Question:
Was the Holy Prophet poisoned (or killed) and martyred or did he die a natural death?

Answer:
In general, the famous opinion (among the Shi’a and Sunni scholars) is that the Prophet (P) was poisoned by a Jewish woman after the battle of Khaibar. We do have a narration with a sound chain of narrators which states this.

However, there is a problem with the content of the narration. In the narration, the Jewish woman says that if Muhammad (pbuh) were to eat from the food, this would prove he is not a prophet! Therefore, if we believe the Prophet ate from this food and was poisoned by it, we are doubting his prophecy. In addition, the Holy Qur’an states “and We protect you from the people”, thus indicating the Prophet was safe from such plots.

Other evidence for the Prophet being martyred comes from the narration of Imam Sadiq (a.s):
'There is none of us but is killed by sword or poison'

The problems with this narration:
*It is mursal (i.e. does not have a continuous chain of narrators).

*It is most likely talking about the twelve Imams (as). This is proven by another hadith from Imam al-Hasan (as) talking about the Imams in particular, in which he says:“There is none of us (Imams) except he is poisoned or killed” (Biharul Anwar, 27:216)

Finally, there is a narration in Tafsir al-Ayyashi which states that the Prophet (pbuh) was poisoned by his two wives, A’isha and Hafsa.

The problems with this narration:
It is only one narration. It is mursal (does not have a continuous chain of narrators) and is therefore weak. It is definitely not the opinion of our mainstream scholars.

Absolute majority of our jurists (based on many authentic narrations) observe that the meat of the People of the Book is not Halal.

However, Kosher is considered Halal by Sunnis. How then could the Prophet accept a meat cooked (and the goat would be normally killed by people at home) by a Jew?!

We can’t rule according to this narration because without any prejudice according to the Sharia’ law one would be found guilty for murdering if: 'Two just male witnesses give their testimony for it (just because a story is famous even among our respected scholars doesn’t mean its true.

The murderer confesses that he/she has killed the murdered one.

None of the above conditions are met with regards to the two wives

Yes, it is narrated in al-Bukhari and Muslim from Ayesha that they gave a medicine to the Prophet prior to his death:

“’Aisha said: we gave him (pbuh) medicine
while he was ill. He (pbuh) kept signalling to us not to give him the medicine. We thought it to be the dislike of an ill person for taking medicine. When he woke up he (pbuh) said: ‘did I not prohibit you from giving me medicine?’ We said: ‘we thought it was the dislike of the patient for medicine’. He said: ‘everyone in the house should take from the medicine while I watch them, except for Abbas (the Prophet’s uncle) because he was not present (when the medicine was being given to the Prophet)”.

The problems with this narration:

*The narration does not say it was poison (thus no confession).
*The narration is not mentioned in our books of hadith
*The content of the hadith is problematic. Why would the Prophet punish all in the household except Abbas by making them drink the medicine? And if it was poison, they should all have died too

Other problems with the theory that the Prophet was poisoned:

If someone is poisoned he is usually expected to die soon after such as the case of Imam Hasan (a.s) not after about four years.

Also, the Almighty God says the following about the plots of hypocrites in assassinating the Prophet, which indicates although there have been attempt in killing the Prophet they did not succeed:

“and they resolved that (plot to murder Prophet Muhammad SAW) which they were unable to carry out” (9:74)

In conclusion, it seems most likely that the Prophet (pbuh) died of natural causes and was not poisoned.

And God knows best.

Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei

lanrexlan: www.nairaland.com/296050/death-prophet-muhammad-p.b.u.h-question

Really I wanna believe you didn't read the ops at all. You simply want to adamantly stand on your belief and probably create another Shi'a-Sunni rift.

It is better we reason sensibly perhaps we can understand ourselves better.

The gist of the above thread, according to Sunni sources, is that the holy prophet (saws) died 4years latter out of the poison. In addition, there's another hadith ONLY narrated by Aisha that the prophet (saws) said he's being affected by the poison of the Jewish woman in khaybar, at his death-bed.

1. The intent of the Jewish woman was to determine whether Rasul is a true prophet or not.

If he died on the spot or even later (after 4years) as a result of the poison, then, it doesn't make a difference he's a fake prophet (naurhubillah). In fact, wasn't that not a suicide mission which is a grave sin? For he knew there was a poison in the meat yet he ate which killed him later.

Besides it doesn't at all stand to reason that a poison consumed ONCE can have its effect after 4years.

2. How can the holy prophet (saws) eat Meat killed by a Jew? Qur'an says we can eat ahl al-kitab's food but Meat was silent on.
Islamically, there are rules to kill animal for it to become Halal. Was there any existing text that the animal was killed accordingly by the Jewish woman before Muhammad (saws) descended on it?
This point makes this hadith suspicious.

3. The Jewish woman believed in the prophet-hood of Muhammad because he didn't die of the poison she put in it. It is only reasonable that he didn't die of that poison later in life. If his Lord protected him from that poison in the first instance, why letting him suffer of the agony latter in life?

Are you through with your rantings? Read that link if you are interested.

lanrexlan: Are you through with your rantings? Read that link if you are interested.

I read ur link and I've given u my view. You either read mine, bring ur point, abuse as salafi usual act or remain silent. The choice is yours.

Al-Baqir:


I read ur link and I've given u my view. You either read mine, bring ur point, abuse as salafi usual act or remain silent. The choice is yours.

It appears you know more than the early Islamic text and scholars that have documented Mohammads death. So far, you have no textual traceable proof to counter-claim the Hadiths respected by nearly all Islamic schools of jurisprudence on the matter of Mohammads death. It's only certain Muslims like yourself who wants to prove otherwise:

Bukhari's Hadith 5.713: Narrated 'Aisha:The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Ibn Sa'd p. 252: The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you."

If Mohammad didn't eat food cooked or prepared by Jews, why didn't he refuse it? So far, all you have presented us compared to the Hadiths are speculations that you can't back up. Mohammad death was a test of his prophet-hood. The woman thought, if he was indeed the "Seal of all prophets" and the last messenger of God - surely, poison wouldn't harm him. But Mohammad failed the test.

Now, compare Mohammad to the apostle Paul, who had a viper snake bite him:

Acts 28: 1. And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita. 2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold. 3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. 7 In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and lodged us three days courteously. 8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. 9 So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:

Look at Paul who wasn't even a prophet but a mere apostle. The poison from a viper could do him no harm because God was with him. Now, look at Mohammad, he couldn't even save himself or Allah couldn't even save him. Na Wa!

MOVING FORWARD. The effects of the poison on Mohammad:

Sahih Bukhari 1:11:634 = He came out with the help of two men and his legs were dragging on the ground. He was between Al-Abbas and another man

HISTORY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND BROS. It tells the truth, whether you believe/accept it or not

cloudstar:

It appears you know more than the early Islamic text and scholars that have documented Mohammads death. So far, you have no textual traceable proof to counter-claim the Hadiths respected by nearly all Islamic schools of jurisprudence on the matter of Mohammads death. It's only certain Muslims like yourself who wants to prove otherwise:

Bukhari's Hadith 5.713: Narrated 'Aisha:The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Ibn Sa'd p. 252: The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you."

If Mohammad didn't eat food cooked or prepared by Jews, why didn't he refuse it? So far, all you have presented us compared to the Hadiths are speculations that you can't back up. Mohammad death was a test of his prophet-hood. The woman thought, if he was indeed the "Seal of all prophets" and the last messenger of God - surely, poison wouldn't harm him. But Mohammad failed the test.

Now, compare Mohammad to the apostle Paul, who had a viper snake bite him:

Acts 28: 1. And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita. 2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold. 3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. 7 In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and lodged us three days courteously. 8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. 9 So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:

Look at Paul who wasn't even a prophet but a mere apostle. The poison from a viper could do him no harm because God was with him. Now, look at Mohammad, he couldn't even save himself or Allah couldn't even save him. Na Wa!

MOVING FORWARD. The effects of the poison on Mohammad:

Sahih Bukhari 1:11:634 = He came out with the help of two men and his legs were dragging on the ground. He was between Al-Abbas and another man

HISTORY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND BROS. It tells the truth, whether you believe/accept it or not

Mr paul or Na apostle paul! Na your fault? No be your fault at all. Na fault of the politicize books of hadith which many muslims have been brainwashed for ages that every letters you have in there are authentic. And it is no suprise that a figure like you could come out and back such hadith because of your own selfish and foolish interest.

If a hadith is given to you that non-muslim will go to hell-fire, then you will raise your eyez brow ranting" Islam is boko-haram" and quick to judge books of hadith as false.

