In January 2025, I published “Fabricated Hadith Prophecy: The Siege of Baghdad,” which demonstrated, through historical analysis, that a widely cited hadith allegedly predicting the Mongol invasion was actually fabricated in the 2nd century AH. The article included an isnad diagram I created to illustrate how all transmission chains converged at a single Basran narrator, Saʿīd ibn Jumhān, who transformed a non-prophetic statement into alleged divine revelation. Recently, TheOrthodoxMuslim released a video titled “Proving Islam In 7 Minutes” using my diagram to argue the opposite conclusion—that the hadith’s multiple chains prove its authenticity. The irony is that he used research demonstrating fabrication to claim authenticity. Christian apologist RobChristian subsequently released a response exposing these distortions.
This situation exemplifies a problem that Islamic hadith scholars identified over a millennium ago. Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198/813), a prominent Basran hadith critic who dedicated himself to identifying unreliable transmitters, reportedly observed: “I have not seen the pious, in any regard, [being] more dishonest than they [are] in regard to Hadith.” As Dr. Joshua Little’s Isnad-Cum-Matn-Analysis demonstrates, this statement likely traces to Yaḥyá himself—a candid admission that well-intentioned believers were often the worst offenders in hadith fabrication. The phenomenon Yaḥyá identified remains alive and well. What makes TheOrthodoxMuslim’s case particularly troubling is not mere disagreement over methodology, but the demonstrable distortion of source material he accessed. In classical hadith criticism, a transmitter who knowingly misrepresents information from his source would be deemed unreliable at best, a fabricator at worst.
Since publishing the original article, I have conducted additional research that further strengthens the case against this narration’s authenticity. Before presenting new findings, I will recap the January research for those unfamiliar with the controversy:
Summary of January 2025 Research (click here)
Modern hadith apologists argue that Muhammad predicted with remarkable specificity:
- A major Muslim capital called “al-Basra” would emerge near the Tigris River with a bridge
- Its inhabitants would be numerous
- Descendants of Qanṭūrā with broad faces and small eyes would attack
- The population would divide into three groups with distinct fates: one fleeing and perishing, one seeking safety but dying or disbelieving, and one fighting to martyrdom
- This prophecy was fulfilled when the Mongols destroyed Baghdad in 1258 CE, approximately 640 years later
The Earliest Versions Are Not Prophetic
The earliest attestations do not trace to Muhammad at all. In ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf (#20799), transmitted through the highly reliable Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 110 AH), we find:
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ said: “The Banū Qanṭūrā 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.”
This is ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr’s personal statement—not a prophetic hadith. No chain to Muhammad. No claim of revelation.
ʿAbdullāh’s Explicit Biblical Source
In Ibn Abī Shaybah’s Muṣannaf (#38400), when asked who the Banū Qanṭūrā were, ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr explicitly states:
“As for in the Book? That is how we find it. And as for the description? They are the description of the Turks.”
“The Book” (al-Kitāb) refers to Biblical scripture. The reference is to Genesis 25:1-4, where Abraham takes a wife named Keturah (Hebrew: קְטוּרָה / Arabic: قَنْطُورَا), who bears him six sons whom Abraham “sent away to the east country.” Later Islamic scholars like al-Qurṭubī (d. 1273 CE) explicitly identified Keturah’s descendants with the Turks.
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr was famous for collecting Jewish and Christian traditions. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (#3461) records him narrating that the Prophet said: “Narrate from the Children of Israel; there is no harm.” He was doing exactly that. He was applying Biblical eschatology to contemporary Basran concerns.
Saʿīd ibn Jumhān: The Common Link
When we diagram the transmission chains of later “prophetic” versions, every single chain converges at Saʿīd ibn Jumhān, a Basran narrator who died in 136 AH. Before Saʿīd, we have ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr’s non-prophetic statement citing Biblical sources. After Saʿīd, we suddenly have a detailed “prophetic hadith” with added elements: specific physical descriptions, the three-groups structure with theological implications, and details mirroring the Khārijī attacks on Basra during Saʿīd’s lifetime.
Classical critics raised concerns about Saʿīd:
- Al-Bukhārī: His narrations contain ʿajāʾib (strange, anomalous reports)
- Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī: “Truthful but not reliable enough for primary evidence”
- Al-Ṣājī: “His narrations are not corroborated.”
Moreover, Saʿīd couldn’t maintain consistency in his fabricated chain. He variously claims to have heard this from Muslim ibn Abī Bakrah, ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakrah, or simply “a son of Abū Bakrah” without specification. This inconsistency in identifying his immediate source is a classic fabrication indicator.
Continuous Reinterpretation
The interpretation of “Banū Qanṭūrā” shifted repeatedly to fit contemporary crises:
- 8th century: ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr identifies them as Turks threatening Basra
- 9th century (884 CE): Ibn al-Munādī applies it to the Zanj rebellion—East African slaves attacking Basra
- 10th-12th centuries: Applied to Turkic slave soldiers, causing Abbasid problems
- Post-1258 CE: Retrospectively applied to the Mongols destroying Baghdad
- 17th century: Al-Dihlawī (d. 1642 CE) explicitly identifies it with the Mongol invasion
If this were a genuine prophecy, why did scholars centuries closer to Muhammad interpret it completely differently?
