Waqar Akbar Cheema

Abstract

Few hadith reports have been quoted as often and understood as poorly as the account of Prophet Musa striking the Angel of Death. To critics, it appears to depict prophetic rashness, angelic vulnerability, and even resistance to divine decree. To others, it is waved away as an awkward relic preserved uncritically by tradition. Both reactions miss the point. This essay argues that the difficulty lies not in the report itself, but in how it is read. By returning to the text through its transmission, language, and classical explanations, and by situating it within wider scriptural patterns, the narrative emerges as a disciplined lesson in prophetic responsibility: resisting ambiguity, defending divine trust, and surrendering willingly when Allah’s command becomes unmistakably clear. Far from undermining prophethood, the hadith defines it.

1. Introduction

The report about the Prophet Musa (Moses) slapping the angel of death is well-known and has been the subject of much discussion for centuries. Muhammad b. Isma‘il al-Bukhari records:

حدثنا محمود، حدثنا عبد الرزاق، أخبرنا معمر،عن ابن طاوس، عن أبيه، عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: ” أرسل ملك الموت إلى موسى عليهما السلام، فلما جاءه صكه، فرجع إلى ربه، فقال: أرسلتني إلى عبد لا يريد الموت، فرد الله عليه عينه وقال: ارجع، فقل له: يضع يده على متن ثور فله بكل ما غطت به يده بكل شعرة سنة، قال: أي رب، ثم ماذا؟ قال: ثم الموت، قال: فالآن، فسأل الله أن يدنيه من الأرض المقدسة رمية بحجر “، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «فلو كنت ثم لأريتكم قبره، إلى جانب الطريق، عند الكثيب الأحمر»

~

Mahmud related to us: ‘Abdul Razzaq related to us: Ma‘mar [b. Rashid] informed us, on the authority of Ibn Tawus, on the authority of his father [Tawus]:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The angel of death was sent to Moses, and when he went to him, Moses slapped him severely, spoiling one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord and said, “You sent me to a slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and tell him (i.e. Moses) to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand.” (So the angel came to him and told him the same). Then Moses asked, “O my Lord! What will be then?” He said, “Death will be then.” He said, “(Let it be) now.” He asked Allah that He bring him near the Sacred Land at a distance of a stone’s throw. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Were I there I would show you the grave of Moses by the way near the red sand hill.”[1]

2. Authenticity of the report

The narration is recorded in the major authentic hadith collections, including Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. It is transmitted exclusively through the Companion Abu Huraira. From him, several of his notable students have reported it, such as Tawus,[2] Hammam b. Munabbih,[3] Ibn Sirin,[4] Habib b. Salim al-Ansari,[5] ‘Ammar b. Abi Ammar[6] and Abu Yunus.[7] From the perspective of isnad, there is no doubt about the authenticity of this narration from Abu Huraira, which is related from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Moreover, the report is also recorded as coming from al-Hasan al-Basri, quoting the Prophet (ﷺ) directly.[8]

3. Is It Entirely a Prophetic Statement?

While there is no doubt that the latter part of the narration concerning the grave of Prophet Musa comes directly from the Prophet (ﷺ), the question arises whether the initial part does so as well or if it was Abu Huraira’s own statement. Citing an instance of the narration in Sahih Bukhari quoted above, Yahya b. Abdul Rahman al-Mu‘allimi[8a] remarked that the opening section appears to be from Abu Huraira himself, without prophetic attribution. This, however, seems a hasty conclusion.

Another instance of the Tawus’ narration in Sahih aBukhari adds the following clarification:

قال واخبرنا معمر، عن همام، حدثنا ابو هريرة، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه

~

‘Abd al-Razzaq said: Ma‘mar b. Rashid informed us, on the authority of Hammam b. Munabbih: Abu Hurayrah related to us from the Prophet (ﷺ) – likewise.[9]

In fact, in Ma‘mar b. Rashid’s own compilation al-Jami‘, even the version transmitted through Tawus, clearly attributes the entire report to the Prophet (ﷺ).[10] The same is true for its occurrence in Sahih Ibn Hibban[11] and Akhbar Asbahan.[12] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani adds that the same was the case in al-Isma‘ili’s Mustakhraj.[13]

While the version through Abu Yunus may also give the mistaken impression that the initial part originated from Abu Huraira independently—and its isnad is not the strongest—narrations from other students, such as Ibn Sirin and Habib b. Salim al-Ansari, ‘Ammar b. Abi ‘Ammar, together with those of Hammam b. Munabbih and Tawus explicitly affirm that the entire account, including the interaction between Musa and the Angel of Death, is from the Prophet (ﷺ).

