subject to criticism for the past century or so. In the early twentieth century, it was one of the most discussed hadith reports as the modernists like Tawfiq Sidqi (d. 1920) and Mahmud Abu Rayya (d. 1970) objected to it in the light of scientific knowledge of the day. Even Maurice Bucaille (d. 1998), renowned for his work showing congruence between Qur’an and modern science, did not have a favourable view of this hadith. Discussing a few hadith reports, including the Hadith of Fly, he wrote, “It is possible to conclude that certain hadiths exist which are scientifically unacceptable.”[1]

Let us analyse this hadith’s text and traditional interpretation, considering old and contemporary sensibilities and their various interactions.

2. Textual Analysis of the Hadith of the Fly

The hadith has come down to us through multiple companions of the Prophet (ﷺ), namely, Abu Huraira,[2] Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri,[3] Anas,[4] and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.[5] As in Sahih Bukhari (no. 3320), Abu Huraira related that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

إذا وقع الذباب في شراب أحدكم فليغمسه ثم لينزعه، فإن في إحدى جناحيه داء والأخرى شفاء

~

If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink) and take it out, for one of its wings has a disease, and the other has a cure.

In Sunan Abu Dawud (no. 3844), it has a bit more.

إذا وقع الذباب في إناء أحدكم، فامقلوه فإن في أحد جناحيه داء، وفي الآخر شفاء، وإنه يتقي بجناحه الذي فيه الداء فليغمسه كله

~

 When a fly alights in anyone’s vessel, he should plunge it all in, for in one of its wings is a disease, and in the other is a cure. It prevents the wing of which there is a cure, so plunge it all in (the vessel).

It is likewise reported from Abu Sa‘id al-Khurdi, by Ibn Majah (no. 3504)), that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

في أحد جناحي الذباب سم، وفي الآخر شفاء، فإذا وقع في الطعام، فامقلوه فيه، فإنه يقدم السم، ويؤخر الشفاء

~

On one of the wings of a fly, there is a poisonous substance; on the other is the cure. If it falls into the food, dip it into it, for it puts the poison first and holds back the cure.

3. Significance of Terminology: Fly and its Wings in the Hadith

The term used in the hadith is “al-dhubab,” which can generally refer to any fly. A report mentions that the Prophet (ﷺ) stated, “All flies (dhubab) will go to Hell except the honeybee (dhubab al-nahl).”[6] While the initial impression might suggest that it refers to the common housefly (Musca domestica), the word allows for further specification. In discussions about this hadith, some scholars have noted that it had been observed to be true for a particular type of fly known as “dhararih,”[7] which refers to the cantharis or Spanish Fly.[8]

Next, the hadith uses the word ‘janah’, commonly translated as ‘wing.’ While this is the most frequently understood meaning of the word, it can also refer to a side or a part of a body,[9] not necessarily the appendages used for flying.[10] In the Qur’an, the word ‘janah’ is used to describe arms as well, as seen in the verse urging people to be kind to their parents: “And lower to them the wing of humility (janah al-dhul), out of mercy” (Qur’an 17:24). In fact, it is comparable to the English word ‘wing,’ which can also be used to denote a side or a part of something in general, besides its specific meaning as the body part that aids flying creatures in their flight.

4. Historical Engagement with the Hadith of the Fly

The hadith, known for its implications in both the medicinal[11] and purification aspects,[12] has encountered objections from individuals of a particular intellectual inclination. Among those who questioned its validity were the Mu’tazlites, who raised specific concerns. Their objections did not revolve around the notion of a fly containing an antidote to a poisonous substance per se; instead, they focused on the coexistence of poison and its antidote within the same body. Furthermore, some raised doubts about a fly’s ability to discern which wing carried harmful substances and which wing held the cure. In response to these queries and objections, notable scholars such as Ibn Qutaiba (d. 276/889),[13] Al-Tahawi (d. 321/933),[14] Al-Khattabi (d. 388/998), and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350)[15] provided comprehensive explanations, addressing, and clarifying these concerns. Al-Khattabi wrote:

