I was going to write a full refutation for Hussein Hajji Wario's article entitled "Facts withheld-Death of Prophet Muhammad" (All rights belong to him) , but the most astonishing thing occurred , Hussein provided it for us by quoting brother Bassam Zawadi's article on the subject ! I recommend reading Hussein's article first and checking out the links before reading this response , Bassam's article is more than enough to refute Hussein's assertions in regards to the death of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , if the prophet indeed died from poison , it was no less than a miracle.
"Does the Prophet's Death from Poison Disprove His Prophethood Or Was It An Honorable Death For Our Beloved Prophet? By Bassam Zawadi
Now I will respond to what is not addressed in Bassam's article , again I strongly recommend reading the article above.
Hussein quotes are in BLUE.
"Do you think Muslims’ hatred for Jews is only because of the Palestinian conflict? Think again. What Muslim scholars do not want you or ordinary Muslims to know is that a Jewish woman carried out a plan that eliminated Prophet Muhammad because he had terrorized her people."
Hussein is comparing apples to oranges right from the beginning , how does a death that occurred 1400 years ago lead to so called "Jewish hate" ? Muslims are anti-Zionists , anti-Zionist never meant anti-Jew.
More on this , if Muslims "hate" Jews because of this incident , can Hussein explain how the Islamic empire welcomed all the Jews fleeing from Christian persecution in Europe ? How Jewish and Muslim Palestinians lived in complete peace and harmony together in Palestine prior to the Zionist occupation of 1948 ? these are all historical events happened AFTER the death of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), where is the hate ?
Linking the death of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to "Jewish hate" is absurd beyond reasoning.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not "terrorize" the Jews , in fact that woman was from Khaibar , who broke their treaty and instigated other tribes to join them in a conclusive assault upon the Muslims , they were even preparing a full assault on Madina at the time of the battle , who is the real terrorist in this story ? certainly not Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who honored the treaty and did not assemble armies to attack the Jews of Khaibar first.
For more refutations on the alleged "Hate of Islam towards the people of the book" , please read this article.
"She even declared to him, “if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.” He ate it and died from its effects about three years later. He said at his death, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”"
Question : What is the authority of this declaration ? Absolutly nothing.
A random Jewess declaring a falsification test , who is this woman ? is she inspired by God ? is the scripture she is basing this test on inspired by God ? it's a random claim with no authority , why should any Muslim take her claim seriously ?
Again we notice what brother Bassam pointed out in his article , the hadith Hussein quotes does not say the prophet's main reason for his death is the poison.
"The Hadith does not imply “old age” as the cause of his death nor does it cite “old age” at his death. Prophet Muhammad’s own words don’t “imply” but prove his death, “I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” This is an indisputable confession that poison indeed killed him."
Absolutely not ! this hadith does not "prove" his death by poison nor is it a "confession" , notice the hadith says "I STILL FEEL THE PAIN...." indicating that at the time of his death , he was still feeling the same pain he had for years , this pain is not new to him , if the poison was supposed to "finally" kill him at that point , he would've said something indicating that the pain is increasing , or that a new symptom is taking place because of the poisonous effect.
Old age , fasting and other factors are determined by cross referencing other hadiths with each other.
"Sahih Bukhari, the most authoritative Hadith collection in Islam, which Muslims enlist its help in explaining, among many incriminating issues in Islam, the contradictions in the Qur’an, must be wrong to state that Prophet Muhammad felt the effects of the poisoned sheep he ate at Khaibar at his death and it didn’t contribute to his demise."
Sahih Bukhari does give us the hadith about the poisonous effects , but does not give us conclusive evidence that the the sole reason of his death was the poison.
Seems like Hussein does not know the role of hadith in Islam.
"Muslims I know use every trick they can find to defend Islam. Some of them say that Prophet Muhammad fasted before his death and they get this information from the same source, the Hadith that they dismiss when it incriminates Muhammad. Their source that he fasted before his death is unreliable because they dismiss it when it deals with how felt “the pain caused by food” he ate at Khabair at his death."
