There are no scientific miracles in the Qur'an

[StardustyPsyche]

Mr. Habbal,
Here is the text
"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 Bukhari 4:54:537"

There is no evidence that one wing has a disease and the other wing has the cure for that disease.

It might be that we derive certain treatments from insects, such as the fly.  There is no evidence that one is well advised to "dip it in the drink" because the fly can carry a wide variety of pathogens, and antidotes to those pathogens have not been found on one wing of the fly or anyplace else on they fly.

You are engaging in fallacious thinking.  If you do not understand how your reasoning is fallacious then I invite you to study logical fallacies and how to make an argument that avoids them.

Brother Osama questions the validity of this Hadith here:
The Hadith of the fly is not a Mutawatir one
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hadiths_of_the_fly.htm


The topic of this thread is "There are no scientific miracles in the Qur'an"  and that is the topic I intend to address here.

[AhmadFarooq]

@StardustyPsyche,

-   “… The very fact that a plausible naturalistic explanation is possible implies that there is no miracle because by definition a miracle is an event that cannot be explained naturalistically’”
Who defines what is “plausible” and what isn’t? This is a subjective term.

-   “…it is enough that the Qur’an is not in strict contradiction to modern science.”
Again, “strict” is a subjective term.

-   “… those descriptions will be compatible with science if we allow for a very broad use of descriptive language and do not expect literal accuracy.”
You once again make the claim of vagueness. As I wrote before, all living things are made from water is not a vague statement as you yourself had no qualms when you were convinced this was a contradiction with Science.

-   “…My refutations are that these features were possible for 7th century man to implement without divine intervention.”

But we are not talking about ‘any’ 7th century man, are we? We are talking about the untaught Prophet Muhammad with his specific life surrounded by specific ignorance and various other factors. As I said before even in the worst-case scenario that the Prophet had access to all the books in the world, the Qur’an phenomenon will still remain unexplained.

-   “And brother Osama is not alone.  There are millions of Muslims who agree with him.  Assertions of divine necessity in the so-called “scientific miracles of the Qur’an” abound in books and speeches and articles and web pages by the thousands.  I refute them all.”

As the definitions involved here remain to be subjective there shall always be people who will believe these extraordinary instances easily and people who will be able to find reasons easily to not be satisfied.

-   “So, when the Qur’an, for example, describes the motion of the sun across the sky, and we allow for a broad use of descriptive or poetic language, then that description is very broadly compatible with modern science.  What is the miracle in that?  What could be more obvious than the facts of the apparent motion of the sun across the sky?”

“And the sun runs…” (Qur’an 36:38)

I believe that the part that is being claimed to be extraordinary is the speed of the sun. Simple observation puts the sun moving extremely slowly. It would’ve been much more understandable and relatable to the audience of Prophet Muhammad if the verse said something like: as the sun unhurriedly moves in the heavens the end of all time comes near you with the same sluggishness, steadily but surely, so repent!

-   “You offered an interpretation of the Arabic in the verse about the mixing of the waters to mean that they meet and then mix.  Well, fine.  That is obvious.  When a river flows to sea the waters meet and mix.  Yes, that is compatible with modern science.  That is a simple observation available to 7th century man.  How is that to be considered a miracle in any sense?”
I don’t think the “meeting” is supposed to be the extraordinary event here. Muslims, at-least those who understand the argument, don’t claim that.

-   “… There is no impenetrable barrier across which the waters do not transgress.  Further, certain apparent barriers were visible on the surface and were available to 7th century man.  The Qur’an is thus factually incorrect in its literal meaning, and merely descriptive in its broader meaning.  Either way, not a miracle of divine intervention.”

The following is according to my understanding which may be faulty. As I mentioned before as long as the layer remains stable the streams remain separate, in other words a barrier remains in effect. But when there is turbulence, possibly because of velocity difference between the two streams above a certain threshold, the barrier fails. From what I understand, the Qur’an is not claiming that the barrier or the separation remains in effect forever. If that were indeed the case there would’ve been no reason to use the word “maraja” (meeting). Therefore, I don’t see any factual incorrectness in the literal meaning.