Mr paulo. Know that the first and most trusted Islamic source of knowledge is Qur'an. It is 100%. Books of hadith contained lots of error as it also contain truth. The holy prophet had left Qur'an as the yardstick to recognize true saying from him and any saying attributed to him that does not pass the test of the Qur'an, is definitely not from him. If any hadith says Muhammad (saws) died as a result of poison, such hadith irrespective of where it comes from should be put to scrutiny. Muhammad's signature never appear in any hadith. Hadith were written 100s of years after him.

Qur'an says concerning Muhammad:

"...wAllahu ya simuka mina Nas..." "...And (your Lord) will protect you from (the evil of) man..."

"..they planned, and Allah also plan; and Allah is the best planner"

It is irrational to conclude that poison killed him (saws) as it is against the promise of his Lord to protect him from evil of man.
Also it is more irrational to conclude that a poison can have its effect on man after 4years. Between the so-called time of poison and the time of his death, he was never fallen ill as reported by the same books of hadith.

The so-called poison was said to be administered in the 7th year of hijrah and the prophet (saws) died at the beginning of 11th year of Hijrah.

Mr Paul your problem is enough for you don't add to your problem. There were some mercineries within Islam and outside it (of whom you are one of them) designed to tarnish the image of the prophet of Islam. Some are did it unknowingly, some ignorantly and some stupidly and intentionally.

If you claim there were scholars that believe in your theory. Yes there were, and at the same time there are many who do not believe in such a tale. Therefore its not unanimously agreed.

Al-Baqir:


I read ur link and I've given u my view. You either read mine,bring ur point, abuse as salafi usual act or remain silent. The choice is yours.

Start another argument right? It's like you are bored Al-Baqir and looking for someone to engage you.And who told you I am salafi? Let me ask you something,what will it profits me debating the prophet's death? Increase my Imaan or what?

Al-Baqir:


Mr paul or Na apostle paul! Na your fault? No be your fault at all. Na fault of the politicize books of hadith which many muslims have been brainwashed for ages that every letters you have in there are authentic. And it is no suprise that a figure like you could come out and back such hadith because of your own selfish and foolish interest.

If a hadith is given to you that non-muslim will go to hell-fire, then you will raise your eyez brow ranting" Islam is boko-haram" and quick to judge books of hadith as false.

Mr paulo. Know that the first and most trusted Islamic source of knowledge is Qur'an. It is 100%. Books of hadith contained lots of error as it also contain truth. The holy prophet had left Qur'an as the yardstick to recognize true saying from him and any saying attributed to him that does not pass the test of the Qur'an, is definitely not from him. If any hadith says Muhammad (saws) died as a result of poison, such hadith irrespective of where it comes from should be put to scrutiny. Muhammad's signature never appear in any hadith. Hadith were written 100s of years after him.

Qur'an says concerning Muhammad:

"...wAllahu ya simuka mina Nas..." "...And (your Lord) will protect you from (the evil of) man..."

"..they planned, and Allah also plan; and Allah is the best planner"

It is irrational to conclude that poison killed him (saws) as it is against the promise of his Lord to protect him from evil of man.
Also it is more irrational to conclude that a poison can have its effect on man after 4years. Between the so-called time of poison and the time of his death, he was never fallen ill as reported by the same books of hadith.

The so-called poison was said to be administered in the 7th year of hijrah and the prophet (saws) died at the beginning of 11th year of Hijrah.

Mr Paul your problem is enough for you don't add to your problem. There were some mercineries within Islam and outside it (of whom you are one of them) designed to tarnish the image of the prophet of Islam. Some are did it unknowingly, some ignorantly and some stupidly and intentionally.

If you claim there were scholars that believe in your theory. Yes there were, and at the same time there are many who do not believe in such a tale. Therefore its not unanimously agreed.

You haven't provided ONE SINGLE PROOF ON HOW HE DIED OUTSIDE THAT OF WHICH THE HADITHS STATE. New age muslims like you want to believe he COULDN'T HAVE DIED BY THE HAND OF A JEWISH WOMAN. So, you can conveniently deny your own Hadiths Bros .

If you want us to take you seriously, please provide a traceable account of how he died. If you can't, please take the back seat and SHUT-UP. Since you are an expert of poisons can know how EVERY SINGLE one of them works - please educate us. You are even a laughing stock to more educated muslims that know their history.

So, please tell us how he died!

lanrexlan: Start another argument right? It's like you are bored Al-Baqir and looking for someone to engage you.And who told you I am salafi?

Sorry for mistaken you for a salafi. Their ideology is the order of the day among muslim youths today.
Islam is an intellectual religion not dogmatic one. It is natural in an environment where a set of ideology prevails, a 'new' insight is always quickly being attack without rationality.
I am not looking for argument. You were the one that link me with another view and stylishly you didn't reveal your view. I read your link and made my comment. I await yours.

lanrexlan: Let me ask you something,what will it profits me debating the prophet's death? Increase my Imaan or what?

Then why do you link me with an opposite idea? As you can see (above)the predators (enemies) of Islam are earnestly waiting for you to tear you apart with every given opportunity that your prophet was killed by poison whereas a mere Paul withstand snake venom etc.

If every detail of the life of Muhammad (saws) does not increase your Iman or does not concern you in anyway, then what concern you? I didn't ask you to comment. You did at your free-will.

.

cloudstar:

You haven't provided ONE SINGLE PROOF ON HOW HE DIED OUTSIDE THAT OF WHICH THE HADITHS STATE. New age muslims like you want to believe he COULDN'T HAVE DIED BY THE HAND OF A JEWISH WOMAN.!

Who exactly is asking for a muslim's text for verification? A paul follower! Wonder shall never end. You've shot yourself at the leg the moment you brought your master Paul into play. That reveal your evil secret.
Islam is a logical and intellectual religion unlike the one Paul brainwashed you with.

Do you or will you believe in the veracity of hadith that says you and paul are inmates of Hell?

If you can live with that then I will flood you with Islamic references.

cloudstar:

If you want us to take you seriously, please provide a traceable account of how he died.

Traceable account? Lol!
Why don't you trace many myth in your bible perhaps your blocked heart can be open for the truth?

1. When your bible says Adam and Eve hide themselves in the garden of Eden when they ate forbidden fruit, your Lord God descended walking through the garden like a giant man searching for Adam and Even screaming: "Adam where are thou?"

2. Why is Catholic bible with 76books different from protestant's bible with 66 books? Why that of Jehovah witness different from others?
Why only KJV recorded 1st Epistle of John 5: 7 which talks about trinity but ALL other versions of the bible forgot to record that verse?

3. When your lord and savior says he will emulate the miracle of prophet jonah who lived in the belly of the whale for 3days and 3nights and did not die, so shall he too be in the heart of the earth for 3days and 3nights. Perhaps you can trace the Paul's mistake who reported your lord died on friday and ressurected on sunday before dawn which was never equivalent to 3days and 3nights.

You see there are lots of myth you need to 'trace'.

Like I told you your own problem is enough for you only if you want to add to it.

cloudstar:

If you can't, please take the back seat and SHUT-UP. Since you are an expert of poisons can know how EVERY SINGLE one of them works - please educate us.

Can you explain why one of Muhammad(saws)'s companion died on the spot while he ate the poisoned meat but it took Muhammad 4 years before the poison could take effect as explain in the hadith?

Okay he had the anti-dote with him! Right?

Perhaps you go and consult doctors on the effect of deadly poison - a poison that can kill a man on the spot. Can a man survive such poison for 4years without a problem until the moment of his death?

cloudstar:

You are even a laughing stock to more educated muslims that know their history.

So why don't you leave "more educated muslims" to take up the challenge?
Since when you become their spokesman mr paul?
You even want to trace 'book of hadith' for them. Funny guy!

cloudstar:
So, please tell us how he died!

THE POISON
The account of the poisoned meat in another book of hadith is given below:

According to Allamah Majlisi in Bihar Anwar vol. 17
p. 318-319, after the conquest of khaybar in 7 A.H, a Jewess woman who had pretended to accept Islam
presented the holy prophet (saws) with a cooked
lamb, poisoned to seek revenge out of the prophet
for the death of his family in the battle. A sahaba
named al-Bara Ibn Marur took the meat without
prophet's permission...and ate. He collapsed and
died. The holy prophet knew the meat had been
poisoned. He ordered the arrest of the woman and
asked her why she poisoned the meat. She revealed
her intention and added: "You have caused me a
great disaster, You have killed my father, my
uncle ...so I did what I did saying to myself, 'If he
were a king, I would seek revenge against him, but if he were a prophet, as he claims, having promised to conquer Mecca and to bring victory, Allah will
protect him from it (the poison), and it will not harm him."
The prophet said "O woman, you have said the
truth"... He (saws) then called upon 10s of sahaba, sit them around the meat, put his hand on the poisoned meat, blew breath over it and said: "In the name of Allah al-shafi, the healer..." Prophet and all the sahaba present ate. The woman saw that with her own eyes...and embraced Islam..."

