The Death of Muham­mad ﷺ : Poi­son, Prophet­hood, and the Mis­read­ing of Sources

Few fig­ures in reli­gious his­to­ry have left as sig­nif­i­cant a lega­cy as the Prophet Muham­mad ﷺ, whose teach­ings pro­found­ly shaped Islam­ic civil­i­sa­tion. Nev­er­the­less, per­sis­tent mis­con­cep­tions, often stem­ming from mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions of Quran­ic vers­es and hadiths, seek to chal­lenge his integri­ty. Among these is the notion that divine ret­ri­bu­tion befell the Prophet ﷺ for alleged false­hoods, as pur­port­ed by some cit­ing Surah al-Haqqah (Qur’an, 69:44 – 46).

The cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the pass­ing of the Prophet ﷺ have sparked debate, with crit­ics fre­quent­ly point­ing to the alleged death of Muham­mad by poi­son­ing as evi­dence against his prophet­hood. This arti­cle seeks to scru­ti­nize these asser­tions by metic­u­lous­ly ana­lyz­ing his­tor­i­cal and med­ical evi­dence. A rig­or­ous exam­i­na­tion of pri­ma­ry Islam­ic sources and con­tem­po­rary med­ical insights aims to elu­ci­date the truth behind such claims, pro­vid­ing clar­i­ty and reaf­firm­ing the Prophet’s unblem­ished integri­ty and prophet­ic authenticity.

Quran­ic Analy­sis : Surah al-Haqqah (69:44 – 46)

A. Con­tex­tu­al Interpretation

The vers­es in ques­tion from Surah al-Haqqah state :

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ ﴿٤٤﴾ لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ ﴿٤٥﴾ ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ ﴿٤٦
Wa law taqawwala ​‘alaynā ba‘ḍa al-aqāwīli (44)
La’akhaẓnā min’hu bi-al-yamīn (45)
Thum­ma laqaṭa‘nā min’hu al-watīn (46)

Trans­la­tion :
​“And if Muham­mad had made up about Us some [false] say­ings, We would have seized him by the right hand ; Then We would have cut from him the aor­ta.”

Crit­ics often mis­rep­re­sent these vers­es to sug­gest that Muham­mad (ﷺ) made up divine rev­e­la­tions. How­ev­er, a clos­er look shows the hypo­thet­i­cal nature of the clause, mak­ing it clear that this sce­nario did not and could not have occurred. The rhetor­i­cal con­struct serves to empha­size the absolute truth­ful­ness and divine pro­tec­tion giv­en to the Prophet (ﷺ). This severe hypo­thet­i­cal con­se­quence is a tes­ta­ment to the sanc­ti­ty and integri­ty of the divine mes­sage he conveyed.

More­over, the Quran itself states that the Prophet had com­plet­ed his mission :

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
Al-yaw­­ma akmal­tu lakum dīnakum wa atmām­tu ​‘alaykum ni‘matī wa raḍī­tu laku­­mu-l-Islā­­ma dīna

Trans­la­tion :
​“This day I have per­fect­ed for you your reli­gion and com­plet­ed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion.”

Giv­en this dec­la­ra­tion of the com­ple­tion of the reli­gion of Islam, the log­ic of claim­ing that he died due to the threat in Surah al-Haqqah (Q69:44 – 46) is flawed. The com­ple­tion of his mis­sion con­tra­dicts any asser­tion that his death was a result of divine ret­ri­bu­tion for falsehood.

Hadith Analy­sis : The Prophet’s Suffering

The suf­fer­ing of the Prophet (ﷺ) due to the poi­soned meat he con­sumed at Khay­bar is well-doc­u­­men­t­ed in Islam­ic sources. Crit­ics often mis­in­ter­pret these accounts to sug­gest a con­nec­tion with the Quran­ic warn­ing in Surah al-Haqqah, but a clos­er exam­i­na­tion reveals a dif­fer­ent nar­ra­tive. The hadiths reports high­light the Prophet’s immense resilience and the metaphor­i­cal lan­guage used to describe his suf­fer­ing, rather than imply­ing any divine retribution.

A. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan Abi Dawud

The hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari reports :

يَا عَائِشَةُ مَا أَزَالُ أَجِدُ أَلَمَ الطَّعَامِ الَّذِي أَكَلْتُ بِخَيْبَرَ، فَهَذَا أَوَانُ وَجَدْتُ انْقِطَاعَ أَبْهَرِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ السَّمِّ
Yā ​‘Ā’ishah ! Mā azālu ajidu ʾalam aṭ-ṭa‘ām allaḏī akaltu bi-Khay­bar, fa-hād­hā awānu wajad­tu inqiṭā‘a abharī min dha-l-samm.

“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.”

Anoth­er rel­e­vant hadith in Sunan Abi Dawud pro­vides fur­ther context :

حَدَّثَنَا وَهْبُ بْنُ بَقِيَّةَ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقْبَلُ الْهَدِيَّةَ وَلاَ يَأْكُلُ الصَّدَقَةَ ‏.‏ وَحَدَّثَنَا وَهْبُ بْنُ بَقِيَّةَ فِي مَوْضِعٍ آخَرَ عَنْ خَالِدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقْبَلُ الْهَدِيَّةَ وَلاَ يَأْكُلُ الصَّدَقَةَ ‏.‏ زَادَ فَأَهْدَتْ لَهُ يَهُودِيَّةٌ بِخَيْبَرَ شَاةً مَصْلِيَّةً سَمَّتْهَا فَأَكَلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْهَا وَأَكَلَ الْقَوْمُ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ ارْفَعُوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ فَإِنَّهَا أَخْبَرَتْنِي أَنَّهَا مَسْمُومَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَمَاتَ بِشْرُ بْنُ الْبَرَاءِ بْنِ مَعْرُورٍ الأَنْصَارِيُّ فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى الْيَهُودِيَّةِ ‏”‏ مَا حَمَلَكِ عَلَى الَّذِي صَنَعْتِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ إِنْ كُنْتَ نَبِيًّا لَمْ يَضُرَّكَ الَّذِي صَنَعْتُ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ مَلِكًا أَرَحْتُ النَّاسَ مِنْكَ ‏.‏ فَأَمَرَ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقُتِلَتْ ثُمَّ قَالَ فِي وَجَعِهِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ ‏”‏ مَا زِلْتُ أَجِدُ مِنَ الأَكْلَةِ الَّتِي أَكَلْتُ بِخَيْبَرَ فَهَذَا أَوَانُ قَطَعَتْ أَبْهَرِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Had­dathanā Wah­bu bnu Baqiyyah, ​‘an Khālid, ​‘an Muḥam­mad bni ​‘Amr, ​‘an Abī Salamah, ​‘an Abī Hurayrah, qāla kāna Rasūlu-llāhi ṣal­la-llāhu ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam yaqbal al-hadiyyah wa lā ya’kul aṣ-ṣadaqah. Wa had­dathanā Wah­bu bnu Baqiyyah fī mawḍi‘in ākhara ​‘an Khālid, ​‘an Muḥam­mad bni ​‘Amr, ​‘an Abī Salamah wa lam yad­kur Abā Hurayrah, qāla kāna Rasūlu-llāhi ṣal­la-llāhu ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam yaqbal al-hadiyyah wa lā ya’kul aṣ-ṣadaqah. Zāda fa-’ahdat lahu yahūdiyyah bi-Khay­bar shāh maṣliyah sam­mathā fa-’akala Rasūlu-llāhi ṣal­la-llāhu ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam min­hā wa ​‘akal al-qawm fa-qāla ​“irfa‘ū aydiyakum fa-’innahā akhbar­tanī annahā mas­mūmah.” Fa-māta Bishr bnu al-Barā’ bnu Ma‘rūr al-Anṣārī fa-’arsala ilā al-yahūdiyyah ​“mā ḥamala­ki ​‘alā allad­hī ṣana‘tī?” Qālat in kun­ta nabiyyan lam yaḍur­ra­ka allad­hī ṣana‘tu wa in kun­ta malikan araḥ­tu an-nāsa min­ka. Fa-’amara bihā Rasūlu-llāhi ṣal­la-llāhu ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam fa-quti­lat thum­ma qāla fī waja‘ihi allad­hī māta fīhi ​“mā zil­ta ajidu mina al-aklah allati akaltu bi-Khay­bar fa-hād­hā awān qata‘at abharī.”

