There are many hadith apologists who focus on specific hadiths within the hadith corpus to demonstrate their miraculous nature. Their goal is twofold: first, to use these ‘prophetic’ hadiths as evidence for the reliability of the corpus, and second, to validate their religion by asserting that these narrations contain knowledge that the Prophet could not have predicted on his own.
The hadith we will analyze is one that is claimed to predict the Siege of Baghdad by the Mongols. Some argue that this hadith stands as an extraordinary piece of evidence for Islam’s divine truth, as it is believed to have foretold the rise of a great city, its geographical and strategic importance, and its eventual downfall at the hands of a people described with physical characteristics resembling the Mongols. There are many issues with this claim and God willing we’ll go over them. First, the Quran clearly refutes any notion that the Prophet Muhammad had knowledge of the future akin to a fortune teller. In this verse, the Prophet explicitly states, “I have no power to benefit myself, or harm myself. Only what GOD wills happens to me.”
[7:188] Say, “I have no power to benefit myself, or harm myself. Only what GOD wills happens to me. If I knew the future, I would have increased my wealth, and no harm would have afflicted me. I am no more than a warner, and a bearer of good news for those who believe.”
قُل لَّآ أَمْلِكُ لِنَفْسِى نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّا إِلَّا مَا شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَوْ كُنتُ أَعْلَمُ ٱلْغَيْبَ لَٱسْتَكْثَرْتُ مِنَ ٱلْخَيْرِ وَمَا مَسَّنِىَ ٱلسُّوٓءُ إِنْ أَنَا۠ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ
This highlights that the Prophet’s abilities were entirely limited to God’s will and that he had no control over future events. Furthermore, the Prophet says, “If I knew the future, I would have increased my wealth, and no harm would have afflicted me.” This statement emphasizes that if he had foreknowledge of future events, he would have used that knowledge to avoid harm and prosper, as any ordinary human would. However, his purpose was not to accumulate wealth or power, but to be a warner and a bearer of good news for those who believe. This foundational truth shows that while the Prophet conveyed divine messages from God, his knowledge was not that of a soothsayer or fortune teller. Instead, it was given by God, and his role was to guide people towards righteousness through the Quran. But when has the Quran ever stopped traditional apologists from promoting anti-Quranic stances? Despite this very clear verse rejecting any claim of future knowledge, some continue to twist narratives to fit their agenda, conveniently ignoring the explicit denial in 7:188. It’s almost like they think the Quran’s words are optional when it doesn’t align with their interpretations.
The Hadith In Question:
Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Faris narrated to us:
Abdus-Samad ibn Abdul-Warith narrated to us:
My father narrated to me:
Saeed ibn Jumhan narrated to us:
Muslim ibn Abi Bakrah narrated to us, saying:
I heard my father narrate that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“Some people from my nation will settle in a low-lying land called al-Basrah, by a river known as the Tigris, over which there will be a bridge. Its people will be numerous, and it will be one of the cities of the Muhajirun.”
Ibn Yahya said that Abu Ma’mar added: *”And it will be one of the cities of the Muslims. When the end of times approaches, the descendants of Qanṭūrāʾ—broad-faced and small-eyed—will come and descend upon the riverbank. The people of the city will then divide into three groups:
- A group that flees to the desert with their cattle and perishes.
- A group that seeks safety for themselves and perishes (or disbelieves).
- A group that places their children behind them and fights, and they will be the martyrs.”*
Grading: Hasan (Al-Albani)
Summary of The Apologetic Argument:
- Prophecy of a New Capital: The hadith allegedly predicts the establishment of a major Muslim capital along the Tigris River, which they claim refers to Baghdad, founded in 762 CE as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate.
- Geographical Specificity: The narration describes the city’s location near the Tigris River, references a bridge, and mentions an area called al-Basrah, which proponents argue refers to a region near Baghdad.
- Description of Invaders: The hadith describes the attackers as the descendants of Qanṭūrāʾ, characterized by broad faces and small eyes, which they argue matches the Mongol phenotype.
- Three Groups of People: The prophecy details how the city’s inhabitants would divide into three groups:
- One would flee to the desert and perish.
- One would seek security and perish (or disbelieve, as ‘kafaru’ can mean both).
- One would stay and fight, ultimately becoming martyrs.
