Divine Judgment or Historical Irony?

Title: Divine Judgment or Historical Irony? An Examination of Muhammad’s Death in Light of Quranic and Hadith Sources

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

---

Abstract:

This article critically examines the circumstances surrounding the death of Prophet Muhammad by analyzing Quranic revelation, canonical Hadith literature, and historical events such as the raid on Khaibar. It interrogates the theological and prophetic implications of Muhammad’s own testimony regarding his terminal illness, allegedly caused by poison administered after the Khaibar massacre. A striking correlation is drawn between his manner of death and a Quranic passage (Surah 69:44–46), which articulates the punishment that would befall a prophet who falsely attributed revelations to God. This paper challenges Islamic orthodoxy by posing the question: was Muhammad’s death a fulfillment of divine judgment as outlined in the Qur’an?

---

1. Introduction

The legacy of Prophet Muhammad in Islamic theology is that of the Seal of the Prophets—a man divinely protected and inspired. Yet, there remains a critical and largely avoided episode in Islamic history that continues to spark theological debate: the poisoning incident at Khaibar. This article revisits the historical context of the Jewish settlement of Khaibar, the actions taken by Muhammad and his followers, and his eventual death from long-term complications attributed to poisoning. Through this inquiry, we explore the unsettling yet unavoidable question: did Allah himself end Muhammad’s life in accordance with Qur’anic judgment reserved for false prophets?

---

2. The Raid on Khaibar and Its Aftermath

In approximately 629 A.D., Muhammad led a surprise military expedition against the Jewish community of Khaibar. The Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq and hadith compilers such as Al-Bukhari and Muslim detail the capture, killing, and torture of the Jewish chieftain, Kinana ibn al-Rabi. Kinana was reportedly tortured to disclose hidden wealth, and upon his refusal, he was executed.

Following the conquest, a Jewish woman, Zaynab bint Al-Harith, offered Muhammad poisoned meat—an act motivated by vengeance or divine test. Muhammad consumed a portion and immediately sensed the poison but did not expel it fast enough. Although he survived the initial poisoning, he continued to complain of its effects until his death three years later.

---

3. Hadith Evidence: Muhammad’s Own Words

The most telling admission comes from the Sahih al-Bukhari:

*Narrated Aisha:** *"The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, 'O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.'"
(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4428)

This statement is particularly significant as it aligns with a dire warning from the Qur’an:

---

4. Qur'anic Cross-Reference: The Aorta Verse

Surah Al-Haqqah (The Reality) 69:44–46 reads:

"And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us, We surely should have seized him by his right hand; then We certainly would have cut off his aorta."

This passage clearly outlines divine punishment for any prophet who fabricates revelation. The use of the term aorta (al-watin) in both the Qur’an and Muhammad’s own reported statement is noteworthy and cannot be dismissed as linguistic coincidence. If taken literally, it would imply that Muhammad died under the very judgment described in the Qur’an.

---

5. Theological Implications

If Muhammad’s cause of death corresponds to the Qur’anic warning for false prophets, three possibilities emerge:

• Muhammad falsely attributed words to Allah and was punished accordingly.

• The Qur’anic warning was not fulfilled, which would challenge the Qur’an’s own integrity.

• Or, Muhammad's death was coincidental, and his aortic pain was unrelated to any divine warning—an unlikely proposition given his own testimony.

Muslim apologists argue that the verse is metaphorical or the hadith is weak in interpretation. However, both sources—Sahih Bukhari and the Qur’an—are deemed authoritative in Sunni Islam, making such dismissals theologically problematic.

---

6. Conclusion

This analysis brings to light a deeply controversial, yet scripturally and historically rooted dilemma in Islamic theology. The convergence of Muhammad's statement about his poisoning, the historical events at Khaibar, and the Qur’anic criteria for divine punishment of false prophets must prompt honest scholarly dialogue.

If we are to take the Qur'an and Hadith literature seriously, then by Muhammad's own words and Allah's own revelation, we are left with an unavoidable question: Was Muhammad's death divinely orchestrated in judgment?

Muslim scholars, believers, and critics alike must grapple with this question, as avoiding it does no justice to the integrity of religious scholarship.

---

References:

1. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 4428.

2. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad.

3. Qur’an, Surah Al-Haqqah (69:44–46).

4. Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, various hadiths on the Khaibar incident.

5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961.

6. Haykal, M.H. The Life of Muhammad. Islamic Book Trust.

---