Nar­rat­ed Abu Hurairah :
The Mes­sen­ger of Allah (ﷺ) would accept a present, but would not accept alms (sadaqah)…So a Jew­ess pre­sent­ed him at Khay­bar with a roast­ed sheep which she had poi­soned. The Mes­sen­ger of Allah (ﷺ) ate of it and the peo­ple also ate. He then said : Take away your hands (from the food), for it has informed me that it is poi­soned. Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jew­ess (and said to her): What moti­vat­ed you to do the work you have done ? She said : If you were a prophet, it would not harm you ; but if you were a king, I should rid the peo­ple of you. The Mes­sen­ger of Allah (ﷺ) then ordered regard­ing her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died : I con­tin­ued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eat­en at Khay­bar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

These hadiths pro­vide cru­cial con­text for under­stand­ing the nature of the Prophet’s suf­fer­ing and its metaphor­i­cal impli­ca­tions. They reveal the Prophet’s (ﷺ) resilience and the intense phys­i­cal pain he endured, reflect­ing his human vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty while empha­siz­ing his stead­fast faith and divine mission.

B. Metaphor­i­cal Lan­guage and Misinterpretations

These hadith nar­ra­tions describe the Prophet’s (ﷺ) suf­fer­ing due to poi­soned meat he con­sumed at Khaibar. Crit­ics mis­in­ter­pret these texts to align with the Quran­ic warn­ing in Surah al-Haqqah, sug­gest­ing false­hood. How­ev­er, the lan­guage used in these hadith is metaphor­i­cal, depict­ing the intense pain the Prophet expe­ri­enced rather than imply­ing divine retribution.

The poi­son had imme­di­ate­ly killed the Com­pan­ion, Bishr ibn al-Bara’, but the Prophet (ﷺ) sur­vived for three years, indi­cat­ing he did not die from the poi­son­ing direct­ly. His­tor­i­cal sources affirm that the Prophet passed away due to a high fever, not from poi­son­ing, fur­ther dis­cred­it­ing the claim that he died from the poison.

The Jew­ess respon­si­ble for the poi­son­ing acknowl­edged that had Muham­mad (ﷺ) been a false prophet, he would have per­ished from the poi­son. Her state­ment and the Prophet’s sur­vival affirmed his divine pro­tec­tion and true prophethood.

Addi­tion­al­ly, it should be not­ed that the Prophet (ﷺ) lived for approx­i­mate­ly three more years after the inci­dent, main­tain­ing a healthy and active life. He par­tic­i­pat­ed in bat­tles, con­tin­ued his dai­ly wor­ship, and exhib­it­ed no sig­nif­i­cant changes in his rou­tine. It is irra­tional to assert that a fever and migraine expe­ri­enced three years lat­er were the direct effects of the poison.

Fur­ther­more, the trans­la­tion of ​“aor­ta” in Eng­lish for both ​“al-Watīn” and ​“al-Abhar” is not entire­ly accu­rate and fails to cap­ture the pre­cise anatom­i­cal and metaphor­i­cal nuances intend­ed in the orig­i­nal Ara­bic. More accu­rate trans­la­tions would be ​“vital artery” for ​“al-Watīn” and ​“major artery” for ​“al-Abhar,” a dis­tinc­tion which we will elab­o­rate upon in a sub­se­quent section.

His­tor­i­cal Con­text and Sir­ah Sources

A. Chronol­o­gy of Events

The poi­son­ing inci­dent at Khaibar occurred three years before the Prophet’s pass­ing. As record­ed by Ibn al-Qayyim :

“Indeed, the Prophet ate the meat (poi­soned) and he lived for three years (after the event) until he got sick and passed away due to that.”

Had the Quran­ic warn­ing intend­ed an imme­di­ate death as a con­se­quence of false­hood, the Prophet’s three-year sur­vival post-poi­­son­ing inval­i­dates the crit­ics’ alle­ga­tions. This his­tor­i­cal con­text is cru­cial for under­stand­ing the tim­ing and nature of the Prophet’s suffering.

B. Con­fir­ma­tion from Biographers

Promi­nent biog­ra­phers such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham doc­u­ment that the Prophet’s death was due to a high fever, not poi­son­ing. These accounts are con­sis­tent across mul­ti­ple his­tor­i­cal sources, affirm­ing that the Prophet lived an active life until his final ill­ness, dur­ing which he con­tin­ued to lead prayers and ful­fill his responsibilities.

Med­ical Per­spec­tive : Watīn and Abhar

A. Anatom­i­cal Clarifications

Under­stand­ing the terms ​“al-Watīn” (الوتين) and ​“al-Abhar” (الأبهر) is cru­cial in the con­text of Quran­ic and hadith lit­er­a­ture. These terms refer to sig­nif­i­cant blood ves­sels with­in the human body, and their cor­rect iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is nec­es­sary for accu­rate inter­pre­ta­tion of the texts.

“Al-Watīn” is com­mon­ly trans­lat­ed as the aor­ta, par­tic­u­lar­ly the tho­racic aor­ta. This trans­la­tion is mis­lead­ing as it does­ not ful­ly cap­ture the essence of the term. The tho­racic aor­ta is the main artery that car­ries oxy­genat­ed blood from the heart to the rest of the body. In mod­ern med­ical ter­mi­nol­o­gy, the tho­racic aor­ta includes the ascend­ing aor­ta, the aor­tic arch, and the descend­ing tho­racic aor­ta. How­ev­er, the term ​“Al-Watīn” more accu­rate­ly refers to the vital artery that, if sev­ered, results in imme­di­ate death. A more pre­cise trans­la­tion would be ​“the life artery” or ​“vital artery” to con­vey its crit­i­cal impor­tance to survival.

