The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) marks one of the most pivotal and sensitive moments in Islamic history. Beyond the profound emotional impact, the death of the Prophet also triggered significant developments in the political, theological, and social structures of the nascent Muslim community. This event not only closed the chapter of divine revelation but also opened a new phase in the life of the ummah, raising critical questions about leadership, authority, and continuity.
Among Muslims, both Sunni and Shia traditions hold deep reverence for the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH), yet their historical accounts and interpretations of the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) differ in key aspects. These differences are not limited to the moment of his passing, but extend to the surrounding circumstances—such as the final illness, the presence or absence of certain individuals, and the events that followed immediately after.
The purpose of this study is to examine the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) from both Sunni and Shia historical perspectives. By comparing the narratives recorded in their respective traditions, this paper aims to highlight not only the areas of convergence but also the underlying reasons for divergence. Through this comparative lens, the death of the Prophet becomes a window into understanding broader theological and sectarian developments in Islamic history.
Historical Context Leading to the Death of the Prophet
The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) did not occur in isolation but was preceded by a series of significant events that shaped the political and emotional landscape of the Muslim community. Both Sunni and Shia sources emphasize the importance of the Prophet’s final days, marked by illness, critical instructions, and interactions with key figures that would later become focal points of theological and historical contention.
The Prophet’s illness began shortly after his return from the Farewell Pilgrimage (Ḥajj al-Wadāʿ) in 11 AH / 632 CE[1]. Sunni historical sources, such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Hishām, narrate that the Prophet (PBUHH) fell seriously ill and was bedridden for several days, during which he led the prayers sporadically and eventually appointed Abū Bakr to lead the congregation in his place[2]. The illness, believed to have lasted for about thirteen days, significantly restricted his public activity and offered limited access to those wishing to consult him[3].
One of the most debated incidents in this period is the “Calamity of Thursday”, in which the Prophet (PBUHH), during the final days of his illness, reportedly requested writing materials to leave behind a statement that would prevent the ummah from going astray. According to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb opposed the request, saying, “The Book of Allah is sufficient for us,” resulting in a dispute among those present[4]. Shia sources interpret this as a critical lost opportunity to formally designate ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as the Prophet’s successor[5].
The Prophet (PBUHH) spent his final days in the house of his wife ʿĀʾishah, though Shia sources suggest that his movements between his wives’ homes were curtailed due to his illness, and that he ultimately settled in ʿĀʾishah’s residence only after being granted permission from his other wives[6].
Sunni and Shia scholars agree that the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) was sudden in its finality, even though the illness had persisted for days. The Prophet (PBUHH) passed away on a Monday, 28 Ṣafar or 12 Rabīʿ al-Awwal at the age of 63 in the arms of ʿĀʾishah, though it is mentioned in Nahj al-Balagha that at the time of his demise, the Prophet’s head lay on the chest of Ali (AS)[7]. The death of the Prophet (PBUHH) ushered in not only grief but also confusion and dispute over leadership.
The Event of the Prophet’s Death
The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) is among the most sensitive and debated episodes in Islamic historical memory, shaping both doctrinal beliefs and communal identity. The actual moment of his passing, though a shared sorrow among Muslims, is narrated with distinct variations in Sunni and Shia traditions. These differences pertain not only to the physical circumstances of his death but also to who was present and how his final words and actions were interpreted.
According to widely transmitted Sunni sources, the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) occurred on a Monday, the 12th of Rabīʿ al-Awwal in the 11th year of the Hijra (June 8, 632 CE). He is said to have died in the lap of his wife ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr. Muhammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī reports in his Ṣaḥīḥ that ʿĀʾishah said, “The Prophet died while his head was between my chest and my chin.[8]” This account is repeated in various Sunni hadith collections and has formed the basis for the belief that ʿĀʾishah had a privileged role in the Prophet’s final moments.
