The “green Arabia hadith” in Sahih Muslim 157b is one of the most popular “scientific miracles” cited by modern Muslim apologists. They claim it proves Muhammad miraculously knew ancient Arabia was once lush with meadows and rivers — and that he predicted the deserts would return to that fertile state. Yet a closer look reveals serious problems: the hadith was almost certainly fabricated in the 8th century to serve Umayyad political interests, and when a recent dawah book tried to revive it as proof of prophecy, the world’s most popular hadith website — Sunnah.com — quietly changed its English translation from “becomes” to “reverts” to make the miracle claim work.
The Miracle Claim
There’s a hadith found in Sahih Muslim where Muhammad supposedly says:
The Last Hour will not come before wealth becomes abundant and overflowing, so much so that a man takes Zakat out of his property and cannot find anyone to accept it from him and till the land of Arabia reverts to meadows and rivers.
- Sahih Muslim 157b
Modern Muslim apologists love this hadith. They point out that scientists have discovered Arabia was once green thousands of years ago, covered in grasslands and rivers. So they claim Muhammad miraculously knew about ancient climate history and predicted Arabia would return to that state. Books like “Forbidden Prophecies” by IERA (Islamic Education and Research Academy) market this as stunning proof of Muhammad’s prophethood. The argument is simple: How could a 7th-century Arab know about ancient green Arabia unless God told him? But there are two massive problems with this claim. First, the hadith was almost certainly fabricated in the 8th century for political reasons. Second, even the translation has been manipulated in modern times to make the “miracle” work. Let’s start with the fabrication, because understanding where this hadith really came from exposes why the modern deception was necessary on their part.
The Origin of The Hadith
In a hadith that al-Hakim (d. 405/1014) recorded in al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn it was stated: The Hour will not come until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers. Al-Hakim judged it to be authentic according to the standards of Muslim, and al-Dhahabi agreed. Many have included this report among the prophetic prophecies and claim this hadith is proof that the Prophet Muhammad prophesied it the current ‘greening’ of Arabia. However, the hadith’s chain of transmission goes back to Suhayl b. Abi Salih (d. c. 150/767), a Medinan transmitter whose credibility was questioned by early hadith critics in the later part of his life. We will reevaluate this hadith through an exploration of its chain of narrators and historical context, and will suggest that it developed in the Umayyad period, when irrigation and land reclamation in the Hijaz were touted as a sign of God’s approval.
Transmission History
The “green Arabia” hadith converge at one transmitter, Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ Dhakwān al-Sammān (d. ca. 140–150/757–767). The isnād is Suhayl ← his father Abū Ṣāliḥ ← Abū Hurayrah ← the Prophet, and there is no alternative parallel transmission that reaches either Abū Ṣāliḥ or Abū Hurayrah without first going through Suhayl. The transmission is of a single node through which all variants travel; this is what hadith critics refer to as a common link, and it indicates that the hadith was likely composed with Suhayl or was proliferated by Suhayl. The hadith compilations preserve a wide array of variants, but each of them contain the prophecy of Arabia turning into meadows and rivers. Some differ in slight wording and details with one of the five predominant narrations noted below; the main point about Arabia returning to meadows and rivers is present in all five of the following narrations.
- Muslim 157c: Transmitted via Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd ← Yaʿqūb ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qārī ← Suhayl ← his father ← Abū Hurayrah. This version includes predictions about wealth overflowing and an increase in al-harj (chaos/killing).
- Aḥmad 9395: Through the same Qutaybah-Yaʿqūb chain, with nearly identical wording to Muslim’s version.
- Aḥmad 8833: Transmitted via Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ ← Ismāʿīl ibn Zakariyyā ← Suhayl. This version adds details about safe travel between Iraq and Mecca.
- Ibn Ḥibbān 6700: Again through Qutaybah-Yaʿqūb, authenticated as ṣaḥīḥ by al-Arnāʾūṭ.
- Al-Ḥākim 8472: Transmitted through a different early chain (al-Ḥusayn ibn Ḥafṣ ← Sufyān ← Suhayl), notable because Sufyān explicitly expresses uncertainty about whether the hadith is actually marfūʿ (raised to the Prophet).
