Talk:Camel urine

Sourced material

I invite editors to scrutinize my additions via the sources found in the article and discuss if any reason exists for its removal. Most of the addition is verbatim from the source. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the Talk Page. If you may, please mention the changes you wish to make so that outside contributors may understand your context. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence: "Bachtiar Nasir, an Islamic cleric, advocated for and defended the consumption of camel urine, quoting the hadith." was already present in the article and sourced from this [1]. I added: "But scientists in Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries reject its oral use and its non-topical applications." which can be found in the exact same source. The words verbatim from the source is "But scientists in Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries reject the claims." The "claims" in the sentence is referring to the claims made by the clereic, Bachtiar Nasir. It's pertinent that the article reflect both view points (what the cleric said, and the response of his detractors). The source for camel urine being a topical (external) therapeutic prophetic recommendation as opposed to oral (internally ingested) is [2] a book published by an Islamic scholar, Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi. If the clerical views of Bachtiar Nasir warrants mentioning in the article, I submit that the even more credible commentary on the prophetic hadith published by Dr. Qasmi should be included as well. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll just quote the hadith, per the article - "Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them ... So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine" emphasis mine. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Yes, but if you read the commentary on the hadith, the tribe in question complained of gastrointestinal and skin conditions, and what is meant by "drink their milk and urine" is "drink their milk [for gastrointestinal symptoms]", "and urine [apply externally for skin symptoms]." The source language for the hadith is Arabic and the following example is given to elucidate this point from a linguistic perspective, consider the sentence: "write with this pen and chair" meaning use the pen to write with, and chair to sit on, not literally write with both a chair and pen. Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi, a prominent Islamic scholar, describes the context of the hadith to clarify that camel's milk was to be ingested, and urine applied topically. To avoid any controversy, perhaps I could modify my edit to say something along the lines "According to Islamic scholar [name], the context is so-and-so" in order to comprehensively cover all valid viewpoints on the matter. This is especially appropriate in light of Bachtiar Nasir's controversial views being found in the article. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should withdraw that comment about me being lazy! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I went to Transcendental36's talkpage to remove it but they already nearly blanked their talkpage. Those words were before my olive branch post on your talkpage and I'm sorry if I offended you. I withdraw that statement. Do you have any further reservations regarding my proposed edits above? 99.237.197.118 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the quoted hadith an accurate translation? I dont read arabic so cant validate it myself. the english seems quite clear, in fact I'd go as far as saying we need a jolly good source that shows it to be incorrect. I have no idea as to the credibility of either scholar, but tha hadith does not say "rub the affected parts with camel urine" it says "drink". -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I'm fluent in Arabic but of course I'm not an authority to provide a translation. However, here [3] you can see that the actual word of the saying in Arabic has the word Azmadu which in English means to apply a layer of something, hence why many Islamic scholars, including Qasmi, explain it as such. In fact, if you research the matter deeply you'll discover that several variations of the narration exist in other authentic hadith books besides Bukhari which omit mention of urine altogether solely mentioning milk. However, I'm trying not to overcomplicate things and since the article is literally titled camel urine and a narration to that effect exits, in the interest of neutrality, both interpretative commentaries by experts should be included for the version of the hadith in question with their respective citations. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My proposed edit is very short, so if you'd like, I could quickly draft a diff taking care to word things as neutrally and accurately as possible, and run it by you prior to publishing it. If you disapprove, I can modify it further taking your concerns into consideration. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That would be great, but it shouldn't be just me, but all of us here in a consensus. I am not the final arbiter, we'll reach agreement. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Absolutely, of course. Everyone is welcome to contribute especially those knowledgeable on the topic. I was just specifying you since the dispute occurred amongst us. Appreciate your understanding. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran

Special:Contributions/37.238.22.13, you have been edit warring to add info about one man in Iran and simultaneously removing mention of Iraq. Will you please self-revert and try and build consensus here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the matter of camel urine

Copied from WP:ISLAM Talk by JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC):

Yes, there are some authentic narrations regarding the matter but just because there is some hadith that seems to transmit it does not necessitate that it is settled. It must be verified and furthermore, there is other evidence that you have not considered which is a flaw in the methodology. We must be wholistic in our assessment of the evidence while fact-checking the evidence. Let us now look at some comments on this matter.

Imam Bukhari also narrated a version of this Hadith of Anas, without the mention of "urine":

Narrated Anas Ibn Malik: Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk."

(Sahih Bukhari, 5685) [4]

Narrated Anas Ibn Malik: "Some people from ʿUraynah came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said to them: 'Why don't you go out to our camels and drink their milk?'" - (one of the narrators) Qatadah said: 'And their urine."

(Sunan an-Nasaʿi, 4030) [5]

Narrated Sa'eed bin Al-Musayyab:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ السَّرْحِ، قَالَ أَنْبَأَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ وَأَخْبَرَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، قَالَ قَدِمَ نَاسٌ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَسْلَمُوا ثُمَّ مَرِضُوا فَبَعَثَ بِهِمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِلَى لِقَاحٍ لِيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا

"Some ʿArab people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and accepted Islam, then they became sick. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] sent them to some milk camels to drink their milk.

(Sunan an-Nasaʿi, 4036) [6]

Imam Abu Dawud said: "وَلَيْسَ فِي أَبْوَالِهَا إِلاَّ حَدِيثُ أَنَسٍ تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ أَهْلُ الْبَصْرَةِ ‏.‏"

That is, "The words "their urine" occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah."

(Sunan Abi Dawud, 333) [7]

The point is: there is doubt/uncertainty about these words "and their urine - وَأَبْوَالِهَا ".

This "urine" addition only comes via the people of Basrah, the other chains - also Sahih - which DO NOT contain "urine". This fact by itself, is not a reason for it to be false - but it does cast a strong doubt and suspicion. For this reason, some scholars suspect that it could be a mistake of some narrators. There are indeed others who consider it usable but put conditions on it (no other option being available) and even others who considered it to be generally correct but this is not the mainstream position and not the reason why some ignorant people use it. Basically, this is one of the greatest matters of controversy.

By all means, we should highlight that it came via various routes, and some contain "urine" others don't - we have to be academically honest - but we have to make clear: "urine" is not established with 100% certainty - there is doubt/suspicion around it. I hope that clarifies this matter.

- Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: I would confirm that Qasmi mentions the additional hadith above in 13. Can Camel’s milk and urine cure sickness or ailment? (107-116 of 196). But he concludes that the Hadith is "special" not "inauthentic": So we can use camel urine for curing the ailment only in a situation when no treatment for the ailment is found across the world and the patient’s life is in danger. JorgeLaArdilla (talk)10:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: I see that I have forgotten to mention and elaborate on it. While I do dislike taking from a single scholar, this is actually one of the valid positions in the Hanafi mazhhab that this incident can be seen as an exceptional case (without considering the hadith inauthentic) and cannot be generalized in order to consider camel urine clean (as the author has clarified adequately) and in order to make the consumption of camel urine permissible. However, in cases of overwhelming necessity where no other treatment is available whatsoever - i.e. for the preservation of life - an exception can be made. This is actually what I partially referred to when I said: There are indeed others who consider it usable but put conditions on it (no other option being available). Again, scholarly opinions on this matter have varied. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Properties of camel urine in vitro in the section "Usage and effects"

It is not possible to use something in vitro, therefore the effects in such an experment are about as relevant to the usage, as the antiviral properties of ivermectin in vitro are to it's usage to cure COVID-19, namely not relevant. Bisaknospus (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)