I don’t know whether these barriers were visible from the surface or not, if that indeed is the case some evidence has to be shown for it and for that this information reached Prophet Muhammad. If these two conditions are met then, I suppose if this portion is considered on an individual basis kept separate from the entirety of the remaining Islam, it can be considered as a non-miracle.

-   “More to come my brothers and sisters, please feel free to join in conversationally…”
I will try to remain here for some time but I cannot give any guarantees.

Regards,

[StardustyPsyche]

Brother Ahmad,
"But we are not talking about ‘any’ 7th century man, are we? We are talking about the untaught Prophet Muhammad with his specific life surrounded by specific ignorance and various other factors. As I said before even in the worst-case scenario that the Prophet had access to all the books in the world, the Qur’an phenomenon will still remain unexplained."

Muhammad was anything but an ignorant man.  At the age of just 25 he became a wealthy traveler and trader through his marriage to an older wealthy widow.  He went on to lead a small group of followers and by his later years he had become the ruler of all Arabia.

Wealthy man, traveling man, theocratic ruler of all Arabia.

Sorry, but the old refrain of Muhammad the ignorant illiterate just doesn't work.  He undoubtedly had access to all the most learned men in Arabia, and undoubtedly conversed with knowledgeable men and ranking men from far away places.

Here is an example of the kind of apparent barrier visible on the surface
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgkiYvB3uJY

Here is another example, the title clearly contradicted by the video itself!  But there is the superficial appearance of a barrier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBT9C0wdieI

So, it was well within the capability of 7th century man to have observed these conditions on the surface and for a wealthy traveling trader and ruler of all Arabia to have heard of these observations.

You many listen to the Arabic recitation and read the Arabic script here
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=25&verse=53
“prohibiting partition, forbidding ban, forbidden to be passed, inviolable obstruction, complete partition”

According to those translators the words of the Qur’an are scientifically false, quite the opposite of a “scientific miracle”


Sahih International: And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.

Pickthall: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.

Yusuf Ali: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

Shakir: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

Muhammad Sarwar: It is He who has joined the two seas; one palatable and sweet, the other bitterly salty and has established a barrier between them as a partition.

Mohsin Khan: And it is He Who has let free the two seas (kinds of water), one palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter, and He has set a barrier and a complete partition between them.

Arberry: And it is He who let forth the two seas, this one Sweet, grateful to taste, and this salt, bitter to the tongue, and He set between them a barrier, and a ban forbidden.

[StardustyPsyche]

Brother Ahmad,
““And the sun runs…” (Qur’an 36:38)

I believe that the part that is being claimed to be extraordinary is the speed of the sun. Simple observation puts the sun moving extremely slowly. It would’ve been much more understandable and relatable to the audience of Prophet Muhammad if the verse said something like: as the sun unhurriedly moves in the heavens the end of all time comes near you with the same sluggishness, steadily but surely, so repent!”

That section of the Qur’an discusses light versus darkness, the motion of the sun, and the phases of the moon, all in rather vague and poetic language with no special insights other then looking into the sky and poetically expressing a few general impressions of light, dark, the sun, and the moon.

Men have been writing poetically about the dark and the light, the sun and the moon for a very long time.  How is that in any way a miracle?

To you, Ahmad, run is associated with fast, the sun seems to go slow, so the verse must be a miraculous prediction of the sun going fast when it appears to go slow.  Please brother, you really must excuse me for not taking that kind of explanation seriously.

“Run” has a multitude of meanings.  A cold may run its course, a road runs North and South, water runs, my nose runs when I have a cold, a particular brand of shoe has sizes that run small.  We may run into difficulty, run for office, or run away from a problem. "Run" does not equal "fast motion"

The sun rises, moves across the sky, and sets.  Poetically described by 7th century religious man, we get the below:
Sahih International: And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.

Pickthall: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.

Yusuf Ali: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.

Shakir: And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knowing.

Muhammad Sarwar: how the sun moves in its orbit and this is the decree of the Majestic and All-knowing God;

Mohsin Khan: And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.

Arberry: And the sun -- it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=36&verse=38

There are no scientific miracles in the Qur’an, only simple observations by 7th century man and a variety of textual statements that are literally false.