NB: Ali ibn Abi Talib was among those who ate the meat and Ali died almost 35years after Muhammad (saws). Why hasn't be affected with the poison also?

HIS DEATH
As for his (saws)blessed death, Tarikh al-tabari, Tarikh Yakubi, Tarikh Mas'udi, Ansab al-Ashraf etc all gave account that prophet died after falling ill for some days and none of them ever reported that his death was as a result of poison he consumed 4 years ago.

cloudstar:
So, you can conveniently deny your own Hadiths Bros .
!

Hadith are graded into:

1. Authentic (sahih) or Hassan (good)
2. Weak (daeef) and
3. Mawdu (fabricated)
Based on the knowledge of hadith. The first yardstick to compare hadith with to know its veracity is Qur'an and other scrutiny can follow suit. Books of Hadith were written centuries after the death of prophet of Islam just like Bible thereby its veracity is suspected and should be put into scrutiny.

If the holy Qur'an itself can challenge anybody to verify and scrutinize its veracity being from Allah, what is any other book that will not be scrutinize?

Al-Baqir:


Sorry for mistaken you for a salafi. Their ideology is the order of the day among muslim youths today.

No problem bro,no harm done.

Al-Baqir:
Islam is an intellectual religion not dogmatic one.It is natural in an environment where a set of ideology prevails,a 'new' insight is always quickly being attack without rationality.
I am not looking for argument.You were the one that link me with another view and stylishly you didn't reveal your view.I read your link and made my comment.I await yours.

The prophet(pbuh) ate poisoned meat offered by a Jewish woman to him after the battle of Khaybar.The poison didn't kill him,Bishr(ra) a companion of the prophet(pbuh)that also ate from the meat died at that very moment he ate it,this should show that the Prophet(pbuh) is real and the poison had no effect on him.
Is the meat of the Jews halal?
Yes of course,they believe in Allah and call upon Allah's name when slaughtering.At least,the food(meat) wasn't sacrificed to idols.

Why did the prophet(pbuh) have to die 3 years after he ate the food?
Won't the prophet(pbuh) die again? Allah says in the glorious Quran in Surah Al-Anbiya 21:34 -And We granted not to any human being immortality before you (O Muhammad SAW),then if you die,would they live forever?.
The prophet(pbuh)'s death was after Allah revealed this verse of Surah Al-Maidah 5:3 -Today I have perfected your religion for you,and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings,and willed that self- surrender unto Me shall be your way of life.
NOTE: According to all available traditions,the verse above was revealed at Mount Arafat in the afternoon of Friday,the 9th of Dhul-Hijjah,shortly before the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The religion has been perfected and the decree of Allah must come to pass.

Was the prophet(pbuh) killed by the effect of the poison?

The Hadith in which only Aisha(ra) narrated doesn't mean the poison cut off the aorta of our beloved Muhammad(pbuh) literally.
The phrase that the Prophet (pbuh) uttered cut my abhar(aorta) was a common Arabic idiom back then used to denote death in any form,regardless of whether it was literally cut off or not.

Linguist expert and Qu'ranic exegete,Imam Az-Zamakhshari in his book Assaas Al-Balaagha [The Fundamentals of Rhetoric], pages 121-122 demonstrates that the phrase of the Prophet (peace be upon him) could be used metaphorically to denote one's passing away and perishing.

Ibn Al-Abbar in his book 'Itaab al-Kitaab, Volume 1,page 42 cites a poem by Abdul Malik Ibn Idris using the phrase in a sense denoting death and not literal cutting of the vein.

If the poison had an effect on him and had cut off his aorta,then he should have been feeling the pain of the poison by losing his strength since when he ate it.
He should have been bed-ridden for months if the poison was really damaging his aorta but he wasn't.He didn't feel any pain before the sickness that leads to his death.

The Prophet(pbuh) showed tremendous energy before his death,the poison had no effect on him.When the Prophet conquered Mecca,he was fasting!
(Sunan Abu-Dawud,Book 13,Number 2358).How can a person whose aorta is being affected by a poison and is gradually wearing off fast? So,the poison has no effect on the prophet(pbuh),the decree of Allah came upon him.
Are you satisfied?

Al-Baqir:
Then why do you link me with an opposite idea? As you can see (above)the predators (enemies) of Islam are earnestly waiting for you to tear you apart with every given opportunity that your prophet was killed by poison whereas a mere Paul withstand snake venom etc.

The prophet(pbuh) too withstood the poison and didn't die on the spot and this proves he's a true prophet(pbuh) nor died by its effect.How did Paul died? Not known
Don't mind that lost sheep,why can't christians take poison and survive as promised by 'Jesus'[Mark 16:18]? I know of a pastor that took a poison and died few minutes after that when he refused to take the antidote.
Can cloudstar eat poison?

Al-Baqir:
If every detail of the life of Muhammad (saws) does not increase your Iman or does not concern you in anyway,then what concern you? I didn't ask you to comment. You did at your free-will.

His Life meant a lot to us,he's the best example for humanity.Yes,I commented because I wanted to,thanks.

For those who care to know why this thread was brought up, today or tomorrow synchronized with the death-day of the prophet of Islam(saws) in the month of safar. May my soul and existence be sacrifice for him.

Peace and blessing be upon him and his household.

lanrexlan: No problem bro,no harm done.

The prophet(pbuh) ate poisoned meat offered by a Jewish woman to him after the battle of Khaybar.The poison didn't kill him,Bishr(ra) a companion of the prophet(pbuh)that also ate from the meat died at that very moment he ate it,this should show that the Prophet(pbuh) is real and the poison had no effect on him.
Is the meat of the Jews halal?
Yes of course,they believe in Allah and call upon Allah's name when slaughtering.At least,the food(meat) wasn't sacrificed to idols.

Why did the prophet(pbuh) have to die 3 years after he ate the food?
Won't the prophet(pbuh) die again? Allah says in the glorious Quran in Surah Al-Anbiya 21:34 -And We granted not to any human being immortality before you (O Muhammad SAW),then if you die,would they live forever?.
The prophet(pbuh)'s death was after Allah revealed this verse of Surah Al-Maidah 5:3 -Today I have perfected your religion for you,and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings,and willed that self- surrender unto Me shall be your way of life.
NOTE: According to all available traditions,the verse above was revealed at Mount Arafat in the afternoon of Friday,the 9th of Dhul-Hijjah,shortly before the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The religion has been perfected and the decree of Allah must come to pass.

Was the prophet(pbuh) killed by the effect of the poison?

The Hadith in which only Aisha(ra) narrated doesn't mean the poison cut off the aorta of our beloved Muhammad(pbuh) literally.
The phrase that the Prophet (pbuh) uttered cut my abhar(aorta) was a common Arabic idiom back then used to denote death in any form,regardless of whether it was literally cut off or not.

Linguist expert and Qu'ranic exegete,Imam Az-Zamakhshari in his book Assaas Al-Balaagha [The Fundamentals of Rhetoric], pages 121-122 demonstrates that the phrase of the Prophet (peace be upon him) could be used metaphorically to denote one's passing away and perishing.

Ibn Al-Abbar in his book 'Itaab al-Kitaab, Volume 1,page 42 cites a poem by Abdul Malik Ibn Idris using the phrase in a sense denoting death and not literal cutting of the vein.

If the poison had an effect on him and had cut off his aorta,then he should have been feeling the pain of the poison by losing his strength since when he ate it.
He should have been bed-ridden for months if the poison was really damaging his aorta but he wasn't.He didn't feel any pain before the sickness that leads to his death.

The Prophet(pbuh) showed tremendous energy before his death,the poison had no effect on him.When the Prophet conquered Mecca,he was fasting!
(Sunan Abu-Dawud,Book 13,Number 2358).How can a person whose aorta is being affected by a poison and is gradually wearing off fast? So,the poison has no effect on the prophet(pbuh),the decree of Allah came upon him.
Are you satisfied?
The prophet(pbuh) too withstood the poison and didn't die on the spot and this proves he's a true prophet(pbuh) nor died by its effect.How did Paul died? Not known
Don't mind that lost sheep,why can't christians take poison and survive as promised by 'Jesus'[Mark 16:18]? I know of a pastor that took a poison and died few minutes after that when he refused to take the antidote.
Can cloudstar eat poison?