No Muslim I know of uses such a methodology , no Muslim scholar rests the whole prophet's death narrative solely on him fasting before the event and solely on the poisonous effects , but we clearly see Hussein playing the game of cherry picking narratives here , not Muslims.
"Apparently, only when it suits Islam that is when a source is reliable. It is similar to when they quote the Bible to try to make a case for Prophet Muhammad, like how he was supposedly prophesied in the Gospel, but dismiss the Gospel as corrupt when it comes to its central message of salvation through Jesus Christ."
That is not the case whatsoever , the sources of Islam are verified through the critically examining the narratives itself , the transmitters , what the Quran has to say , other hadiths....etc , so it is not "when it suits Islam".
The position of Islam towards the bible is clear , corrupted but contains some truth , Muslims seek to find that grain of truth , the fact that Muslims dismiss the "central message of salvation through Jesus Christ" is because it's a complete contradiction of the nature of God and how he deals with sin , even according to the Old Testament !
The so called evidence presented by Hussein is :
1-Not sufficient to conclude that the sole reason of the death of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the poison , and even if the prophet (pbuh) did die from poison , it wasn't because he was a false prophet nor was it because he "terrorized" her people , if it was anything , it was a miracle.
2-Does not prove that Muslims are somehow denying the poisoning incident.
The reason why I added this addendum is because Hussein brought to my attention some factors he believes I should have taken into consideration.
Hussein is having a debate with a certain Muslim brother in the comment section of his this article , they are discussing many different issues and Hussein frankly isn't bringing any new objective arguments to the table see for yourself and judge (rehashing arguments like the mariamite trinity and the sister of Aron) , this is a public discussion between those two and I do not wish to get in the middle but I will say that Muslims have been successfully refuting many of Hussein's allegations for 1400 years now , however they did discuss some issues related to the article itself , I will be responding to those comments , and I will be responding to paragraph he edited at the end of his article.
"The reason Muslim scholars do not admit that Prophet Muhammad died as a result of poisoning at Khaibar is because the Jewish woman declared to him that if he were a genuine prophet, eating the poisoned sheep would not have affected him. With the legitimacy of Islam at stake, I understand why they pick and choose which Hadith to believe."
Muslim scholars don't even pay attention to this so called declaration as an authoritative , legitimate claim , again I will repeat my question , on what authority can this woman make such a declaration ? the legitimacy of Islam is not at stake whatsoever.
Again , I recommend all the readers to read Bassam Zawadi's article as quoted in the beginning of this article.
"Regarding the death of Jesus, Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz, in a commentary on Suratul Al-Imran, 3:55, said, “Thus, that nation became divided into two parties, one supporting the truth and the other opposing it. The opponents started using secret means and plans in order to lay their hands on Jesus. Countering this, God produced hidden ways and means of saving him, and it is evident that the means devised by God are superior in every respect. Their final plan was to have Jesus arrested and crucified, so that he would, according to them, die in disgrace and humiliation. But God said to Jesus: Be not perturbed, this conspiracy of theirs can never succeed…”
Why did this have to happen? It is because Allah would not let his prophet suffer because people were inflicting the pain on him against Allah’s plan."
No , I have already shown that prophet's can suffer , the reason why Allah (swt) saved Jesus (pbuh) was to end their conspiracy (Just like I explained in my original rebuttal from the Quran itself).
What I find interesting is that the Muslim scholar actually agrees with me but it seems like Hussein misunderstood him , the Muslim scholar quotes what the disbelievers wanted to do to Jesus - which is to kill him in a disgraceful manner- but when Allah (swt) responded to Jesus (pbuh) he said : "this conspiracy of theirs can never succeed" , the target and reason for the divine intervention was to destroy their conspiracy , not because "prophets don't suffer".
More on this , Hussein indirectly agreed with me , he said " It is because Allah would not let his prophet suffer because people were inflicting the pain on him against Allah’s plan.""
EXACTLY ! if you plot against Allah(swt) and his plan , Allah(swt) will plot against you , and in this case the plot was saving Jesus (pbuh).