Someone who has no righteousness in him says with regard to this tradition, ‘How is this, and how do a cause of disease and its remedy happen to exist in the two wings of a fly? How does the fly know that, so as to advance the wing containing the cause of disease and to hold back the one containing the remedy, and what leads it to do that?’ These are the questions of an ignorant person or one affecting to be ignorant for he who finds in himself and the rest of animals, an union of heat and cold and of moisture and dryness, – two opposite elements destroying each other when they meet together, – and then sees that God has joined them together and forced them to be united, causing such union to be the source of powers of animals, whose existence and good state depend upon it, would be disposed not to deny the fact of a disease and its remedy being united together in two members of the body of one and the same animal. He who has inspired the bee to construct a house of exquisite workmanship and to produce honey in it, and who has inspired the ant to earn its food by labour and to store it up for times of its need for it, is the One who has created the fly and given it the right guidance, so that it advances one wing and withholds the other one. He has intended it as a trial, which is the way of devotion, and as a test, which is the field of exercise for striving (in devotion), and He has wisdom and an indication in everything, which none but person of understanding remember.[16]

5. Does the Hadith Impose an Obligation?

Another aspect of the traditional engagement of this hadith is whether it was understood as establishing an obligatory practice [In other words, what is the ruling of housefly in food and drinks in Islam ? or, can you eat food after a fly lands on it ?]. Was it interpreted as a legal requirement for every Muslim to fully submerge the fly in the drink each time it falls into it and then consume it? After mentioning the hadith, the well-known author of legal theory (usul al-fiqh), Al-Shashi (d. 344/955), states:

The context of the speech indicates that to submerge [the wing] is to repel harm from us and not [intended] as ritual due on us by the Shariah. Hence it is not an obligation.[17]

Al-Qastalani (d. 923/1517),[18] Al-Munawi (d. 1031/1622),[19] Al-Amir Al-San‘ani (d. 1182/1768),[20] and Al-Bujmiri (d. 1221/1806),[21] among others, have also expressed that the mentioned hadith is merely by way of advice (irshad) regarding what is beneficial, rather than a religious obligation. The well-known contemporary Saudi scholar Muhammad ibn al-Uthaimin (d. 2001) shared a similar opinion, emphasising that one is not religiously obligated to take such a drink if they do not desire it. He supported his viewpoint by citing the example of the mastigure (al-dhabb), a herbivorous lizard, which was presented to the Prophet (ﷺ), and he declined to eat it, stating, “It is a food that is unfamiliar in the land of my people, and I do not like it.”[22]

Accordingly, certain scholars have taken the liberty to restrict the application of hadith. Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri (d. 1934) writes:

While the instruction to dip the fly in a drink appears general in the hadith, in my understanding, it is limited to cases where the food or drink is not hot. This limitation is because dipping the fly in a hot drink only exacerbates the harm.[23]

These points confirm against the notion that a Muslim is obligated to consume a drink if a fly happens to fall into it, without any regard for other factors or considerations.

6. Muslim Perspectives on the Scientific Assessment of the Hadith

In recent times, however, the discussions have been focused on the factual truth of the fly carrying antidotes on one of its wings. The question is of critical importance because it is widely accepted in Muslim scholarship that any statement made by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that he had not subsequently retracted or corrected is considered factually accurate, even if it pertains to a field like medicine, which is not within the primary domain of prophethood.

6.1 Timeless Muslim Perspective: The Hadith’s Validity and the Limits of Scientific Assessment

Therefore, when confronted with scientific objections to this hadith, the consistent and universal Muslim response, applicable to both the past and present, is that such objections stem from a lack of knowledge and are, therefore, at best, arguments from ignorance. At most, one can only say that there is presently no conclusive evidence to verify the accuracy of this hadith or to validate the claims being made. However, labelling it as scientifically unacceptable would be akin to a 19th-century physician deriding the notion of fungus (Penicillin) serving as an antibiotic, later recognised as a ‘miraculous’ breakthrough during World War II. Hence, while current scientific knowledge may not validate the assertions of the hadith, it does not disprove them.

Hence, for the average Muslim, the approach advocated by classical scholars like Muhammad bin Abi Ishaq Al-Bukhari (d. 380/990), a medieval Transoxanian Hanafi author, is adequate. Discussing this hadith, he stated:

It may contain a disease that harms the body, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) knew the remedy for that disease and informed us about it, even if he did not disclose its exact nature. And Allah knows best. [24]

This rationale is sensible considering the fact that the hadith does not impose an obligation, and an individual is still at liberty to dispose of a drink in which a fly has fallen, as elucidated earlier.

