❖ Introduction
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد!
The ḥadīth mentioning Mūsā (عليه السلام) striking the Angel of Death (ʿAzrāʾīl) and causing his eye to be displaced is a widely cited narration. Some raise intellectual and theological objections, arguing that such an incident contradicts prophetic dignity. This article presents a clear response based on sound Islamic scholarship.
❖ The Ḥadīth and Its Authentic Sources
The narration is recorded in multiple authentic collections:
Sahīḥ al-Bukhārī (4/130):
عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: أُرسل ملك الموت إلى موسى عليه السلام، فلما جاءه صكه فرجع إلى ربه، فقال: أرسلتني إلى عبد لا يريد الموت…
Also found in:
– Sahīḥ Muslim (4/842)
– Sunan al-Nasāʾī
✔ Chain of narration is authentic as verified by major muḥaddithūn.
✔ Rejection of this ḥadīth contradicts the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah and the methodology of the scholars of ḥadīth.
❖ Nature of the Objections
✘ Some reject the ḥadīth under the claim that:
➊ It demeans prophetic character, implying impulsiveness or violence.
➋ It is illogical to assume a prophet would strike a divinely appointed angel.
➌ How could an angel’s eye be physically harmed, given their non-material nature?
These objections are primarily raised by:
◈ Naturalists (Nechariyyah)
◈ Secularists
◈ Certain modernist thinkers
Such objectors tend to reject any ḥadīth that does not align with human reason or their own interpretative frameworks.
❖ Rational and Textual Refutation
✔ Qur’ānic Example: Mūsā (AS) Grabbing Hārūn (AS)
“قَالَ يَابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي”
(Sūrat Ṭāhā: 94)
❖ In this verse, Mūsā (AS) physically grabs Hārūn (AS) by his beard and head in a moment of intense emotion.
❖ This event did not negate his prophethood, nor was it condemned.
❖ Prophets are human beings; emotional response under stress is natural and not contrary to their noble status.
❖ Commentary by Scholars of Ḥadīth
✔ Imām Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Qutaybah addressed such objections in detail.
✔ For further reading and response to these objections:
◈ ʿAynī’s Sharḥ al-Bukhārī (15/305)
◈ Imām Nawawī’s Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (15/130)
These scholars affirmed that Mūsā (AS) did not recognise the angel in his original form, hence responded as a man protecting his life.
❖ Scholarly Explanation of the Incident
① The Angel Came in Human Form
Mūsā (AS) did not know he was facing Malak al-Mawt. It was instinctive self-defense.
② Eye Displacement: Literal or Allegorical?
✔ Some scholars state that the angel’s eye was metaphorically displaced, as a lesson or test.
✔ Others say it was literal, but repaired instantly by Allah.
③ No Conflict With Prophetic Honour
✔ The event showed the human side of a prophet, his love for life and natural hesitation toward death.
✔ Allah used this moment to illustrate His power and teach Mūsā (AS) about the reality of death.
❖ Misuse of This Ḥadīth by Critics
✔ Modernists and Rationalists reject it to undermine trust in ḥadīth literature.
✔ This leads to distortion of Islamic sources, either by denial or flawed reinterpretation.
❖ Related Discussions: Sīmāʿ al-Mawtā & Ziyārah of the Prophet ﷺ
➊ False attributions to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah regarding hearing of the dead (sīmāʿ al-mawtā)
– Traced through fictitious work “Gharāʾib fī Taḥqīq al-Madhāhib”, which lacks authenticity and availability.
➋ Ziyārah of the Prophet ﷺ’s grave – discussed in depth by:
– Ibn Taymiyyah in “At-Tawassul wal-Wasīlah”
– ʿAllāmah Bashīr Sihsawānī in “Ṣiyānat al-Insān”
– ʿAbd al-Hādī in “Ṣārim al-Munkī”
✔ Authentic understanding preserves the middle path between extremism and neglect.
❖ Conclusion
✔ The ḥadīth of Mūsā (AS) striking the Angel of Death is authentic and accepted by the scholars of Sunnah.
✔ It reflects a human response, not disobedience or disrespect.
✔ Rejecting authentic ḥadīth due to rational discomfort is a grave deviation.
Let us uphold the tradition of verifying knowledge through classical sources and avoid the temptation of rationalist distortions.
هٰذا ما عندي، والله أعلم بالصواب