The documentary evidence reveals three main branches proliferated by Suhayl:
Branch 1: Via Yaʿqūb ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān –
The three transmissions through Yaʿqūb display significant textual variation. Ibn Ḥibbān 6700 contains the shortest versions with two motifs: killing [red], and the Arabia greening clause [green]. Muslim 157c and Aḥmad 9395 add a clause about Arabia gaining wealth [yellow] before the Arabia greening statement [green]. This suggests the greening prophecy circulated first as a standalone statement before being embedded within broader eschatological material.
- Aḥmad 9395: The Messenger of God said: “The Hour will not be established until wealth increases and overflows, until a man goes out with the zakāt of his wealth but finds no one to accept it from him, and until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers, and until al-harj increases.” They said: “And what is al-harj, O Messenger of God?” He said: “Killing, killing.”
- Muslim 157c: The Messenger of God said: “The Hour will not be established until wealth increases and overflows, until a man goes out with the zakāt of his wealth but finds no one to accept it from him, and until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers.”
- Ibn Ḥibbān 6700: The Messenger of God said: “The Hour will not be established until al-harj increases, and until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers.”
Branch 2: Ismāʿīl ibn Zakariyyā –
Ismāʿīl’s version (Aḥmad 8833) opens with the Arabia greening [green], then adds a security prophecy about safe travel between Iraq and Mecca [blue], concluding with the al-harj clause [red+orange]. Unlike Yaʿqūb’s variants, it omits the wealth part entirely and instead emphasizes the Iraq-Mecca corridor. As the only transmitter to include this Iraq-Mecca security clause [blue], Ismāʿīl ibn Zakariyyā al-Kūfī (d. 161/778) appears to have localized the prophecy to address concerns specific to his Iraqi audience. The route between Iraq and Mecca was central to Umayyad pilgrimage control and the suppression of Kharijite and Shi’i insurgencies throughout the mid-second century AH.
- Aḥmad 8833: The Messenger of God said: “The Hour will not be established until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers, and until the rider travels between Iraq and Mecca fearing nothing but losing the way, and until al-harj increases.” They said: “And what is al-harj, O Messenger of God?” He said: “Killing.”
Branch 3: Sufyān
Sufyān’s version (al-Ḥākim 8472) contains only the bare Arabia greening statement [green], but includes this extraordinary caveat: Lā aʿlamu illā qad rafaʿahu (I do not know except that he raised it to the Prophet). Major authorities like Sufyān rarely qualified chains with such explicit doubt about marfūʿ attribution unless they suspected dubious prophetic pedigree. This hesitation makes it plausible to say that even among Suhayl’s students, the statement’s true origin was unclear. It could have come from Abū Ṣāliḥ, Abū Hurayrah, or Suhayl himself, and was later attributed back to the Prophet.
- Al-Ḥākim 8742: Sufyan said: “I do not know except that he raised it (attributed it to the Prophet).” He said: The Messenger of God said: “The Hour will not be established until the land of Arabia returns to meadows and rivers.”
Historical Context: Umayyad Agricultural Revival in the Hijaz
The reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 724–743 CE) marked the height of Umayyad state intervention in land reclamation and irrigation. Archaeological and historical sources show a deliberate effort to ‘green’ large tracts of the caliphate’s territory, linking agricultural revival to divine favor and political legitimacy. Marsham notes that under Hishām, the caliph “…opened up many abundant water channels and it was he who drew water from the river above Callinicum (Raqqa). He established many plantations in Mesopotamia and the Syrias.” This was his attempt in forming part of a broader policy in reclaiming uncultivated land and expanding the tax base. These initiatives required significant public investment and in the Ḥijāz, this often came at the expense of local ownership: “The Hijaz’s local elites did not only have to put up with competition from the Umayyads for expanding cultivable land; they also had to bear seeing their estates confiscated, bought up as distress sales, or otherwise infringed upon by members of the Umayyad family.”
