Friday, April 30, 2010

Response to "Facts withheld-Death of Prophet Muhammad"

By Chaud 

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.

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.

Paragraph edit:

"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.

Comment Responses:

"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).


  1. You asked, "What is the authority of this declaration?"

    One could argue that Muhammad himself acknowledged the authority of the declaration since he referred to the poison as the reason for his sickness. Why would he mention this terrible event unless it has some implication to it? It seems like he accepted it as a challenge for his prophet hood. Did he fail the challenge? That should be a question needs to be addressed.

  2. @Hiwot

    Hi , thanks for the comment.

    I think you got me wrong , I'm asking "on what authority" meaning is she from God or follows God's religion which states that (with evidence to support that) in order to make her claim valid.

    If Prophet Muhammad himself referred to the poison then he referring to the poison , there is nothing more to add on it , he also referred to his old age and that he was fasting , do those references mean anything ? there was nothing that was challenging his prophet hood since he actually knew it contained poison and he had mercy on her and refused to hurt her (you know that part BEFORE the poisoning , the one people usually neglect) now that is what I call a challenge to his prophet hood , and prophet Muhammad passes/

    There was no "challenge" to begin with , in her twisted mind or logic of what she believed , she believed that prophets are immune to poison , I am asking on what authority or what gives her the right to make that claim ?

    Random people throughout time declared various prophets of old as lairs , fakes , false , crazy people , insane , magicians....etc , do we as believers in God instantly believe their claims ? No we do not , we verify the claim and on what authority it's being made and weather it is true or not , and that is exactly what I am saying.

    I also recommend you read the article by Bassam Zawadi , the one hussein quotes , check out the facts there.

  3. Thanks Chaud. I read Bassam Zawadi’s article from the link provided. He stated his position from the start that he doesn’t believe the poison caused Muhammad’s death. Instead he understood Muhammad’s statement when he talked about the pain caused by the poison as “just simply stated that he still tastes the poison in his mouth.” BTW, test of a poison and a pain caused by a poison are two different things.

    In reality, poison harms human body. Whether he is from God or not, sooner or later he could die from the effect unless by God’s miracle the poison is removed from his body. In the case of Muhammad, the poison was still in his body which caused him pain. “ … Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "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." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713

    From a spiritual point of view, when a person is calling himself a prophet who is sent by God, people would use any reasonable challenge (according to their understanding) to try out if indeed he is from God. This woman doesn’t have to be sent or authorized by God to test/challenge a prophet. She is told to accept Muhammad as a true prophet and before she believed he is from God, she prepared a test – poisoned food. In her logic or understanding, if he survives, he is from God and if not, he is not from God.

    According to the Hadith, Muhammad knew of the poison. Muhammad also knew that the Jews (according to the Hadith and Islamic sources quoted by Bassam Zawadi) wanted to kill him. Then, why would he eat the poisoned food? Of course this woman might be revenging for what had happened since Muhammad and his followers just conquered Khaibar, her town. She might have lost her family, her property and so on. Once he heard what her intention was Muhammad didn’t consider this woman as assassin like the other Jews (mentioned in the Hadith). If so, why would he let her go? It seems like he was accepting her challenge by consuming poisoned food and letting a potential killer go.

    Let us assume that Muhammad did survive the poison and the poison never mentioned as being a cause of his illness, would you question the authority of this woman’s logic or would you use it to support the prophet hood of Muhammad?

  4. Hi Hiwot ,

    Sorry for taking such a long time , I got some health issues that prevent me from lots online activities.

    Just before I begin I would like to make it clear I do not care weather the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died of poison or not, some poisoning test is not a valid prophet hood test according to my understanding of God and revelation , I argue against the poison not because of the bible or views of others , it's because I do not find any objective evidence for a direct death by poisoning.

    I agree with Bassam and what he said ,I took some time while I was in the hospital to look up types a poison and their effects , a victim of death by poisoning will have gradual health degeneration as time goes by , the pain and other symptoms would've increased if the poison was the direct effect , however we do not find any evidence in the authentic hadith or seerah literature that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s pain was increasing during the 3 years after the poisoning , since the pain prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of was not something new to him (it was the same pain he was feeling for 3 years) I would argue that this poison did not advance to the level that can kill a human being , and I believe we both agree it was not an instant death poison ,therefore I do not see any good reasons to believe that the poison was the DIRECT reason of his death.