“Al-Abhar,” on the oth­er hand, refers to sig­nif­i­cant veins or arter­ies, par­tic­u­lar­ly those in the back or deep with­in the heart. In mod­ern med­ical terms, it could refer to the abdom­i­nal aor­ta, which is the con­tin­u­a­tion of the tho­racic aor­ta as it pass­es through the diaphragm into the abdomen. The abdom­i­nal aor­ta sup­plies oxy­genat­ed blood to the low­er body and vital organs. Rec­og­niz­ing these dis­tinc­tions clar­i­fies the appro­pri­ate con­texts in which these terms are used in the Quran and hadith. The term ​“al-Abhar” should be trans­lat­ed more accu­rate­ly as ​“the major artery” or ​“prin­ci­pal artery” to bet­ter reflect its anatom­i­cal significance.

Ibn al-Athir explains the term ​“al-Abhar” as follows :

فِيهِ « مَا زَالَتْ أكْلَةُ خَيْبَرَ تُعادُّني فَهَذَا أوانُ قَطَعَتْ أَبْهَرِي » الأَبْهَر عِرْقٌ فِي الظَّهْرِ، وَهُمَا أَبْهَرَان. وَقِيلَ هُمَا الْأَكْحَلَانِ اللَّذَانِ فِي الذِّرَاعَيْنِ. وَقِيلَ هُوَ عرقُ مُسْتَبْطِنُ الْقَلْبَ فَإِذَا انْقَطَعَ لَمْ تَبْقَ مَعَهُ حَيَاةٌ. وَقِيلَ الأَبْهَر عِرْقٌ مَنْشَؤُهُ مِنَ الرَّأْسِ وَيَمْتَدُّ إِلَى الْقَدَمِ، وَلَهُ شرايينُ تَتَّصِلُ بِأَكْثَرِ الْأَطْرَافِ وَالْبَدَنِ، فَالَّذِي فِي الرَّأْسِ مِنْهُ يُسَمَّى النّأمَةَ، وَمِنْهُ قَوْلُهُمْ: أسكَتَ اللَّهُ نَأْمَتَهُ أَيْ أَمَاتَهُ، وَيَمْتَدُّ إِلَى الْحَلْقِ فَيُسَمَّى فِيهِ الْوَرِيدَ، وَيَمْتَدُّ إِلَى الصَّدْرِ فيسمَّى الأَبْهَر، وَيَمْتَدُّ إِلَى الظَّهْرِ فيسمَّى الوَتِينَ، والفُؤَادُ معلَّقٌ بِهِ، ويمتدُّ إِلَى الْفَخِذِ فيسمَّى النَّسَا، وَيَمْتَدُّ إِلَى السَّاقِ فيسمَّى الصَّافِنَ. وَالْهَمْزَةُ فِي الْأَبْهَرِ زَائِدَةٌ. وَأَوْرَدْنَاهُ هَاهُنَا لِأَجْلِ اللَّفْظِ. وَيَجُوزُ فِي « أَوَانُ» الضَّمُّ وَالْفَتْحُ: فَالضَّمُّ لِأَنَّهُ خَبَرُ الْمُبْتَدَأِ، وَالْفَتْحُ عَلَى الْبِنَاءِ لِإِضَافَتِهِ إِلَى مَبْنِيٍّ، كَقَوْلِهِ:

Fīhi « mā zālat aklatu Khay­bar tuʿād­dunī fahād­hā awānu qaṭaʿat abharī » al-abhar ʿirq fī al-ẓahr, wa-humā abharān. Wa-qīla humā al-akhalān allad­hān fī al-dhirāʿayn. Wa-qīla huwa ʿirq mustabṭin al-qalb fa-idhā inqaṭaʿa lam tabqa maʿahu ḥayāh. Wa-qīla al-abhar ʿirq man sha’uhu min al-raʾs wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-qadam, wa-lahu sharāyīn ta-tṭasil bi-akthar al-aṭrāf wa-al-badan, fa-allad­hī fī al-raʾs min­hu yusam­mā al-naʾmah, wa-min­hu qawluhum : aska­­ta-llāhu naʾ­matahu ay amā­tahu, wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-ḥalq fa-yusam­mā fīhi al-warīd, wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-ṣadr fa-yusam­mā al-abhar, wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-ẓahr fa-yusam­mā al-watīn, wa-al-fuʾād muʿal­laqun bihi, wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-fakhidh fa-yusam­mā al-nasā, wa-yam­­tad­­du ilā al-sāq fa-yusam­mā al-ṣāfin. Wa-al-hamzah fī al-abhar zāʾi­dah. Wa-awrād­nāhu hāhunā li-ajli al-lafẓ. Wa-yajūzu fī « awānu » al-ḍam­­mu wa-al-fatḥ : fa-al-ḍam­­mu li-annah khabaru al-mub­­tadaʾ, wa-al-fatḥu ʿalā al-bināʾ li-iḍā­­fati­hi ilā mab­nīn, ka-qawlihi

“In it : ​‘The effects of Khaybar’s meal have con­tin­ued to affect me, and now is the time when it has sev­ered my abhar.’ The abhar is a vein in the back, and they are two abharān. It has also been said that they are the akhal veins in the arms. It is also said to be a vein deep with­in the heart that, if sev­ered, life can­not con­tin­ue. It is also said that the abhar is a vein orig­i­nat­ing from the head and extend­ing to the foot, with arter­ies con­nect­ing to most of the limbs and body. The part in the head is called the naʾmah, and from this comes the phrase ​‘aska­­ta-llāhu naʾ­matahu,’ mean­ing ​‘may Allah silence his naʾmah,’ that is, cause his death. It extends to the throat where it is called the warīd, extends to the chest where it is called the abhar, extends to the back where it is called the watīn, and the heart is con­nect­ed to it. It also extends to the thigh where it is called the nasā, and extends to the leg where it is called the ṣāfin. The hamzah in al-abhar is extra. We men­tioned it here because of the word itself. In ​‘awānu,’ both ḍamm and fatḥ are per­mis­si­ble : ḍamm because it is the pred­i­cate of the sub­ject, and fatḥ based on its addi­tion to a con­struct­ed word, like in the saying :

عَلَي حينَ عاتبْتُ المشيبَ عَلَى الصِّباَ … وَقُلْتُ ألمَّا تَصْحُ وَالشَّيْبُ وَازِعُ

And from the hadith of Ali : ‘‘‘He will be thrown into the void with his two abharān severed.’

Addi­tion­al­ly, accord­ing to Al-Firuzabadi :

من القَوْسِ والقِرْبَةِ: مُعَلَّقُهُمَا، ومُعَلَّقُ كُلِّ شيء، أو عِرْقٌ غليظٌ نِيطَ به القَلْبُ إلى الوتينِ

Min al-qaws wa-al-qir­bah : mu‘allaquhumā, wa-mu‘allaqu kul­li shay’, aw ​‘irq ghalīẓ nīṭa bihi al-qal­bu ilā al-watīn.

​“From the bow and the water skin : their sus­pen­sion mech­a­nism, and the sus­pen­sion mech­a­nism of every­thing, or a thick vein to which the heart is con­nect­ed to the watīn (the main artery).”

These descrip­tions clar­i­fied that ​“al-Abhar” can refer to var­i­ous sig­nif­i­cant veins or arter­ies, includ­ing the abdom­i­nal aor­ta, while ​“al-Watīn” specif­i­cal­ly refers to the aor­ta, the main artery essen­tial for survival.

B. Mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions and Metaphors

The Quran­ic verse in Surah al-Haqqah uses ​“al-Watīn” metaphor­i­cal­ly to empha­size the sever­i­ty of divine pun­ish­ment for false­hood, imply­ing the sev­er­ing of the life source. This term is often mis­trans­lat­ed as ​“aor­ta,” but a more pre­cise trans­la­tion would be ​“vital artery,” reflect­ing its crit­i­cal role in sus­tain­ing life. The ​“vital artery” reflects its neces­si­ty for sur­vival, align­ing with its func­tion as the main artery that sup­ports sys­temic circulation.

Con­verse­ly, the hadith’s use of ​“al-Abhar” metaphor­i­cal­ly describes the Prophet’s intense pain from the poi­soned meat. The trans­la­tion of ​“al-Abhar” as ​“aor­ta” is not entire­ly accu­rate ; it more close­ly cor­re­sponds to a major blood ves­sel or artery, poten­tial­ly the abdom­i­nal aor­ta. This mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion fails to cap­ture the anatom­i­cal speci­fici­ty and metaphor­i­cal depth intend­ed in the orig­i­nal Ara­bic. The ​“major artery” empha­sizes its sig­nif­i­cant role in the cir­cu­la­to­ry sys­tem with­out the same imme­di­ate life-or-death impli­ca­tion as the ​“vital artery.”

This use of metaphor­i­cal lan­guage is con­sis­tent with Ara­bic rhetor­i­cal tra­di­tions, which con­vey the grav­i­ty of phys­i­cal suf­fer­ing through vivid expres­sion. Thus, trans­lat­ing both ​“al-Watīn” and ​“al-Abhar” as ​“aor­ta” in Eng­lish texts is a mis­trans­la­tion. More accu­rate trans­la­tions would be ​“vital artery” for ​“al-Watīn” and ​“major artery” for ​“al-Abhar,” ensur­ing the pre­cise anatom­i­cal and metaphor­i­cal nuances are preserved.

Expla­na­tion of Kinayah

A. Def­i­n­i­tion and Application

In Ara­bic rhetoric, kinayah (كناية) denotes a form of metaphor­i­cal expres­sion where a phrase or word con­veys a mean­ing indi­rect­ly, often imply­ing some­thing deep­er or more nuanced than the lit­er­al inter­pre­ta­tion. Kinayah is exten­sive­ly used in Ara­bic lit­er­a­ture and speech to illus­trate con­cepts, emo­tions, or con­di­tions with vivid and emphat­ic clar­i­ty. This rhetor­i­cal device is also com­mon in the Quran and hadith, enhanc­ing the depth and impact of the message.

B. Spe­cif­ic Usage in Hadith

In the hadith describ­ing the Prophet’s suf­fer­ing, the phrase قطع أبهر (cut­ting of the abhar) func­tions as a kinayah, express­ing the intense pain and suf­fer­ing he endured. It is not intend­ed to be under­stood lit­er­al­ly as the cut­ting of an anatom­i­cal part but rather as a pow­er­ful depic­tion of his agony. The use of kinayah in Ara­bic serves to con­vey the seri­ous­ness or inten­si­ty of a sit­u­a­tion, adding lay­ers of mean­ing to the narrative.

Prophet­ic Truthfulness

A. Quran­ic Affirmations

The Quran itself attests to the unwa­ver­ing truth­ful­ness of Prophet Muham­mad (ﷺ):

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ
Wa mā yanṭiqu ​‘ani-l-hawā.

Trans­la­tion :
​“Nor does he speak from [his own] incli­na­tion.

B. His­tor­i­cal Testimonies

The Prophet’s char­ac­ter as Al-Amin (The Trust­wor­thy) was acknowl­edged even by his adver­saries. A well-doc­u­­men­t­ed inci­dent involved the Prophet call­ing the Quraysh tribes to Mount Safa, ask­ing if they would believe him if he warned them of an impend­ing attack, to which they affirmed his truthfulness :

صَعِدَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى الصَّفَا فَجَعَلَ يُنَادِي ‏”‏ يَا بَنِي فِهْرٍ، يَا بَنِي عَدِيٍّ ‏”‏‏.‏ لِبُطُونِ قُرَيْشٍ حَتَّى اجْتَمَعُوا، فَجَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ إِذَا لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولاً لِيَنْظُرَ مَا هُوَ، فَجَاءَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ وَقُرَيْشٌ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ لَوْ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ أَنَّ خَيْلاً بِالْوَادِي تُرِيدُ أَنْ تُغِيرَ عَلَيْكُمْ، أَكُنْتُمْ مُصَدِّقِيَّ ‏”‏‏.‏ قَالُوا نَعَمْ، مَا جَرَّبْنَا عَلَيْكَ إِلاَّ صِدْقًا‏.‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ فَإِنِّي نَذِيرٌ لَكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيدٍ ‏”‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ تَبًّا لَكَ سَائِرَ الْيَوْمِ، أَلِهَذَا جَمَعْتَنَا

Ṣa‘ida an-nabiyyu ṣal­lā-llāhu ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam ​‘ala aṣ-Ṣafā fa-ja‘ala yunādī ​“Yā Banī Fihr, Yā Banī ​‘Adī!” li-buṭūni Quraysh ḥat­tā ijtama‘ū, fa-ja‘ala ar-raju­lu idhā lam yas­taṭi‘ an yakhru­ja arsala rasūlan li-yanẓu­ra mā huwa, fa-jā’a Abū Lahab wa-Quraysh fa-qāla ​“ara’aytakum law akhbar­tukum anna khay­lan bi-al-wādī turī­du an tughyra ​‘alaykum, akun­tum muṣad­diqiyya?” Qālū na‘am, mā jarrab­nā ​‘alay­ka illā ṣidqan. Qāla ​“fa-innī nad­hīrun lakum bay­na yaday ​‘adhābin shadīd.” Fa-qāla Abū Lahab tab­ban laka sā’ira al-yaw­­mi, a‑lihādhā jama‘tanā

Trans­la­tion :
​“When the Verse : ​‘And warn your tribe of near-kin­­dred,’ was revealed, the Prophet (ﷺ) ascend­ed the Safa (moun­tain) and start­ed call­ing, ​‘O Bani Fihr ! O Bani ​‘Adi!’ address­ing var­i­ous tribes of Quraish till they were assem­bled. Those who could not come them­selves, sent their mes­sen­gers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and oth­er peo­ple from Quraish came and the Prophet (ﷺ) then said, ​‘Sup­pose I told you that there is an (ene­my) cav­al­ry in the val­ley intend­ing to attack you, would you believe me?’ They said, ​‘Yes, for we have not found you telling any­thing oth­er than the truth.’ He then said, ​‘I am a warn­er to you in face of a ter­rif­ic pun­ish­ment.’ Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) ​‘May your hands per­ish all this day. Is it for this pur­pose you have gath­ered us?’ ”

The­o­log­i­cal Implications

A. Divine Pro­tec­tion and Prophet­ic Integrity

The Quran­ic verse in Surah al-Haqqah rein­forces the Prophet’s authen­tic­i­ty by pre­sent­ing a hypo­thet­i­cal sce­nario that nev­er occurred. The con­cept of divine pro­tec­tion (ismah) in Islam holds that prophets are safe­guard­ed from sin and false­hood, sup­port­ing the argu­ment against these base­less allegations.

