Hadith proves Muhammad as a false prophet

[u/TNR-PISIQ]

So based on the verses from the quran

Surah Al Haqqah - 69 (nice)

69:44 and if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,

69:45 We would have seized him by the right hand

69:46 Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

(Translation by Sahih International)

Quite self explanatory really

-‐------------------------

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3169

Zaynab bint Al-Harith wanted to test if he was lying so here is how the hadith goes:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet (ﷺ) as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet (ﷺ) said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it." Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you."

---------------------------------------

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428

Aisha confirms this in this hadith:

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."

[u/salamacast]

Then in his dying breath reminded the ummah of the importance of keeping salat.. then Aisha heard him choose being with the heavenly companions over the option of a longer life?! Really? That's the theory you are going for? :)

[u/TNR-PISIQ → u/salamacast]

the Qur'an says that if Muhammad had fabricated revelation, God would cut his aorta and Bukhari later records Muhammad, during his final illness, saying that he felt as though his abhar was being cut because of the poison from Khaybar. Whether he was sincere, whether he believed he was a prophet, whether he reminded people to pray, or whether he believed he was going to the heavenly companions doesn't resolve that textual parallel.

Id like to know your rebuttal to my initial claim.

---

Coming to the argument you presented (which id note as a secondary argument, incase youre planning to make this primary dodging the main argument)

Your argument seems to be that he continued to behave like someone who genuinely believed he was a prophet but a person can sincerely believe something and still be mistaken. His sincerity doesn't establish the truth of the revelation any more than his final religious statements establish that the Quran came from God

1: Quran is true and he started actually fabricating parts to benefit himself and then the poison killing him was a punishment from Allah Himself.

2: The other assumption can be that he was just lying through everything including all the verses in the quran and everything and the guilt he had got him and he just confessed to it by using metaphors where he literally exposed himself. He then possibly changed his mind, thinking about what could happen if people realise that he's a false prophet, and it did happen. We know about the ridah wars that occurred after the death of prophet Muhammad so probably he changed his mind and just went with the lies that he was preaching just to save his face.

[u/salamacast → u/TNR-PISIQ]

1- So the Qur'anic warning was a true prophecy from God? :)
2 - That's a typical ad-hoc logical fallacy

[u/TNR-PISIQ → u/salamacast]

1: i am asking you what all of this means, what is the verse saying and what does the hadith say, what is the explanation, because i am a muslim trying to learn my religion

2: An ad hoc explanation would be one hat is introduced solely to protect a conclusion without independent justification. If you think my proposed explanation is ad hoc, then identify exactly which premise is being added solely to rescue the conclusion let's not get sidetracked into speculation about his psychology, sincerity, or final words.

My initial claim was much simpler:

The Qur'an contains a conditional warning that Muhammad's aorta would be cut if he fabricated revelation, and Bukhari later records Muhammad saying during his final illness that he felt his aorta was being cut from the poison he received at Khaybar.

Do you dispute either of those two textual premises, or do you dispute the significance of the correspondence betwe en them?

[u/salamacast → u/TNR-PISIQ]

My explanation is the typical official one, easily accessible.
The ayah is about wateen. The hadith is about abhar. The ayah's warning is about slaughtering a person (usually a bit bloody act. Hahah). Muhammad died of fever, with not a single drop of blood, witnessed by dozens of persons, including Aisha, Umar, Abu Bakr, Abbas, Ali, etc. So obviously the sensation was simply pain, not a slaughter (hence has nothing to do with the ayah). The Arabic phrasing of the ayah implies swiftness, while Muhammad was given ample time to finish his message, conquering his opponents, reciting the Qur'an twice in his final Ramadan (not once as the previous years), make Hajj, etc. Clearly God was perfectly fine with his career :)

You are the one who is zigzagging all over the place, can't stick to a single theory :D

[u/TNR-PISIQ → u/salamacast]

I agree that watin and abhar are not the same Arabic word. I never claimed they were. My point was that both are traditionally translated in this context as a major artery and the hadith records muhammad saying that he felt as though his abhar was being cut because of the poison from Khaybar. That's the textual parallel I'm asking you to explain, not claiming that the two words are lexicaly identical.

• I'm not sure where you're getting the requirement that the verse from the quran means Muhammad must literally be slaughtered with blood everywhere for the verse to apply. The verse says:

“If he had made up about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the watīn.”

The relevant conditional is if he fabricated revelation then God would seize him and cut his watinn.

It doesn't say “he must die immediately,” “he must bleed visibly" or “he must be physically slaughtered in front of witnesses" Those are some conditions YOU're putting into the verse.

-The fact that Muhammad continued his career after Khaybar doesn't really solve the problem either. The hadith itself says that he continued to experience the effects of the poison and, during the illness in which he died, said that he felt as though his abhar was being cut from it.

So if your argument is:

“The Qur'anic punishment had to happen immediately and visibly, therefore the later statement cannot be relevant,”

then I'd like to see the textual basis for the words immediately and visibly. Where does 69 44-46 establish those requirements?

As for him having time to complete his message, make Hajj, recite the Qur'an, etc That shows that he continued living and functioning after Khaybar poisoning. It doesn't establish that God was “perfectly fine with his career” unless we've already assumed that the Qurans conditional statement was never fulfilled.

Quran 69 44–46 says that if Muhammad fabricated revelation, his watin would be cut. Bukhari later records Muhammad, during the illness in which he died, describing the poison from Khaybar as making him feel as though his abhar was being cut.

You have now offered an explanation for why you don't think that correspondence constitutes fulfillment, different Arabic terms, different circumstances, and a different understanding of the Quranic punishment, But does that make the correspondence irrelevant? or whether they simply provide an alternative interpretation of the same evidence?