6.2 Scientific Validation of the Hadith

Nevertheless, Muslim scholars have also referred to some studies claiming they confirm the point mentioned in the hadith. Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan (d. 2021) says in the annotation of this hadith:

Medically it is well-known now that a fly carries some pathogens 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 pathogens e.g. Penicillin fungus kills pathogenic organisms like Staphylococci and others etc. Recently, experiments have been done under supervision which indicate that a fly carries the disease (pathogens) plus the antidote for those pathogenic organisms. 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 counterbalance to the pathogens. Regarding this subject I also wrote through a friend of mine to Dr. Muhammad M. El-Samahy, chief of Hadith Dept. in Al-Azhar University, Cairo (Egypt), who has written an article upon this hadith, and as regards medical aspects, he has mentioned that the microbiologists have proved that there are longitudinal yeast cells living as parasites inside the belly of the fly and these yeast cells in order to repeat their life cycle protrude through respiratory tubules of the fly and if the fly is dipped in a liquid, these cells burst in the fluid and the content of those cells in an antidote for the pathogens which the fly carries.[25]

A recent study confirms this in saying.

M. domestica is known to have a diverse microbiome with antagonistic or antimicrobial properties that can impede the growth of pathogenic bacteria originating from the previous substrate. Antagonistic activities from these bacteria may be associated with their abilities to secrete enzymes or compounds that function antagonistically and/or as an antimicrobial…

B. subtilis isolated from the right wing and body surface of M. domestica effectively inhibited the growth of Pseudo-monas spp. B. subtilis plays an important role in the production of antibiotic enzymes, and other secondary metabolites that possess a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activities against pathogenic microbes. The right wing of M. domestica contains B. subtilis and B. circulans that can neutralize E. coli contaminated drinks due to their antibiotic effects …. Furthermore, the right wing contains bacteriophage which is thought to produce endolysins (phage lysins) which causes bacteria cell lysis.[26]

These observations appear to confirm the observations of classical Muslims even in identifying the right wing of the fly as a carrier of the curative essence.[27] Nevertheless, as was discussed above, the hadith may pertain to a specific kind of fly. At the same time, it remains possible that its body parts, other than wings, could also be involved as the location of the harmful substances and their corresponding antidote.

7. Summary and Conclusion

The statements made by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) regarding diseases and the healing properties of different substances are considered valid, even if human knowledge at any particular time in history has not advanced enough to appreciate it.

The Hadith of the Fly, which contains a positive statement from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and is narrated authentically, requires Muslims to believe in it. However, it does not mandate them to dip the fly entirely and consume the drink if it lands upon it.

Hence, it can be said that while the absence of laboratory evidence does not justify doubting such hadiths, individuals can decide whether to practice them.

References & Notes:

[1] Bucaille, Dr Maurice, The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science, (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 2003) 262-263

[2] al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma‘il, al-Sahih, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 1997) Hadith 3320. See also, Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5782; al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2009) Hadith 2302; Al-Qazwini, Ibn Majah, al-Sunan, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 3505; Al-Madani, Isma‘il b. Ja‘far, Ahadith Isma‘il b. Ja‘far, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 1998) Hadith 433; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Ed. Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (Beirut: Resalah Publishers, 2001) Hadith 7141, 7359, 7572, 8485, 8657, 9168, 9721; Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Ed. Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut (Beirut: Resalah Publishers, 1994) Vol. 8, 340-342 Hadith 3289-3290;

[3] Ibn Majah, al-Sunan, Hadith 3504; al-Tiyalsi, Abu Dawud, al-Musnad, (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 1999) Hadith 2302; Ahmad bin Hanbal, Al-Musnad, Hadith 11189, 11643; Al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Vol. 8, 339-340 Hadith 3291-3295 – classified as sahih by al-Albani and Shu‘aib Al-Arna’ut.

