𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬’ 𝐔𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞… 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 “𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭” 𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐥 𝐔𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞!

Home - Islam CompassResponses to Christians. IIN - 2

محتوى ذكاء اصطناعي

 ·٩ س ·

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬’ 𝐔𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞… 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 “𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭” 𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐥 𝐔𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞!

There is a paradox here that deserves reflection, and perhaps a little ridicule as well:

When the hadith concerning the people of Uraynah is mentioned, and reference is made to treatment with camel urine in the context of a specific therapeutic incident, some voices suddenly rise in the name of “rationalism”, “enlightenment”, and “civilised taste”:

How can urine be mentioned in medicine How disgusting Could this really have been transmitted from a Prophet

Yet strangely, the word “disgust” quickly disappears when urine enters through the laboratory door, puts on a white coat, undergoes extraction, purification, and separation, and ultimately emerges in the form of a hormone, enzyme, or pharmaceutical preparation bearing an elegant commercial name

So is the problem with the substance itself

Or is the problem with its source, its context, and the identity of the person who spoke about it

When Urine Becomes a “Pharmaceutical Raw Material”

Modern medicine does not deny that certain substances of pharmaceutical value may be found in animal or human fluids and secretions, and the history of the pharmaceutical industry contains clear examples of this.

Take Premarin, for example, a preparation historically associated with the extraction of oestrogens from the urine of pregnant mares. Even its name itself is derived from:

PREgnant MARes' urINe

That is: the urine of pregnant mares.

There is also a long history of using human urine as a source of certain pharmaceutical substances and hormones. Among the best-known historical examples are:

A- hCG: Human urine, particularly the urine of pregnant women, was historically used as a source from which this hormone was extracted for fertility preparations, including products such as Pregnyl and Gonasi in their historically approved formulations.

B- FSH/LH: These hormones were historically extracted from the urine of postmenopausal women, and preparations such as Menopur and Fostimon were associated with this source.

C- Urokinase: An enzyme historically associated with extraction from human urine and used medicinally in certain cases of thrombosis.

The pharmaceutical industry subsequently developed, and purification and biomanufacturing technologies became capable, in many cases, of producing active substances through more precise and safer methods without necessarily relying on the original natural source.

And here lies the central point:

The raw material is not necessarily the final medicine.

A natural source may simply be a reservoir containing a compound of therapeutic value. The laboratory then isolates and purifies it, determines its concentration and dosage, and tests its safety and efficacy.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say:

“Urine cannot possibly have anything to do with medicine.”

Rather, the scientifically more accurate statement is:

Urine may contain compounds of pharmaceutical value, but that does not mean that raw urine itself is a medicine, nor that everything excreted from the body is suitable for treatment.

This is a fundamental distinction.

Urine in the Stable: “Superstition”… Urine in the Factory: “Biological Material”!

And here the amusing paradox begins.

If an animal-derived substance is mentioned in an ancient traditional context, people say:

“Superstition! Primitive medicine! Backwardness!”

But if the same substance enters a modern factory, passes through stages of extraction, purification, and analysis, and then emerges in a bottle bearing a Latin name, the language suddenly changes:

“A raw material of biological value!”

What a civilisational miracle

Sometimes it appears that chemistry not only purifies the substance but also grants it a new cultural passport!

Urine in the stable = “How disgusting”

Urine in a pharmaceutical facility = “A raw material with pharmaceutical applications.”

Here one is entitled to ask: Did the urine change, or did our perception of it change

The scientific answer, of course, is not that urine becomes medicine merely by entering a laboratory;

rather, an active compound may be extracted from a source that appears repulsive, separated from the source’s other components, and then used according to precise pharmaceutical standards.

This is exactly what science does.

From the Animal Stable to the Laboratory: This Is How Medicine Develops

Ancient human beings did not possess spectroscopic analytical instruments,

modern separation techniques,

genetic engineering,

or sterile pharmaceutical factories.

They dealt with substances as they found them in their environment.

If they observed an association between a particular substance and a therapeutic result, they could use it in the form available to them.

Modern medicine, however, has moved this process to a more sophisticated level:

Observation identification of the substance isolation of the compound purification determination of dosage testing of safety and efficacy manufacture of the preparation.

This is not a contradiction between ancient and modern medicine. Rather, it is part of the development of medical knowledge.

Many substances were historically used in their raw form,

then modern science discovered that the key did not lie in the entire substance,

but rather in a specific compound within it.

Plants provide a clear example:

A person may use an entire plant, and a chemist may later discover that a particular compound is responsible for the medicinal effect, isolate and purify it, and regulate its dosage.

No one says:

“Since the medicine is derived from a plant, the patient must therefore eat the entire field!”

Likewise, if a compound is extracted from urine, this does not mean that a modern patient consumes raw urine.

The source is one thing, the active substance is another, and the pharmaceutical preparation is something else again.

The Hadith Concerning the People of Uraynah: A Therapeutic Incident, Not a “Universal Medical Prescription”

Here, greater precision is required.