B. Com­par­i­son with Bib­li­cal Cri­te­ria for False Prophets

The Bible out­lines spe­cif­ic signs of false prophets, including :

Incon­sis­ten­cy with Pre­vi­ous Revelation

“To the law and to the tes­ti­mo­ny ! If they do not speak accord­ing to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” (Isa­iah 8:20)

Prophet Muham­mad (ﷺ) does not fit any of these cri­te­ria. His prophe­cies were accu­rate, he led peo­ple to the wor­ship of the One God, his char­ac­ter was impec­ca­ble, and his mes­sage was con­sis­tent with pre­vi­ous revelations.

C. Con­sis­ten­cy, Prophet­hood, and the Prob­lem of Selec­tive Tests

If Deuteron­o­my and Isa­iah are to be treat­ed as bind­ing cri­te­ria for iden­ti­fy­ing false reli­gious claimants, then method­olog­i­cal integri­ty requires that these stan­dards be applied con­sis­tent­ly rather than selec­tive­ly. When this con­sis­ten­cy test is applied beyond Islam, the con­trast between Prophet Muham­mad (ﷺ) and Paul of Tar­sus becomes instruc­tive. Paul’s author­i­ty rests almost entire­ly on a pri­vate rev­e­la­to­ry expe­ri­ence, which he explic­it­ly dis­tin­guish­es from any trans­mis­sion received through pri­or apos­tolic chan­nels (Acts 9:3 – 6 ; Gala­tians 1:11 – 12 ; 1:16 – 17). His the­o­log­i­cal pro­gramme is wide­ly recog­nised — with­in Chris­t­ian schol­ar­ship itself — as intro­duc­ing sub­stan­tive depar­tures from ear­li­er law-cen­tred rev­e­la­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly in mat­ters of Mosa­ic law and jus­ti­fi­ca­tion. By con­trast, Prophet Muhammad’s (ﷺ) mes­sage was pro­claimed pub­licly, trans­mit­ted ver­ba­tim, con­tin­u­ous­ly scru­ti­nised by fol­low­ers and oppo­nents alike, and explic­it­ly pre­sent­ed as a reaf­fir­ma­tion of uncom­pro­mis­ing monothe­ism in con­ti­nu­ity with ear­li­er prophets.

Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, the New Tes­ta­ment itself does not nar­rate Paul’s death. Acts con­cludes with Paul alive and preach­ing in Rome (Acts 28:30 – 31), and the only pas­sage com­mon­ly cit­ed near the end of his life employs metaphor­i­cal, cul­tic lan­guage rather than his­tor­i­cal descrip­tion : ​“For I am already being poured out like a drink offer­ing, and the time for my depar­ture has come” (2 Tim­o­thy 4:6). Claims about Paul’s exe­cu­tion there­fore rest not on Scrip­ture but on lat­er eccle­si­as­ti­cal tra­di­tion. The ear­li­est source, 1 Clement (c. 96 CE), refers to Paul’s mar­tyr­dom with­out spec­i­fy­ing the man­ner of death (1 Clement 5.5 – 7). The explic­it claim that Paul was exe­cut­ed by behead­ing appears only in fourth-cen­tu­ry his­to­ri­og­ra­phy, most notably in Euse­bius (Eccle­si­as­ti­cal His­to­ry 2.25.5 – 8) and Jerome (De Viris Illus­tribus §5), who asso­ciate his death with Nero’s per­se­cu­tion. Whether or not one accepts the full details of this tra­di­tion, the essen­tial point remains that Paul’s end is recon­struct­ed ret­ro­spec­tive­ly rather than nar­rat­ed by revelation.

When these facts are set along­side the bib­li­cal cri­te­ria them­selves, the asym­me­try in polem­i­cal appli­ca­tion becomes evi­dent. Deuteron­o­my warns against fig­ures who intro­duce teach­ings that devi­ate from pri­or rev­e­la­tion¹, who speak pre­sump­tu­ous­ly in God’s name², or whose mes­sage fails the test of con­ti­nu­ity with estab­lished law and tes­ti­mo­ny³. These warn­ings are rarely turned inward toward Pauline author­i­ty, despite long-stand­ing debates over the scope and legit­i­ma­cy of his the­o­log­i­cal inno­va­tions. Instead, the cri­te­ria are selec­tive­ly exter­nalised and aimed at Islam.

This incon­sis­ten­cy becomes even more pro­nounced when crit­ics attempt to col­lapse the Prophet’s (ﷺ) final ill­ness into the Qur’anic warn­ing of Surah al-Haqqah (69:44 – 46). That pas­sage presents a coun­ter­fac­tu­al threat : if the Mes­sen­ger were to fab­ri­cate rev­e­la­tion, then God would seize him and sev­er the watīn. Its rhetor­i­cal force lies pre­cise­ly in its hypo­thet­i­cal struc­ture, func­tion­ing as a guar­an­tee of authen­tic­i­ty rather than a veiled pre­dic­tion. His­tor­i­cal­ly, how­ev­er, the Prophet (ﷺ) com­plet­ed his mis­sion, lived for years after the Khay­bar inci­dent, and passed away fol­low­ing an acute febrile ill­ness while describ­ing resid­ual pain in the idiom of kinayah. Noth­ing in this sequence resem­bles the imme­di­ate, deci­sive divine pun­ish­ment envis­aged in Q69:44 – 46. To claim ful­fil­ment here requires col­laps­ing con­di­tion­al rhetoric into ret­ro­spec­tive prophe­cy, metaphor into anato­my, and a human poi­son­ing attempt into divine judge­ment — moves that are lin­guis­ti­cal­ly, chrono­log­i­cal­ly, and the­o­log­i­cal­ly unsustainable.

The irony deep­ens when Gala­tians 1:8 is invoked as a final weapon against Islam : ​“Even if we or an angel from heav­en should preach a gospel oth­er than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” This verse is rou­tine­ly deployed to pre-emp­tive­ly inval­i­date any sub­se­quent rev­e­la­tion, yet it rests entire­ly on Paul’s own soli­tary rev­e­la­to­ry author­i­ty. In effect, it func­tions as a self-seal­ing mech­a­nism that insu­lates Pauline the­ol­o­gy from all lat­er claims, regard­less of their con­ti­nu­ity with ear­li­er prophet­ic monotheism. 

The Qur’anic mod­el, by con­trast, does not immu­nise Muham­mad (ﷺ) from scruti­ny ; it expos­es him to the sever­est con­ceiv­able con­se­quence if he were to fab­ri­cate rev­e­la­tion. The selec­tive invo­ca­tion of Gala­tians 1:8 against Islam, while ignor­ing its cir­cu­lar log­ic and its depen­dence on Paul’s pri­vate rev­e­la­tion, mir­rors the same method­olog­i­cal incon­sis­ten­cy already evi­dent in the use of Deuteron­o­my and Isaiah.

