Response to "Arabs Don’t Want Palestinian Conflict to End"

By Chaud

Hussein's article can be found here (All rights for the original post goes to him)

Frankly this post is too short and confusing to make such a claim , it goes into different topics which are irrelevant to the Palestinian conflict , however I will do my best in.

"An Egyptian sociologist and the founder of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Cairo, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a Muslim, says Arab countries do not want the Israel-Palestinian conflict to end because they have “vested interests.”"

This is wrong , ARAB LEADERS do not want to end this Palestinian conflict , many of these "leaders" are dictators who sold out their own people and allied themselves with western dictatorships and terrorists , but the Arab public view wants to end the conflict.

The truth is that The United States of America , Israel and some country called Micronesia vote against the 2 state settlement every single year while the remaining countries that vote for the 2 state settlement , who REALLY does not want to end the conflict ? The Zionist Jews and their supporters based on their satanic scriptures that teach that God is so racist he has "chosen people" , he kicked out and destroyed nations so his "chosen people" can live happily ever after , I seriously doubt if any Zionist cares about one Palestinian because in the Zionist ideology the end of the conflict is to destroy the Palestinians , no wonder Arabs and Muslims reject such a state and such an ideology.

"these countries were the architects of the present-day nightmares that Israelis and Palestinians live through. They urged Palestinian leaders to reject the two-state solution in 1947, resulting into Palestinians living as refugees in their own land." 

Lets examine this western propaganda influenced lie.

1- Why on earth should the Palestinians or Arab countries accept the 2 state solution of 1947 ? There is no good reason and no decent human being on this planet will accept such an injustice if he/she was in that situation , just because a number of Jews "survived" the so called "holocaust" and migrated to Palestine does not entitle these Jews and the Jews abroad to have a state of their own on land that doesn't belong to them , therefore I do not any fault in rejected this so called solution at that time.

2-Palestinians live as refugees in their lands BECAUSE THE ZIONISTS STOLE THEIR LAND , COMMIT ALL KINDS OF TORTURE  ,GENOCIDE AND TERRORISM AGAINST THEM , is this the result of rejecting an unfair agreement , or is it the result of western supported Zionist-Jewish terrorism ?

3-The architects of the current nightmare Palestinians and non-zionist Jews live are no more than the creators and supporters of the satanic state of Israel itself.

For Hussein to successfully launch this lie , he must show us that the 2 state solution of 1947 was the best solution for its time and by rejecting it the Arab leaders are directly responsible for the current conflict, that Jews actually have a right to establish their own state on Palestinian lands WITHOUT appealing to ancient Judea and the Jewish existence in the land before the Romans kicked them out because events that happened 2000 years ago are not valid arguments to create a whole new state and dislocate it's people today , let alone all the terrorism committed against them.

"I went to school with some Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Some of them still live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I hope and pray for this conflict to end soon." 

So do I.

"I believe that Israel has a right to be a country in the Middle East." 

I believe the satanic state of Israel does not have a right to exist as a country in the Middle East , it never did and will , and I am not convinced by the argument Zionist apologists use.

"and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ does NOT depend on the rebuilding of the Temple on the Temple Mount."

Here is where it gets confusing , I thought Hussein supports the satanic state of Israel's existence (frankly I think he does that because he is anti-Muslim , not because he is an objective thinker when it comes to politics) , anyone who supports the satanic state of Israel is a Zionist , however Hussein is distancing himself away the Zionist Christian ideology which calls for the Jews return to Palestine , and rebuilding of the temple in order for anti-christ...opps ! I'm sorry "Jesus" to come back.

I have no idea where Hussein stands , is he is a Zionist Christian or not ? perhaps he supports the existence of the satanic state of Israel itself politically , but does not believe Zionist Christianity , if this is his stand then he is the first I've ever met who holds this idea.

"However, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock have no right to be on the Temple Mount either, because, contrary to what Muslims say, the Hadith shows that Prophet Muhammad did not ascended to the seven heavens from there. He actually had a dream that he was in Jerusalem prior to the alleged ascension. Why any Muslim would shed his or her blood over Muhammad’s dream or vision causes me to wonder." 

A clear case of double standard hypocrisy , I have a question.
Hussein rejects the Muslim theological claim about the Aqsa and Dome of the Rock, then on what is he resting the case for whatever he believes should be or was on the temple mount ? mainly how Jesus will rebuild the temple, does he base that belief on historical grounds ? heck no.