Eger’s archaeological synthesis makes clear that such projects were systematic rather than isolated: “The second type of land tenure involved entrepreneurs, mainly Umayyad elites, who developed abandoned or previously non-agricultural lands with irrigation systems for cultivation. They were rewarded for their revitalization efforts on otherwise »dead« lands (mawāt) by becoming landowners with tax exemptions on account of their prior investments.” Eger’s description clarifies that these were part of a coordinated administrative program that incentivized Umayyad elites to transform “dead land” into taxable, productive estates. The parallels between this policy and the hadith’s motif of a revived landscape strongly situate the report within the ideological situation of the Umayyad period rather than the Prophet’s lifetime.
These policies were economically successful, but socially divisive. In Medina and its hinterlands, Syrian administrators confiscated or re-chartered estates long held by Qurashī and Anṣār families, which caused the recasting of local farming communities as tenants of the caliph. To ease discontent, official discourse celebrated agricultural renewal as a sign of divine blessing. This served as visible proof that God had ‘restored life to dead land.’ Within this ideological atmosphere, a Medinan transmitter with Umayyad ties could easily reframe that political slogan as prophetic speech. The historical record thus situates the ‘land of Arabia returning to meadows and rivers’ not in the Prophet’s era, but in the Umayyad project of agricultural revival, whose imagery and timing the hadith precisely reflects.
Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ and the Politics of Transmission
The key transmitter of the ‘green Arabia’ report, Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ Dhakwān al-Sammān (d. c. 140–150/757–767), was a Medinan mawlā of the Ghatafān. The Ghatafān served as one of the tribal blocs that had aligned early with Umayyad authority. His nisbah al-Sammān (“the butter-seller”) indicates a middling economic background. Although Ghatafān was not among the most politically dominant Qaysī branches during Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign, its place within the broader Qays tribal confederation is itself significant. Hishām’s administration is well known for favoring northern Arab (Qays) tribes (such as Hawāzin, Sulaym, Fazāra, and others) after a long period of Yemenite dominance in Umayyad politics. Contemporary sources describe Hishām’s strategic reliance on Qays for both military recruitment and provincial administration. Even if Ghatafān was not the leading Qaysī faction, its membership in the Qaysī confederation. meant that it shared in this renewed political proximity to Umayyad power.
Suhayl’s reliability was contested, especially in his later years. Classical rijāl critics record a pattern of memory deterioration and inconsistent narration in his later years. Ibn Maʿīn and al-Nasāʾī rated him ‘ṣāliḥ’ but ‘not strong,’ while al-ʿUqaylī placed him among transmitters whose reports ‘require caution.’ Muslim nonetheless included a limited number of his narrations into his compilation.
Translation of above quotation:
3604 – Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ, Abū ʿAwwānah al-Sammān
He is one of the scholars who are trustworthy, but others are stronger than him.
Ibn Maʿīn said: He is not as good as others.
Ibn ʿAbbās said, reporting from Yaḥyā: He is not strong in ḥadīth.
Al-Nasāʾī said: His ḥadīth is not proof (ḥujjah).Elsewhere he said: He is trustworthy, and his brothers ʿAbbād and Ṣāliḥ [are also trustworthy].
Aḥmad said: He is more reliable than Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr, and his ḥadīth are sounder.
Abū Ḥātim said: His ḥadīth are written down, but not used as proof.
He is beloved to me over ʿAmr ibn Abī ʿAmr, and among the scholars of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān.I (the author) say: Shuʿbah and Mālik narrated from him, and he may have been afflicted by forgetfulness in some of his ḥadīths.
Ibn ʿUyaynah said: We considered Suhayl to be firm in ḥadīth.
The ‘green Arabia’ report is unique in being unverifiable through any independent parallel transmission. It survives only through Suhayl. In isnād–cum–matn methodology, this is called a single-strand common link (narrowest point of convergence). All this implies is that he was a suspicious and potential origin node for the report’s circulation. Beyond technical weakness, Suhayl’s social position gives us an idea on a potential motive. As a Medinan scholar under Umayyad oversight, he belonged to a class of transmitters whose livelihoods and prestige depended on maintaining favor with state-aligned patrons. The Qaysī’s loyalty to the Marwanid caliphs (particularly under Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik) was well documented. Syria became the base of military power and was heavily dependent on tribal auxiliaries, including Qays groups. The Umayyads were known to have used iqṭāʿ and other land grants as political rewards. This was a practice that began with the Umayyad state itself. For such clients, hadiths affirming divine blessing upon the Arabian landscape and portraying agricultural renewal as a prelude to eschatological fulfillment were ideologically convenient. They framed imperial reclamation projects as prophetic destiny.