[AhmadFarooq]

@StardustyPsyche,

-   “Sorry, but the old refrain of Muhammad the ignorant illiterate just doesn't work.  He undoubtedly had access to all the most learned men in Arabia, and undoubtedly conversed with knowledgeable men and ranking men from far away places.”

By ignorance I mean the state of knowledge and learning in Arabia. From what I know, there weren’t any libraries or universities in that part of the world at that time. Even if we assume that all the learned people of the world came to meet the Prophet, the fact remains that most of these “known” facts were theories and not in the form of empirically provable facts. How was the Prophet able to distinguish the right ones from the wrong? How was the Prophet able to differentiate which person was just spreading hearsay and which person was actually correct?
For me the observation is that two waters are meeting each other and because, one water does not start encroaching back on land there is probably some mixing going on too. What’s not an observation is that there are cline or any layers prohibiting mixing temporarily. It can be a guess but not an observation.

As I have been repeatedly trying to tell you a barrier is by definition something that is forbidden to be crossed. As long as the separating layer remains, mixing is “prohibited”. The Qur’an does not claim that the partition remains forever. This understanding is, in my opinion, an incorrect inference fallacy.

-   “ “Run” has a multitude of meanings.  A cold may run its course, a road runs North and South, water runs, my nose runs when I have a cold, a particular brand of shoe has sizes that run small.  We may run into difficulty, run for office, or run away from a problem. "Run" does not equal "fast motion" ”

Did you seriously use that argument? You do know that phrases used in English are not necessarily used in the same way in other languages, right? I can’t say much about Arabic but I definitely know at-least one language where the literal translation of these phrases will sound pretty stupid.

And as for ‘just a poetic description’ it would be more believable in the scenario that we didn’t know the sun was in rapid motion and Islam critics wouldn’t have been trying to use this as a mistake in the Qur’an. Why is that when a verse conforms to modern scientific knowledge it is vague or poetic or metaphorical but when it allegedly contradicts it there is no clearer verse in the Qur’an? Remember that from the confirmation of the heliocentric model to the confirmation of motion of all heavenly bodies this Qur’an verse was “contradicting” modern science of the time.
A person can call it an extraordinary co-incidence, sure, but how many “co-incidences” is it going to take to satisfy that person?

Regards,

[StardustyPsyche]

Brother Ahmad,
"Did you seriously use that argument? You do know that phrases used in English are not necessarily used in the same way in other languages, right? I can’t say much about Arabic but I definitely know at-least one language where the literal translation of these phrases will sound pretty stupid."

Indeed. translation adds another difficulty, which is why I go to corpus.quran to read 7 different translations to try to get a consensus of meaning.

In many instances the literal words of the consensus of translations are factually incorrect.  However, your point is well taken and I am aware that even 7 translations could misrepresent the intent of the original author, which is why I also allow for the possibility of a mere general description of an observable situation.

So, that might seem like convenient vacillation on my part, but it is intended to be a disproof of miracle by 2 contingent methods.
1.   If the literal meaning of the consensus translations is to be used then the statement is scientifically false and thus not a scientific miracle.
2.   If the passage is taken in the generalized sense of an attempt at description that a 7th century man could understand then it is a mere description of observations, which is not a scientific miracle.

So, either way, there are no scientific miracles in the Qur’an.

If the passage had said “the sun travels a thousand, thousand, thousand times faster than a man can run and it is heading toward a place in the heavens we cannot see, while it orbits the common center of material of a hundred thousand thousand thousand suns once every two hundred fifty thousand thousand years with that collection of stars visible to you as the cloudy band in the clear night sky, taking the Earth and the other planets with it as they orbit the sun in elliptical orbits” then we could have a candidate for knowledge beyond that of 7th century man.

To address a previous comment, there are 92 naturally occurring elements, and if the creator of the universe had wished to do so I am sure he could have instructed his angel to tell Muhammad how to say that clearly, but he did no such thing.  I said “there are 92 fundamental atoms to be discovered on this Earth, and 5 of them are essential to the construction of a structure within our bodies too small for us to see”. Unlike Allah, I do not have perfect powers of articulation, so you have a valid point and it would have been better if Allah had said  “there are 92 fundamental atoms naturally occurring on this Earth, and 5 of them are essential to the construction of a structure within our bodies too small for us to see, but man will construct elements 93, 94 and beyond by smashing the naturally occurring atoms together in powerful machines he will construct”

Note, Allah makes no such specific predictions.

