There is a contradiction in the hadiths about the poisoning of our Prophet; how can it be?

- I had asked you about the poisoning of our Prophet in Khaybar, and you wrote that before the Prophet ate the meat, he miraculously said, “Get your hands off it! That shoulder blade informs me that the meat has been poisoned.” (Sirah, 3:352; Sunan, 4:175) Thus, you wrote that with the hadith above he was saved from being poisoned.

- However, according to a hadith I saw in another article of yours, the Prophet (pbuh) said to Aisha (ra), “I am suffering from the food I ate in Hunayn.” (Ibnul-Athir, al-Kamil, II, 222) and you attribute the death of the Prophet to poisoning.

- If our Prophet did not eat that meat, how could he have been poisoned by it?

- The two hadiths I quoted given are the hadiths I took from your website; What could be the explanation for such an obvious contradiction?

Dear Brother / Sister,

A hadith narration regarding the issue is as follows:

“I have always felt the pain (ma azalu ajidu) of the food I ate in Khaybar. At this moment, I feel that my veins have ruptured with the effect of that poison.” (Bukhari, Maghazi, 83)

According to some narrations, the Prophet (pbuh) said, without swallowing the bite he took, ‘Get your hands off! This shoulder blade tells me that the meat has been poisoned.’ (see Ibn Hajar, Fathul-Bari, the explanation of the hadith in question)

In another narration, the following is stated: “...He bit a piece of the meat of the shoulder blade, but before he swallowed it, he said to his friends, ‘Get your hands off! This shoulder blade tells me that the meat has been poisoned.’” (ibid, 7/497)

In some other narrations, the following is stated: “The Prophet and some of his friends ate / bit a piece of it. Then, the Prophet said, ‘Hands off! This shoulder blade tells me that the meat has been poisoned.’” (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 6)

It is understood from those different expressions that the Prophet - very likely - bit the flesh with his teeth. He swallowed or did not swallow what he had bitten. In both cases, the strongly poisonous piece of meat affected the blessed body of the Prophet. Even if the bite of meat was not swallowed, it was bitten and chewed; so, its juice must have reached his stomach.

The following is stated in some narrations:

“Some of the Companions died because of the poisonous meat they ate. As a precaution against the poisonous meat he ate, the Prophet underwent cupping.” (Abu Dawud, ibid)

It is clearly seen in the last narration that the Prophet took a precaution against poison - whether he swallowed the morsel or not, because of the juice that went down into his stomach from the bite.

Today, science definitely accepts that the metabolism/digestion of edible food starts from the mouth. Therefore, it is possible and reasonable that the Prophet sometimes felt a pain in his body due to the effect of that poison throughout his life, and that he had experienced a severe side effect a little (three days) before his death (so that he would gain the degree of martyrdom as well as the degree of prophethood, as some scholars interpret).

It is clear from the explanations above that the Prophet learned as a miracle that the meat was poisonous, gave up eating it, and forbade his friends from eating it, preventing a great disaster. However, a Companion who swallowed a bite of the meat without having such knowledge died. Besides, the Prophet did not swallow a bite but he was affected by his bite and felt its pain from time to time throughout his life. Finally, a few days before his death, the effect of the poison increased and our Prophet died due to the effect of this poison so that he would gain the degree of martyrdom.

Thus, it is understood that there is no contradiction between those two hadith narrations.

Questions on Islam