His Life meant a lot to us,he's the best example for humanity.Yes,I commented because I wanted to,thanks.

@Lanrexlan,
In short you share my opinion that the poisoned meat did not have effect on the prophet. Period!

There are many Sunni Ulama who firmly believe he (saws) died as a result of that poison. Their argument is usually on the hadith of Aisha in sahih al-Bukhari. So there are divided opinion.

However, the hadith in the Bukhari is very clear for Aisha claimed the prophet died as a result of the poison. White is white and blue is blue.

Imam Zamakhshari was a great Mu'tazili who based for example is Tafsir kashaf with lughatil Arabiyah (linguistic) etc. If you study a Mu'tazili very well, part of their studies is Falsafa (philosophy); perhaps he too knew that the hadith of Aisha recorded in al-bukhari does not stand to reasoning and cannot stand sound argument thereby devise a linguistic argument for it.

The question is if the poison has no effect on the prophet (saws), why did he uttered the event of the poisoned meat 4 years on his death-bed?

Imam Zamakhashari (and you brother) is not ready to declare the hadith weak or fabricated because it is recorded by 'great bukhari'. That is the ploy of many Ulama. They try to find a mid course between two opposite lines.

On the issue of if a muslim can eat Meat killed by a Jew. Dear brother there's not a single text which prove Jew used to pronounce "In the Name of God..." Or follow the same Islamic ruling Before killing animal. Ulama can only speculate and justify the 'eating of the meat of a jew' by the prophet (saws).
Why did the prophet eat the meat? I will frankly tell you if those narration is true, that:
1. The event is not clear. How many sahaba reported it for us to dissect the whole and complete event as it actually happen.
2. Only Allah and His prophet knows why the prophet (saws) did eat the meat.

If you treat Jew that they pronounce Allah's name before killing their animal, what about christians?
Both believe in khuzair and Jesus to be son of God and god. Blashphemy!

Qur'an declare we can eat their food. What about their Meat as Qur'an clearly stated as haram animal killed without Allah's name being pronounce on it?

Al-Baqir

Who exactly is asking for a muslim's text for verification? A paul follower! Wonder shall never end. You've shot yourself at the leg the moment you brought your master Paul into play. That reveal your evil secret.

So, when someone is not a Muslim, he or she is automatically a Christian. Such daft approach is the one of the reason you ignore history. The mention of Paul came about because like Mohammad, he was poisoned. However, unlike Mohammad, he lived. The point is simple, a mere man lived and the "So called greatest of all prophets" succumbed to poison from a woman whose tribe he wiped out. Another history lesson for your perspective.

Islam is a logical and intellectual religion unlike the one Paul brainwashed you with.

Logical & intellectual! Are you for real? A religion that tells people to drink camels urine to cure illness is logical and intellectual? You have summarized your intelligence.

Do you or will you believe in the veracity of hadith that says you and paul are inmates of Hell?

The veracity of the Hadith makes no difference to me. Who are you compared to the authors of the various Hadiths? Are you more authoritative than they are. Are you more knowledgeable than they are? You accused the other Muslim poster of being salafist in order to justify your refusal to accept Islamic history on the death of Mohammad. Bros, HISTORY is not on your side. You remind of one of those people who post stickers on their cards - MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS. I sincerely feel sorry for you.

Traceable account? Lol!
Why don't you trace many myth in your bible perhaps your blocked heart can be open for the truth?

Typical muslim tactic of ignoring the question and running off in another direction. I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH

1. When your bible says Adam and Eve hide themselves in the garden of Eden when they ate forbidden fruit, your Lord God descended walking through the garden like a giant man searching for Adam and Even screaming: "Adam where are thou?"

Another sign of the growth of your brain! How is showing us your account of Mohammad's death related in anyway to Adam and Eve? Perhaps you can through light on how Islamic account confirmed that Adam was 60 cubits tall or 90 feet tall.

2. Why is Catholic bible with 76books different from protestant's bible with 66 books? Why that of Jehovah witness different from others?
Why only KJV recorded 1st Epistle of John 5: 7 which talks about trinity but ALL other versions of the bible forgot to record that verse?

Call the Pope and asked him. While you are at it - please ADDRESS MY BASIC QUESTION: What is your account of Mohammad's death?

3. When your lord and savior says he will emulate the miracle of prophet jonah who lived in the belly of the whale for 3days and 3nights and did not die, so shall he too be in the heart of the earth for 3days and 3nights. Perhaps you can trace the Paul's mistake who reported your lord died on friday and ressurected on sunday before dawn which was never equivalent to 3days and 3nights.

Another display of how logical and intelligent you are. Listen, if you can't give an alternate account of Mohammad's death, I told you to SIT DOWN & SHUT-UP

Can you explain why one of Muhammad(saws)'s companion died on the spot while he ate the poisoned meat but it took Muhammad 4 years before the poison could take effect as explain in the hadith?

You are Muslim, the explanation is up to you; not me - what text are you believing that his companions died? Isn't it the same Hadith that you are vehemently denying

Okay he had the anti-dote with him! Right?

Bros, please act up to your intelligence and provide some Islamic references to support your statements. So far, you are working on empty air.

Perhaps you go and consult doctors on the effect of deadly poison - a person that can kill a man on the spot. Can a man survive such poison for 4years without a problem until the moment of his death?

No one is denying that another person died from the same poison. That doesn't change the fact that Mohammad died from it over a period of time

So why don't you leave "more educated muslims" to take up the challenge?
Since when you become their spokesman mr paul?
You even want to trace 'book of hadith' for them. Funny guy!

It's in your history Bros - I don't need to be a muslim to read it

According to Allamah Majlisi in Bihar Anwar vol. 17
p. 318-319, after the conquest of khaybar in 7 A.H, a Jewess woman who had pretended to accept Islam
presented the holy prophet (saws) with a cooked
lamb, poisoned to seek revenge out of the prophet
for the death of his family in the battle. A sahaba
named al-Bara Ibn Marur took the meat without
prophet's permission...and ate. He collapsed and
died. The holy prophet knew the meat had been
poisoned. He ordered the arrest of the woman and
asked her why she poisoned the meat. She revealed
her intention and added: "You have caused me a
great disaster, You have killed my father, my
uncle ...so I did what I did saying to myself, 'If he
were a king, I would seek revenge against him, but if he were a prophet, as he claims, having promised to conquer Mecca and to bring victory, Allah will
protect him from it (the poison), and it will not harm him."
The prophet said "O woman, you have said the
truth"... He (saws) then called upon 10s of sahaba, sit them around the meat, put his hand on the poisoned meat, blew breath over it and said: "In the name of Allah al-shafi, the healer..." Prophet and all the sahaba present ate. The woman saw that with her own eyes...and embraced Islam..."

Really! Let me get this straight. You are choosing and cherry picking the Hadith and refuse all other authoritative Islamic texts on the issue . CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A REFERENCE TO THIS HADITH SO I CAN CONFIRM IT. Here is my online source: http://www.searchtruth.com/hadith_books.php. Let's get into it, shall we:

I will use quotes from 4 highly respected Islamic writings:

1. "Sahih Bukhari”. This Hadith is considered to be the most important Islamic book, after the Quran. If I am understanding what you are saying, your stance is that Bukhari hadith is false on the account of Mohammad's death? PLEASE CONFIRM BROS
2. Ibn Ishaq's biography, the "Sirat Rasul Allah", (THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET), translated by A. Guillaume as "The Life of Muhammad", is the most authentic Sirat (biographical) literature recognized in Islam.
3. Ibn Sa'd biography, the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), Volume 2. Of the three, Ibn Sa'd's Sirat contains the most information relative to Muhammad's death. I will not attempt to cover the spectrum of subjects Ibn Sa'd addresses in his. However, I will cover and present his relevant material.
4. Tabari's "History". Tabari is one of the most highly respected authors in Islamic writings. His "History" is 39 volumes.
5. “Sahih Muslim”. This collection of Hadith is considered to be equal to, or slightly below Bukhari’s collection of Hadith.

I HAVE MENTIONED 5 AUTHORITATIVE HADITHS THAT ARE RECOGNIZED WORLD-WIDE by nearly every muslim. You are one of the few (who knows, perhaps because of your sect) that refuse the above. I can go ahead and list each Hadith but it's evident that you would rather shoot yourself than accept it.

NB: Ali ibn Abi Talib was among those who ate the meat and Ali died almost 35years after Muhammad (saws). Why hasn't be affected with the poison also?