In this light, Suhayl’s authorship of this report becomes highly plausible. He may have sought to reconcile Medinan resentment over Umayyad land policy by recasting it as divinely ordained: ‘The Prophet said this would happen; submit to it.’ The phrasing of the report, the land of Arabia will return to meadows and rivers, invokes both nostalgia and inevitability. As a teacher of hadith in Medina during a time of active irrigation and canalization projects, Suhayl would have heard and reproduced these motifs as a means to promote the blessings of Umayyad prosperity. The isnād’s later diffusion reinforces this understanding. Suhayl’s Medinan student, Yaʿqūb ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qārī, preserved the report and transmitted it onward to Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd, through whom it entered the canonical corpus of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Ibn Ḥibbān. By the third century, the political context was forgotten. But the transmission profile points unmistakably back to one man, one setting, and one ideological moment: Medina under the Umayyads, when loyalty to the caliph could be expressed through words falsely placed upon the lips of the Prophet.
From Policy to Prophecy
As a Medinan transmitter aligned through his Ghatafān background with the Qays tribal bloc favored under Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, Suhayl belonged to the very milieu that benefited from Umayyad patronage and land policies. His career unfolded at the exact time when the state needed religious language to legitimize these unpopular agricultural projects in the Ḥijāz, as well as pacify populations angered by these Umayyad property seizures. The hadith’s eschatological frame allowed this policy to be reinterpreted as the inevitable fulfillment of a prophetic vision. No earlier authority transmits it, no parallel route corroborates it, and a transmitter hesitates over its marfūʿ status. When the only pathway for a politically useful narration runs through a single transmitter whose social position gives him every reason to craft it, the most economical historical explanation is that the report originated with him rather than the Prophet. The “green Arabia” hadith is best understood as a reframed policy, born in the political environment of Umayyad Medina and authored by the very man through whom it exclusively descends.
The Evidence Stacks Up
Let’s review what we have:
- Single transmitter – All versions trace exclusively to Suhayl. No independent verification.
- Suspect transmitter – Suhayl had known memory problems and inconsistent narration.
- Early doubts – Even Suhayl’s own students questioned whether this came from the Prophet.
- Perfect timing – Appeared exactly when the Umayyads needed religious justification for unpopular agricultural projects.
- Perfect motive – Suhayl belonged to a tribal group that benefited from Umayyad patronage.
- Perfect utility – The hadith’s message directly supported Umayyad policy and helped suppress resistance.
This is textbook political hadith fabrication. The historical context, transmission profile, and ideological function all point to the same conclusion. This hadith was created in 8th-century Medina to legitimize Umayyad land policies, not spoken by Muhammad in the 7th century.
The Modern Cover-Up
Fast forward thirteen centuries. Muslims discover that ancient Arabia was once green. Someone digs up this old hadith and realizes it could be marketed as a scientific miracle. There’s just one problem. The most widely used English translation of Sahih Muslim is by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui. If you look up his translation of this hadith on websites like QuranX.com, here’s what it says: “…till the land of Arabia BECOMES meadows and rivers.” Not “returns.” Not “reverts.” BECOMES. This is a problem for the miracle claim. If it just says Arabia will “become” green, that’s mundane. Humans have been irrigating deserts for thousands of years. There’s no miracle there. But if it says Arabia will “revert” to being green, now you can claim Muhammad had special knowledge about paleoclimate.
The Arabic word تعود can mean either “become” or “return.” Both are valid according to Arabic dictionaries like Lane’s Lexicon and Hans Wehr. Siddiqui chose “become.”