Allah could have done a very great deal better in making specific predictions about a myriad scientific facts undiscovered at that time.  Allah could have given Muhammad all sorts of information about the heliocentric solar system, the age of the universe, the occurrence of the elements, the cell structure of life, vaccines, and many other details woefully absent from the Qur’an.

All asserted “scientific miracles” are either literal errors or very generalized 7th century descriptions, either one of which disqualify them as true scientific miracles.

[AhmadFarooq]

@StardustyPsyche,

At this point, this has apparently become a really futile discourse. Reminds of a discourse I once had about whether the attainment of adulthood earlier in life for cultures of the past, – as compared to the generally-accepted 18 years old concept of today – and as a consequence their tradition of earlier marriages, was ethical or not.

-   “If the passage is taken in the generalized sense of an attempt at description that a 7th century man could understand then it is a mere description of observations, which is not a scientific miracle.”
For some, the reasoning is satisfactory enough to be termed as a “miracle” and for others it obviously isn’t. Because of the inherent subjectivity of the issue and as a result the subjective reasoning involved, when it comes to individual “miracles” I don’t think there is much you can say to change the beliefs of the convinced and apparently not much the believers can say to convince you.

-   “If the passage had said “the sun travels a thousand, thousand, thousand … then we could have a candidate for knowledge beyond that of 7th century man.”

First of all, as I mentioned before, the Qur’an is not a book of Science and additionally, if the Qur’an was going to be so detailed about events it would have created problems with its memorization etc. Second, even in such a scenario there is no guarantee that people would’ve believed in it because once again it is possible that some old Greek philosopher might have claimed the same thing or it could’ve just been chalked up to a mere co-incidence.

-   “To address a previous comment, there are 92 naturally occurring elements … he will construct’ ”
From what I’ve read, some elements having atomic number greater than 92 have been found to occur naturally on Earth albeit in very small amounts. The same counter-argument as given in the above point for the rest of this paragraph.

-   “Allah could have done a very great deal better in making specific predictions about a myriad scientific facts undiscovered at that time.  Allah could have given Muhammad all sorts of information about the heliocentric solar system, the age of the universe, the occurrence of the elements, the cell structure of life, vaccines, and many other details woefully absent from the Qur’an.”

As I mentioned before that I belong to those group of Muslims who believe that the Qur’an wasn’t meant to be a book of science and the “scientific” verses were in part supposed to draw attention of the people. It is true that God could have told the Prophet all these things and God could also have made all people as Muslims to begin with or remove all diseases etc. But the nature of the Islamic doctrine is that, before the creation of Earth, God gave the choice to all humans whether they agree to go through a test and have a chance to attain heaven or to just forgo the test. Muslims believe that humanity accepted that test and our present scenario is the particular trial that we have been set. If this doctrine is indeed true then it is God’s prerogative to test us in the way He sees fit and our responsibility to find out the truth as best we can.

Just as a last point, I want to ask what do you think about the Qur’an verses 21:33 and 36:40.

Regards,

[Tarek Habbal]

Mr. Habbal,
Here is the text
"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 Bukhari 4:54:537"

There is no evidence that one wing has a disease and the other wing has the cure for that disease.

It might be that we derive certain treatments from insects, such as the fly.  There is no evidence that one is well advised to "dip it in the drink" because the fly can carry a wide variety of pathogens, and antidotes to those pathogens have not been found on one wing of the fly or anyplace else on they fly.

You are engaging in fallacious thinking.  If you do not understand how your reasoning is fallacious then I invite you to study logical fallacies and how to make an argument that avoids them.

Brother Osama questions the validity of this Hadith here:
The Hadith of the fly is not a Mutawatir one
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hadiths_of_the_fly.htm


The topic of this thread is "There are no scientific miracles in the Qur'an"  and that is the topic I intend to address here.

