In Rafidism (Twelver Shiism) the Jews are whitewashed of the murder of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Who do the Shia blame instead? None other than his companions/wives of course!

This makes Twelver Shi’ism the only sect out of all deviant sects that lifts the blame from the Jews and shifts it to the Sahaba. In this article, I’ll be dissecting their spurious pieces of evidence one by one with the Help of Allah.

It would suffice to mention one authentic historical fact to destroys the entire Rafidi allegation that states that the closest companions and wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) wanted to kill him. The truth is, there was no point in poisoning him as he had said during his last Hajj that he had a choice to return to Allah or live but he chose to Return. He said this long before the poison. So everybody knew he will die anyway.

But logic has never been the strength of the Rawafid (who ironically claim logic/Mantiq), so what do they resort to? Like vultures, they look for a way to satisfy their hunger, in their case a hunger for Sahaba-abuse.

The deceitful Rafidah, just like the rest of the enemies of Islam, use one of the most pathetic (based on their ignorance of Arabic) lies to blame the death of the noble Prophet (ﷺ) on his closest Sahaba (companions) and wives. They argue by citing the following verses (you will find almost the exact same line of argumentation on Anti-Islam websites):

[Qur’an 69:44] And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,

[Qur’an 69:45] We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,

[Qur’an 69:46] Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta.

What the Rafidah (and other enemies of Islam) do next is they connect the aforementioned verse to a loosely translated English version of a hadith by Umm al-Mu`minin ‘Aisha:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

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

The aorta is the vein that is towards the back and is connected to the heart; if it is cut then the person will die. The Rafidah accuse ‘Aisha of having said that the Prophet (ﷺ) died due to his aorta being cut just as the verse warns (if he’s a false Prophet), they (in their grudge and foolishness) are basically arguing that ‘Aisha discredited the Prophet (ﷺ) and accused him of being a false Prophet.

Yes, this is how sick and deluded these enemies of Islam are. The truth however is that the two Arabic words used in the Qur’an (69:46) and hadith (in Al-Bukhari) are different. In the Qur’an it says al-Watin, but in al-Bukhari it says Abhar, both can be loosely translated as aorta, but there are two different types of aortas, one is ascending (Abhar) and the other is descending (al-Watin).

ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ

al-Watin = descending aorta

 ـ وَقَالَ يُونُسُ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ عُرْوَةُ قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ فِي مَرَضِهِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ ‏”‏ يَا عَائِشَةُ مَا أَزَالُ أَجِدُ أَلَمَ الطَّعَامِ الَّذِي أَكَلْتُ بِخَيْبَرَ، فَهَذَا أَوَانُ وَجَدْتُ انْقِطَاعَ أَبْهَرِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ السَّمِّ ‏”‏‏.

al-Abhar = ascending aorta

‘Aisha never used the specific aorta as mentioned in the Qur’an (al-Watin), she narrated the Prophet (ﷺ) speaking of the ascending aorta (Abhar), an important difference that the Rafidah simply can’t fathom due to the notorious ignorance and weakness of their clergy with regards to the Arabic language (after all neither Najaf, let alone Qom are places known for their mastery of Arabic …).

Also, the other condition (of the verse with regards to the Prophet) is not fulfilled according to ‘Aisha’s hadith:

[Qur’an 69:45] We would certainly have seized him by the right hand.

Furthermore, these are the verses for the Kuffar, not the wives or children or companions of the Prophet (ﷺ).

Another Hadith that the deceitful Rawafid usually quote from Sunni sources (Sahih Muslim) in order to prove that Aisha and Hafsa poisoned the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is the following one:

Response: the narration does not say it was poison (thus no ‘confession’). More importantly: The Prophet (ﷺ) made EVERYBODY (except Ibn Abbas) drink the medicine (‘poison’ as the Rafidah claim!). If it was poison, they should all have died too of it. Case closed.

This is all they got. In addition to often raised silly questions such as:

Is it impossible for wives to hold a grudge against their husband and is there is no way any wife or wives could decide on killing their husband??? 

Subhanallah – such a question itself is full of evil intentions.

The answer is, of course – no, it is not absolutely impossible that a wife could annoy or murder her husband.

The goal of the Shia is to raise this evil intention in the thoughts of a person – and then to use “logic” to reach the conclusion that there is a possibility that Aisha and Hafsa (رضي الله عنهما) plotted and murdered the Prophet (ﷺ).

The possibility only exists in the realm of fantasy – and “logic”.

There is, however, no proof for it, and it is without a doubt an evil loaded question.