In 2019, IERA (Islamic Education and Research Academy) published a book called “Forbidden Prophecies” by Abu Zakariya. The book promotes the Arabia hadith as a key proof of Muhammad’s prophethood, explicitly claiming the word means “return” so Muhammad knew about ancient green Arabia. The book was officially announced on December 29, 2019. In January 2020, IERA uploaded a YouTube video promoting it as a “very powerful argument for the prophethood.” They started marketing it heavily in dawah circles. And then something suspicious happened.
The Complete Timeline: How the Deception Unfolded
- December 29, 2019: IERA officially announces ‘Forbidden Prophecies‘ on the Many Prophets One Message website. The book uses the Arabia hadith as proof of Muhammad’s divine knowledge, claiming the Arabic word means ‘return‘ so Muhammad knew Arabia was green in ancient times. (source)
- January 22, 2020: IERA uploads a YouTube lecture titled “The Forbidden Prophecies” promoting the book as a “very powerful argument for the prophethood” and encouraging orders. This marks the beginning of active promotional efforts.
- April 8, 2020: Multiple X (Twitter) posts recommend the book in dawah contexts. One user (@Ash55319407) lists it alongside Yaqeen Institute and “The Sealed Nectar” as essential reading for “the quran’s lingsutic miracle, prophecies and miracles in Islam.” Another user (@afifmohdazani) responds: “I love abu zakariya’s the forbidden prophecies.”
April 28, 2020: TWO EVENTS ON THE SAME DAY:
- X user @justcarmi_ announces: “Guys, the Forbidden Prophecies book written by Abu Zakariya is now available in soft copy. You can download it for FREE by clicking this link“
- Wayback Machine captures Sunnah.com displaying Sahih Muslim 157b with Abdul Hamid Siddiqui’s translation: “the land of Arabia BECOMES meadows and rivers“
The free PDF would have spread rapidly through Muslim communities, especially during COVID-19 lockdowns when people were online constantly. Muslims reading the book would naturally check Sunnah.com to verify the hadith. But when they looked, it said “becomes” not “reverts.” This contradicted the book’s entire miracle claim.
- May 29, 2020: X user @BrotherAlexP recommends in a conversation: “Have you seen iERA’s ‘The Forbidden Prophecies’?“
- June 4, 2020: X user @Yacerola references the book in a thread about proving Islam: “Then we have the Prophet (aleyhi salat wa Salem) the way he lived his life, his miracles & and Prophecies (IERA Website : the Forbidden Prophecies)”
June 28, 2020: TWO EVENTS ON THE SAME DAY:
- X user @Smaasid quotes directly from the book (page 18): “It is strange for a person to wear man-made small amulets to ward off the ‘influence’ of huge planets and stars on his life…” This shows active engagement with the book’s content.
- Wayback Machine captures Sunnah.com displaying: “the land of Arabia REVERTS to meadows and rivers“
- March 2021: A Reddit post on r/exmuslim exposes the change, explicitly stating: “The last snapshot where they use the ‘become’ translation is in April 2020. The book Forbidden Prophecies was released in mid-2019, and it gained popularity in 2020. According to the snapshots, this is the very year that sunnah.com changed their translation from ‘become’ to ‘revert’, because they knew that people will be trying to fact-check this translation after reading the book!”
The Smoking Gun: A Reactionary Change
Look at what happened. Between April 28 (when the free PDF became available) and June 28 (when people were actively discussing and quoting the book), Sunnah.com changed the translation. The change occurred exactly 4-6 months after the book’s release and right during the spike in social media activity. The cluster of X posts from April to June shows the book gaining serious traction. The April 28 free PDF release would have massively increased readership. Muslims reading the book would check Sunnah.com to verify the hadith. But when they looked, it said “becomes” not “reverts.” This contradicted the book’s miracle claim. Within two months, as discussions peaked, the translation changed.
Only “becomes” was swapped for “reverts.” Nothing else changed. Not other words in the hadith. Not other hadiths in the collection. Just this one word that directly supports the book’s argument about Muhammad predicting paleoclimate. This wasn’t a general translation update. This was targeted editing to support one specific miracle claim. Sunnah.com claims to use Abdul Hamid Siddiqui’s translation. But Siddiqui’s actual published work says “becomes” (verifiable on QuranX.com). So Sunnah.com took Siddiqui’s translation and changed it without switching translators or adding any note. And here’s the kicker: IERA published “Forbidden Prophecies.” Sunnah.com is closely associated with IERA’s dawah network. This isn’t just suspicious timing. This looks like coordination.