Some Polem­i­cal Observations

It is impor­tant to note how polem­i­cal pre­sen­ta­tions often com­bine three sep­a­rate issues into one accu­sa­tion : the his­tor­i­cal back­drop to Khay­bar, the poi­son­ing inci­dent itself, and the Prophet’s final ill­ness in Mad­i­nah. The argu­ment typ­i­cal­ly depends on slid­ing between these themes as though they were one con­tin­u­ous proof. Yet the Qur’anic claim (Q69:44 – 46) is a con­di­tion­al warn­ing about fab­ri­cat­ing rev­e­la­tion ; the Khay­bar reports con­cern an attempt­ed poi­son­ing with­in a par­tic­u­lar his­tor­i­cal moment ; and the Prophet’s final ill­ness is described in the sources as a dis­tinct febrile episode. Dis­en­tan­gling these cat­e­gories is not eva­sion ; it is basic method, because the critic’s con­clu­sion depends on treat­ing each sep­a­rate strand as if it were auto­mat­i­cal­ly the same strand.

One recur­ring fram­ing asserts that the Treaty of Huday­biyyah was a humil­i­at­ing fail­ure, that Qur’an 48:1 was a ​“con­ve­nient rev­e­la­tion” to save face, and that Khay­bar was there­fore a sub­sti­tute tar­get for ​“booty.” This rhetor­i­cal chain is not an argu­ment about the Prophet’s death ; it is an attempt to recast his polit­i­cal judge­ment as oppor­tunism, and then use that fram­ing to pre-load the poi­son­ing nar­ra­tive with moral insin­u­a­tions. Even if a crit­ic per­suades an audi­ence that Huday­biyyah looked unfavourable on the day it was signed, it still does not fol­low that :

(i) a poi­son­ing three years ear­li­er ​“proves” impos­ture, or
(ii) the Qur’anic con­di­tion­al threat in 69:44 – 46 was realised. 

The core evi­den­tiary ques­tion remains med­ical and lin­guis­tic : did the Prophet die from an imme­di­ate sev­er­ing of the watīn as puni­tive judge­ment, or did he die after an acute febrile ill­ness while describ­ing resid­ual pain in the idiom of kinayah ?

Anoth­er recur­rent move is to inflate the poi­son­ing account into a ​“prophet­hood test” with a rigid rule : ​“a true prophet must detect poi­son before tast­ing it ; oth­er­wise he is false.” This rule is not sup­plied by the Qur’an, nor by the hadith cor­pus itself as a doc­tri­nal cri­te­ri­on. In the Sun­ni hadith fram­ing cit­ed lat­er, the woman’s inten­tion was pre­cise­ly to see whether he was a prophet or a king, but her pri­vate inten­tion does not become a bind­ing stan­dard for what prophet­hood must look like. More impor­tant­ly, the reports do not depict total igno­rance that per­sists until after con­sump­tion. They present a sequence in which he tast­ed, recog­nised, and stopped oth­ers ; one com­pan­ion died quick­ly ; the Prophet lived on for years ; and lat­er described pain in a metaphor that clas­si­cal lex­i­cog­ra­phers do not treat as a lit­er­al anatom­i­cal claim. That sequence is com­pat­i­ble with a human expe­ri­ence of tast­ing harm­ful food and then halt­ing inges­tion, which is exact­ly why the lin­guis­tic treat­ment of abhar ver­sus watīn mat­ters : the polem­i­cal argu­ment depends on col­laps­ing the two into one ​“aor­ta-cut­ting” literalism.

A fur­ther move is to stack gris­ly alle­ga­tions about Khay­bar — exe­cu­tions, tor­ture, enslave­ment, mar­riage to Ṣafiyyah—then treat the poi­son­ing as a kind of moral pay­back that ​“explains” his death. What­ev­er one’s eth­i­cal judge­ment about sev­enth-cen­tu­ry war­fare, this is still not proof of divine ret­ri­bu­tion under Q69:44 – 46. The Qur’anic pas­sage is about fab­ri­cat­ing rev­e­la­tion ; it does not say, ​“If you fight X group, We will kill you by poi­son.” The eth­i­cal debate about Khay­bar can be dis­cussed on its own terms, but it is method­olog­i­cal­ly invalid to use it as a short­cut to a claim about Qur’anic falsification.

It is also com­mon to argue that because the Prophet sought treat­ment — ruqyah by al-Mu‘awwidhatayn, cup­ping, med­i­cine — this proves he did not believe God willed his death, or that divine pro­tec­tion ​“failed.” This mis­reads how clas­si­cal the­ism treats means (asbāb). In Islam­ic the­ol­o­gy and prac­tice, tak­ing law­ful means is not the nega­tion of trust in God ; it is part of human respon­si­bil­i­ty. Peo­ple eat to live and still believe God is al-Raz­zāq ; they seek med­i­cine and still believe heal­ing is from God. The hadith mate­r­i­al about ruqyah and treat­ment there­fore does not func­tion as an admis­sion of ​“game is up,” but as ordi­nary prophet­ic prac­tice that teach­es the com­mu­ni­ty how to act under illness.

Final­ly, polem­i­cal pre­sen­ta­tions often shift from ​“poi­son proves he was not a prophet” to a sec­ond claim : ​“his death caused polit­i­cal con­fu­sion ; there­fore God did not pro­tect the com­mu­ni­ty ; there­fore Islam is false.” This is a sep­a­rate argu­ment alto­geth­er and relies on a the­o­log­i­cal assump­tion that rev­e­la­tion must always pre­vent polit­i­cal con­tes­ta­tion. Even with­in the Bible, com­mu­ni­ties frac­ture after prophets ; that fact is not nor­mal­ly treat­ed as proof that the prophet was false. The Sunni-Shi‘a split can­not be used as a ret­ro­spec­tive test for whether a prophet was gen­uine unless the crit­ic is will­ing to apply the same stan­dard con­sis­tent­ly across reli­gious history.

Con­clu­sions

The mis­con­cep­tion that Prophet Muham­mad (ﷺ) suf­fered before his death due to lying is a gross mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of Qur’an­ic and hadith texts. His­tor­i­cal con­text, lin­guis­tic analy­sis, and the­o­log­i­cal prin­ci­ples affirm the Prophet’s unwa­ver­ing truth­ful­ness. The Qur’an­ic verse in Surah al-Haqqah and the hadiths describ­ing the Prophet’s suf­fer­ing are dis­tinct in their con­texts. The Prophet’s impec­ca­ble char­ac­ter, val­i­dat­ed by his­tor­i­cal records and acknowl­edged by his adver­saries, refutes these base­less allegations.

A detailed look at the Bib­li­cal cri­te­ria for false prophets fur­ther sup­ports the authen­tic­i­ty of Prophet Muham­mad (ﷺ). His accu­rate prophe­cies, adher­ence to monothe­ism, moral integri­ty, and con­sis­ten­cy with pre­vi­ous rev­e­la­tions align with the true char­ac­ter­is­tics of prophets.

And most cer­tain­ly, only God knows best !

Appen­dix : His­tor­i­cal­ly Plau­si­ble Poi­sons in 7th-Cen­tu­ry Arabia

Any assess­ment of the Khay­bar poi­son­ing must be restrict­ed to sub­stances that were local­ly avail­able, com­mon­ly known, or real­is­ti­cal­ly obtain­able through region­al trade in the Hijaz dur­ing the 7th cen­tu­ry. When this con­straint is applied, the range of plau­si­ble poi­sons nar­rows sharply. Cru­cial­ly, none of them sup­port the claim of a poi­son remain­ing dor­mant for years and then caus­ing death.