[4] al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1997) Hadith 7323; Al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Awst, (Cairo: Dar al-Haramain, n.d.) Vol.3, 141 Hadith 2753;Al-Haithmi mentions its narrators are those of Sahih Al-Bukhari,. See, Al-Haithami, Nur al-Din, Majm‘ Al-Zawa’id, (Jeddah: Dar al-Minhaj, 2015) Vol.11, 84 Hadith 8063.

[5] Al-Albani, Nasir al-Din, Sahih Al-Jami’ Al-Saghir, Hadith 4249

[6] Al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr/al-Haithami, Kashf al-Astar fi Zawa’id Musnad al-Bazzar, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1979) Hadith 3498; See also, Al-San ‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983)  Hadith 9415; al-Mawsali, Abu Ya‘la, al-Musnad, Ed. Hussain Salim Asad (Damascus: Dar al-Ma’mun, 1984) Hadith 4231; Ibn Hajar says its isnad is acceptable (la ba’sa bihi). See, al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1379 AH) Vol.10, 250. al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Awst, Hadith 1575, 3482; al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taimiya, 1994)  Vol.10, 207; Vol.11, 65 Hadith 11058. It goes without saying that flies would not go to Hell to be punished, rather they would be a cause of punishment for the dwellers of Hell. One report related in the name of Abu Huraira from the Prophet (ﷺ) adds this clarification, “All flies will go to Hell. They will be made a punishment for the people of Hell, except the honeybee.” See, al-Tirmidhi, Hakim, Nawadir al-Usul, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Imam al-Bukhari, 2008) Vol.1, 405 no. 582; al-Qurtubi, Shams al-Din, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Cairo: Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyya, 1964) Vol.10, 134. See also, al-Jahiz, Abu ‘Uthman, al-Haywan, (Beirut: DKI, 1424 AH) Vol.3, 187; al-Munawi, Zain al-Din, al-Taisir bi Sharh Jami‘ al-Saghir, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Imam al-Shafi‘i, 1998) Vol.2, 21

[7] Al-Dhahabi, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Tibb al-Nabawi, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-‘Ulum, 1990) 120; Ibn Tulun, Shams al-Din, al-Manhal al-Rawi fi al-Tibb al-Nabawi, (Hyderabad Deccan: Anwar al-Ma‘arif, 1987) 219

[8] Lane, Edward William, Arabic-English Lexicon, (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968) Vol.3, 960;

[9] Al-Zabidi, Murtada, Taj al-‘Urus min Jawahir al-Qamus, (Kuwait: Wizarat al-Irshad wa al-Anba’, 1969) Vol.6, 350; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, Vol.2, 400;

[10] Miftahi, Shu‘aib Ullah, Hadith-i-Dhubab: Aik Mutali‘a, (Bangalore: Jamia Islamia Maseehul Uloom, n.d.) 9-10

[11] Al-Bukhari placed this report in the Chapters on Medicine (kitab al-tibb) in his Sahih (No. 5782).

[12] Ibn Khuzaima, Abu Bakr, al-Sahih, (Beirut: Maktab al-Islami, 2003), Chapter on mentioning the evidence that the falling of a fly into water does not render it impure (Bab dhikr al-dalil ‘ala anna suqut al-dhubaab fi al-ma’ la yunajjisuhu) Hadith 105

[13] Al-Dainwari, Ibn Qutaiba, Ta’wil Mukhtalif Al-Hadith. (Doha: Mo’assasa Al-Ishraq, 1999) 334-339

[14] Al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Vol.8, 343-344

[15] Al-Jawziyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Za‘ad al-Ma’ad fi Hadyi Khair al-‘Ibad, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1994) Ed. 27 Vol.4, 101-103

[16] Al-Khattabi, Abu Suleman, Ma‘alim Al-Sunan ( Halab, Matb’ Al-‘Ilmiya, 1932) Vol.4, 258; translated in Jayakar, A.S.G., Ad-Damiri’s Hayat Al-Hayawan – A Zoological Lexicon, (London/Bombay: Luzac/Tarapoewala, 1906-08) Vol.1, 822

[17] Al-Shashi, Nizam Al-Din, Al-Usul, (Beirut: Dar Al-Kutab Al-‘Arabi, n.d.) 93; translated in ash-Shashi, Nizam ad-Din, Usul ash-Shashi – Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Translation & Introduction by Mansur Ali (London: Turath Publishing, 2017) 89-90