4. A Linguistic Clarification: The Scope of al-Nas

The narration of ‘Ammar b. Abi ‘Ammar has an interesting addition in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) description of the event before and after the main account.

كان ملك الموت يأتي الناس عيانا، قال: فأتى موسى فلطمه ففقأ عينه، … فكان يأتي الناس خفية

~

The Angel of Death used to come visibly to the people (he was sent to), until he came to Moses, who struck him and put out his eye … After that, he came to people secretly.

This particular narration has at times been viewed with hesitation because it appears to conflict with what is taken to be self-evident: namely, that if the Angel of Death had visibly come to people before Musa, such encounters would have been widely known and frequently reported. From this assumption, it is argued that the narration implies an implausible historical reality and is therefore dubious.

This concern, however, rests mainly on an overly expansive reading of the term al-nas used in the report. The Arabic term al-nas (“the people”) is frequently employed in a restricted, rather than universal, sense. In Qur’an 2:13, “Believe as the people (al-nas) have believed,” the expression refers specifically to the early Muslim community, not to humanity at large. Likewise, in Qur’an 3:173, “those to whom the people (al-nas) said, ‘the people have gathered against you,’” the first occurrence of al-nas denotes a single individual who conveyed the report, not people in general. Therefore, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr notes that it is a well-established feature of Arabic usage: general wording is often employed while a specific referent is intended. Such instances are numerous in the Qur’an and in Arabic speech and are readily recognised by those acquainted with the language.[14]

Accordingly, when the narration is read in light of this linguistic convention, it becomes clear that al-nas need not imply humanity at large. Instead, it is linguistically sound to understand it as referring to a specific group, namely the prophets to whom the Angel of Death was sent. When understood in this manner, the perceived conflict is resolved, and the basis for deeming the narration problematic no longer remains. In fact, this particular addition can further complement some of the essential correctives to the understanding of this hadith.

5. Contentions and Queries about the Hadith

This report has been discussed and scrutinised for centuries, giving rise to recurring questions. While hadith scholars have consistently affirmed its authenticity and provided detailed explanations, certain aspects of the narration have continued to prompt inquiry when read in isolation or without attention to its broader scriptural and linguistic context.

Among the most frequently raised queries are the following:

• How was Musa able to inflict physical injury upon an angel?
• How could the conduct of Musa, a Prophet known for his noble character, appear inconsistent with prophetic decorum—both in resisting death and in his manner of dealing with one of Allah’s appointed angels?
• And how could the Angel of Death assume that a noble Prophet of Allah would dislike death itself?
• How could the Angel of Death, being far more powerful than a human, return seemingly humiliated without completing his divinely assigned task of taking Musa’s soul?

5.1 Musa’s Ability to Strike the Angel

Musa was able to strike the angel and cause physical injury because it had appeared in human form, not in its angelic form. This is consistent with other scriptural accounts in which angels appear to prophets in human guise. For example, angels appeared to Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) in human form, such that he did not initially recognise them as angels and invited them to partake of food. The Qur’anic account notes that they did not extend their hands toward it, which led Ibrahim to realise their true nature (Qur’an 11:69–70). This incident is also recorded in the Bible (Genesis 18). There are other instances in the scriptures confirming this. Angels appear to Prophet Lut (Lot) in human form, causing him distress before their identity is disclosed (Qur’an 11:77; 15:61–68; cf. Genesis 19:1–11). Likewise, an angel appears to Lady Maryam (Mary) in the form of a well-proportioned man (Qur’an 19:17). In the Hebrew Bible, angels similarly appear as men to Gideon (Judges 6:11–22), Manoah (Judges 13:3–21), and Joshua (Joshua 5:13–15), with recognition of their true nature occurring only after the encounter unfolds.

These examples also show that, in such cases, the prophets could well be unaware that the visitors were angels because of their appearance in human form. This is how many classical scholars, including Ibn Qutaiba,[15] Ibn Khuzaima,[16] Ibn Hibban,[17] Abu Bakr al-Kalabadhi,[18] Qadi ‘Iyad,[19] and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani,[20] explained this point.