- Historical Alignment with the Siege of Baghdad: The proponents argue that all of these details perfectly correspond to the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258 CE, which marked the end of the Islamic Golden Age.
- Fulfillment of Specific Elements:
- Baghdad was indeed a major Muslim capital.
- It was located next to the Tigris River and had bridges.
- The Mongols, known for their distinct physical features, invaded it.
- The city’s population was massacred, aligning with the three predicted outcomes of its inhabitants.
Their argument concludes that the hadith’s specificity—mentioning the rise of the city, its naming, its invaders, and its destruction—makes it too precise to be a mere coincidence, thus proving its prophetic nature.
The Fault of This Argument:
The Earliest Versions Are Not Prophetic
The earliest versions of this hadith are not attributed to the Prophet Muhammad himself, but rather to ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, a Companion of the Prophet known for his interest in Biblical and eschatological traditions. This alone weakens the claim that it is divine prophecy, as it suggests that the narration originates from non-prophetic sources and was shaped by later events.

Translation:
1906 – Ibn Ayyash said: Nafi· and Saeed bin Abi Arubah told us, both on the authority of Qatada, Abdullah bin
Buraidah told us, on the authority of Sulayman bin Rabi·ah, one of the ascetics of Basra, who said: We came to
Abdullah bin Umar and heard him say: The Banu Qantura are about to drive the people of Khurasan and the
people of Sistan in a violent drive until they tie their animals to the palm trees of Ablah. Then they will send to the
people of Basra: Leave your land for us or come to you. Then they will be divided into three groups: a group that
will join the Arabs, a group that will go to the Levant, and a group that will attack them. The sign of that, when the
land is covered, will be the sign of fools.

Translation:
“20799 – ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us from Maʿmar, from Ayyūb, from Ibn Sīrīn, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakra, who said: ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ said: ‘The Banū Qanṭūrāʾ are about to drive you out from the land of Iraq.’ I asked, ‘Then shall we return?’ He replied, ‘That is more beloved to you. Then you shall return, and there will be for you therein a pleasant life.'”
In one early version of the story, credited to Ibn Burayda (d. 115 AH) or Qatada (d. 118 AH), Ibn al-ʿĀṣ predicts that Basra would be attacked by a group called the Banu Qanṭūrāʾ, causing people to flee without fighting back. Another early version, linked to Ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH) through a son of Abu Bakra, says that the people of Basra would run away at first but later return to live peacefully. A later version by Ibn Jumhān (d. 136 AH) combines these two stories and adds the idea that three different groups would react in different ways to the invasion. This change likely reflects the shifting political situation at the time.
The Basran scholar Sa’id ibn Juhman further develops this narrative by blending the earlier accounts and introducing the concept of three distinct groups responding differently to the invasion. To lend credibility to his version, he fabricates an isnad (chain of transmission) tracing the story back to the Prophet, giving it the appearance of divine authority. What we’re seeing here is a story that changes and grows over time, rather than staying the same.

The Common-Link Issue

The Common Link in this hadith’s transmission is Saʿīd b. Jumhān, a Basran transmitter. He was regarded as a generally questionable source in hadith transmission, and his version introduces new elements that were absent in earlier accounts. This strongly suggests that he fabricated or modified the hadith to fit contemporary political and military crises in Basra, then retroactively back-project the chain of narration to Muslim ibn Abu Bakra, then to his father Abu Bakra, then to the Prophet. It seems deliberate that he would choose two Basrans (father and son duo) to fill in the gap of his isnad creation in order to reach the prophet, considering Basra is the center of the hadith at hand.
- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani: Graded him “Saduq (truthful), but he has some individual narrations”. (Taqrib al-Tahdhib 1/375)
- Al-Dhahabi: Graded him as “Saduq (truthful) but of moderate reliability”. (al-Kashif 2/474)
- Abu Ali al-Tusi: Considered his hadith Hasan (acceptable but not at the highest level of reliability). (Ikmal Tahdhib al-Kamal 5/271)
- Ibn Adi: Acknowledged that he narrates unique hadiths from Sufinah and hoped “there is nothing wrong with him”. (al-Kamil fi al-Du‘afa 4/456)
- Ibn Qattan: Did not find him problematic but noted that he narrates hadiths not reported by others. (Ikmal Tahdhib al-Kamal 5/271)
- Abu Hatim al-Razi: Graded him as “Saduq (truthful) but not reliable enough to be used as primary evidence (la yuhtaj bihi)”. (al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil 4/10, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 2/11)
- Al-Saji: Criticized his reliability, stating “His narrations are not corroborated (la yutabi‘u ‘ala hadithihi)” and that some considered him unknown. However, he acknowledged that most scholars followed his hadith about Khilafah lasting 30 years. (Ikmal Tahdhib al-Kamal 5/271, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 2/11)
- Al-Bukhari: Stated that his narrations contain “Ajā’ib (strange or peculiar things)”. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 2/11)
Sa‘id bin Jumhan, though considered trustworthy by many scholars, has shared some questionable reports. He made mistakes in both the chain of transmission (isnad) and the content of this hadith. Muhammad bin Sirin also narrated this hadith but provided a different chain and wording. He reported it from ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Bakrah, who attributed it to ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As, who said:
“It is imminent that the descendants of Qanṭurāʾ will expel you from Iraq.” I asked, “Will we return?” He replied, “Do you long for that?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Yes, and you will have some respite in your livelihood.”
Muhammad bin Sirin, a scholar widely respected by all, believed this statement was the words of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As, not a prophetic hadith. Other narrations from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As also support this wording, though some include extra details that differ from Sa‘id bin Jumhan’s version. Additionally, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As got this information from the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), as clearly stated in a narration by Ibn Abi Shaybah (15/112), with a reliable chain from Rabi‘ah bin Jushn. The narration says:
“Prepare yourselves, O people of Basra!” We asked, “With what?” He said, “With provisions and water skins. The best wealth today is camels on which a man can carry his family and supplies, and a strong, well-bred horse. By Allah, the descendants of Qanṭurāʾ will soon drive you out of here until they place you in a corral.” We asked, “Who are the descendants of Qanṭurāʾ?” He replied, “As found in the scripture, they are called so, but in description, they are the Turks.”
Sa‘id bin Jumhan also made errors in naming the son of Abi Bakrah. Sometimes he said it was Muslim bin Abi Bakrah (as in Abu Dawood’s version), other times ‘Abdullah, then ‘Ubaydullah, and sometimes ‘Abd al-Rahman. However, the correct chain is from ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Bakrah, as in Muhammad bin Sirin’s narration.
The presence of so-so evaluations from multiple hadith scholars suggests that Saʿīd b. Jumhān was not universally seen as a trustworthy transmitter. His role as the Common Link makes it highly likely that he shaped the final version of the hadith, undermining its reliability as a prophecy.
Retroactive Projection (Vaticinium ex Eventu)
The hadith exhibits clear signs of vaticinium ex eventu, meaning it was not a prophecy but rather a retrospective attribution made after events had already unfolded. The Banu Qanṭūrāʾ were originally linked to threats faced by Basra in the late 7th and early 8th centuries. By the 9th century, when Abbasid Caliphs faced Turkic slave soldiers, the term “Banu Qanṭūrāʾ” was reinterpreted to refer to them. By the 13th century, the term was applied to the Mongols. The original understanding of “Banu Qantura” was as Abdullah ibn Amr narrates in The Musannaf of Abdurazzaq: ‘The Banū Qanṭūrāʾ are about to drive you out from the land of Iraq.’
This shifting application shows that the hadith was continuously reinterpreted to fit new historical realities rather than being a fixed prophecy. Since the term “Banu Qanṭūrāʾ” was applied to multiple groups, this suggests a flexible and imprecise meaning rather than an accurate prediction.

The Hadith Never Referenced Baghdad – It Was Basra.
The original Basra was not the same as Baghdad. While proponents claim that Basra’s mention includes its hinterlands, this is an ad hoc rationalization with no textual basis. The term Shatt al-ʿArab, where Basra was situated, is a tidal river prone to flooding, making it unlikely that settlements matching the description would last.
The hadith describes the invaders as having broad faces and small eyes, which apologists claim matches the Mongols. However, this same description was used in other hadiths to refer to Turks, Khazars, and other steppe peoples. This reflects a generic stereotype of East Asian steppe warriors, rather than a specific prophecy about the Mongols. Similar descriptions appear in historical sources discussing various groups, reinforcing that this was a common way of describing distant, foreign invaders rather than an exclusive reference to the Mongols.
