A Hadeeth on the fly
Rephrasing your question
Allow me to start by saying that I barely know the term Hadeeth / Hadith mean. Of course I have checked on wikipedia but its definition is vastly unrelated to any concept in science. I think it won't be necessary for me to use this term, I will use a more classical, scientific terminology. As I barely understand the term, I do not really understand your question phrased as

Do you believe this hadeeth based on the experiment?

I can however answer to the questions

Is this document a fair description of a natural phenomenon?
Is this document contribute to our understanding of a scientific phenomenon?

The answer to both of these questions are &quot;absolutely not&quot;!
Lack of methodology and definition of the expectation
The document is extremely unclear, provides a very poor description of the methods and does not provide any suggested interpretation of the results. After reading it several times, I have little idea what the treatments are.
Note that this document is not peer reviewed and does not follow an appropriate format (no introduction, no method section, just a religious quotes, a citation from the Quran and images with a vague legend). It is just a document that someone wrote and uploaded online.
As @BryanKrause perfeclty said in the comment below

[I]n science the burden is on the person making a claim to defend it and provide appropriate support - there is no point in proving a claim true or false if it lacks documentation of the methodology. Being poorly written in terms of lacking adequate description is hardly better than lacking any experiment at all

In short, this document does not make any contribution to our understanding of a natural phenomenon.
The claim is very unlikely to be true
The expectation implicitly suggested to be tested is something like (my own phrasing)

If a fly barely touch (with one wing only) the media, then the media will be full bacteria but if the whole fly (with both wings) touch the media then the media will remain clean.

This expectation is highly unlikely to be true. If it were to be true, it would probably lead to a major revision of our understanding of microbiology or of the biology of flies (whichever species is considered)! Also, there is no reason to expect that in some petri dish only one bacterial species would have invaded, while in another only another bacterial species. Also, the pictures don't really match what the species described IMO. Hence, if the authors claim that this document report the results of a scientific experiment (I am not saying they make this claim), then I very much think this is a case of scientific dishonesty or at least a case of very poor understanding of how to perform a scientific experiment.