This also addresses the concern that the report compromises the Angel of Death’s angelic nature. The scholars have explained that angels can assume different forms. When they appear in a human guise, they are subject to the conditions and limitations of that form. Any injury inflicted in such a state pertains only to the assumed human appearance, not to the angel’s true essence or ontological reality.[21] Accordingly, the incident implies no vulnerability or defect in angelic nature itself, but merely reflects the contingent properties of the form in which the angel was manifest at the time.

5.2 Prophetic Conduct and Decorum

This query assumes that Musa recognised the visitor as the Angel of Death during the first encounter. As shown earlier, this was not the case. A stranger appearing unannounced and demanding that one surrender one’s life would naturally be perceived as a threat of murder. Musa’s reaction, therefore, was entirely consistent with self-defence, or at the very least an attempt to restrain or correct the conduct of one appearing in such a manner. This reaction becomes even more intelligible in light of earlier scriptural testimony that Musa had faced explicit death threats from his own people, as in Exodus 17:4, making vigilance against sudden lethal danger a lived reality rather than a theoretical concern. Moreover, the love for meeting Allah after death does not entail abandoning self-defence or voluntarily presenting oneself to be harmed. The Prophet (ﷺ) clarified this point explicitly in a hadith related by ʿA’isha:

عن عائشة، قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «من أحب لقاء الله، أحب الله لقاءه، ومن كره لقاء الله، كره الله لقاءه» فقلت: يا نبي الله أكراهية الموت؟ فكلنا نكره الموت، فقال: «ليس كذلك، ولكن المؤمن إذا بشر برحمة الله ورضوانه وجنته، أحب لقاء الله، فأحب الله لقاءه، وإن الكافر إذا بشر بعذاب الله وسخطه، كره لقاء الله، وكره الله لقاءه

~

ʿA’isha reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever loves to meet Allah, Allah loves to meet him, and whoever dislikes meeting Allah, Allah dislikes meeting him.” She said: “O Messenger of Allah, we all dislike death.” He replied: “That is not what is meant. Rather, when a believer is given glad tidings of Allah’s mercy, pleasure, and Paradise, he comes to love meeting Allah, and Allah loves meeting him. And when a disbeliever is given tidings of Allah’s punishment and displeasure, he comes to dislike meeting Allah, and Allah dislikes meeting him.”[22]

This clarification directly addresses the assumption that resisting death implies a lack of faith or spiritual composure. Disliking death in itself is universal and does not contradict love of meeting Allah under the conditions described by the Prophet (ﷺ).

This also answers those who argue that the report portrays Musa as rash or uncomposed in a manner inconsistent with his lofty prophetic stature. Such an objection overlooks the fact that the angel appeared to Musa not only in human form, but as a stranger conveying an implicit threat. In such circumstances, Musa’s reaction cannot reasonably be faulted. Anyone could have reacted similarly. Moreover, Musa is elsewhere depicted as a physically strong and resolute individual, not one inclined towards passivity or pacifism. May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him.

Even if one assumes, following some scholars, such as al-Qurtubi, that Musa did in fact recognise the visitor as the Angel of Death, there would still be a valid basis for his response. The angel had not observed the established protocol for the death of prophets. As stated by the Prophet (ﷺ):

إنه لم يقبض نبي حتى يرى مقعده من الجنة، ثم يخير

~

Never a prophet dies in a state that he is not made to see his abode in Paradise, and then given a choice (yu-khayyaru).”[23]

Since the angel did not present such a choice, Musa reacted by striking him.[24] Any resulting injury, such as the gouging of the eye, would then be understood as an unintended consequence affecting the angel’s assumed human form, just as the Egyptian was killed unintentionally when Musa struck him earlier in his life (Qur’an 28:15-16).[25]

In fact, the absence of this prophetic protocol would only have reinforced the non-recognition, strengthening Musa’s impression that the visitor, appearing in human guise, was an illegitimate and threatening intruder, and thus fully accounting for his initial reaction.

Accordingly, we see that when the angel returned and conveyed to Musa the choice – either to live for as many years as the number of hairs covered by his hand upon the ox, or to die and meet Allah forthwith – Musa replied, “Then now,” when told that death is the ultimate destiny anyway. The Angel of Death then took his life. This confirms that there was nothing blameworthy in Musa’s earlier reaction, even if the angel had initially assumed otherwise. Notably, some narrations of the report explicitly use the wording fa-khayyirhu (“so give him the choice”) as part of Allah’s instructions to the angel on the second visit.[26]

That Allah neither reproached nor expressed displeasure with Musa’s conduct further confirms that Musa was not at fault. In some narrations, Allah refers to Musa as “My servant” (‘abdi) when instructing the angel to return,[27] a form of address that conveys honour and affection. Another narration reports that Allah responded to the angel’s claim that Musa refused death by saying, “He is not like that” (innahu laysa kadhalik),[28] thereby correcting the angel’s assumption and vindicating Musa’s conduct.