The inci­dent itself is pre­served in mul­ti­ple hadith reports, which con­sis­tent­ly describe imme­di­ate recog­ni­tion of poi­son­ing, acute effects on those who con­sumed the meat, and the pre­ven­tion of fur­ther inges­tion once the dan­ger became apparent.¹ One Com­pan­ion, Bishr ibn al-Barāʾ, is report­ed to have died from the poi­soned meat, while the Prophet Muḥam­mad ﷺ tast­ed it and refrained from continuing.² This estab­lish­es the episode as an acute poi­son­ing attempt, not a delayed or cumu­la­tive exposure.

A lat­er nar­ra­tion from ʿĀʾishah reports that dur­ing the Prophet’s final ill­ness, he recalled pain asso­ci­at­ed with what he had eat­en at Khay­bar and expressed it fig­u­ra­tive­ly as feel­ing ​“as if my aor­ta is being cut.”³ Sim­i­lar word­ing appears elsewhere.⁴ This expres­sion is expe­ri­en­tial and rhetor­i­cal, not a med­ical diag­no­sis or tox­i­co­log­i­cal expla­na­tion for cause of death.

The deci­sive ques­tion, there­fore, is whether any poi­son real­is­ti­cal­ly acces­si­ble in 7th-cen­tu­ry Ara­bia could remain inert for three to four years and then sud­den­ly cause death with­out an inter­ven­ing patho­log­i­cal course.

1. Colo­cynth (Cit­rul­lus colo­cyn­this, bit­ter apple)

Colo­cynth is the strongest can­di­date his­tor­i­cal­ly. It is native to Ara­bia and wide­ly known in pre-Islam­ic and ear­ly Islam­ic med­i­cine as a pow­er­ful purga­tive that becomes dan­ger­ous when mis­used. No trade net­work or spe­cial­ist knowl­edge would have been required to obtain or deploy it.

It caus­es severe gas­troin­testi­nal irri­ta­tion, includ­ing abdom­i­nal pain, vom­it­ing, diar­rhea, dehy­dra­tion, and shock, with onset with­in hours of inges­tion. Sur­vival beyond the acute episode does not lead to delayed fatal col­lapse. Colo­cynth has no cumu­la­tive or latent tox­ic mechanism.⁵

2. Arsenic (inor­gan­ic arsenic compounds)

Arsenic was a well-known poi­son in antiq­ui­ty and could real­is­ti­cal­ly have been obtained through region­al trade net­works link­ing Ara­bia with Per­sia, Yemen, and the Lev­ant. It required no sophis­ti­cat­ed prepa­ra­tion and was his­tor­i­cal­ly used for both poi­son­ing and medicine.

Acute arsenic poi­son­ing pro­duces severe gas­troin­testi­nal symp­toms and sys­temic col­lapse with­in hours to days. Chron­ic arsenic poi­son­ing, by con­trast, requires repeat­ed or sus­tained expo­sure and man­i­fests through con­tin­u­ous mul­ti­sys­tem dam­age affect­ing the skin, nerves, liv­er, and car­dio­vas­cu­lar sys­tem. A sin­gle expo­sure that allows sur­vival would not remain bio­log­i­cal­ly inert for years and then sud­den­ly become fatal.⁶

3. Hem­lock-type neu­ro­tox­ins (Coni­um mac­u­la­tum or relat­ed plants)

Hem­lock and sim­i­lar neu­ro­tox­ic plants were known through­out the Near East via Jew­ish and Gre­co-Roman med­ical tra­di­tions. While not native to the Hijaz, knowl­edge of such poi­sons and lim­it­ed access are his­tor­i­cal­ly plau­si­ble, par­tic­u­lar­ly in a Jew­ish set­tle­ment such as Khaybar.

Hem­lock caus­es ascend­ing neu­ro­mus­cu­lar paral­y­sis, lead­ing to res­pi­ra­to­ry fail­ure in severe cas­es. Death occurs with­in hours to days, depend­ing on dosage, and sur­vivors exhib­it clear and pro­gres­sive neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms. There is no mech­a­nism for silent per­sis­tence over mul­ti­ple years.⁷

4. Lead compounds

Lead expo­sure was com­mon in antiq­ui­ty through ves­sels, glazes, and med­i­c­i­nal prepa­ra­tions, mak­ing acci­den­tal or inten­tion­al inges­tion possible.

Acute lead poi­son­ing caus­es abdom­i­nal pain and neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms, while chron­ic lead poi­son­ing requires sus­tained expo­sure and man­i­fests with ongo­ing cog­ni­tive, gas­troin­testi­nal, and renal pathol­o­gy. A sin­gle expo­sure can­not explain sud­den death years lat­er with­out con­tin­u­ous symp­toms, which are absent from the his­tor­i­cal record.⁸

5. Mer­cury compounds

Mer­cury was known in ancient med­i­c­i­nal and alchem­i­cal con­texts and could have been accessed indi­rect­ly, but it is the least plau­si­ble can­di­date in this context.

Mer­cury tox­i­c­i­ty is char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly chron­ic, requir­ing repeat­ed expo­sure and pro­duc­ing pro­gres­sive neu­ro­log­i­cal dete­ri­o­ra­tion, tremors, and behav­ioral changes. There is no evi­dence for a one-time dose remain­ing inert for years and then becom­ing fatal with­out a pro­longed and obvi­ous dis­ease course.⁹

Med­ical and his­tor­i­cal assessment

Across the five most real­is­tic poi­son can­di­dates avail­able in or acces­si­ble to 7th-cen­tu­ry Ara­bia — desert plants, trad­ed min­er­al tox­ins, heavy met­als, and region­al­ly known neu­ro­tox­ins — there is no med­ical­ly-doc­u­ment­ed sub­stance that fits the polem­i­cal require­ment of :

a sin­gle inges­tion → min­i­mal imme­di­ate effect → mul­ti-year dor­man­cy → sud­den death

Tox­i­col­o­gy oper­ates accord­ing to only three patterns :

1. Acute lethal­i­ty (hours – days),
2. Chron­ic ill­ness with con­tin­u­ous symp­toms (requir­ing repeat­ed expo­sure), or
3. Non-lethal sur­vival once the acute phase passes.¹⁰
   
   There is no fourth cat­e­go­ry that allows a poi­son to ​“wait” sev­er­al years before act­ing decisively.

Con­clud­ing remarks

Accord­ing­ly, the claim that the Khay­bar poi­son­ing lin­gered for three to four years and then killed the Prophet Muḥam­mad ﷺ is nei­ther med­ical­ly nor his­tor­i­cal­ly defen­si­ble. The sources describe an inter­rupt­ed human poi­son­ing attempt, not a delayed exe­cu­tion. Qurʾān 69:44 – 46 does not envi­sion a slow, latent, or ambigu­ous out­come ; it sets forth a coun­ter­fac­tu­al threat of imme­di­ate and deci­sive divine action — pub­lic seizure and the cut­ting of the watīn—if fab­ri­ca­tion had occurred. 