Bros, whether he died immediately or whether it was 10 years later is irrelevant. Here we go:

A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

if that is not clear, here:

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

AND ANOTHER ONE:

Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah's Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion's of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah's Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)

SO, LET US PUT YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY IN PERSPECTIVE:

[b]Narrated AbuSalamah:

Muhammad ibn Amr said on the authority of AbuSalamah, and he did not mention the name of AbuHurayrah: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to accept presents but not alms (sadaqah).This version adds: So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) 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 Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) 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. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 39, Number 4498)[/b]

HIS DEATH
As for his (saws)blessed death, Tarikh al-tabari, Tarikh Yakubi, Tarikh Mas'udi, Ansab al-Ashraf etc all gave account that prophet died after falling ill for some days and none of them ever reported that his death was as a result of poison he consumed 4 years ago.

That is not what the Hadiths state. Let me ask you the following questions:

1. Are you claiming that Muhammad, Aisha, Anas etc. didn’t know what they were talking about? Do you know better than Muhammad? He explicitly says that he felt the effect of that poison many times, and he himself attributes his death to the poison. Was that merely Muhammad’s paranoia, and he simply imagined this even though it was not true?
2. Are you therefore accusing Muhammad and his companions of being ignorant since you know more than they did regarding the effects of poison, i.e. that it is not possible for someone to be harmed by poisoned food which had been eaten four years earlier?
3. Or you saying that these Muslim sources are wrong, that they are fabricated texts? For example, is Al-Bukhari fabricated and not authentic?

Hadith are graded into:

1. Authentic (sahih) or Hassan (good)
2. Weak (daeef) and
3. Mawdu (fabricated)
Based on the knowledge of hadith. The first yardstick to compare hadith with to know its veracity is Qur'an and other scrutiny can follow suit. Books of Hadith were written centuries after the death of prophet of Islam just like Bible thereby its veracity is suspected and should be put into scrutiny.

Can you tell us which Hadiths are authentic and which are not?

If the holy Qur'an itself can challenge anybody to verify and scrutinize its veracity being from Allah, what is any other book that will not be scrutinize?

The Quran is not the only book/texts that Muslims adhere to. Several muslims practices are not ordained in the Quran but in the Hadiths i.e. praying 5 times a day, the instruction to visit the Hajj if you can are all Hadiths based and not instructions directly given from the Quran. Yet, you as a muslim knowingly or unknowingly accept these Hadiths.

In your haste to refute what your own Islamic sources proclaim, you overlooked one important fact: Muhammad, who supposedly heard the food tell him it was poisoned, was utterly incapable of preventing his friend from eating and dying because of it! If Muhammad really knew that the food was poisoned then surely he would have done something to prevent his friend from eating it. So, why was the "greatest of all the prophets" not able to save his friends? I will LEAVE YOU TO PONDER OVER THAT.

Here is a similar story where another prophet (In the Bible - who Mohammad is speculated to be "GREATER" than) saved his comrades from poison.

"Elisha returned to Gilgal and there was a famine in that region. While the company of the prophets was meeting with him, he said to his servant, 'Put on the large pot and cook some stew for these men.' One of them went out into the fields to gather herbs and found a wild vine. He gathered some of its gourds and filled the fold of his cloak. When he returned, he cut them up into the pot of stew, though no one knew what they were. The stew was poured out for the men, but as they began to eat it, they cried out, 'O man of God, there is death in the pot!' And they could not eat it. Elisha said, 'Get some flour.' He put it into the pot and said, 'Serve it to the people to eat.' And there was nothing harmful in the pot." 2 Kings 4:38-41 NIV

Why couldn't Muhammad have done the same for his friend if he was truly a prophet like the OT prophets?

Moreover, specific narrations actually provide evidence that Muhammad only realized that his food was poisoned after seeing what had happened to his companion:

When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, conquered Khaybar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith, the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired: Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad? They said: The foreleg. Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail… The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr Ibn al-Barra took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Hold back your hands! because this foreleg… informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said: By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong.

Bishr did not rise from his seat but his color changed to that of taylsan (a green cloth)… The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sent for Zaynab and said to her: What induced you to do what you have done? She replied: You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself: If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said: If you are a king we will get rid of you…

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaybar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein, which is a vein in the back… (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. (Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], Volume II, pp. 251-252; bold and italic emphasis ours)

Observe that Bishr clearly realized that something was wrong with the meat and wanted to spit it out, but he instead swallowed because he did not want Muhammad’s enjoyment of the food be lessened by his doing so. Bishr clearly ate and died because Muhammad did NOT realize at first that this meat was bad or poisoned. Bishr only ate, because Muhammad had eaten first, though probably only a little.

Second, if Bishr was able to realize that the meat was poisoned then there is no reason to think that Muhammad did not realize this simply from the taste (and maybe already seeing the fast effect on his companion) that the food was poisoned. There is no need to look for a prophetic insight. If Muhammad had had that insight BEFORE touching the meat, that would have been more impressive. After having tasted it and probably even seeing its effect on Bishr, and maybe feeling some of it himself, the explanation for this insight is entirely natural.

In light of this I have some more questions for you:

1. If Muhammad had been supernaturally informed that the food was poisoned why did he eat from it as the narrations indicate? Why not inspire Muhammad before he ingested any of the poisoned food so that four years later he wouldn’t think that this is what caused his fatal illness?
2. More importantly, why didn’t the revelation come to Muhammad before his friend ate the poison? Why didn’t Allah inspire him in time to prevent his companion from eating and thereby spare his life?

Here is another Hadith that clearly states his health deteriorated due to the poison:

Narrated Umm Salamah
Umm Salamah said: Allah's Messenger, you necessarily develop trouble every year because of the eating of the poisoned (meat) of sheep. He said: Nothing befalls me but that which was destined for me while Adam was still a lump of clay.
Transmitted by Ibn Majah. (Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 43)

Bros, you can't ignore history. You can pretend and refuse it but you can't ignore it or change it

^Really its always being difficult to dialogue with a cunning individual like you. What is your affiliation? You are scared to reveal it.

You immediately deny being a Christian since there's impending danger on the way.

On the other hand I doubt you are a muslim at all because paul was greater than Muhammad (saws) in your own thought.

If you are 'Quran alone' type, then why using what you don't believe in for a moment (i.e books of Hadith)?

If you are a free-thinker, why do you adamantly choose to accept sahih al-Bukhari, sahih Muslim et al simply based on the fact that they are the most popular books of hadith for majority of the muslim?

Since when majority believe in something make it AUTHENTIC? What kind of reasoning is that? According to population, Christian are the majority and no doubt Bible is more popular than Qur'an. Does that make those right?

There isn't a SINGLE evidence that Allah in the Qur'an or Muhammad (saws) EVER authenticated those books (Bukhari and Muslim) or any other books for that matter after Qur'an. Then where's the rationality of Bukhari and Muslim are the most authentic books after Qur'an surfaced from?
Its only a myth.

Today many muslims have been brainwashed and conditioned to believe that Bukhari and Muslim are unquestionably authentic even if there are some text that blatantly oppose Qur'an in them. I am sorry Al-baqir is not one of those. My belief is: no books of hadith, be it Sunni or shi'i is immune from errors and lies. Verifications based on Qur'an and some other rational mean will separate grain from chaff. I have done just that for you.

I've opened several threads on some issue based on the two books of hadith and have tried to expose them perhaps you can see how sceptical I am based on their narration:

1. www.nairaland.com/1501204/how-true-narrations-sahih-bukhari

2. www.nairaland.com/1513498/why-fasting-day-ashura-need

3. www.nairaland.com/1452472/aisha-9-17-when-she
Etc etc.

If you are a free-thinker, you shouldn't take any side, and logic and rationality should have been your yardstick. I have given you just that but you refuse to answer logically rather you adamantly stick with: "Muhammad was killed with poison, then he was a fake prophet. It is there in your book - Bukhari".

That is being desperate and foolish.

Qur'an which ALL muslim believe to be 100% says don't just believe stupidly and verbally, take up the challenge and scrutinize its veracity but in your own sick mentality, on the issue of Muhammad's death (and other issue yet to reveal), Bukhari, Muslim and others should not be scrutinized because its an existing most popular evidence and reference for your cursed agenda - that Muhammad was a fake prophet (nauthubillah) because he died of poison.

My questions and rational arguments are still there for you awaiting an equally rational answer to them.

"PLUNGE INTO THE DEPTHS UNTIL YOU REACH THE TRUTH" ~ Imam Ali (a.s).

If you however maintain your hoax, then I resign because I have been warned:

"I have never argued with an ignorant fool and won; nor have I argued with a rational person and lost"- Imam Ali (as).