[18] Al-Qastalani, Ahmad Shihab Al-Din, Irshad Al-Sari li-Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari, (Cairo, Matb’ Al-Amiriya, 1323 AH) Vol.5, 315

[19] Al-Munawi, Al-Taisir Bi-Sharh Al-Jami’ Al-Saghir, Vol.1, 134

[20] Al-San‘ani, Al-Amir Muhammad bin Isma’il, Al-Tanwir Sharh Jami Al-Saghir, (Riyadh, Darussalam, 2011) Vol.2, 235

[21] Al-Bujmiri, Suleman, Tuhfa Al-Habib ‘ala Sharh Al-Khatib. Beirut, Dar Al-Fekr, 1995. Vol.1, 93

[22] Ibn al-‘Uthamin, et al., al-Fatawa Islamiyya, (Riyadh: Dar al-Watan, 1415 AH) Vol.4, 99; See, Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5391; al-Nasa’i, al-Sunan, Hadith 4317, et al.

[23] Al-Kashmiri, Anwar Shah, Faiḍ Al-Bari ‘ala Sahih Al-Bukhari, (Beirut, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiya, 2005) Vol.4, 337

[24] Al-Bukhari, Muhammad bin Abi Ishaq, Bahr Al-Fawa’id (Ma’ani Al-Akhbar), (Beirut, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiya, 1999) 240

[25] Khan, Dr. Muhsin, Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Bukhari, (Riyadh, Darussalam, 1997) Vol.4, 332

[26] Niode, Nurdjannah Jane et al. “A Review of the Antimicrobial Potential of Musca domestica as a Natural Approach with Promising Prospects to Countermeasure Antibiotic Resistance.” Veterinary medicine international vol. 2022 9346791. 30 Dec. 2022, doi:10.1155/2022/9346791

[27] al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol.10, 251

Wednesday, 4 July 2018

How do we know what Jesus of the Bible said?


What is isnad? Isnad is the chain of narration. The Christians have the matn (text) of their scripture but no isnad (chain of narration). Hence it is impossible to trace back the alleged words attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) all the way back to his mouth. How can it be known that the Christian material is not mixed with falsehood when there is an absence of isnads and no verification checks in place at all. Hence the believers in the NT are all following utter conjecture and anonymous words whose source we cannot know and neither can we trace back the words or verify them.

Comparing Muslim and Christian scholarship, Bernard Lewis writes:-

"From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meager, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth." [ Bernard Lewis, Islam in History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105.]

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

Tree of knowledge? (Bible loses the plot)





And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

------------------


If Adam was commanded to eat from every tree in the garden, why did Yahweh in the next chapter prevent him from eating from the "Tree of Life"? What's worse, Satan makes it clear that nothing would happen to them if they eat from the tree of knowledge i.e. die as mentioned in Genesis 2:16.  furthermore, Eve was questioned by the serpent on "if God really told her not to eat from the tree of knowledge" and in some way this was true, because God never spoke to Eve and told her not to eat from the tree of knowledge, he spoke to Adam as found in Genesis 2:17.

Now to the next problem of this story, we read in Genesis 3

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)


Why is God so concerned about the Tree of Life when he allowed it to be as part of eatable fruit tree in the beginning?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat (Genesis 2:16)

If the Tree of Life really could make anyone immortal, then wouldn't you think the Serpent or "Satan" in Christian understanding would have been the first to consume the fruit and live forever? Why was God afraid after Adam eat from the tree of knowledge.

If the after from the tree if knowledge nothing happened to Adam and Eve i.e. they never died as claimed in Genesis 2:17, what would have happened if they eat from the Tree of Life as God claimed they would be "immortal"? If after eating from the tree of knowledge nothing happened to them what makes you say they would have become immortal after eating from the Tree of Life?

Suppose they even eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, why was God afraid? Does not everything happen by his command? Could be not stop them from being immortal? Seems like the "Tree of Life" has more power than God himself, that if they eat from it he wouldn't have been able to reverse the cause.

The New Testament make is worse. According to the Christian Bible, the righteous will be able to eat from the "Tree of Life"?

Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (Revelation 2:7)

How could this be? According to Genesis 2:16 all tree from the garden of Eden was free to eat from, including the "Tree of Life" if the Tree of Life is supposed to make you "immortal" why will it be presented to the righteous in the Paradise when everyone will automatically become immortal?

Coming back to Genesis, we read that after the fall of man God decided to prevent anyone from eating from the Tree of Life.

So the LORD God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 4:23-24)

Why would God protect the Tree of Life in “Paradise” where no evil could enter? What or who exactly is God protecting the Tree of Life from?  Does this mean anyone could enter the Garden of Eden? If Adam and Eve did not die after eating from the tree of knowledge, then the Tree of Life would not make them immortal. Now Christians claim that Genesis 2:17 was not literal but metaphorical, this would prove that being immortal by eating from the Tree of Life would also be metaphorical not literal, making Revelation 2:7 absurd and misleading.


Why would God make a tree which makes anyone immortal? Does immortality come through eating a fruit? The entire story of two trees are dubious and unreliable. The narrations make no sense and get sworse each time the story elaborates.




another point to add to this article


And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)
------------
so according to the above verse, anyone who knows the difference between good and evil becomes like Yahweh. and thats exactly what happened to Adam, he became like Yahweh, since he eat the fruit, a confirmation from God himself. Which begs the question Eve must of become the lady version of Yahweh?

Imagine even Jesus didn't get such a title from Yahweh, Yahweh recognized Adam the same as him God!

The Number of Angels Speaking to Mary




By

Ansar Al-'Adl


The allegation is as follows:
How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.
There are many ways to explain these verses, and we shall examine some of them, insha'Allah.

The verses in question are the following:

From Surah Al Imran:
3:42. And (remember) when the angels said: "O Mary! Verily, Allâh has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of all nations."3:43. O Mary! "Submit yourself with obedience to your Lord (Allâh, by worshipping none but Him Alone) and prostrate yourself, and bow down along with those who bow down etc.)."3:44. This is a part of the news of the Ghaib (unseen, i.e. the news of the past nations of which you have no knowledge) which We inspire you with (O Muhammad ). You were not with them, when they cast lots with their pens as to which of them should be charged with the care of Maryam (Mary); nor were you with them when they disputed.3:45. (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allâh gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e.Jesus the son of Mary] from Him, his name will be the Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allâh."3:46. "He will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous."3:47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is.

And from Sura Maryam:

19:17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibrael (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.19:18. She said: "Verily! I seek refuge with the Most Beneficent (Allâh) from you, if you do fear Allâh."19:19. (The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."19:20. She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"19:21. He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me (Allâh): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allâh), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allâh).' "
 
1. There is NO indication that these verses refer to the same event.

If we examine the Qur'anic verses we can come up with an interpretation of the chronological order of events.
a. The angels announced to Mary pbuh the glad tidings of Jesus pbuh without giving any further details. (verse 3:45)

b. After the angels depart, Mary pbuh expresses her surprise in her prayer to God. (verse 3:47). The verse makes it clear that she is no longer talking to the angels because she says, "My Lord.."

c. An angel sent by God informs her that God is able to do all things (verse 3:47, "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills.")

d. After a period of time, Angel Gabriel is sent by God, and appears personally before Mary to inform her of the birth of Jesus pbuh (verse 19:19).

e. Here she asks the Angel directly (verse 19:20) how it is possible for her to have a child. And the Angel Gabriel replies as seen in verse 19:21.

The basis of this explanation is the usage of the words yubashiroke in Sura Al-Imran which means to give glad tidings of a coming event. On the other hand, the verse in Sura Maryam uses the wordsle ahaba lake which means to "present you with", implying that the event is to happen there.

An objection raised to this explanation is that Mary must be forgetful if she asks the same question having already recieved the answer. This is not necessarily the case. An event so surprising and unusual as this would easily explain her persistence in trying to understand how this is possible. Often people may be so bewildered by some news that they may repeat their inquiry in their surpirse, and that is not unusual.