The Khay­bar episode, by con­trast, involved acute effects, ces­sa­tion of inges­tion, and a death years lat­er from nat­ur­al caus­es. No poi­son real­is­ti­cal­ly acces­si­ble in 7th-cen­tu­ry Ara­bia can bridge these two frame­works. To insist oth­er­wise is to col­lapse a con­di­tion­al divine judge­ment into a delayed bio­log­i­cal process, import­ing polemics back into both tox­i­col­o­gy and the Qurʾānic text. The two are cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly dis­tinct and can­not be coher­ent­ly conflated.

Fre­quent­ly-Asked Ques­tions : The Death of Muham­mad — Cause, Date, and Aftermath

1) If Muham­mad were a real prophet of God, why didn’t he detect the poi­son before he ate it ?

This objec­tion rests on a premise that Islam does not accept. Prophet­hood does not entail omni­science or immu­ni­ty from harm. The deci­sive issue is whether the death of Muham­mad cor­re­sponds to the Qur’anic warn­ing in 69:44 – 46. It does not. That pas­sage presents a coun­ter­fac­tu­al threat of imme­di­ate divine pun­ish­ment if fab­ri­ca­tion occurred. His­tor­i­cal­ly, the death of Muham­mad fol­lowed ill­ness and nat­ur­al decline. Eat­ing a poi­soned morsel does not explain what was the result of the death of Muham­mad, nor does it estab­lish false prophethood.

2) If it was God’s will for Muham­mad to have eat­en the poi­son, why did he seek treat­ment and try to recov­er ? Even Gabriel prayed for him to get better.

Seek­ing treat­ment is encour­aged in Islam and does not con­tra­dict divine decree. Prophets pray, seek heal­ing, and still die. Prayer is wor­ship, not a guar­an­tee of out­come. The cause of death of Muham­mad can­not be inferred from unan­swered sup­pli­ca­tion, nor does this define the Muham­mad cause of death. This dis­tinc­tion is essen­tial when exam­in­ing what was the result of the death of Muham­mad his­tor­i­cal­ly and theologically.

3) Why would Gabriel pray if Allah had already decreed death ? Does this mean Gabriel did not know Allah’s will ?

Islam does not teach that angels pos­sess inde­pen­dent or total knowl­edge of divine decree. Angels act with­in roles per­mit­ted to them. Sup­pli­ca­tion can coex­ist with a decreed end. Prayer occur­ring does not negate death occur­ring. This applies equal­ly when dis­cussing the death of Muham­mad and does not rede­fine the death date of Muham­mad or the date of Muhammad’s death as punitive.

4) Why did Muham­mad require oth­ers to drink the same med­i­cine he was giv­en, includ­ing some­one who was fast­ing ? Doesn’t this seem vindictive ?

The episode is best under­stood as a deter­rent against forcibly med­icat­ing him again after he had object­ed. Even if judged crit­i­cal­ly, this remains an eth­i­cal or lead­er­ship issue. It does not estab­lish the cause of Muham­mad death, nor does it clar­i­fy the Muham­mad date of death. Eth­i­cal judg­ments must not be con­flat­ed with claims about prophethood.

5) Why did Muham­mad warn against graves becom­ing places of wor­ship near death instead of pray­ing for guid­ance for oth­ers ? Was this a curse ?

The state­ments tar­get spe­cif­ic reli­gious prac­tices, par­tic­u­lar­ly grave-ven­er­a­tion and sacral­i­sa­tion of bur­ial sites. They func­tion as doc­tri­nal warn­ings con­sis­tent with anti-idol­a­try themes. These remarks, often cit­ed as the death bed words of Muham­mad, are not expres­sions of jeal­ousy or bit­ter­ness. They do not alter the age of Muhammad’s death or under­mine the mean­ing of the death of Muhammad.

6) Why is pleurisy some­times linked to ​“Satan” in reports, while poi­son­ing is not ?

Such phras­ing is not a med­ical diag­no­sis. It may reflect rejec­tion of a cir­cu­lat­ing label or super­sti­tion. Even tak­en lit­er­al­ly, it does not estab­lish the cause of death of Muham­mad or fix the Muham­mad cause of death as poi­son­ing. Nor does it explain what was the result of the death of Muham­mad doc­tri­nal­ly or historically.

7) Did the so-called ​“prophet test” (poi­son­ing) prove Muham­mad was not a prophet because he ate from it ?

No. The test assumes a premise Islam nev­er claimed : that a prophet must always be fore­warned of dan­ger or immune from harm. An argu­ment built on an exter­nal premise can­not refute Islam­ic doc­trine. The death of Muham­mad can­not be mea­sured by immu­ni­ty stan­dards bor­rowed from oth­er tra­di­tions, nor does it rede­fine the death date of Muham­mad as divine punishment.

8) Does the state­ment ​“I feel my abhar is being cut” mean Qur’an 69’s watīn was fulfilled ?

No. Qur’an 69 uses watīn in a coun­ter­fac­tu­al divine-pun­ish­ment for­mu­la. The hadith uses abhar as vivid pain lan­guage. Equat­ing both as ​“aor­ta” is trans­la­tion flat­ten­ing, not proof. This lin­guis­tic dis­tinc­tion is cru­cial when dis­cussing the date of Muhammad’s death and reject­ing claims that Qur’an 69 was ​“exe­cut­ed” at the death of Muhammad.

9) Does the moral indict­ment of Khay­bar prove false prophethood ?

No. His­tor­i­cal and eth­i­cal debates must stand on their own terms. Even the harsh­est fram­ing of Khay­bar does not estab­lish Qur’anic fab­ri­ca­tion or deter­mine the cause of Muham­mad’s death. Moral cri­tique does not explain what was the result of the death of Muham­mad in terms of doc­trine or scripture.

10) If fig­ures in oth­er scrip­tures sur­vived poi­son or ven­om, why didn’t Muhammad ?

Cross-scrip­tur­al com­par­isons are the­o­log­i­cal argu­ments, not his­tor­i­cal proofs. They often assume that divine favor guar­an­tees phys­i­cal immu­ni­ty — an assump­tion not con­sis­tent­ly taught in Islam­ic or bib­li­cal his­to­ry. Such com­par­isons do not resolve ques­tions about the Muham­mad date of death or the age of Muhammad’s death.

11) If Muham­mad did not clear­ly name a suc­ces­sor, doesn’t lat­er divi­sion show lack of divine protection ?

No. Polit­i­cal suc­ces­sion dis­putes are part of human his­to­ry. After the death of Muham­mad, dis­agree­ments over lead­er­ship emerged, as they have after oth­er major fig­ures. The after­math of Muhammad’s death reflects polit­i­cal con­tes­ta­tion, not false prophet­hood or doc­tri­nal failure.

12) Did Muham­mad die sud­den­ly, prov­ing he was poi­soned to death ?

The sources describe a severe final ill­ness, not a sud­den, unex­plained col­lapse. They do not pro­vide a mod­ern clin­i­cal autop­sy, nor do they con­clu­sive­ly estab­lish the cause of death of Muham­mad. What they do not jus­ti­fy is the claim that Qur’an 69 was ​“exe­cut­ed” at his death. That con­clu­sion ignores the death date of Muham­mad, the date of Muhammad’s death, and the broad­er his­tor­i­cal record after the death of Muhammad.

Notes

1. Deuteron­o­my 13:1 – 3[⤶]
2. Deuteron­o­my 18:20[⤶]
3. Isa­iah 8:20[⤶]