Al-Baqir

Really its always being difficult to dialogue with a cunning individual like you. What is your affiliation? You are scared to reveal it.

My affiliation has nothing to do with the subject at hand .

You immediately deny being a Christian since there's impending danger on the way.

Read my post again - I said you shouldn't assume presence of Christianity if there is an absence of Islam. Most Muslims are known to start attacking Christendom as if it will change the topic at hand.

On the other hand I doubt you are a muslim at all because paul was greater than Muhammad (saws) in your own thought.

Again, mis-quoting me. I said the two men had a common denominator; they were poisoned. Once shook it off and lived. The other died from it. Muslims claim Mohammad is the last and greatest of the prophets and in comparison with a mere man like Paul; he died of poison. Paul was mentioned because he was poisoned as well. I have no affiliation with Paul . Who obviously has a higher resistance to poison that Mohammad

If you are 'Quran alone' type, then why using what you don't believe in for a moment (i.e books of Hadith)?

If you are a free-thinker, why do you adamantly choose to accept sahih al-Bukhari, sahih Muslim et al simply based on the fact that they are the most popular books of hadith for majority of the muslim?

I am a historian, a researcher, a scientist, a believer in a Supreme Intelligent being that is just, loving, kind, holy, all wise, all knowing and PERFECT. You are fighting a battle and a war that you CAN'T WIN. No matter the outcome of our discussion, there is no way where you come out making any sense . Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant and the reason is simple - if we decided to trace the EARLIEST sources of Islamic texts regarding Mohammad's death from several Islamic sources, be it the Sunni or Shia/Shiite schools of jurisprudence; the result will be the same.

Since when majority believe in something make it AUTHENTIC? What kind of reasoning is that? According to population, Christian are the majority and no doubt Bible is more popular than Qur'an. Does that make those right?

Your analogy doesn't contribute to the subject at hand . If all Islamic terrorists were Christian evangelists, would the world be a better/safer place? . Your guess is as good as mine

There isn't a SINGLE evidence that Allah in the Qur'an or Muhammad (saws) EVER authenticated those books (Bukhari and Muslim) or any other books for that matter after Qur'an. Then where's the rationality of Bukhari and Muslim are the most authentic books after Qur'an surfaced from? Its only a myth.

Mohammad never wrote the Quran either, not a single Surah. Again, this is where you will have to go through HISTORY to trace the source of the compilation of the Quran. Interestingly, this brings out several questions:

1. My first challenge to you is to provide a quote from a reliable source written within 100 years after Muhammad’s death (633 AD) which expressly and unambiguously says that the Quran consists of 114 chapters, no more no less
2. I challenge you to cite a reference from this early period that clearly says that all of these 114 suras were transmitted through Muhammad. I want the Muslim polemicists to provide conclusive historic proofs that other messengers or prophets whose names are not mentioned in the Quran did not compose some of these surahs.

I hope you can do justice to the questions I have asked above.

Today many muslims have been brainwashed and conditioned to believe that Bukhari and Muslim are unquestionably authentic even if there are some text that blatantly oppose Qur'an in them. I am sorry Al-baqir is not one of those. My belief is: no books of hadith, be it Sunni or shi'i is immune from errors and lies. Verifications based on Qur'an and some other rational mean will separate grain from chaff. I have done just that for you.

You have given me the OPINION of only ONE MUSLIM out of probably 1.5 billion . Also, you haven't told me which Hadith is authentic and which one isn't; I hope you can be honest enough to list each one stating whether they are authentic or not and how many Muslims believe in them. Let me give you a simple example: The Sunnis believe in the 114 Surah of the Quran, the Shia/Shittes believe in the same thing with an addition of an extra Surah making it 115. My question to you is this - which version of the Quran is in Heaven and which version did Gabriel recite to Mohammad?

I've opened several threads on some issue based on the two books of hadith and have tried to expose them perhaps you can see how sceptical I am based on their narration:

1. www.nairaland.com/1501204/how-true-narrations-sahih-bukhari

2. www.nairaland.com/1513498/why-fasting-day-ashura-need

3. www.nairaland.com/1452472/aisha-9-17-when-she
Etc etc.

There is nothing new about your stance Bros. Several Muslims apologists take the same stance - cherry picking what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe. At the same time, driving the discord of disunity between the Sunni and Shitte sects.

If you are a free-thinker, you shouldn't take any side, and logic and rationality should have been your yardstick. I have given you just that but you refuse to answer logically rather you adamantly stick with: "Muhammad was killed with poison, then he was a fake prophet. It is there in your book - Bukhari".

I never said he was a FAKE prophet . Please try and calm down and read my posts. I said if he was the "greatest and seal of all the prophets" as Muslims claim; why did he die of poison? I have proven and proven and proven to you based on several different Hadiths that his death was attributed to the poison the Jewish lady gave him. All the Hadiths that I quoted are older than the Hadiths you mentioned. You have made your position clear - you don't believe in Al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim (the only reason I can think about is that they are Sunni and you are Shitte). It's arrogance for a man who has no PROOF or traceable evidence to suggest that the earliest narrations of Muslims that existed way before any of his generation was born is a LIAR. I wish you could say that on national TV

That is being desperate and foolish.

That is an accurate description of yourself. I am not a Muslim; you are!. You are the one showing disunity and dishonestly to your traditions based on your sect. If I wanted to be a Muslim based on your attitude, Islam will be my last option.

Qur'an which ALL muslim believe to be 100% says don't just believe stupidly and verbally, take up the challenge and scrutinize its veracity but in your own sick mentality, on the issue of Muhammad's death (and other issue yet to reveal), Bukhari, Muslim and others should not be scrutinized because its an existing most popular evidence and reference for your cursed agenda - that Muhammad was a fake prophet (nauthubillah) because he died of poison.

Again, I never said he was fake neither did the Hadiths. They recorded his death, the reason he died and how he died. You came close to 1,400 years later and talking as if you were there

My questions and rational arguments are still there for you awaiting an equally rational answer to them.

Rational! You are kidding right?

"PLUNGE INTO THE DEPTHS UNTIL YOU REACH THE TRUTH" ~ Imam Ali (a.s).

Ah - it's confirmed! you are Shia/Shitte! . No wonder the refusal of Al-bukhari and others. Makes complete sense now.

If you however maintain your hoax, then I resign because I have been warned:

Running away with your tail between your legs huh? You have summed up your version of Islam for me.

"I have never argued with an ignorant fool and won; nor have I argued with a rational person and lost"- Imam Ali (as).

Imam Ali don suffer oh!. I can't engage in scholarship with you. It's physically tiring. It shocks me that such stance are the very essence that breaks the bonds in Islam. I am not surprised - it is been displayed in Syria and Iraq today. Good luck and happy new year

Al-Baqir:

1. The intent of the Jewish woman was to determine whether Rasul is a true prophet or not.

If he died on the spot or even later (after 4years) as a result of the poison, then, it doesn't make a difference he's a fake prophet (naurhubillah). In fact, wasn't that not a suicide mission which is a grave sin? For he knew there was a poison in the meat yet he ate which killed him later.

Besides it doesn't at all stand to reason that a poison consumed ONCE can have its effect after 4years.

2. How can the holy prophet (saws) eat Meat killed by a Jew? Qur'an says we can eat ahl al-kitab's food but Meat was silent on.
Islamically, there are rules to kill animal for it to become Halal. Was there any existing text that the animal was killed accordingly by the Jewish woman before Muhammad (saws) descended on it?
This point makes this hadith suspicious.

3. The Jewish woman believed in the prophet-hood of Muhammad because he didn't die of the poison she put in it. It is only reasonable that he didn't die of that poison later in life. If his Lord protected him from that poison in the first instance, why letting him suffer of the agony latter in life?

the truth about the bolded is that- islam allow muslims to eat the food (meet is a food) of both the jews and christian of old, but common sense perveil, muslims of now must not eat from the meat slaughtered by jews or christians because the both of them for the fact they don't have taurat & ingeel can't lay claim judaism and christianity respectively.

not derailing just trying to prove Muhammad & muslims is allowed to eat their(christians & jews) meat.

ALLAH knows best.

cannonnier:
the truth about the bolded is that- islam allow muslims to eat the food (meet is a food) of both the jews and christian of old, but common sense perveil, muslims of now must not eat from the meat slaughtered by jews or christians because the both of them for the fact they don't have taurat & ingeel can't lay claim judaism and christianity respectively.

not derailing just trying to prove Muhammad & muslims is allowed to eat their(christians & jews) meat.

ALLAH knows best.