"Maybe if I keep denying it, it will go away: Stardust

The Hadeeth on the Fly

One Wing Carrying Disease and the  Other Carrying the Cure

***

Student Research Seminar Team 
Course Med 497


Team Supervised By 
Dr. Jamaal Haamid

Students:

1-Sami Ibrahim Aj-Taili
2-'Aadil 'Abdur Rahman Al-Misnid
3-Khalid Dha'aar Al-'Utaibi.

Dept. Medical Microbiology
College of Science
Qassim University

Course Co-Coordinator
Dr. Saleh As-Saleh (rahimahullaah)


In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

Allah, the Most Might and Most Majestic, sent the Prophet Muhammad
(sallallaahu 'aleihi was-sallam: may Allah Exalt his mention, and render him
safe from all derogatory things), with guidance and the truth and said about him:


Nor does he (Muhammad sallallaahu 'aleihi was-sallam) speak of (his own)
desire. It is only a Revelation revealed [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an;
Ch. 53, verses 3 & 4).
 
And from this, is the Prophet (sallallaahu 'aleihi was-sallam) saying:

"If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the
drink), for the one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure of
the disease." [Bukhari, vol. 4: 537].




Panel A   

Plate 2- Cultured water sample taken from a flask containing sterilized water and
where a fly fell (without submersion). Growth of pathogenic (disease causing)
bacterial colonies of the E Coli type were identified after taking samples from the
water in the flask for culture.   

Plate 1- Cultured water sample from the same flask following the complete dipping
of the fly. An entire disappearance of the bacterial growth seen in Petri-dish 2 is
clear. The new bacteria growing in plate 1 was identified as Actinomyces, the one
from which useful antibiotics can be extracted. This explains the complete
inhibition of growth in plate 2

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eCjzHFVfBEY/TSCShw8Z31I/AAAAAAAAAJo/cd-rWhtFJNw/s320/Snapshot+2011-01-02+18-55-57.jpg

Panel B

Same as in Panel A,  but from another fly.

Plate 2- Cultured water sample taken from a flask containing sterilized water and
where a fly fell (without submersion). Growth of pathogenic (disease causing)
bacterial colonies of the Coynebacterium Dephtheroid type were identified after
taking samples from the water in the flask for culture.   

Plate 1- Cultured water sample from the same flask following the complete dipping
of the fly. An entire disappearance of the bacterial growth seen in Petri-dish 2 is
clear. The new bacteria growing in plate 1 was identified as Actinomyces, the one
from which useful antibiotics (more than 70%) can be extracted. This explains the
complete inhibition of growth in plate 2


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eCjzHFVfBEY/TSCSuo5gDcI/AAAAAAAAAJs/qBxwxsMyc94/s320/Snapshot+2011-01-02+18-58-36.jpg
                                                                     
Panel C

Panel C: Same as before, yet with another fly.


Plate 2- Cultured water sample taken from a flask containing sterilized water and
where a fly fell (without submersion). Growth of pathogenic (disease causing)
bacterial colonies of the  Staphylococcus sp. type. were identified after taking
samples from the water in the flask for culture.   

Plate 1- Cultured water sample from the same flask following the complete dipping
of the fly. An entire disappearance of the bacterial growth seen in Petri-dish 2 is
clear. The new bacteria growing in plate 1 was identified as Actinomyces, the one
from which useful antibiotics can be extracted. This explains the complete
inhibition of growth in plate 2

The Same results were obtained with another type of disease-causing bacteria of the Salmonellas sp + proteus sp. Type.


Ooops... the study confirms the Hadeeth

Than you for strengthening my faith

[Tarek Habbal]

O and I see you evaded all my questions


Not very honest... but that's expected with the Hasbara brigade


Who was behind 9/11

[StardustyPsyche]

Mr. Habbal,
The hadith calls for a pathogen on 1 wing and antidote on the other wing.

Nothing in your citation demonstrates the alternate wing assertion of the hadith.

Science does not work by 1 study.  A scientific confirmation requires repeatability. Can this experiment be repeated reliably by scientists everywhere?  And even if it can, the mere observation that a particular pathogen does not grow in large quantities visible as a colony in water over time does not mean the water is safe to drink immediately.