2. Another simple and logical explanation that can be offered is that the it is not uncommon for the action of a single member of an organization to be attributed to the whole organization. In a hockey match, we may say that so-and-so scored the final goal, or we could say that such-and-such a team scored the final goal. It would not be a contradiction. So when Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and he gave her the glad tidings of a son, the action may be attributed to the angels, whether they were present or not, visible or not. This interpretation is supported by verse 3:47, which says that Mary asked how it could be possible and he (Angel Gabriel) replied, and not they (angels).

3. Another way to understand the verses is to examine a similar verse of the Qur'an:
41:30. In the case of those who say, "Our Lord is Allah., and, further, stand straight and steadfast, the angels descend on them (from time to time): "Fear ye not!" (they suggest), "Nor grieve! but receive the Glad Tidings of the Garden (of Bliss), the which ye were promised!
Here we are told that those who stand firm in Islam will have angels surrounding them and telling them not to fear. Obviously, this does not mean that the righteous people expect to hear these voices speaking to them, but rather it is the general feeling of peace and good inspired into the righteous person by these angels. The presence and words of the angels invoke a feeling of security.

Likewise, when we read the first passage about Mary, the angels speaking to her may just have been a general inspiration or notion that she would bear a child, and she continually wondered to Allah, as to how this was possible. And the answer given in 3:47 is Allah's answer inspired to her through the angels in the same fashion. Naturally, when the event was to occur and the Angel Gabriel physically appeared to her in the form of a man, she would voice this same concern to verify the inspiration she had been recieving.

Each of these three explanations is sufficient to answer the allegation.

Saturday, 30 June 2018

Isangs low level argument busted !


Honestly, this guy Isang has become a stand-up comedian. I really can’t imagine anyone, whether a Muslim or Christian taking such a man seriously. the guy is an embarrassment to his fellow Christians. Even though we’ve exposed his foolish lies, the shameless man is still at it. His recent posts on Facebook on, who was the Angel that came to Cave Hira is absurd.

Isang claims the Angel who came to Cave Hira and visited Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was unknown unlike the Angel who came to visit Mary Pbuh. He goes on to say the Hadith which talk about the first Revelation of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh does not mention the name of the Angel who visited him, and “modern day Muslim Scholars” gave the name Gabriel Pbuh to identify who the Angel was? Whereas the story of Mary Pbuh mentions the name of Gabriel Pbuh, thus Gabriel came to Mary Pbuh and not Prophet Muhammed Pbuh, so who was that Angel at Cave Hira? He also states the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari says, Waraqah used the name of Gabriel Pbuh, yet the name of Gabriel Pbuh is in brackets so its not part of the Hadith and was added by the “Modern day Scholars”

Firstly, there is no need for Isang to search whether the Hadith mentions the name of Gabriel Pbuh or not, we can assure you  the Quran does. Before we get to the Hadith lets read what the Quran says.

Say: “Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel (should know that) he revealed this (Qur’an) to your heart by Allah’s leave: it confirms the Scriptures revealed before it, and is a guidance and good tiding to the people of faith. (2:97)

Tell them: "It is the spirit of holiness that has brought it down, by stages, from your Lord so that it might bring firmness to those who believe, and guidance to the Right Way, and give glad tidings of felicity and success to those who submit to Allah." (16:102)

Indeed this is a revelation from the Lord of the Universe; which the truthful spirit has carried down to your heart that you might become one of those who warn (others on behalf of Allah), (a revelation) in clear Arabic language, (26:192-195)


Notice from the above verses how Allah Swt is telling us through the Quran, that Angel Gabriel Pbuh was the one who brought down this Revelations of the Quran to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. Surah Baqarah explicitly mentions the name Gabriel Pbuh. This is sound evidence that Gabriel Pbuh was the Angel who came to Cave Hira and have the first Revelation to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. For Muslims the Quran comes first. And we read from the Quran, the Word of Allah Swt, that Angel Gabriel Pbuh was responsible for bringing down the Revelations to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. How then could Isang make such a bold claim that “modern day Muslim Scholars” added the name Gabriel?

Now whether the Hadith mentions the name of Gabriel Pbuh or not, the Quran is clear Gabriel Pbuh was responsible for bringing down the Revelation to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. So Isangs entire false claim on “we don’t know who came to Cave Hira”  has been destroyed by the Quran. It doesn’t stop here, we have more evidence from the “Hadith and Seerah” where Gabriel Pbuh introduced himself using his real name.