If you understood and answered the question , then you will have to conclude that this is double standard hypocrisy.

Now as for the night journey , I will writing a whole article on this in the future inshalla since Hussein and many other Christians claim it was a dream , when the Quran , the evidence and hadith point to 2 conclusions , either a physical assent or a spiritual assent (his spirit left his body) , a "dream" was never a dominant and legitimate argument explaining the night journey itself , for more on this please read.

"Arab countries want this conflict to continue because they benefit financially from the plight of their fellow Arabs in Palestine and Lebanon refugee camps." 

Or because their "leaders" sold out.

Has Hussein ever been into a refugee camp ? No state can make money out of those settlements , I actually live near them so I know what they are exactly.

"Islam and Muslims claim the victim status for a reason." 

I hope Hussein provides that reason so we can discuss it , and we are victims of what exactly ?

"From the widely known claim that Christians and Jews removed references to Prophet Muhammad in the Bible" 

True , Christians and Jews altered their scriptures in various ways , from Jews altering their scriptures to deny that a gentile prophet will be sent (because of their racist belief that they are some kind of "chosen people") all the way to Christians claiming that "That Prophet" who is mentioned in the bible is some holy spirit who guides them , lives inside them or whatever.

"to Muslims being “randomly” screened at airports." 

Actually they are being upfront about it , there is nothing "random" in it , anyone who has been in the small white room in the back of JFK airport knows exactly what I mean .

"Lastly, non-Palestinian Arabs do not want this conflict to end because they do not want the world to look at the Islamic ideology a fresh."
This is so absurd I have no response to such ignorance , what is the evidence for this ? I would love to find a historian or a political scientist that backs up this theory.

"Had this conflict not being constantly in the news, the debate would have shifted to the prophethood of Muhammad, the infallibility of the Qur’an and the legitimacy of the Islamic ideology. The cracks in the Crescent would have been carefully scrutinized."
As if these topics haven't been discussed in the past and will be discussed in the future , in fact we welcome these discussions as the Quran says :

Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."

"Non-Muslims would not have been buying into the current propaganda that essentially misleads the masses to focus only on the first 12 years of Islam and ignore the last 10 years which defines authentic Islam."
First of all Muslims are not ashamed of the of the prophet hood of Muhammad (pbuh) , because it all defines authentic Islam , no Muslims solely focuses on the first 13 years or the last 10 , they see the Islam holistically in the light of all 23 years , not as 2 different phases as anti-islamic propaganda wants it to be.

In reality , the Meccan period focused on ethics and spirituality because it is the foundation of Islam , while the Maddinan period without neglecting ethics and spirituality focused on other issues as well like state laws and politics , both periods are authentic Islam weather Hussein likes it or not.

"We should start asking tough questions for the sake of peace in Palestine."

A person who supports the satanic state of Israel and still calls for peace in Palestine ? that has got to be the biggest contradiction I have ever seen ! No supporter of the satanic state of Israel wants peace with the Palestinians or peace in Palestine , they want "peace for the Jews" in the "Jewish state of Israel" with Palestinians either destroyed or out of the "promised land".

"Hopefully, with the end of this conflict, the right questions about Islam will be asked."
We all want this conflict to end , but this does not prevent anyone from asking questions about Islam.

Quoting Zayd from the comment section of Hussein's original article :

It is clear that it’s you Hussein who want not only the conflict not to finish but Islam to disapear, not only from Palestine so that “the Second Coming of Jesus Christ does NOT depend on the rebuilding of the Temple on the Temple Mount” but from the entire planet. What civility and tolerance ..

I totally agree.

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.

"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 !

Conclusion

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.

Addendum

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).

Response to "One thing Muslims would not tell you"

By Chaud 

Hussein Hajji Wario's original post can be located here please read it before you proceed with this response, all rights for the original post belongs to Hussein. 

Hussein quotes are in BLUE. 

