The article doesn't say all flies. It says only the clanger cicadas fly, which is one subspecies of many. The rest do not have that ability. When you ignore the many anti-scientific hadiths and focus on the one that can be made to look scientific only by excluding most flies, it does look desperate. If the Messenger wanted to communicate useful medical information, how about telling us about antibiotics and penicillin which have saved tens of millions of lives. I don't remember anyone saved by dipping flies into their caano.
Do you agree on the following three conditions for which to analyze hadiths?
Academic methodology dictates that we should examine several important matters before rejecting a hadith or denying that it is the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). These conditions are as follows:
The first condition:
We should see whether there is a complete contradiction between what is mentioned in the hadith and what is mentioned in a Qur’anic text that is clear and unambiguous in meaning and not abrogated. We should emphasise here the condition of complete contradiction – and not just an apparent contradiction that may come to the mind of one who hastens to jump to conclusions when examining hadith.
The second condition:
There should be a weakness in one of the links of the isnaad that could have led to the mistake mentioned in the text.
Similarly, we think that this condition is in harmony with sound methodology and is a valid condition. No one should disagree on this point who understands anything about the principles of academic criticism. Denying that a text is the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) should mean that there is a weak link in the chain of narration that led us to mistakenly believe that this hadith is the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), when in fact it is not.
Imam ash-Shaafa‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) – who is prominent in terms of knowledge and faith, and was the first one to write on the topic of usool al-fiqh – said:
If a hadith is narrated by trustworthy narrators from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then that is sufficient to regard it as a sound hadith.
Ikhtilaaf al-Hadith, in
al-Umm (10/107).
And he said:
There is no other way to determine whether a hadith is sound or otherwise except by knowing how honest and trustworthy the narrators are, with the exception of very few hadiths.
Ar-Risaalah (para. 1099)
And he also said:
Muslims of good character are those who are good and sound in and of themselves… As for what they say and do, it is to be regarded as sound and acceptable, unless we find something in their actions that indicate otherwise. So we should be cautious with them in cases where their actions differ from what is expected of them.
Ar-Risaalah (para. 1029-1030); see also
al-Umm (8/518-51 9)
The first thing that the one who rejected a hadith that is attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) must do is research and find out the identity of the narrator who was mistaken in his transmission of this hadith. If the one who denies the hadith cannot find an acceptable reason in the isnaad for rejecting the hadith, then this indicates that he is mistaken in his methodology. It also indicates that it is essential to have another look and try to understand the hadith and the Qur’an and the aims and goals of sharee‘ah.
So how about if the hadith was narrated with the soundest isnaads on the face of the earth? How about if the hadith was narrated via many chains of transmission – as is the case with most of the hadiths that are rejected by the proponents of “enlightenment” – and from a number of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them)?
The third condition:
One should express his reservations about a hadith as a personal view based on his own reasoning, which may be right or wrong, and he should avoid stating his view as certainty, as if it is the correct view. He should also avoid making accusations against others who differ with him or casting aspersions on the intelligence of Muslim scholars. This applies in cases where there is a valid reason to hold such a view, and provided that one is qualified to speak about such matters and is proficient in the skills needed to understand and research them. A hadith may appear to be da‘eef (weak) to one scholar for a particular reason, but he should not speak in accusatory tones of those who accepted the hadith.
Whoever does not comply with these three conditions and persists in denying and rejecting the hadiths is exposing himself to grave danger, because it is not permissible for a Muslim to reach a conclusion that is not based on proper methodology and without following any guidelines, and criticise other scholars (who disagree with him), otherwise he may fall into sin and error.