This is in response to: https://www.provingislam.com/proofs/green-arabia
The apologist that argues for this has a set criteria for these prophecies, let’s see if this prophecy meet these criteria:

The Hadith Prophecy:
“When the Messenger of God said: The Hour will not be established until…the land of Arabia reverts to meadows and rivers.”
Criteria 1: Prophecies must be unintuitive.
This hadith is not unituitive (criteria 1). During the lifetime of the prophet, Arabia had fertile regions like Medina (date palm groves), Ta’if (vineyards), and Yemen (Arabia Felix). The Quran and early Islamic texts also explicitly reference agriculture:
“We send down from the sky water, in exact measure, then we store it in the ground. Certainly, we can let it escape. With it, we produce for you orchards of date palms, grapes, all kinds of fruits, and various foods.”
“We grow in it gardens of date palms, and grapes, and we cause springs to gush out therein.”
-Quran 23:18-19, 36:34
This notion that Arabia being green is somehow unintuitive is an inaccurate assessment for a 7th century Arab. The apologist also conflates the ancient “Green Arabia” (55,000 years ago) with the Prophet’s era. The hadith uses “reverts” (Arabic: tareedu), which implies a return to a recent state, not a prehistoric one. If the prophecy referred to the distant past, it would be irrelevant to its original audience.
Criteria 2: Prophecy must be risky.
The apologist claims that the prophecy is falsifiable under criteria 2 considering it predicts a future event tied to ‘the final hour’. This is false. The prophecy lacks any specific timeframe and has no deadline. Without one, it can’t be falsified, the apologist can simply claim, ‘it hasn’t happened yet’. Funny thing is, the apologist actually does this when introducing this prophecy: “Although this prophecy has yet to come to pass, the Hadith in which it is mentioned contains lost historical knowledge…” (page 22). By utilizing the ‘final hour’, the apologist is creating an open-ended eschatological concept, making the prophecy immune to disprove. The final hour to this apologist is always around the corner, so this means kicking the prophecy down a few centuries if it ‘hasn’t been fulfilled yet’. The apologist also is creating a circular argument. The apologist argues Arabia is “32,000 years overdue” for a monsoon cycle. The issue with this is that the 23,000-year monsoon cycle is based on prehistoric data and assumes no external factors (e.g., human-induced climate change). Modern climate systems are far more complex, while the prophecy’s fulfillment is deferred indefinitely, rendering it unfalsifiable. The prophecy is not falsifiable. It relies on speculative cycles and lacks concrete conditions for failure.

Criteria 3: Prophecy must be specific.
The apologist argues the prophecy is specific, referencing “meadows and rivers” and Arabia’s ancient green history, in support of criteria 3. The hadith does not define the scale, location, or duration of the greening. Does “meadows and rivers” refer to seasonal rains (common in Arabia’s history) or a permanent transformation? Does it apply to the entire peninsula or specific regions like Yemen? The hadith could metaphorically signify spiritual renewal or societal prosperity, not literal greening. Early Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani emphasized contextualizing hadiths, often rejecting literalist readings. We have many Islamic scholars that make their own ijtihad on these hadith and artificially label them metaphorical, so what makes this hadith literal? The prophecy’s vagueness allows multiple interpretations, failing the specificity criterion.
The apologist claims The prophecy is validated by modern discoveries of ancient “Green Arabia” (e.g., hippos, rivers). The apologist engages in a non-sequitur fallacy, the discovery of prehistoric greenery (55,000 years ago) does not validate a prophecy about the future. The hadith refers to a reversion, not a revelation about the past. The apologist here conflates past and future, misusing evidence to create an illusion of fulfillment. The author also selectively uses the term ‘green Arabia’. He highlights ancient hippos and rivers but ignores that Arabia’s greening during the Prophet’s era (e.g., Medina’s agriculture) contradicts the need for a “reversion.” The author’s fourth criterion requires that a true prophet cannot make false prophecies. Yet, he admits the prophecy about Arabia’s greening has not been fulfilled over 1,400 years after it was allegedly made. By the author’s own logic: If a prophecy remains unfulfilled indefinitely, it is functionally false until proven otherwise. The Prophet (or the divine source) would be exposed as unreliable if the prophecy never materializes. By tying the prophecy to an irrelevant prehistoric “Green Arabia” and refusing to acknowledge its unfulfilled status, the author engages in special pleading – a logical fallacy where one demands exceptions for their claims without justification. This violates his own standards for prophecy and exposes the argument as intellectually dishonest.

Transmission Issues
The claim these apologists make in saying that this reliably goes back to the prophet is through the chain of narration. When we analyze these chains of transmissions for this ‘prophecy’, we see a fatal flaw. These traditions converge on a common-link: Suhayl.

The transmission history relies on a single individual, Suhayl. Do ‘ilm al-rijal authorities universally agree on the authenticity of Suhayl’s narrations?
Scholar | Statement | Source(s) |
Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn | “His ḥadīths are not authoritative (ḥujjah).” | Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (2/128), Al-Kāmil fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (4/522) |
Al-Dhahabī | “He was deemed trustworthy by some, but others noted his errors. His memory weakened in his later years.“ | Lisān al-Mīzān (9/320) |
Al-Nasāʾī | “There is no issue with him,” but criticized al-Bukhārī for omitting his narrations. | Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (2/128) |
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal | “His ḥadīths are not sound!” | Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (4/246), Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (12/223) |
Al-Ḥākim | Criticized Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj for including Suhayl’s narrations in his Ṣaḥīḥ, stating his memory declined. | Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (6/150) |
Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī | “His ḥadīths may be recorded, but they are not to be used as evidence. He is preferable to ʿAmr ibn Abī ʿAmr.” | Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (4/246), Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (12/223) |
Al-Azdī | “He was truthful (ṣadūq), but he suffered from a stroke in his later years, which caused him to forget some ḥadīths.“ | Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (2/128) |
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī | “Truthful (ṣadūq), but his memory deteriorated in his later years.” | Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (1/421) |
Ibn Ḥibbān | “He made errors and died during the caliphate of Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr.” | Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (6/150) |
Ibn Saʿd | “He was trustworthy and narrated many ḥadīths.“ | Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (6/150) |
Despite Yahya ibn Ma’in’s comment on Suhayl’s narrations not being an authority, our apologist disregards his comment and creates an entire notion of a prophecy ‘reliably’ backed to the prophet. Not only does this further prove the apologists intellectual dishonesty, but also his inconsistency.