Perhaps worst of all you have committed a hasty generalization, a logical fallacy, which applied broadly could lead to a big health problem as brother Osama wisely pointed out:
“if we do this with multiple or many infested flies, then we will have a big health problem.”
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hadiths_of_the_fly.htm

This is your hasty generalization:
Flies carry pathogens A, B, C, D, E….
Water did not grow visibly over time pathogen C in 1 study.
Therefore humans are safe to drink pathogen C immediately if the fly is dipped.
Therefore humans are also safe from pathogens A, B, D, E…

What you are proposing violates the scientific method, makes a false generalization between a water culture over time and the effects of immediate ingestion by a human being, and falsely concludes that all dangerous microorganisms carried by flies will be neutralized by antidotes carried by the fly itself.

I invite you to study the scientific method and logical fallacies. What you have proposed is unscientific, logically fallacious, and a public health hazard.

[Tarek Habbal]

Peer reviewed in case you missed it the first time:

Ugly but useful: The sheep blowfly is one of the fly species that might provide humans with New Antibiotics.

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.

CHUTNEY

And that's not where it stops... there is MOAR Big Grin from other research centers.

Antibacterial action of Myiasis-causing flies.


Erdmann GR.
Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

Some species of calliphorid blowflies lay their eggs in wounds; their larvae develop by feeding on the tissue, and the infection is known as myiasis or fly-strike. But wounds, from whatever cause, are frequently contaminated with bacteria - many o f which can spread in the bloodstream causing septicaemia and/or toxaemia. For example, wound contamination with Clostridium welchii - leading to 'gas gangrene' - was a frequent cause of death amongst battlefield casualties. It is from such situations that early observations were made on the beneficial effect of some blowfly larvae in limiting the bacterial infection of wounds. Indeed, some military surgeons would deliberately infest wounds with blowfly maggots in order to prevent bacterial complications. Now, a century or two later, the search for new antibiotics had led researchers back to these early observations, and in this article, Gory Erdmann describes progress in understanding the antibacterial action of blowfly maggots.

PMID: 15462958 [PubMed]

RAITA

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1000001517

Oh and MOAR yet again...

"Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
Print version ISSN 1517-8382
Braz. J. Microbiol. vol.39 no.2 São Paulo Apr./June 2008
doi: 10.1590/S1517-83822008000200035

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY

Antibacterial activities of multi drug resistant Myroides odoratimimus bacteria isolated from adult flesh flies (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) are independent of metallo beta-lactamase gene"


This Hadeeth has been proven by NON MUSLIM SCIENTISTS and BIOLOGISTS.


Im still awaiting your reply on 9/11

WE been answering you over and over.. You could return the courtesy unless you got something to hide...

[Tarek Habbal]

Clearly the fly has both the disease and and the cure and that's not something you can refute. Also the prophet clearly states that the fly has both the disease and the cure.


 Over 1400 years ago, Prophet Muhammad told his followers to submerge the fly completely to be protected from any diseases.  1400 years later, scientists and student put it to the test and the results are as you see.

I cited peer reviewed scientific experiments which you most likely didn't even read because "Hasbara"

Check the links, and follow the research - it is actually MIND BLOWING and proves the hadeeth true.



You do not want to admit that, I get it

It gotta hurt


And now.. About 9/11 attacks....


I am still waiting. Hopefully you won;t keep me waiting for too long now

[StardustyPsyche]

Brother Ahmad,
“Just as a last point, I want to ask what do you think about the Qur’an verses 21:33 and 36:40.”

Here is 21:33 from corpus.quran:
Sahih International: And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming.
Pickthall: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
Yusuf Ali: It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
Shakir: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.
Muhammad Sarwar: It is God who has created the night, the day, the Sun, and Moon and has made them swim in a certain orbit.
Mohsin Khan: And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating.
Arberry: It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each swimming in a sky.

The author is simply describing the prevailing cosmology of the day.  For all of human history people had observed that objects arc across the sky.  The sun, moon, and 5 wanderers that shine with a steady light are found only within a narrow band of sky centered on what we now call the ecliptic.  These objects have always held a special fascination for man.