But then – this is Shi’ism in a nutshell – loaded with evil intentions. Shiism approaches the companions and wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) with a “guilty before proven innocent” mentality – and even when “proven innocent” they will still take the weak and fabricated narrations over the authentic ones.

I don’t blame the average Shi’ite person for this – you cannot go your whole life hearing curses and abuse against certain people and not end up completely biased and blind to all proofs.

As for another objection that the Rafidah raise that the conquest of Khaybar took place in Muharram or Rabee’ al-Awwal of the year 7 AH. So this event took place four years before the Prophet (ﷺ) died. i.e. how can a poison take years to kill a person? The response to that is: there are numerous examples of poison that doesn’t kill you straight away. Even in many processed food, you can find chemicals that cause cancer, so there are undoubtedly forms of poison that will kill you slowly but surely, besides, it is proven through authentic narrations that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) didn’t consume the poisoned meat in full.

The Muslims have a consensus that the Prophet (ﷺ) was poisoned by the Jews, after the conquest of Khaybar, they have good reasons for that, solid and authentically reported narrations (by the same people who narrated the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt):

Al-Bukhari (2617) and Muslim (2190) narrated from Anas that a Jewish woman came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) with some poisoned mutton. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ate from it, then he asked her about that. She said, “I wanted to kill you.” He said, “Allah would not let you do that.” They said, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” He said, I can still see the effect of that on the palate of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).

Al-Nawawi said: It is as if the poison still left some trace of blackness etc.

The name of this woman was Zaynab bint al-Harith, the wife of Salam ibn Mashkam, one of the leaders of the Jews.

The reports differ as to whether or not she was killed. It seems that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not kill her at first, but when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then he executed her as a Qisas punishment.

Al-Bukhari (5777) narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: When Khaybar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet as a gift (by the Jews). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me.” The Jews were gathered and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?” They replied, “Yes.” He asked, “Have you poisoned this sheep?” They said, “Yes.” He asked, “What made you do that?” They said, “We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would have got rid of you, and if you are a Prophet then the poison would not harm you.”

A piece of supportive evidence and one of the earliest and most detailed versions are preserved in the biography of the Prophet (ﷺ) by Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767) as recorded in the recension of Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833):

“When the Prophet (ﷺ) had rested from his labour, Zaynab bint al-Ḥārith, the wife of Sallām b. Mishkam, presented him with a roast sheep (shāt maṣliyya). She had asked what part of the sheep the Prophet liked best and had been told it was the shoulder (dhirāʿ). So she loaded that part with poison, and also poisoned the rest of the sheep. Then she brought it in. When she placed it before the Prophet he took the shoulder and chewed a morsel of it but without swallowing it. Bishr b. al-Barāʾ b. Maʿrūr, who was with him, took some of the mutton just as the Prophet had done, but he swallowed his portion, while the Prophet spat his out, saying, ʻThis bone tells me that it is poisoned.ʼ Then the Prophet summoned the womana nd she confessed to what she had done. He asked her, ʻWhat led you to do this?ʼ She said, ʻYou know very well how you have afflicted my people. I said (to myself), “If he is a king I will be rid of him and if he is a prophet he will be informed (of what I have done)”.ʼ The Prophet pardoned her. Bishr died of the morsel he had eaten.’

This is immediately followed by a statement which Ibn Isḥāq cites from Marwān b. ʿUthmān b. Abī Saʿīd b. al-Muʿallā (a Medinese member of the Anṣār, d.early 2nd/8th century):

‘During the illness from which the Prophet died, the mother of Bishr b. al-Barāʾ came to visit him; he said to her, ʻUmm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my abhar being severed (inna hādhā la-awān wajadtu fīhi inqiṭāʿ abharī) because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar.ʼ

The Prophet (ﷺ) was in fact saved from ingesting more of the poison (and suffering greater harm as a result) because the mutton miraculously spoke and warned him.

These pieces of evidence are not just clear-cut proof that a Jewish woman (and not the Prophets wives!) tried to kill the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), but they also answer the evil intended and loaded objections of the Rafidah (‘why did the Prophet not die straight away from the poison’).

It can take a long time to die after a poisoning, assuming a low dose (which was the case, as he didn’t even swallow the morsel) and only partial damage to the stomach, kidneys, liver, etc.

The Prophet (ﷺ) used to feel ill (he did not die of it straight away as the Jews expected) because of this food, and he would be treated with cupping for that.

Ahmad (2784) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that a Jewish woman sent a gift to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) of a poisoned roasted sheep. He sent for her and asked her, “What made you do what you did?” She said, “I wanted to see if you were a Prophet, then Allah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you.” Whenever the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) felt ill as a result of that he would have himself treated by cupping. On one occasion he traveled and when he entered ihram he felt ill as a result of that and he had himself treated by cupping. The editor of al-Musnad classed it as saheeh.