 Yahya reported:

I asked Abu Salama what was revealed first from the Qur'an. He said:" 0, the shrouded one." I said: Or" Recite." Jabir said: I am narrating to you what was narrated to us by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: I stayed in Hira' for one month and when my stay was completed, I come down and went into the heart of the valley. Somebody called me aloud. I looked in front of me, behind me, on the right of my side and on my left, but I did not see any body. I was again called and I looked about but saw nothing. I was called again and raised my head, and there on the Throne in the open atmosphere he, i. e. Gabriel (peace be upon him) was sitting. I began to tremble on account of fear. I came to Khadija and said: Wrap me up. They wrapped me up and threw water on me and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, sent down this: you who are shrouded! arise and deliver warning, your Lord magnify, your clothes cleanse."

وَحَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى، يَقُولُ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ أَىُّ الْقُرْآنِ أُنْزِلَ قَبْلُ قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ أَوِ اقْرَأْ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ سَأَلْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أَىُّ الْقُرْآنِ أُنْزِلَ قَبْلُ قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ أَوِ اقْرَأْ قَالَ جَابِرٌ أُحَدِّثُكُمْ مَا حَدَّثَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ جَاوَرْتُ بِحِرَاءٍ شَهْرًا فَلَمَّا قَضَيْتُ جِوَارِي نَزَلْتُ فَاسْتَبْطَنْتُ بَطْنَ الْوَادِي فَنُودِيتُ فَنَظَرْتُ أَمَامِي وَخَلْفِي وَعَنْ يَمِينِي وَعَنْ شِمَالِي فَلَمْ أَرَ أَحَدًا ثُمَّ نُودِيتُ فَنَظَرْتُ فَلَمْ أَرَ أَحَدًا ثُمَّ نُودِيتُ فَرَفَعْتُ رَأْسِي فَإِذَا هُوَ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ فِي الْهَوَاءِ - يَعْنِي جِبْرِيلَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ - فَأَخَذَتْنِي رَجْفَةٌ شَدِيدَةٌ فَأَتَيْتُ خَدِيجَةَ فَقُلْتُ دَثِّرُونِي ‏.‏ فَدَثَّرُونِي فَصَبُّوا عَلَىَّ مَاءً فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ‏{‏ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ * قُمْ فَأَنْذِرْ * وَرَبَّكَ فَكَبِّرْ * وَثِيَابَكَ فَطَهِّرْ‏}‏ ‏"‏ ‏.

(Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 316)

The Hadith is clear that Gabriel Pbuh was the Angel who came to Cave Hira. The Hadith even uses his name جِبْرِيلَ. One wonders why Isang would even make such a claim, that the name of the Angel was unknown?  I intentionally added the Arabic writing just in case Isang tries to say, the Arabic doesn’t mention the name. the narration below is taken from the Seerah.


 When I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, 'O Muhammad! Thou art the Apostle of God and I am Gabriel.' I raised my head towards heaven to see, and lo! Gabriel in the form of a man, with feet astride the horizon, saying, 'O Muhammad! Thou art the Apostle of God, and I am Gabriel.' I stood gazing at him, moving neither forward nor backward; then I began to turn my face away from him, but towards whatever region of the sky I looked, I saw him as before. (Ibn Hishām p. 62-63)


Once again, Isang has shot himself proving what kind of a low level “Christian apologist” he is. The narration from the “earliest Seerah” is crystal clear. Prophet Muhammed Pbuh saw Angel Gabriel Pbuh, who made mention of his real name. from the Seerah of Ibn Hisham we read this happened directly after Prophet Muhammed Pbuh received his first Revelation “Iqra”. Whilst leaving Cave Hira and going down the Mountain, Gabriel Pbuh revealed his name.

1:  The Quran explicitly mentions Gabriel Pbuh by name, who brought down the Revelations of the Quran to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh

2: the Hadith is clear mentioning the name of Gabriel Pbuh, who came with the Revelations of the Quran to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh

3: the earliest Seerah again explicitly mentions the name of Gabriel Pbuh.


Conclusion :

Isang is a disgrace to Christians and should not be taken seriously at all.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...