However, Shia historical sources dispute this claim. According to texts like Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays and Al-Irshād by Shaykh al-Mufīd, the Prophet (PBUHH) died with his head resting on the chest of ʿAli ibn Abī Ṭālib, surrounded by members of his household (Ahl al-Bayt), specifically ʿAli, Lady Fatimah al-Zahra, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn[9]. These sources emphasize that the Prophet’s close kin were his primary caretakers during his illness and were present at the moment of his departure from this world. Shia narrations also stress that the Prophet made confidential bequests to ʿAlī regarding religious leadership and safeguarding the ummah[10].
This divergence reflects more than mere historical reporting; it highlights competing theological narratives. Sunni traditions, by portraying ʿĀʾishah in a central role, reinforce the legitimacy of her father, Abū Bakr, as the first caliph[11]. Conversely, Shia traditions affirm the exclusive spiritual and political authority of the Ahl al-Bayt, particularly ʿAlī, who is presented as the immediate heir to the Prophet’s legacy.
The death of the Prophet (PBUHH) was a moment of deep emotional crisis. Reports suggest that many companions, including ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, were initially in denial. In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, it is narrated that ʿUmar said, “By Allah, the Messenger of Allah has not died…he has gone to his Lord as Mūsā did and will return[12].” This confusion was reportedly resolved by Abū Bakr, who famously declared: “Whoever used to worship Muḥammad, then Muḥammad is dead. But whoever worships Allah, then Allah is ever-living and never dies[13].”
Meanwhile, Shia sources offer a more somber reflection, emphasizing the grief of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra and the exclusion of ʿAli from the political process that followed the death of the Prophet[14]. According to Biḥār al-Anwār, after the death of the Prophet, his immediate family members washed and prepared his body in private, while others engaged in discussions about succession at Saqīfah without their involvement[15]. This exclusion is viewed as a foundational injustice in Shia thought.
Immediate Aftermath of the Death
The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) plunged the Muslim community into immediate grief, confusion, and political uncertainty. While his body remained in the house of ʿĀʾishah, members of the community quickly divided in their response. Many companions, including ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, initially refused to believe the Prophet (PBUHH) had truly died, until Abū Bakr addressed the people, reciting Qurʾān 3:144[16].
During this emotional period, a decisive political meeting took place at Saqīfah Banī Sāʿidah, where prominent members of the Anṣār and Muhājirūn gathered to decide on leadership. Even though the Prophet’s burial had not yet occurred, the meeting concluded with the appointment of Abū Bakr as caliph[17].
Shia sources express profound criticism of this sequence of events. According to Shaykh al-Mufīd, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and members of the Ahl al-Bayt were occupied with preparing the Prophet’s body for burial and were not informed or consulted regarding the political decision at Saqīfah[18]. For Shia historians, the neglect of funeral rites in favor of securing political authority represents an early act of marginalization of the Prophet’s family[19].
The death of the Prophet thus marks a split not only in historical memory but also in political legitimacy. Where Sunni sources view the swift selection of a caliph as necessary for unity, Shia narratives emphasize that spiritual and familial ties to the Prophet (PBUHH) should have dictated succession, and that neglecting the burial for political negotiations signaled a deeper injustice.
The Question of Succession
The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) immediately raised the critical issue of leadership in the Muslim community. Sunni and Shia traditions offer sharply contrasting interpretations of how this question was answered.
In Sunni historical sources, the succession after the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) is seen as a matter of practical necessity. At Saqīfah Banī Sāʿidah, prominent companions, including Abū Bakr, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and Abū ʿUbaydah, agreed to appoint Abū Bakr as the first caliph, based on his status as a close companion and his leadership during the Prophet’s illness[20]. Sunni scholars argue that the Prophet (PBUHH) left the matter of succession to the community’s consultation (shūrā), rather than naming a specific successor.
In contrast, Shia sources maintain that the Prophet explicitly designated ʿAli ibn Abī Ṭālib as his successor on multiple occasions, most notably at Ghadīr Khumm, where he is reported to have said: “For whomever I am his master (mawlā), ʿAlī is his master.[21]” Shia scholars view this declaration as clear evidence of divine appointment (naṣṣ) and consider the Saqīfah assembly illegitimate and politically motivated[22].
