stated in the ḥadith when one looks at its finer points, it nevertheless agrees, in essence, with the very notion that the writer in question and those like him found so objectionable: that both the ailment and its remedy are to be found in the fly. It is by no means improbable that a day will dawn when the miracle of the Messenger ﷺ is laid bare in all its detail, scientifically confirmed—“and you will surely come to know its report after a time.”
What is truly astonishing about this author, and how contradictory he is, is that while he declares this ḥadith weak, he goes on to authenticate the ḥadith: “The purification of a vessel licked by a dog is to wash it seven times, one of them with earth,” stating, “It is a sound ḥadith agreed upon.” If its soundness rests on the consensus of the scholars—or on the agreement of the two Ṣaḥīḥs—then the first ḥadith is likewise sound in the eyes of the scholars, without any disagreement among them. How, then, can he weaken one and authenticate the other? Worse still, he twists the latter with a baseless interpretation that in effect strips the ḥadith of its meaning, claiming that the number seven merely denotes abundance and that “earth” simply means using with water any substance capable of removing the impurity!
Such an interpretation is patently false, even though he attributes it to Shaykh Maḥmūd Shaltūt—may Allah pardon him. I truly do not know which of his two errors is the graver: his weakening of the first ḥadith, which is authentic, or his distortion of the other ḥadith with this false interpretation.
On this occasion I advise esteemed readers not to place their trust in everything published nowadays in certain popular magazines or widely circulated books that purport to present Islamic research—especially material dealing with ḥadith—unless it is written, first, by someone whose religiosity is trustworthy and, secondly, whose knowledge and specialization in the field are beyond doubt. Conceit has gained the upper hand over many of today’s writers, particularly