The Banu Qanṭūrāʾ hadith is clearly a product of historical evolution rather than divine foresight. Its origins in non-prophetic sources, the fabrication by later transmitters, and the retroactive application to fit different historical crises all indicate that it was never a prophecy to begin with. The apologetic claims fall apart under scrutiny, revealing a case of historical reinterpretation rather than miraculous foresight.
It also wasn’t even universally believed that this ‘prophecy’ was going to be interpreted as ‘Mongols’ for Turks. As Dr. Elon Harvey adds, Muslim scholars (and apologists) reinterpreted the term to align with new historical events. For example, Ibn al-Munadi (d. 272/886) associated the “Banu Qanṭurāʾ” with the Zanj rebels who rose up in 270/884. Centuries later, al-Dihlawi (d. 1052/1642) identified them as the Mongols who devastated Baghdad in 656/1258. This shows how the meaning of the hadith evolved to reflect the changing realities and concerns of different eras.
“(وفرقة يأخذون لأنفسهم)” أي: ملجأ وأماناً من بني قنطوراء ولم يجدوا الأمان منهم، قيل: هم المستعصم بالله الخليفة ورؤساء بغداد وعلماؤها طلبوا الأمان فقتلوا تقتيلاً، وجري ما جري عليهم، وفرقة قاتلوهم فاستشهد أكثرهم ونجى قليلون، وهذا الذي أشير إليه في الحديث، ومصداقه قصة التتار وخروجهم على بلاد الله وقتلهم عباد الله في عهد المستعصم بالله، وهي فتنة عظيمة لم يقع ولم يرَ مثلها، والله أعلم، نسأل الله تعالى العافية.
Translation:
“(And a group will take refuge for themselves)”—meaning they will seek shelter and safety from Banu Qantura but will not find security from them. It is said that they refer to Al-Musta’sim Billah, the caliph, along with the leaders and scholars of Baghdad, who sought safety but were slaughtered mercilessly. What befell them was catastrophic. Another group fought against them, and most of them were martyred, while only a few survived. This is what was referenced in the hadith, and its fulfillment was in the story of the Tatar invasion, their attack on the lands of Allah, and their massacre of Allah’s servants during the reign of Al-Musta’sim Billah. It was a great tribulation, the likes of which had never occurred before nor been witnessed. And Allah knows best. We ask Allah for well-being.
سياق الميسور في ملحمة الزنج بالبصرة
١/٩٧ – حدثنا محمد بن عبد الملك بن مروان، أبو جعفر الوسطي المعروف بالدقيقي، قال: ثنا يزيد بن هارون، قال: أخبرنا العوام بن حوشب، عن سعيد بن جهمان، عن ابن أبي بكرة، عن أبيه، قال:ذكر رسول الله ﷺ أرضاً يقال لها “البصرة” أو “البصيرة” إلى جنبها نهر يقال له “دجلة” ذو نخل كثير، فينزل به بنو قنطوراء، قال:فينقسم الناس ثلاث فرق:فرقة تلحق بأهلها، وفرقة يجعلون ذراريهم خلف ظهورهم فيقاتلون، فقتلهم شهداء، وفتح الله على بقيتهم.قال لنا أبو جعفر الدقيقي: وأما الفرقة الثالثة فإنها سقطت عليَّ من كتابي.
Translation:
The Account of the Zanj Battle in Basra
1/97 – Muhammad ibn Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan, Abu Ja’far Al-Wasiti, known as Al-Daqiqi, narrated to us:
Yazid ibn Harun narrated to us, saying: Al-‘Awwam ibn Hawshab reported from Sa’id ibn Juhman, from Ibn Abi Bakrah, from his father, who said:
The Messenger of God mentioned a land called “Al-Basrah” or “Al-Basirah,” next to a river called “Dijlah” (Tigris), which has many palm trees. Then Banu Qantura will descend upon it. The people will be divided into three groups:
- One group will flee to their families.
- Another group will place their children behind them and fight. They will be martyred, but Allah will grant victory to the remaining ones.
Abu Ja’far Al-Daqiqi said to us:
“As for the third group, that part fell out of my book.”
Pingback: Fabricated Prophecy: THE PROPHECIED RETURN OF DHUL-KHALASA - hadithcriticblog.com