Thanks brother. I admire your sense of reasoning. The issue of Jewish meat is a very debatable one.
There's no single text that exist which prove Jew usually pronounce Allah's name or kill according to similar Islamic rule when slaughtering their animal.

If the holy prophet (saws) truly ate the meat, then Allah and His prophet knows best.

Al-Baqir:


Thanks brother. I admire your sense of reasoning. The issue of Jewish meat is a very debatable one.
There's no single text that exist which prove Jew usually pronounce Allah's name or kill according to similar Islamic rule when slaughtering their animal.

If the holy prophet (saws) truly ate the meat, then Allah and His prophet knows best.

he ate the meat got sick and hale afterwards.

a hadith narrated rasul(s.a.w) being attended by a doctor for that particular sickness, which he(the doctor) quoted frog among his medicinal ingredient.
Rasul(s.a.w) corrected him saying- killing frog is haram.

Did the wives of the Prophet poison him as narrated by al-Ayyashi?

This is a follow up question from the original question posted here: Was the Holy Prophet poisoned and martyred or did he die a natural death? - Please read that post first before reading this.

Question:

Did the two wives of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) poison him as narrated by al-Ayyashi?

Al-Ayyashi reported in his Tafsir (Volume 1, Page 200, Hadith 152), from Abdul Samad ibn Bashir, from Abi Abdillah (as) who said:


“Do you know whether the Prophet (pbuh) died (a natural death) or was murdered? Indeed Allah (swt) says (in the Holy Quran 3:144 “If he (the Prophet) dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)?”), he was poisoned before death, they both fed it (the poison) to him before death.”

Is this hadith authentic and how can we reconcile the original notion that the Prophet died a natural death?

——————————

Answer:

Firstly, please refer to my original answer where I already dealt with this issue.

However, let us directly address this hadith. The only book that narrated the two wives of the Prophet (P) have poisoned him to death is ‘Tafsir al-Ayyashi ( vol 1: p.200), the rest have taken it from this source.

Although there are many good Ahadith in the book and it is regarded as one of the very useful ancient sources, however:

1. Mohammad Ibn Mas’oon al-Ayyashi was one of the eminent Shi’a scholars of the time of the Minor Occultation. He used to be a Sunni and then converted to Shi’a school. However, the late al-Najashi (the very famous expert in the science of al-Rejal, died in (450AH) whose opinion is usually well received) says in his book of Rejal about al-Ayyashi: “He was a reliable and an authentic person.. (yet) he used to narrate a lot from the weak people.”. Furthermore, the late Ayatullah Khoei says about him: “The Esnad of both Sh. Sadooq and Sh. Toosi to him is weak.”

2. We have no access to the original copy of the book. The version available to us today is compiled after the demise of al-Ayyashi by an anonymous person who says in the beginning of the book: “I could not find anyone in my area who has permission from the author (to narrate the book) or has heard it (i.e. the narrations of the book) from him. Therefore, I narrate its narration without any Esnad. However, if I later on find their Esnad I will mention them.” He has never mentioned the Esnad of any Hadith.

Therefore, firstly we are not sure if the book is really the compilation of the late al-Ayyashi himself, secondly all its narrations are Morsal (without any chain of transmitters) and as such we cannot base any belief on any of its narrations unless supported by other Islamically authenticated evidences. For example, the book has quoted many narrations confirming the distortion of the Holy Quran. Most of these narrations are narrated from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Sayyari whom our experts in the science of al-Rejaal consider very weak and unreliable. (See: al-Khoei, 2:282) Would it be possible that such an important news is not narrated in any other book?!

In conclusion and further to the original points I made, it seems most likely that the Prophet (pbuh) died of natural causes and was not poisoned. And God knows best.

Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei

Source: Ask the Sheikh

http://www.aimislam.com/did-the-wives-of-the-prophet-poison-him-as-narrated-by-al-ayyashi/

@cannonnier; to believe that the taurat and injeel were not corrupted by the time the prophet [SA] are far from the statement of the Quran and the general knowledge of the muslims. Allah allows the consumption of their meat then, in spite of their beliefs and today is not a new thing because you have to pronounce the bismAllah on all foods to before consumption.



@cloudstar; Allah says in Surah Azhab that the prophet [SA] should be conscious of Allah. The prophet [SA] is the first of those who fear or conscious of Allah. This command is not made because he [SA] was slacking. but what we know is that we are to be conscious, emulating the prophet [SA], submitting in utmost willingness. the death of the prophet [SA] was not by means of the poison that had no effect from when it was consumed throughout the 3 years. you couldn't say that the poison was dormant for that long because it was potent from the moment it got into the mouth as someone [RA] died, instantly. the prophet [SA] is the biggest of the martyr and his death had to have the 'feeling' of pain, and there is no death without some form of pain on the dying, anyway. for a mortal, he {SA] had to die and Allah chose whatever way that praised Him, elevating the status of His Prophet [SA] by it.

disbelief which is why you are proposing that the death must be by the inactive poison when it was most concentrated at consumption, is conjecture, similar to the conjecture of the christians saying without assurance that Jesus died on the cross. Quran leads to guidance and to the disbelievers, it leads to disbelief.

RoyPCain: @cannonnier; to believe that the taurat and injeel were not corrupted by the time the prophet [SA] are far from the statement of the Quran and the general knowledge of the muslims. Allah allows the consumption of their meat then, in spite of their beliefs and today is not a new thing because you have to pronounce the bismAllah on all foods to before consumption.



@cloudstar; Allah says in Surah Azhab that the prophet [SA] should be conscious of Allah. The prophet [SA] is the first of those who fear or conscious of Allah. This command is not made because he [SA] was slacking. but what we know is that we are to be conscious, emulating the prophet [SA], submitting in utmost willingness. the death of the prophet [SA] was not by means of the poison that had no effect from when it was consumed throughout the 3 years. you couldn't say that the poison was dormant for that long because it was potent from the moment it got into the mouth as someone [RA] died, instantly. the prophet [SA] is the biggest of the martyr and his death had to have the 'feeling' of pain, and there is no death without some form of pain on the dying, anyway. for a mortal, he {SA] had to die and Allah chose whatever way that praised Him, elevating the status of His Prophet [SA] by it.

disbelief which is why you are proposing that the death must be by the inactive poison when it was most concentrated at consumption, is conjecture, similar to the conjecture of the christians saying without assurance that Jesus died on the cross. Quran leads to guidance and to the disbelievers, it leads to disbelief.

Whatever I have said has been from Muslim earliest authentic sources. From what it looks like, it is only Shitte muslims on this thread that hold alternate views that Mohammad died otherwise. If Muslims wants to cherry pick what they believe from THEIR OWN TRADITIONS, then I can only imagine what harm that brings to Islam.

If you doubt the death of Mohammad on account of the Hadiths, then you should doubt the entire Hadiths - that means, you should doubt pasrts of the 5 pillars of Islam that are direct instructions from the Hadiths and not from the Quran i.e. like the Shahada, Salaat. These are DIRECT instructions from the Hadiths that YOU muslims are bringing into question.

cloudstar:

Whatever I have said has been from Muslim earliest authentic sources. From what it looks like, it is only Shitte muslims on this thread that hold alternate views that Mohammad died otherwise. If Muslims wants to cherry pick what they believe from THEIR OWN TRADITIONS, then I can only imagine what harm that brings to Islam.
.

Cloudstar, why are you reasoning like a deluded ignorant?

When you claim to be a scientifical researcher, I thought your level of understanding shouldn't be easily block. A scientist of any field rely much on empirical argument.

For the last time brother. Books of Hadith and books of History are not like the Holy Qur'an. Those books are fallible; unfortunately, publicity and dogmatism over the years make them 'infallible' in the eyes of innocent muslims.

When Qur'an says: "...and Allah will protect you from (evil plot of) man", then how can a poisoned meat affect the prophet? Alas! The hadith of the poisoned meat concluded when the prophet realized the meat has been poisoned, he sought divine help, and they all ate the meat. The poison was render useless. However, if another hadith now claimed he complaint 4years later, then you have a more complicated issues on the table apart from being contradictory.

The hadith that says the prophet complaint about the poison he took at khaybar on his death-bed does not stand to reasoning not to talk about being scientific. How is it possible that:

1. One of his companion died immediately he ate the poisoned meat and the rest including the prophet remained alive?

2. Why would such poison took its deadly effect on the prophet 4years after?

3. Ali ibn Abi talib lived more than 30years after the death of the prophet and he ate the poisoned meat too!

4. What is the prove of the prophet (Bukhari's claim) that it was the poisoned meat that has affected him at his death-bed, 4years past?

cloudstar:
If you doubt the death of Mohammad on account of the Hadiths, then you should doubt the entire Hadiths - that means, you should doubt pasrts of the 5 pillars of Islam that are direct instructions from the Hadiths and not from the Quran i.e. like the Shahada, Salaat. These are DIRECT instructions from the Hadiths that YOU muslims are bringing into question.