    Your spiritual point is good but I think you again misunderstood what I meant by authority , people have various understandings of prophets and God , some are true some are not , I am asking is her understanding true or not ? mainly I am asking is the scripture she has a reliable revelation that reveals such a test or is she someone who received this test from God.
    Basically what I am challenging is her faith and scripture , if they turn out to be false , then how can I say this is a divine test?

    Another point about this alleged test , what kind of prophet hood test takes years in order to see the results , disbelievers in the past that challenged their prophets challenged them ON THE SPOT , if there was any challenge to begin with and this test was true , prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would've dropped dead on the scene thus disproving his prophet hood , not after 3 years.

    Why did he let her go you ask ? it is because Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet of mercy , it wasn't because he accepted any alleged challenge , and if there was an accepted challenge then I would highly doubt it was a challenge that spans for years ,it would've been an instant or short period challenge.

    as for your last question , like I said I sincerely do not believe poisoning tests are valid to begin with , I would question anyone who would hold such a view , there are better methods to question and challenge someone's prophet hood.

    I thank you again for your comment , please feel free to drop by any time.

    Kindest Regards ,

  5. @Hiwot

    I forgot to mention this , now I do not doubt all of the stories in the bible , I do believe that God would've saved some of his prophets (peace be upon them all) from poison but I would argue that the reason is because their mission is not over yet.

    I wanted to ask , do you comment on Answering-Muslims ? I was just reading some stuff there, and perhaps I spotted your name somewhere , I once corrected on of David's inconsistencies on a post and I ended up having a series of debates before I was diagnosed , I would love to comment and refute lots of things over there but I don't have enough time as it is to post a comment then respond to a series of rushing critics , however I might comment soon somewhere.

    Kindest regards ,

  6. Chuad,

    I remember that you have mentioned about your health problem in one of your comments on blog. I hope your treatment is going well. My prayer is with you.

    I do follow a couple of blogs including answering Muslims. I am learning a lot everyday. Check this one also -

    I don’t mean to drag our dialog on this topic but I disagree on the part you said, “we do not find any evidence in the authentic hadith or seerah literature that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s pain was increasing during the 3 years after the poisoning, since the pain prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of was not something new to him (it was the same pain he was feeling for 3 years)…” In the hadith I quoted above says “…and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” It seems like he is comparing his pain during the other times vs. this time.

    You also said, “Why did he let her go you ask? It is because Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet of mercy…”

    Hmm… it troubles me to believe that Muhammad was merciful especially when I read the assassinations and killings ordered and praised by him over critics and poet.

    May God bless you.

    Best wishes

  7. Hiwot ,

    It's cool man , I can handle a dialog with one person , but not 10 at the same time like what goes on at answering-muslims .

    Yeah I know that blog , it's a load of crap just like answering-muslims , I refuted one of their articles , it seems like they get worked up when their Idol Rachid gets exposed , and all I got was double standard hypocritical answers from the Christians their , I do not believe who ever works on that blog represents good Christians.

    Hiwot , you see what happens when you hang around answering-muslims and other anti-islamic blogs too much ? you end up making major mistakes when dialoging with Muslims.

    Prophet Muhamamad NEVER killed a critic or a poet just because they were criticizing him , in the arabic literature we have something called "Hijja" which is criticizing someone using poetry , and we have a great deal of these poems today so we can actually examine what Asma bint Marwan and others (assuming their stories are true because they have been proven to be fabrications) was writing , they weren't criticizing the prophet they were instigating rebellion and violence , calling for the death of all Muslims , as a political leader , prophet Muhammad has the authority to do what is necessary to keep the peace.

    Again I am assuming the story of Asma and Abu Afak are true , because the sources and transmission chains are very doubtful , and as you know Muslims do not live in a jungle where they accept anything uninvestigated or unauthenticated , we have our critical standards which many Christian apologists (David Wood) want Muslims to get rid of for their alleged "historical method" so they can use a doubtful weak book like Ibn Ishaq .

    My Imam once told me something : "the great fear of disbelievers who attack Islam is a narration along with its chain" , and I agree with him.

    Other alleged killings are answered as well , if you want to read anti-islamic blogs , it won't hurt to read Islamic answers to them as well , at least that is what I do with Christianity.

    Yes the hadith says he is NOW feeling the poison , and comparing it to another time , question : when was that time ????

    however this still does not indicate that the poisonous effects were gradually getting worse over time like normal poison would do.

    and what did he mean by "That time" ? was he speaking of 2 days ago ? an hour ago ? 3 years ago when he first had the poison??? who knows !

    I still stand by what I said , I really do not care if he died by poison or not because I don't believe it will disprove his prophet hood , however the evidence does not clearly show us a DIRECT death by poisoning.