Thus, the question of succession after the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) is not simply about historical events but about the very nature of leadership in Islam—whether it should be chosen by communal consensus or divinely designated through the Prophet (PBUHH). The two narratives reflect foundational theological distinctions between Caliphate (Sunni view) and Imamate (Shia view), rooted in divergent interpretations of the aftermath of the death of the Prophet.
Conclusion
The death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUHH) marked a profound moment of grief and uncertainty for the Muslim community, but it also became a source of significant divergence in historical memory between Sunni and Shia Islam. The differing accounts of the death of the Prophet (PBUHH) reflect deeper theological and political divides that shaped the formation of the Caliphate and Imamate doctrines. While Sunni and Shia traditions share reverence for the Prophet (PBUHH), their contrasting narratives about his final days and succession continue to inform distinct religious identities. Understanding these perspectives not only clarifies key historical events but also fosters greater appreciation for the complex legacy of the Prophet (PBUHH) and the need for respectful engagement with differing traditions within the Muslim ummah.
Notes:
[1] . Abbas, Hassan (2021). The Prophet’s Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib, p. 89.
[2] . al-Ṭabarī (1997). Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk, vol. 9, 176–178.
[3] . Ibn Hishām (n.d.). Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, vol. 4, 313–315.
[4] . Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-ʿIlm, Bāb al-Kitābah fīl-ʿIlm, ḥadīth no. 114.
[5] . Shaykh al-Ṣadūq (2007). Al-Khiṣāl, vol. 1, p. 294.
[6] . Shaykh al-Mufīd (1981). Al-Irshād: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, pp. 97–99.
[7] . Nahj al-Balāgha, Sermon 202.
[8] . Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, Bāb Marḍā Rasūl Allāh, ḥadīth no. 4440.
[9]. Shaykh al-Mufīd (1981). Al-Irshād: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, pp. 96–99.
[10] . Sulaym ibn Qays (2000). Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays, pp. 416–418.
[11] . Ibn Kathīr (1997). Al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah, vol. 5, pp. 256–258.
[12] . Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, ḥadīth no. 4452.
[13] . Ibid., ḥadīth no. 4453.
[14] . al-Majlisī (1983). Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 28, pp. 317–319.
[15] . Ibid., 323–325.
[16]. Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, ḥadīth no. 4452.
[17]. Ibn Hishām (n.d). Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, vol. 4, pp. 320–323.
[18] . Shaykh al-Mufīd (1981). Al-Irshād: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, pp. 99–100.
[19] . al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 28, pp. 328–330.
[20] . al-Ṭabarī (1997). Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk, vol. 9, 183–187.
[21] . Shaykh al-Amīn al-Iṣfahānī (1967). Al-Ghadīr fī al-Kitāb wa al-Sunnah wa al-Adab, vol. 1, pp. 14–20.
[22] . Shaykh al-Mufīd (1981). Al-Irshād: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, pp. 100–102.
References
Abbas, Hassan (2021). The Prophet’s Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Yale University Press.
al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī (1983). Biḥār al-Anwār. Tehran: al-Maktabah al-Islāmiyyah.
al-Majlisī (1983). Biḥār al-Anwār. Tehran: al-Maktabah al-Islāmiyyah.
al-Ṭabarī (1997). Tārīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk, trans. Michael Fishbein. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ibn Hishām (n.d). Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, ed. Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā et al. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah.
Ibn Kathīr (1997). Al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr.
Ibn Saʿd (1904). Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, ed. E. Sachau. Leiden: Brill.
Shaykh al-Amīn al-Aṣfahānī (1967). Al-Ghadīr fī al-Kitāb wa al-Sunnah wa al-Adab. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī.
Shaykh al-Mufīd (1981). Al-Irshād: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams, trans. I.K.A. Howard. London: Muhammadi Trust.
Shaykh al-Ṣadūq (2007). Al-Khiṣāl, trans. Badr Shahin. Qom: Ansariyan Publications.
Sulaym ibn Qays (2000). Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays, ed. Muḥammad Bāqir al-Anṣārī. Qom: Intishārāt al-Hādī.