Islam is not a dogmatic religion. Islam is a religion of sensibility.
Only Qur'an was written, verified and approved by the prophet in his life-time. Books of hadith and history were not.

Again! If the holy Qur'an can open the door of scrutiny (in any means man could think of) to itself, then what is sahih bukhari, sahih muslim et al that will be left un-scrutinized?

Whatever in the books of hadith that is contradictory to Qur'anic principles is rejected to be fabricated. This is one of the acid-tests any hadith will pass through for it to be dimmed authentic.

Shahada, pillars of Islam et al are in the holy Qur'an and any hadith that give a detail account must not derail from the Qur'an.

Al-Baqir

Cloudstar, why are you reasoning like a deluded ignorant?

When you claim to be a scientifical researcher, I thought your level of understanding shouldn't be easily block. A scientist of any field rely much on empirical argument.

For the last time brother. Books of Hadith and books of History are not like the Holy Qur'an. Those books are fallible; unfortunately, publicity and dogmatism over the years make them 'infallible' in the eyes of innocent muslims.

Hahahaha - what is the difference between the Quran and say the Hadith Al-Bukhari? I asked you a question earlier, the Sunni version of the Quran has 114 Surahs and the Shiite version has 115 Surahs. Which is the original copy in heaven?

When Qur'an says: "...and Allah will protect you from (evil plot of) man", then how can a poisoned meat affect the prophet? Alas! The hadith of the poisoned meat concluded when the prophet realized the meat has been poisoned, he sought divine help, and they all ate the meat. The poison was render useless. However, if another hadith now claimed he complaint 4years later, then you have a more complicated issues on the table apart from being contradictory.

The Quran also claimed that Adam was 90 feet tall! It also claimed that the earth is flat - are those statements true in the light of present day science? You can challenge the authenticity of the Hadiths, it makes little difference to the topic at hand.

The hadith that says the prophet complaint about the poison he took at khaybar on his death-bed does not stand to reasoning not to talk about being scientific. How is it possible that:

He said that was the reason why he died and his child bride also said the same thing. You are here trying desperately to say it's not TRUE

1. One of his companion died immediately he ate the poisoned meat and the rest including the prophet remained alive?

What is hard to believe here? Typhoid fever can kill others in a day or less and others can withstand it not even knowing they had it. The fact remains that Mohammad's death was CLEARLY related to the poison he ate.

2. Why would such poison took its deadly effect on the prophet 4years after?

Very good question. You are the doubting Thomas - The Islamic sources clearly said he died of it and the narration stated that they saw the effect of the poison on his mouth.

3. Ali ibn Abi talib lived more than 30years after the death of the prophet and he ate the poisoned meat too!

Can you prove that he died otherwise and not from the poison?

4. What is the prove of the prophet (Bukhari's claim) that it was the poisoned meat that has affected him at his death-bed, 4years past?

Not only Bukhari confirmed it Bros, it's in several other Hadiths

Islam is not a dogmatic religion. Islam is a religion of sensibility.
Only Qur'an was written, verified and approved by the prophet in his life-time. Books of hadith and history were not.

YOU LIE - Mohammad never wrote nor compiled the Quran during his life-time. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THIS

Again! If the holy Qur'an can open the door of scrutiny (in any means man could think of) to itself, then what is sahih bukhari, sahih muslim et al that will be left un-scrutinized?

Really, the Quran states in several places that you shouldn't question it, so you have no point here Bros

Whatever in the books of hadith that is contradictory to Qur'anic principles is rejected to be fabricated. This is one of the acid-tests any hadith will pass through for it to be dimmed authentic.

Oh yeah - then please tell me from the Quran how Mohammad died?

Shahada, pillars of Islam et al are in the holy Qur'an and any hadith that give a detail account must not derail from the Qur'an.

Really!. Please show me in the Quran where Salaat (pray 5 TIMES A DAY IS given as an instruction).

RoyPCain: @cannonnier; to believe that the taurat and injeel were not corrupted by the time the prophet [SA] are far from the statement of the Quran and the general knowledge of the muslims. Allah allows the consumption of their meat then, in spite of their beliefs and today is not a new thing because you have to pronounce the bismAllah on all foods to before consumption.



@cloudstar; Allah says in Surah Azhab that the prophet [SA] should be conscious of Allah. The prophet [SA] is the first of those who fear or conscious of Allah. This command is not made because he [SA] was slacking. but what we know is that we are to be conscious, emulating the prophet [SA], submitting in utmost willingness. the death of the prophet [SA] was not by means of the poison that had no effect from when it was consumed throughout the 3 years. you couldn't say that the poison was dormant for that long because it was potent from the moment it got into the mouth as someone [RA] died, instantly. the prophet [SA] is the biggest of the martyr and his death had to have the 'feeling' of pain, and there is no death without some form of pain on the dying, anyway. for a mortal, he {SA] had to die and Allah chose whatever way that praised Him, elevating the status of His Prophet [SA] by it.

disbelief which is why you are proposing that the death must be by the inactive poison when it was most concentrated at consumption, is conjecture, similar to the conjecture of the christians saying without assurance that Jesus died on the cross. Quran leads to guidance and to the disbelievers, it leads to disbelief.

brother their meat is as good as dead meat, do you mean if i pronunce basmalah on it it will automatically turn halal?

RoyPCain: @cannonnier; to believe that the taurat and injeel were not corrupted by the time the prophet [SA] are far from the statement of the Quran and the general knowledge of the muslims. Allah allows the consumption of their meat then, in spite of their beliefs and today is not a new thing because you have to pronounce the bismAllah on all foods to before consumption.



@cloudstar; Allah says in Surah Azhab that the prophet [SA] should be conscious of Allah. The prophet [SA] is the first of those who fear or conscious of Allah. This command is not made because he [SA] was slacking. but what we know is that we are to be conscious, emulating the prophet [SA], submitting in utmost willingness. the death of the prophet [SA] was not by means of the poison that had no effect from when it was consumed throughout the 3 years. you couldn't say that the poison was dormant for that long because it was potent from the moment it got into the mouth as someone [RA] died, instantly. the prophet [SA] is the biggest of the martyr and his death had to have the 'feeling' of pain, and there is no death without some form of pain on the dying, anyway. for a mortal, he {SA] had to die and Allah chose whatever way that praised Him, elevating the status of His Prophet [SA] by it.

disbelief which is why you are proposing that the death must be by the inactive poison when it was most concentrated at consumption, is conjecture, similar to the conjecture of the christians saying without assurance that Jesus died on the cross. Quran leads to guidance and to the disbelievers, it leads to disbelief.

New age muslims always want to add new meaning or ignore their own history. HOWEVER YOU PUT IT, MOHAMMAD DIED FROM THE POISON OF A JEWISH WOMAN.

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

Narrated AbuSalamah:

Muhammad ibn Amr said on the authority of AbuSalamah, and he did not mention the name of AbuHurayrah: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to accept presents but not alms (sadaqah).This version adds: So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) 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 Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) 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. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 39, Number 4498)

There is too much evidence to state he died otherwise . Instead of you folks to present concrete evidence that he died otherwise - you are hear attacking and denying your own early and in most cases authoritative muslim sources

^@cloudstar,
It is no surprise you result into repetition of one feeble argument since the beginning of your propaganda. You neither want to reason logically nor willing to accept scientific explanation.
It is simply a waste of time and a futile effort opening a dialogue with an adamant, static and desperate fellow like you. Little wonder why your 'star is cloudy' (cloudstar).

Al-Baqir:
^@cloudstar,
It is no surprise you result into repetition of one feeble argument since the beginning of your propaganda. You neither want to reason logically nor willing to accept scientific explanation.
It is simply a waste of time and a futile effort opening a dialogue with an adamant, static and desperate fellow like you. Little wonder why your 'star is cloudy' (cloudstar).

I will give you a pass for character attacks; most Muslims who can't engage is scholastic debate result to such bigotry. In this new year, I pray you have some sense of honesty in dealing with your own religious belief. All you have shown is the hatred between the popular sects in Islam and mainly toward your own religion. I pray the Almighty God will reveal Himself to you. Happy new year!

" No wealth like intelligence and no poverty harsher
than ignorance."~Imam Ali (a.s)

Imam Ali (a.s) said to Malik al-Ashtar:

O Malik, the owners of weak conviction are
disregarding their personality...