That poison had an impact on causing his death but it never killed him straight away, it weakened him and what killed him was his disease. He (ﷺ) died as a martyr (shaheed), as Ibn Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“If I were to swear by Allah nine times that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was killed, that is more beloved to me than swearing once, because Allah made him a Prophet and made him a martyr.” Narrated by Ahmad, 3617. The editors said, its isnad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim.

Al-Sindi said:

The words “he was killed” mean by the poison in the meat of the sheep’s foreleg that he ate, when the effects of that appeared when he was dying. Quoted from Hashiyat al-Musnad, 6/116.

Conclusion:

Shi’ism is the only sect (wrongfully) attributed to Islam that factually whitewashes the hands of the Jews and their many crimes against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) by attributing their crime of poisoning the Messenger of Allah to his beloved wives and companions. Ultimately this is not shocking, as the spiritual founding father of Shi’ism was none other than Ibn Saba’ the Jew.

A final note:

To be fair, there is also the opinion amongst the Rafidah that goes hand in hand with the Sunni opinion:

In his Creed, al-Mufīdʼs teacher, Ibn Bābawayh (‘Saduq’) the Qommite (d. 381/991), refers to this account as follows:

ʻOur belief concerning the Prophet is that he was poisoned during the Khaybar expedition. The (poisoned) morsel continued to damage his health until it severed his (artery called) abhar, at which point he died of its effects.ʼ (Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Ibn Bābawayh, Risālat al-iʿtiqādāt, Tehran, 1317/1899–1900, p. 72)

His belief is based on Rafidi narrations such as the following:

Basa’ir al-Darajat, an early Shia collection of Hadith by al-Saffar the Qommite (d. 290/902–903):

Jafar al-Sadiq: ʻThe Prophet was poisoned during the battle of Khaybar. The meat spoke and said, “O Prophet, I am poisoned”.ʼ He (i.e. al-Sadiq) said, ʻThe Prophet said just before his death, “Today the morsel that I ate at Khaybar severed my back (maṭāya) (or: my support,maṭāyāya). There is no prophet and no legatee (or inheritor, waṣī) who is not a martyr. (Basa’ir al-Darajat and Bihar al-Anwar)

But as we know, the Rafidi sect is a sect of Ghuluw (extremism and exaggeration), a sect of false emotions and sensationalism, a sect based on Sahaba-hatred. So rest assured that they will always go for the most Ant-Sahaba narrative possible, no matter how fabricated and ridiculous it is in nature.

Unsurprisingly, we find one of the highest Shia authorities, Al-Majlisi ((d.1110/1699), yet another Kafir who passionately believed in the corruption of the Qur’an, the palace scholar of the Anti-Sunni Safavid dynasty reconciling the two views but reaffirming that the ultimate blame is on the wives and companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). Al-Majlisi says the result of the combined effect of the poison he was given on the two occasions i.e. that the poisons given to the Prophet (ﷺ) in the mutton and by the two women acted conjointly to bring about his martyrdom. (al-Bihar, XXII, p. 516)

Similarly, Ni’matullah al-Jaza’iri (d. 1112/1700–1701), another high ranking Iranian Shia scholar (who openly believed in the distortion of the Qur’an) of the Safavid era notes that once Abū Bakr and Umar knew they would succeed the Prophet they ordered Aisha Hafsa to give him poison in order to hasten his demise (taʿjīlan ʿalā itlāfihi). The daughters did as they were told,‘and this was the cause of his death, in addition to the traces in (or: effect on) his noble body of the poison which the Jewish woman of Khaybarhad placed in the roast lambʼ (fa-kāna l-sabab fī mawtihi muḍāfan ilā l-athar alladhī kāna fī badanihi l-sharīf min summ al-yahūdiyya al-khaybariyya fī l-sakhla al-mashwiyya). (Ni’matullah al-Jaza’iri, Nūr al-anwār fī sharḥal-ṣaḥīfa al-sajjādiyya, Beirut, 1420/2000, pp. 21–2)

After all that it is no wonder that even the likes of Ammar Nakjavani (‘Nakshawani’) – who has been influencing millions of gullible Shias worldwide – sides with the fabricated narrative that the Prophet’s (ﷺ) was killed by his wives and companions.

In any case, it is shame enough that there is a difference of opinion in their religion on this matter, but then, Rafidism has always been a tool for fighting and distorting Islam in the name of Islam.