It has long been commonplace to attribute the creation and even the motions of these objects to gods or a god.  The Romans gave them the names we use today, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury.  The moon is of course very obvious and the sun is naturally revered as the giver of warmth and light.

Nearly everyone for all history thought the sun, the moon, the other planets, and the stars all orbit the Earth.  Many people constructed cosmologies involving layers of spheres.  This was not stupid; rather, it is actually very difficult even with a basic telescope to prove the sun does not orbit the Earth!

This is not a scientific miracle, merely the same observations and conclusions nearly all human being had made up to that day.


Here is 36:40 from corpus.quran
Sahih International: It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.
Pickthall: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.
Yusuf Ali: It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
Shakir: Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere.
Muhammad Sarwar: how the sun is not supposed to catch-up with the moon, nor is the night to precede the day. All of them are to float in a certain orbit;
Mohsin Khan: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
Arberry: It behoves not the sun to overtake the moon, neither does the night outstrip the day, each swimming in a sky.

I would repeat my above statements with regard to these similar passages, but I would note a scientific error in the case of 36:40.

The sun does reach the moon, in the sense that their positions do cross at new moon, which is from our point of view no moon.  In fact, when the sun and the moon align at new moon we get a solar eclipse, at which time the night does, in some sense, outstrip the day.

But, those inaccuracies aside, these passages are simply the descriptions of the day, the night, the sun, and them moon commonly made by cultures worldwide for all time.

The only stunning thing about these passages is that some people consider them somehow miraculous.

[AhmadFarooq]

@StardustyPsyche,

“The Arabic word used in the above verse [Qur’an 21:33] is yasbahun . The word yasbahun is derived from the word sabaha. It carries with it the idea of motion that comes from any moving body. If you use the word for a man on the ground, it would not mean that he is rolling but would mean he is walking or running. If you use the word for a man in water it would not mean that he is floating but would mean that he is swimming.
Similarly, if you use the word yasbah for a celestial body such as the sun it would not mean that it is only flying through space but would mean that it is also rotating as it goes through space.”

Source: http://sunnahonline.com/library/the-majestic-quran/430-quran-and-modern-science-compatible-or-incompatible-the#h4-1-i-the-existence-of-subatomic-particles

-   “I would repeat my above statements with regard to these similar passages, but I would note a scientific error in the case of 36:40. The sun does reach the moon, in the sense that their positions do cross at new moon, which is from our point of view no moon.  In fact, when the sun and the moon align at new moon we get a solar eclipse, at which time the night does, in some sense, outstrip the day.”

At this point I have become pretty certain that you are trying hard to find any mistakes in the Qur’an. You could have used ‘possibly’ or ‘apparently’ in your claim of a “scientific error” but instead you chose to make an absolute statement.

A solar eclipse actually happened during the life of the Prophet. Calculated Astronomy data and the narrations of the Prophet’s life confirms that. By your own admission as “from our point of view” when the moon comes in front of the sun, it has, observationally speaking “overtaken” the sun, so doesn’t it mean that the verse was wrong with respect to the “Science” or observations of that time? In contrast, today’s science tells us that the moon doesn’t actually overtake the sun, simple observation may phrase it like overtaking but in reality that doesn’t happen.

Regards,

[StardustyPsyche]

Brother Ahmad,
"today’s science tells us that the moon doesn’t actually overtake the sun"

Ok, depends how one defines "overtake".  In angular measure, yes, the sun and the moon do overtake each other.  If, on a circular track, one racer overtakes another that does not mean he collides with the other, rather, that his his angular measure passes that of the other.

According to the Oxford dictionary (I know you cite Webster but I prefer Oxford)
overtake
1. Catch up with and pass while traveling in the same direction

The sun and the moon travel in nearly the same arc across the sky, yet one passes the other at new moon.  So I think it is an error to fail to account for this observational fact.

"I have become pretty certain that you are trying hard to find any mistakes in the Qur’an"
Actually, the mistakes find me!  I mean, every time I look up the supposed "stunning scientific miracle" asserted by brother Osama all I find is either a vague description of the obvious or outright error.

There are no scientific miracles in the Qur'an.

I don't have to look for mistakes, brother Osama points me to them again and again.