The hadith concerning the people of Uraynah, recorded in the two authentic hadith collections, concerns a particular incident involving people who came to Madinah and became ill, after which they were directed to what was suitable for their condition in that particular circumstance.

It is methodologically incorrect to transform this incident directly into a comprehensive medical protocol for every person, in every time and place.

It is therefore incorrect to say: “A therapeutic incident was reported, so every Muslim must do the same regardless of the illness, condition, environment, or available medical alternatives.”

Conversely, it is also incorrect to say: “I find urine disgusting, therefore the hadith must be impossible or unreasonable”

Both sides are mistaken.

The first turns a specific therapeutic incident into what appears to be a pharmaceutical prescription that must be used until the Day of Resurrection.

The second makes personal taste the criterion for judging the hadith.

The more balanced methodology is to distinguish between:

the authenticity of the hadith, its meaning, the nature of the incident, and the Islamic legal ruling associated with it,

and establishing medical efficacy according to the modern empirical method.

This distinction prevents us from turning the hadith into a compulsory medical prescription, while also preventing us from dismissing it merely because it provokes disgust.

Do Not Turn “Disgust” into an Instrument for Analysing Hadith!

One of the strangest arguments is to reject the content of a report simply because a person finds it repulsive.

Science does not operate in this manner.

Science does not first ask a substance:

“Do you look beautiful?”

Nor:

“Do you smell pleasant?”

Rather, it asks:

What is your composition? What do you contain? What effect do you have? What is your toxicity? What is your dosage? Has your efficacy and safety been established?

Therefore, it is impermissible to move from:

“This thing is disgusting to me”

to:

“Therefore, it cannot have therapeutic value.”

That is a leap from a judgement of taste to a scientific judgement without evidence.

At the same time, however, we must not fall into the opposite fallacy:

Not everything disgusting is beneficial, and not every natural substance is safe.

Science does not sanctify something merely because it is ancient, nor does it reject it merely because it is ancient.

Rather, it examines it.

Likewise, a hadith is not accepted or rejected merely because we like or dislike its content. Rather, its authenticity, meaning, and context must be examined.

Disgust is a human feeling, but it is neither a laboratory for hadith nor a clinical trial.

Between “Miracle Medicine” and “Superstition”!

The problem is that the debate often turns into a contest between two extremes.

One group wants to turn the incident concerning the people of Uraynah into a universal therapeutic prescription, as though camel urine should be present on the breakfast table alongside tea and bread!

Another group regards the mere mention of urine in a Prophetic narration as sufficient reason to place the entire hadith in a museum of “folk superstitions”.

Both approaches distort the issue.

A Muslim is not required to turn every therapeutic incident into a universal religious practice.

Nor is a Muslim required to reject an authentic hadith merely because its content does not conform to personal taste or customary dietary and medical practices.

A rigorous methodology states:

The text is examined in terms of its authenticity and meaning.

The Islamic legal ruling is examined using the principles and methods of Islamic jurisprudence.

The medical claim is examined using the methods of medicine and empirical testing.

None of this can properly be replaced by a single expression:

“It disgusts me!”

Disgust is not science, just as revulsion is not evidence.

Conclusion: Is the Problem the Urine or the “Laboratory Coat”

The real paradox is not that medicine has historically known pharmaceutical substances extracted from urine; there is documented evidence for this.

Nor is the paradox that every form of urine can be transformed into medicine; scientifically, that is incorrect.

The paradox is that some of those who raise the banner of “scientific rationalism” may reject the mere mention of urine in the context of a Prophetic hadith because the word itself provokes disgust in them,

yet have no objection to discussing urine when it becomes the historical source of a hormone or enzyme within the modern pharmaceutical industry.

Here, something must be stated clearly:

No one is required to drink raw urine, revive ancient medical prescriptions merely because they appear in history, or claim that everything extracted from urine is beneficial or safe.

But neither should texts be mocked merely because their language conflicts with modern sensitivities.

A substance does not become “scientific” because it enters a European factory, nor does it become “superstition” because it was mentioned in a Bedouin environment.

A pharmaceutical compound does not acquire its value from the elegance of its packaging, but from its composition, efficacy, safety, and the evidence supporting it.

Thus, the paradox remains hanging above the pharmacy door:

Urine of pregnant women? A historical raw material for hormone extraction.

Urine of pregnant mares? A historical source of pharmaceutical compounds.

Human urine? Historically used in the pharmaceutical industry for the extraction of certain substances.

But when camel urine is mentioned in a Prophetic therapeutic incident:

“How disgusting! This is not science!”

Very well…

Did the chemistry change when the urine moved from the stable to the laboratory, or was it merely the name on the bottle and the worker’s coat that changed

If the objection is scientific, then let it be scientific.

If the objection is a matter of taste, then let it be called a matter of taste.

But to wear the coat of “rationalism” over a judgement based on taste is not rationalism…

And Allah Knows Best.

X @NassarMohamadMR

Website: www.Islamcompass.com

عرض أقل