The March 2021 Reddit post explicitly connects the dots, noting the change happened “right when a popular dawah book started promoting the ‘return’ interpretation.” Comments confirm others noticed the pattern of Sunnah.com making “subtle changes to their translations to reinforce Islamic miracle claims.” This is not a coincidence. This is damage control. The book was promoting the “revert” interpretation, but the most popular English hadith website contradicted it. So they changed it. Even if you believe this hadith is authentic, the “return to ancient greenery” interpretation still doesn’t hold up. When you read what classical Muslim scholars actually wrote about this hadith, none of them interpret it that way.
- Imam al-Nawawi: In his commentary on Sahih Muslim, Nawawi explains this hadith as referring to a future where wars cause a shortage of men. With fewer people around, the land won’t be farmed or irrigated, so it will become wild and overgrown. Nothing about returning to a previous state of ancient greenery.
“معناه والله أعلم أنهم يتركونها ويعرضون عنها فتبقى مهملة لا تزرع ولا تسقى من مياهها وذلك لقلة الرجال وكثرة الحروب وتراكم الفتن وقرب الساعة وقلة الآمال وعدم الفراغ لذلك والاهتمام به”
Translation: “Its meaning, and God knows best, is that they will abandon it and turn away from it, so it will remain neglected, neither cultivated nor irrigated from its waters. That will be due to the scarcity of men, the abundance of wars, the accumulation of tribulations, the nearness of the Hour, the lack of hopes, and the absence of leisure for that and concern for it.” (source)
In other words, Imam Nawawi interprets “تعود” not as the land literally turning lush and green with rivers (as a positive transformation or literal reversion to ancient fertile times), but as the land of Arabia becoming desolate and overgrown like wild meadows — unused, unplanted, and without proper irrigation or care — because of widespread chaos, wars, depopulation (shortage of manpower), and fitan (trials) near the end times. People will neglect agriculture and land maintenance, leading to it “returning” to an untamed, meadow-like state.
- Al-Qurtubi: He says the Arabs will stop fighting and start investing in agriculture. They’ll plant crops and build irrigation systems, making the land green. Again, no mention of returning to ancient conditions. Just future human agricultural activity.
“تنصرف دواعي العرب –أي آخر الزمان– عن مقتضى عادتهم من انتجاع الغيث والارتحال عن المواطن للحروب والغارات، ومن عزة النفوس العربية الكريمة الأبية إلى أن يتقاعدوا عن ذلك، فيشتغلوا بغراسة الأرض وعمارتها وإجراء مياهها، كما قد شوهد في كثير من بلادهم وأحوالهم.”
Translation: “The motivations of the Arabs – meaning in the end times – will turn away from their customary pursuit of rain-seeking and migration from place to place for wars and raids, and from the pride and noble defiance of Arab souls, such that they withdraw from that and instead occupy themselves with planting the land, cultivating it, and channeling its waters, as has been observed in many of their lands and conditions.” (source)
- Ibn Uthaymeen: Even modern scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen appear to prefer the “become” interpretation rather than “return.”
“This is also from the signs of the Hour: that wealth will increase until a man brings out his zakat and finds no one to accept it because people have become wealthy… And (until the Arabian Peninsula returns to meadows and rivers), meaning until it becomes meadows and rivers. The meadows are gardens and farms. Rivers are the waters that flow on the surface of the earth. If we look at our reality today, we find that the second part of the hadith has occurred: the Arabian Peninsula, that barren land, has now become meadows and rivers. How did it become rivers? With the water that springs from it, artesian wells, and so on. And as for it being meadows, this is apparent.” (source)
The scholars who knew Arabic and understood the historical context did not read this as a miraculous prediction about the paleoclimate. They understood it as either future depopulation or future agricultural development. Both are mundane explanations that require no prophetic knowledge.