"The Jesus Muslims believe in, the one mentioned in the Qur’an and the Hadith, is not Jesus Christ. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in Jesus Christ. They do not believe in Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross"

This is no more than a re-hash of the old "The Jesus you believe in is not the Jesus we believe in" argument , to a certain degree this is true , Muslims and Christians don't believe in the exact same Jesus down to every detail however both Muslims and Christians believe in the existence of the historical Jesus , each one of our scriptures (the quran and the bible) makes certain claims about Jesus (pbuh) , this does not mean they (the quran and the bible) are not speaking of the exact same historical figure , I will demonstrate what I mean using the following analogy : 

"Beth was convicted for murder , the family of the victim believes she is guilty because her finger prints were on the gun but the family of Beth believes she is innocent because Beth was framed by her husband who tricked her into grabbing the gun earlier that day" 

In this case , both families are speaking of the same person (Beth) , but each family has its own set of ideas about the figure in question , this does not mean both families are not speaking about the same figure , similarly Muslims and Christians share many details about Jesus (pbuh) but differ on others , so if we want to approach this matter holistically , then yes Muslims and Christians do not believe in the same Jesus since their beliefs on Jesus (pbuh) and his ministry conflict with each other however this approach is flawed because both Christians and Muslims are speaking about the same historical figure.

"while the “Jesus of Islam” never suffered or died because as a prophet of Allah, he could not suffer or die a horrible death. That is the teaching of Islam."

Islam definitely teaches that Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not [Sura 4 : 157 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Quran]

but the reason Hussein gives us is false in the light of Islam , the Quran does not say that Jesus (pbuh) did not suffer because he was a prophet of Allah (swt) , Islam teaches that the prophets (peace be upon the all) suffered ridicule , rejection , hardships and even physical assaults because of their missions , Jesus (pbuh) is no exception.

Allah (swt) in his wisdom deals with certain evildoers who try to plot against him by plotting against them as a punishment.

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. [Sura 4 : 157 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Holy Quran]

This is the reason why Allah (swt) saved Jesus (pbuh) according to the Quran , we can see a similar case in the story of prophet Abraham (pbuh) , how his people tried to burn him alive but Allah (swt) saved him from their plan.

"Fie upon you, and upon the things that ye worship besides Allah. Have ye no sense?" , They said "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!" , We said "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!" , Then they sought a stratagem against him: but We made them the ones that lost most!" [Sura 21 : 67-70 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Holy Quran]

The case of Jesus (pbuh) is no different from the case Abraham (pbuh).

A prophet's mission is to proclaim the truth Allah (swt) has sent , the Quran does not teach that prophets can not die a horrible death on the hand of their enemies just because they are prophets^[1] , for example the Quran accuses the Jews many times of killing their own prophets.

When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?" [Sura 2 : 91 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Holy Quran]

As to those who deny the Signs of Allah and in defiance of right, slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty. [Sura 3:21 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Holy Quran]

They (also) said: "(Allah) took our promise not to believe in an apostle unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you apostles before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?" [Sura 3:183 , YUSUFALI Translation of the Holy Quran]

Allah(swt) in his wisdom knows the best in this matter.

"However, one thing that you should know, and Muslims do not tell anyone, Prophet Muhammad died a horrible death. He was a prophet of Allah, and you think he was spared from anguish, right? Not quite. He suffered for more than three years and died. A Jewish woman poisoned him; he suffered from complications for more than three years and died a terrible death. Now there is a prophet of Allah who the Hadith shows died a horrible death."

Hussein is aware of this article (I strongly recommend reading it for true facts) since he quotes it over here.

"Does the Prophet's Death from Poison Disprove His Prophethood Or Was It An Honorable Death For Our Beloved Prophet? By Bassam Zawadi"

"Muslims should quit denying that Jesus Christ died and resurrected because Jesus Christ is not the “Jesus of Islam” who, in spite of all the excellent attributes he had more than Prophet Muhammad, played a second fiddle to Muhammad. What a joke!"

Once we are presented with sufficient facts about the alleged "death and resurrection" of Jesus (pbuh)  we will stop denying these so called "truths".

Prophets in Islam have different titles and attributes , these titles and attributes do not determine how great a prophet is , what determines that is the mission of that prophet and according to Islam no prophet had a greater mission than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

"Only Muhammad would claim to be getting revelations from God to refute something like the death of Jesus Christ, which happened 600 years before Muhammad was even born, and then set the conditions for how a prophet of his god should live and die (honorably) and then die in a miserable way. That is Islam for you."

The "death" of Jesus Christ (pbuh) has been challenged centuries before prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sent , we know this from the writings of early church fathers and the extreme diversity of 1st century Christianity.

