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

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.¹¹

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:¹²

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.¹³ 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” ¹⁴

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.¹⁵ The explicit claim that Paul was executed by beheading appears only in fourth-century historiography, most notably in Eusebius¹⁶ and Jerome¹⁷, 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 revelation¹⁸, who speak presumptuously in God’s name¹⁹, or whose message fails the test of continuity with established law and testimony²⁰. 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.

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. 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. 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.” Similar wording appears elsewhere. This expression is experiential and rhetorical, not a medical diagnosis or toxicological explanation for the 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
   
   There is no fourth category that allows a poison to “wait” several years before acting decisively.

Concluding remarks

Giv­en the types of poi­sons known in the 7th cen­tu­ry and their typ­i­cal effects, 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