5.3 The Angel’s Assumption About Musa’s Aversion to Death

That the angel made an unwarranted assumption about Musa is not, in itself, problematic, for he did so based on the information available to him at the time. This is comparable to the moment when the angels collectively voiced an assumption about humankind at the creation of Adam—an assumption that Allah did not endorse, explicitly pointing to the limits of their knowledge (Qur’an 2:30-32)

5.4 The Angel of Death’s Apparent Defeat

The claim that the Angel of Death’s initial return implies a delay in the moment of death is sometimes raised in light of the Qur’anic assertion that when a person’s appointed time comes, it can neither be delayed nor brought forward even by an instant (Qur’an 7:34). This objection, however, rests on a misunderstanding of what constitutes the actual moment of death. The events preceding that moment, even if they involve a summons, dialogue, or testing related to death, do not themselves amount to the fulfilment of the divine decree. Rather, they form part of the unfolding circumstances that lead up to it. The Angel’s return, therefore, does not represent a postponement of Musa’s appointed time, but occurs before the arrival of that fixed moment, without any suggestion of violation of the principle noted in the Qur’an.

6. The Larger Meaning and Purpose of the Hadith

Read carefully: this hadith is not meant to serve as a narrative curiosity or a source of speculative doubt. Rather, it illustrates a central objective of prophethood: steadfast adherence to Allah’s command and active guardianship of the divine mission, without undue pacificity or passive surrender, even in the face of death. By this stage, Musa was nearing the end of his mission, and earlier scripture records both his deep longing to enter the Promised Land and the divine refusal of that request—he pleads to cross over and see the land, yet is told he will not enter it (Deuteronomy 3:23–27), as well as his clear-eyed warning that his people were likely to deviate after his death (Deuteronomy 31:27–29). These concerns frame Musa’s conduct as driven by responsibility and vigilance, not by fear of death itself.

The hadith affirms that attachment to life, when rooted in concern for the mission, is not blameworthy, and that orientation toward the fulfilment of divine purpose, even at the threshold of death, is itself justified and praiseworthy, as it reflects unwavering commitment to the covenantal task entrusted to him. When the divine protocol was properly observed and Musa was given a clear choice, he did not seek prolonged life or worldly advantage. Instead, he asked only to be brought near the Holy Land, thereby expressing an attachment to the mission that endured even beyond life. Once it became clear that death would follow regardless, he accepted it immediately, demonstrating that prophetic resolve consists not in resisting death as such, but in refusing to abandon responsibility prematurely.

This understanding is further reinforced by the way Bukhari framed the report in his Sahih. He placed this narration under the chapter heading “Whoever desired to be buried in the Sacred Land, or close to it”[29], clearly signalling that the moral centre of the hadith lies not in the moment of apparent resistance, but in the praiseworthiness of longing for proximity to sacred land and sustained attachment to the divine mission even in death. Bukhari’s editorial choice thus aligns the report with a normative prophetic ethic rather than treating it merely as a biographical oddity, reflecting the well-known principle among hadith scholars of fiqh al-Bukhārī fī tarājimihi, whereby his chapter headings function as interpretive commentary.[30]

The conclusion of the hadith reinforces this ethic symbolically. Musa’s burial was deliberately left unmarked and uncertain, echoing earlier scripture that states no one knows the place of his grave (Deuteronomy 34:6). Even though it was made known to Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) during the miraculous Night Journey (al-Asra’),[31] it was never designated as a site of attention or veneration. This underscores the prophetic ideal upheld by the report: active obedience, faithful completion of the mission, and willing submission to Allah’s decree once that mission has truly reached its end.

7. Conclusion

This hadith should not be approached as an embarrassment requiring strained defence, but as a text demanding careful reading. Its authenticity is firmly established, its language accords with recognised Arabic usage, and its narrative logic aligns with well-attested scriptural motifs of angels appearing in human form and prophets acting decisively in defence of their trust. The report does not portray Musa as fearing death, but as refusing to relinquish responsibility under uncertainty; nor does it commend passive resignation, but principled resolve until Allah’s command is made unmistakably clear. When that clarity arrived, Musa accepted death without hesitation, seeking only nearness to the purpose to which his life had been devoted. The deliberate obscurity of his grave, shared across Islamic and Biblical tradition, seals the lesson: prophethood is not vindicated by monuments or passivity, but by faithful obedience, fulfilled mission, and serene submission when the task is complete.