The fact that the events in question happened 600 years before prophet Muhammad (pbuh) does not mean anything as long as the evidence for the Quran being the word of God still stands strong , it doesn't matter if the time difference is six hundred or six million , and this is not fallacious or false reasoning even from the Christian side , according to the Christians Moses (pbuh) allegedly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible aka "The Torah" or "The Pentateuch" ^[2] , in that book we find the alleged stories of prophets like Noah (pbuh) , a question comes into mind , how long is the time difference between prophet Moses (pbuh) who is allegedly writing these stories and prophet Noah (pbuh) ? it had to be several or dozens of centuries Allah(swt) knows best , yet we see the Christians accepting these stories on the basis of revelation , Muslims are no different.

Conclusion

In the light of Islam , all of Hussein's arguments are false and unreasonable to begin with ,Muslims have no problem with the prophet Muhammad's death weather it was from poison or not , Islam does not teach that prophets don't suffer or do not die on the hands of their enemies , no wonder Hussein thinks Muslims "don't tell you" this "one thing".

Footnotes:

[1] I do not deny that some Muslims use the argument Hussein is trying to refer to , mainly that "death by crucifixion is a horrible death thus Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified" however I am not convinced by this argument in the light of what I presented and history , there are better ways to refute the crucifixion.

[2] Although Christians believe prophet Moses (pbuh) wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis , Exodus , Leviticus , Numbers & Deuteronomy) but in reality Moses (pbuh) did not write those books as we have them today , we as Muslims do not deny that the original Torah was revealed to Moses (pbuh) , quoting from Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch  by David W. Baker and T. Desmond Alexander:

"Although biblical scholarship is deeply divided on the issue of how the Pentateuch was composed, there is widespread agreement that the Pentateuch, as it now stands, is an edited work and not a piece of literature that was penned... by one individual" [Pages 61-62]

 "While the long-standing tradition of Mosaic authorship is based upon clear statements that Moses was responsible for writing substantial parts of the Pentateuch, the weight of evidence suggests that Moses probably did not compose the Pentateuch as we now have it... This is not to say that the Pentateuch's claims concerning Moses' literary activity should be rejected. On the contrary, such assertions ought to be respected and given serious consideration, which unfortunately all too rarely happens," [Page 70]

Addendum

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 original 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.

"A Muslim scholar, Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, has this to say on Prophet Muhammad’s death, “Pain grew so much severe that the trace of poison he had at Khaibar came to light. It was so sore that he said to ‘Aisha: “I still feel the painful effect of that food I tasted at Khaibar. I feel as if death is approaching.”"

I still do not see how this can refute my argument , my argument is that the poison was not the sole reason of the death of the Prophet , and even if it is , how does this disprove his prophet hood and on what authority ?

His website states, “A Research Institute was established in 1408 Hijrah at the Islamic University of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah as “The Center for the Services of the Prophet’s Biography.” I was selected to work there and was entrusted the duty of preparing an encyclopedia on the subject of the life history of the Noble Prophet (sallallahu’alayhi wasalaam)…”

Now tell me, the Saudi government gave this Muslim scholar the task of preparing an encyclopedia on Prophet Muhammad’s life. He only mentioned poison once in his biography on Muhammad. He did not even aver that a Jewish woman had given the poisoned lamb to Muhammad. Is he a credible Muslim scholar? Does he meet your demand for a “credible” biographer of Prophet Muhammad? Why didn’t he mention the poisoning and the condition the woman gave of a prophet?

How many times did the prophet (pbuh) have the poison ? ONCE ! there is no need to keep mentioning it over and over again as if it was the sole reason of the death prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , the evidence does not show that.
I did not check out this biography to be honest , but if so , then the Muslim scholar is in fault.

 "By the way, aHadith I linked to in the article show that the Jews woman was testing Prophet Muhammad to see if he were a genuine prophet and poison would not have affected him. Muslim scholars have written about his death but they do not show that the intention of the woman clearly was “if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.” Is it fair to say since he died of eating this poisoned sheep he was a false prophet?" 

And on what authority did this Jewess test prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ? she made a allegation , but no Muslim or Muslim scholar would take it seriously as a criteria for prophet hood unless she or any Jew and Christian can provide any kind of authority for her claims , and no it is not fair to say he died of eating the poisoned sheep because they evidence does not suggest the poisoning to be the sole reason of the prophet's death.

This all reminds me of the alleged "true believer test" in the gospel of Mark  , it says true believers will drink poison and not die ^[1] , 'till this day we haven't seen anyone take this test , does this mean all the Christians in the world are disbelievers ?

Footnotes :

[1] The passage from Mark 16:17-18 is seriously doubted to be a part of the original gospel according to Mark , so it is possible to find Christians denying this test.