Hadith Aren’t Transmitted Word-for-Word
Unlike the Quran, hadith were never transmitted word-for-word. Muslim scholars have always acknowledged this. It’s called narration by meaning (riwaya bil ma’na). Jonathan Brown explains that Muslim scholars allowed hadith to be paraphrased as long as the narrator understood the meaning. Imam Nawawi wrote that the majority of early scholars agreed it was permissible to narrate hadith in your own words. What does this mean? Even if this hadith did originate with Muhammad (which the evidence strongly suggests it didn’t), we cannot be certain he used the exact word تعود. The narrator might have summarized using his own vocabulary. The precise wording is unknowable.
This is the correct position which the four Imams held, and the majority of scholars (5) absolutely [held this position], and it is acted upon.
(Al-Taḥbīr sharḥ al-Taḥrīr fī uṣūl al-fiqh التحبير شرح التحرير في أصول الفقه
ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mardāwī – 885 AH)
To illustrate how real this is, there’s a hadith about a man who wanted to marry but had no dowry. In different narrations, Muhammad’s response is recorded using completely different Arabic verbs for “married.” Not slight variations. Different words entirely. If that hadith’s wording can’t be pinned down, how can Muslims insist Muhammad definitely said تعود?
| # | Collection | Hadith No. | Arabic Wording | Transliteration | English Rendering | Semantic Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī | 5030 | زَوَّجْتُكَهَا | zawwajtukahā | I married you to her | Marriage contract |
| 2 | Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī | 5087 | مَلَّكْتُكَهَا | mallaktukahā | I made you possess her | Possession |
| 3 | Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī | 5126 | مَلَّكْتُكَهَا | mallaktukahā | I made you possess her | Possession |
| 4 | Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim | 1425a | زَوَّجْتُكَهَا | zawwajtukahā | I married you to her | Marriage contract |
| 5 | Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim | 1425b | أَنْكَحْتُكَهَا | ankaḥtukahā | I wed you to her | Marriage contract |
| 6 | Sunan al-Nasāʾī (al-Kubrā) | 5479 | أَمْلَكْنَاكَهَا | amlaknākahā | We gave you possession of her | Possession |
| 7 | Sunan al-Nasāʾī (al-Kubrā) | 5501 | مَلَّكْتُكَهَا | mallaktukahā | I made you possess her | Possession |
| 8 | al-Bayhaqī | 13823 | وَهَبْتُكَهَا | wahabtukahā | I gifted her to you | Gifting |
| 9 | al-Bayhaqī | 14359 | خُذْهَا | khudh-hā | Take her | Command |
“This is one expression in one story (هَذِهِ لَفْظَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ فِي قِصَّةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ), yet there is disagreement about it despite the unity of the source of the hadith. So the apparent conclusion is that only one of the mentioned expressions occurred from the Prophet ﷺ (فَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ الْوَاقِعَ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ أَحَدُ الْأَلْفَاظِ الْمَذْكُورَةِ). The correct approach in such matters is to look at weighing the evidence (النَّظَرَ إِلَى التَّرْجِيحِ).” (source- Ibn Hajr)
Ibn Hajar notes that al-Dāraquṭnī stated the correct narration is from those who narrated ‘zawwajtukahā‘ because they are more numerous and better memorizers. These are not synonyms with subtle shades of meaning. They represent fundamentally different concepts:
- Legal contract terms (zawwaj, ankaḥ) – formal marriage language from thr Quran
- Property transfer (mallak, amlak) – ownership and possession terminology
- Enablement (amkan) – empowerment/making possible
This variation exists because narrators transmitted the meaning (al-ma’nā) rather than exact wording; the same principle that allows the Arabia-rivers hadith verb تعود (ta’ūd) to vary.
They Already Knew Arabia Could Be Green
Some Muslims argue that classical scholars just didn’t know about the paleoclimate. But Islamic tradition already contained stories of ancient Arab tribes like ‘Ad and Thamud living in lush, fertile lands before God destroyed them. The idea that Arabia could have been green wasn’t foreign to Muslim scholars. Yet they still didn’t interpret this hadith as predicting a return to ancient conditions. Even the future part isn’t impressive. Humans have been turning deserts green for thousands of years. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Roman aqueducts. Modern Israel’s desert agriculture. Saudi Arabia’s irrigation projects. China’s tree-planting campaigns. This is just what humans do. As al-Qurtubi noted, if Arabs invest in farming and irrigation, the land will flourish. This is common sense. Any intelligent person in the 7th or 8th century could predict this. In fact, this is exactly what was happening during Suhayl’s lifetime under the Umayyads—they were actively making Arabia green through irrigation projects.
Political Hadith Fabrication Was Common
This isn’t an isolated case. Islamic scholars themselves acknowledge that hadith fabrication was rampant in the first few centuries of Islam. People made up sayings and attributed them to Muhammad to support their political positions, legal schools, theological views, and tribal loyalties. The “green Arabia” hadith fits this pattern perfectly. It appears at exactly the right time, from exactly the right person, with exactly the right message to serve Umayyad interests. This is how political propaganda worked in the 8th century.
Fast forward to today. Muslims discover that ancient Arabia was once green. They find this hadith and retrofit it as a scientific miracle. Books like “Forbidden Prophecies” market it as proof of Muhammad’s divine knowledge. But the hadith doesn’t actually say what they need it to say. The original translation says “becomes,” not “returns.” So what do they do? They change the translation. Sunnah.com quietly swaps “becomes” for “reverts” to make the miracle claim work. This is dishonesty layered on top of dishonesty. A fabricated hadith from the 8th century gets reinterpreted in the 21st century, and when the translation doesn’t support the reinterpretation, they change the translation.
This pattern shows up across Islamic miracle claims. Take an ambiguous text. Reinterpret it in light of modern discoveries. Bend the language to fit. Ignore what classical scholars actually said. Pretend this interpretation was always obvious. When websites actively participate by changing translations, they cross from interpretation to manipulation. They’re not offering a different perspective. They’re manufacturing evidence. The evidence is overwhelming on both fronts. This hadith was almost certainly created in the 8th century by Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ to legitimize Umayyad agricultural projects and land seizures. Every version traces exclusively to him. Suhayl’s credibility was already questioned by classical critics due to memory issues and inconsistent narration in his later years. His tribal ties to the Ghatafān (part of the Qays confederation favored by the Umayyads) gave him strong connections to the ruling power structure. Most importantly, he lived and taught in Medina precisely during the height of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik’s irrigation and land-reclamation projects; exactly when and where a hadith glorifying a greening Arabia would serve clear political purposes. Even a transmitter (Sufyan) doubted it came from the Prophet.
Centuries later, Muslims try to resurrect this fabrication as a scientific miracle. When the translation doesn’t support their claim, they change it. We have detailed social media evidence showing the book’s popularity spiking in April-June 2020. We have Wayback Machine screenshots proving Sunnah.com made the change during this exact window.
Conclusive Evidence That Sunnah.com Deceived People For Apologetics
- December 29, 2019: Book officially announced
- January 22, 2020: IERA actively promoting via YouTube
- April 8, 2020: Social media recommendations begin
- April 28, 2020: Free PDF released + Sunnah.com still shows “becomes”
- May 7 – June 4: Spike in online discussions and cross-religious debates
- June 28, 2020: Book actively quoted + Sunnah.com now shows “reverts”
- March 2021: Ex-Muslim subrddit exposes the change, explicitly linking it to IERA propaganda
This is what Islamic apologetics looks like up close. Fabrications from the past get dressed up as prophecies for the present. When the evidence doesn’t fit, manipulate it. When people question it, change the sources and hope nobody notices. Historical scholarship confirms the hadith’s fabrication in the Umayyad period. Timestamped social media posts reveal the sharp rise in the book’s popularity during early 2020. Wayback Machine archives expose the exact timing of Sunnah.com’s translation switch. Original Siddiqui translations clearly show the intended wording. Classical commentaries demonstrate that scholars never interpreted it as a paleoclimate miracle. The evidence is there for anyone willing to look. The irony is that this narration started off as an Umayyad propaganda-hadith with the goal of pushing people to support these innovative agricultural projects. It was founded on deceit. Fast-forward to the 21st century, nothing has changed. These narrations are still being used as a means of deceit. And Sunnah.com got exposed for it.