The Hadith Says Basra, Not Baghdad
The narration explicitly states “al-Basra,” a city 550 kilometers south of Baghdad. The geographic description (low-lying, palm trees, flooding-prone) matches Basra, not Baghdad. Apologists claim either that Baghdad had a district called “Bāb al-Baṣra” or that “Basra” meant the entire region (post-hoc rationalization with no basis).
The original research concluded there. What follows is a new analysis that further illuminates Saʿīd ibn Jumhān’s motivations and methods.
New Research: Saʿīd ibn Jumhān’s Historical Context
When we examine Saʿīd ibn Jumhān’s life circumstances, the origins of this fabricated prophecy become transparently clear. Saʿīd lived and died in Basra (d. 136 AH / 753 CE), a city repeatedly traumatized by Khārijite uprisings, particularly by the extremist faction known as the Azāriqa. His lifetime overlapped with the height of their terror in southern Iraq. Saʿīd’s personal history reveals deep animosity toward the Khārijites rooted in family tragedy. In al-Ḥākim’s al-Mustadrak (#6435), Saʿīd recounts a meeting with the Companion ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Awfá:
قُلْتُ لِابْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى: إِنَّ أَبِي قُتِلَهُ الأَزَارِقَةُ. فَقَالَ: لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الأَزَارِقَةَ، أَخْبَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُمْ كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“I said to Ibn Abī Awfá: ‘My father was killed by the Azāriqa.’ He replied: ‘May God curse the Azāriqa. The Messenger of God told us they are the dogs of Hellfire.'”
This brief exchange reveals that Saʿīd’s own father was slain by the Azāriqa. His hatred of them was not abstract—it was rooted in personal loss. He expressed the same hostility elsewhere. In al-Tirmidhī (#2226), after narrating the hadith on the thirty-year caliphate, Saʿīd adds his own editorial comment:
كَذَبَتْ بَنُو الزَّرْقَاءِ، هُمْ مُلُوكٌ، مِنْ شَرِّ الْمُلُوكِ
“Banū al-Zarqāʾ have lied! They are kings—among the worst of kings.”
These remarks demonstrate that by the second century AH, Saʿīd had developed a fiercely anti-Khārijite and anti-Umayyad worldview shaped by Basran political realities and personal tragedy. In the decades leading up to Saʿīd’s death, Basra was repeatedly attacked and occupied by Khārijite rebels. Both al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Miskawayh record that during the Azāriqa insurrection, Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq advanced on Basra from the east bank of the Tigris—precisely the setting later described in Saʿīd’s fabricated prophecy. From Ibn Miskawayh’s Tajārib al-Umam (2/130):
وفي هذه الأيام اشتدت شوكة الخوارج بالبصرة، وقتل نافع بن الأزرق. ذكر السبب في اشتداد شوكة الخوارج وما كان من أمرهم: لما اشتغل أهل البصرة بالاختلاف الذي كان بين الأزد وربيعة وتميم، … فأقبل حتى دنا من الجسر، فبعث إليه عبد الله بن الحارث مسلم بن عبيس … فتهيأ الناس بعضهم لبعض وتزاحفوا
“In these days the power of the Khārijites in Basra increased, and Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq was killed. The reason for their rise was that the Basrans were distracted by tribal disputes among Azd, Rabīʿa, and Tamīm. Nāfiʿ advanced until he approached the bridge (al-jisr), so ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥārith sent Muslim ibn ʿUbaysa with the people of Basra against him; the two sides prepared for battle and confronted each other.”
Al-Ṭabarī similarly records that the Khārijites positioned themselves on the east bank of the Tigris during their assault on Basra.
The correspondence between historical events and Saʿīd’s narration is striking:
Historical Reality (from al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Miskawayh):
| Historical Reality | Corresponding Part in Saʿīd’s Narration |
|---|---|
| Basra was under attack by the Azāriqa Khārijites | A city called al-Basra by the Tigris River with a bridge; invaders come and camp by the riverbank |
| The Kharajites approached from the east bank of the Tigris | Invaders come and camp by the riverbank |
| A bridge over the Tigris became a strategic point | A city called al-Basra by the Tigris River with a bridge |
| Basrans were internally divided by tribal disputes (Azd, Rabīʿa, Tamīm) | The people divide into three groups |
| Some factions withdrew or fled | One group flees and perishes |
| Others sought safety or acted wrongly | One group seeks safety and perishes (or commits disbelief—kafaru, the term used for apostates by Khārijites) |
| Some fought and were killed | One group fights and becomes martyrs |
| The city suffered major trauma and loss | (Implied in the total destruction and losses described in all three groups’ outcomes) |
What historians describe as the outcome of the Azāriqa siege becomes, in Saʿīd’s telling, a divinely foretold destiny. The historical trauma Basra experienced is repackaged as prophecy, complete with theological interpretations that delegitimize the Khārijites (calling them apostates) and valorize those who resisted (martyrs). This explains why:
- Every element of the “prophecy” matches Basran historical realities from Saʿīd’s lifetime
- The narration only appears with prophetic attribution after Saʿīd
- Earlier versions from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr contain none of these specific details
- Saʿīd fabricates a chain through Basran transmitters (Abū Bakrah and his son) to give local credibility
- Classical hadith critics noted Saʿīd’s narrations were “not corroborated” and contained “strange things”
The “Siege of Baghdad prophecy” is actually the Siege of Basra experience. It was simply a traumatized Basran scholar processing his city’s suffering and his father’s murder by transforming recent history into a prophetic prophecy.