References & Notes:

[1] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 1339

[2] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 1339, 3407; Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2372-15; al-Nasa’i, al-Sunan, Hadith 2089; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 7646,

[3] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 3407; Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2372-158; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 8172; Ma‘mar b. Rashid, al-Jami‘, Vol.11, 274 Hadith 20531

[4] al-Asbahani, Abu Nu‘aim, Akhbar Asbahan, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Vol.2, 184, 276;

[5] Al-Kalabadhi, Muhammad bin Abi Ishaq al-Bukhari, Bahr Al-Fawa’id (Ma‘ani Al-Akhbar), (Beirut, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiya, 1999) 354

[6] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 10904; Al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1997) Hadith 9593; al-Tirmidhi, Hakim, Nawadir al-Usul, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Imam al-Bukhari, 2008) Vol.1, 127 no. 184; al-Tabari, Ibn Jarir, Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, (Beirut: Dar al-Turath, 1387 AH) Vol.1, 434; Al-Hakim, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Mustadrak, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Hadith 4107; Ibn ‘Asakir, Abu al-Qasim, Tarikh al-Damishq, (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, 1995) Vol.61, 178 – graded as sahihby al-Albani. See, al-Albani, Nasir al-Din, Silsala Ahadith al-Sahiha, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Ma‘arif, 1995) Hadith 3279

[7] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 8616

[8] Ma‘mar b. Rashid, al-Jami‘, [appended with al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf,] (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983) Vol.11, 274 Hadith 20532; Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1988) Vol.14, 114; al-Tirmidhi, Hakim, Nawadir al-Usul, Vol.1, 127 no. 185-186

[8a] Al-Mu‘allimi, Abdul Rahman bin Yahya, al-Anwar al-Kashifa, (Beirut: Alam al-Kutab, 1986) Vol.1, 219

[9] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 3407

[10] Ma‘mar b. Rashid, al-Jami‘, Vol.11, 274 Hadith 20530

[11] Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 6223;

[12] al-Asbahani, Abu Nu‘aim, Akhbar Asbahan, Vol.2, 184, 276;

[13] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1379) Vol.6, 441

[14] Al-Qurtubi, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Al-Tamhid lima fi Muwatta’ min al-Ma’ani wa al-Asanid, (Morocco: Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, 1387 AH) Vol.21, 265-266

[15] Al-Dainwari, Ibn Qutaiba, Ta’wil Mukhtalif Al-Hadith. (Doha: Mo’assasa Al-Ishraq, 1999) 401-402

[16] al-Qurtubi, Abu al-‘Abbas, al-Mufhim lima Ashkal min Talkhis Kitab Muslim, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1996) Vol.6, 261

[17] Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Vol.14, 112;

[18] Al-Kalabadhi, Bahr Al-Fawa’id (Ma‘ani Al-Akhbar), 356

[19] Al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad bin Musa, Ikmal al-Mu’lim bi Fawa’id Muslim, (Cairo: Dar al-Wafa, 1998) Vol.7, 352

[20] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol.6, 442

[21] Thanawi, Ashraf Ali, Imdad al-Fatawa, (Karachi: Makataba Darul ‘Ulum, 2010) Vol.5, 135; Usmani, Muhammad Taqi, ‘In’am al-Bari, (Karachi: Maktaba al-Hira, 2007) Vol.4, 508

[22] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2684-15 [6767]

[23] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 4463; Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2444-87 [6247]

[24] Al-Qurtubi, Shams al-Din, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Cairo: Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyya, 1964) Vol.6, 132

[25] Al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, Ikmal al-Mu’lim bi Fawa’id Muslim, Vol.7, 353; Al-Nawawi, Yahya b. Zakariyya, al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1392 AH) Vol.15, 129;

[26] Al-Bazzar, al-Musnad, Hadith 9593; al-Tirmidhi, Hakim, Nawadir al-Usul, Vol.1, 127 no. 184; al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, Vol.1, 434; Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, Hadith 4107; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh al-Damishq, Vol.61, 178

[27] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2372-158; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 8172, 8616, 10904

[28] Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh al-Damishq, Vol.61, 178

[29] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 1339

[30] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol.1, 13, 243

[31] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2375-164/165