How do you reconcile Muhammad’s Death with Quran 69:44-46?
The Quran says,
And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta), (Quran 69:44-46, Muhsin Khan)
Sometime after Muhammad ate poisoned meat and was dying he exclaimed,
….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 Bukhari 5:59:713)
Why, from these two accounts, would a person come to the conclusion that Muhammad was therefore a prophet?
Some have pointed out that the Arabic words translated “aorta” are different in the Quran and hadith. I don’t know Arabic; however, Muslims who know Arabic well enough to translate the hadiths and meaning of the Quran into English have translated these two Arabic words with the same English word “aorta.”
Suppose a man was making claims that contradicted Islam. In the name of Allah he says,
“If he forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), then We certainly would run him run over with a car.”
Sometime later this man is run over by a pickup truck. Wouldn’t this be a decisive argument that this man was not a prophet from Allah? Wouldn’t it be silly to argue about the differences between a car and a pickup truck?
You may also be interested to read: