Responding to Hoaxer Dan Gibson: Did Early Mosques Really Face Petra?

By

 Hud Lesprit

-

 April 13, 2023

Dan Gibson is a quack who tried to convince people that, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the real Makkah was actually Petra, an ancient city located in Jordania.

His thesis consists mainly of cherry-picking verses and narrations from the Islamic tradition and trying to force them to fit his narrative. However, he claims to bring forth some pieces of evidence that are more concerning. What exactly is he babbling on about? Well, according to him, when examining its orientation, most of the early mosques faced Petra and not Makkah!

Gibson’s claim that the early mosques faced Petra, rather than Makkah, has managed to stir up some doubts for a few.

While some have attempted to dismantle Gibson’s thesis logically, very few have actually focused on the empirical flaws in his work. That being said, however, we must not overlook the fact that many early mosques do at least appear to face towards the direction of Petra.

And thus, we are left questioning the legitimacy of Gibson’s claims.

It is high time these doubts were decisively put to rest. We unequivocally reject Gibson’s thesis and aim to provide evidence supporting the traditional orientation of the qiblah towards Makkah. In the course of doing so, it is only appropriate that we also shed light on the distortions pushed by Gibson throughout his observations.

Let us make it very clear from the onset: the early mosques did NOT face Petra.

Gibson has twisted the facts in order to bring them in line with his thesis, and we are obligated to challenge his claims with vigor. It is imperative that we always protect the authenticity of our traditions from misrepresentation and thoroughly dismantle any falsehood that aims to threaten them.

Our faith is built upon centuries of tradition, and we must be vigilant in preserving it.

RELATED: Salman Rushdie: Neo-Orientalism and Western Hypocrisy

Gibson’s Distortion of the Data

Let us start by taking a look at some clear examples of distortion perpetrated by Gibson.

Medmar Mosque

In his fervor to spread his manipulated ideas, Gibson alleges that the Medmar mosque was facing Petra. This is a claim that can easily be debunked with a simple Google Maps search.

It is an undisputed fact that the mosque being targeted by Gibson is not the authentic Medmar mosque, and the true mosque is resolutely oriented towards Makkah, the holy city which lies at the heart of our faith.

In a desperate attempt to defend his baseless claim, Gibson suggests that the mosque underwent restoration and that, during this process, the qiblah was changed. However, his desperation in engineering the facts to support his narrative only underscores the extents to which he is willing to go.

The building used by Gibson for his measurement.

The actual Medmar mosque according to a simple Google Map search.

Hama Mosque

Gibson’s originally stated that this mosque has never been rebuilt and that it was erected by Muslims in 15 AH:

A screenshot taken from his original thesis.

Gibson’s claim that the mosque in Hama, Syria, was facing Petra is not only erroneous but also lacks any historical basis.

Once again, a simple internet search is all that is required to dispel Gibson’s allegations. The Hama mosque in question was originally a cathedral, and its orientation was determined long before the arrival of Islam in Syria. The fact that the cathedral was not destroyed but instead converted into a mosque confirms that the orientation was not changed by Muslims.

It is alarming that Gibson, in his book, which was published in 2022, was forced to retract his original statement after being confronted with his error. It is a sad reflection of the academic illiteracy that some people have been subjected to for decades, all because of Gibson’s blatant disregard for the truth.

When your claims are being falsified by the most basic of searches on the internet, it really calls into question your academic acumen and integrity.

RELATED: The Multi-Faith Prayer Room: Modern Equivalent to the ‘Ibādat Khāna of Akbar?

Fustat Mosque

Gibson’s claim that the Fustat mosque, in Egypt, faced Petra is based on unreliable and distorted sources.

To support his argument, Gibson relies on a passage from Hagarism, written by Patricia Crohn and Michael Cooke. However, this passage does not even actually support his conclusion, i.e., that the mosque was facing Petra. It merely suggests that the mosque was not perfectly aligned with the Ka’bah.

In fact, the very same passage contradicts Gibson’s claim, as it includes a contemporary eye-witness account from Jacob of Edessa, stating that the mosque faced east, towards the Ka’bah.

From the Christian side we have the remarkable statement of Jacob of Edessa, a contemporary eye-witness, that the ‘Mahgraye’ in Egypt prayed facing east towards the Ka’ba (Hagarism, p.24)

Gibson’s attempt to have his cake and eat it too here is nothing short of fraudulent. He quite evidently has some misguided agenda which he is working towards, by manipulating sources and distorting the facts.

Humeima Qasr

Gibson’s assertion that the mosque of Humeima faced Petra is highly questionable. Upon a closer inspection of the site’s plan, it becomes apparent that there is a sizeable structure with a small mosque, which is facing downwards, located in the southeast region.

Take a look at what Gibson presented in his original thesis:

The red arrow is pointing towards Petra and the green arrow is pointing towards Makkah.

However, what Gibson failed to disclose in his publication was that the large structure was, in fact, a castle, and it did not contain a mihrab. There is no evidence to suggest that it was ever utilized as a mosque. Conversely, the smaller building towards the south has been identified as a mosque since a mihrab-like structure was excavated there. This indicates that Gibson’s claims lack any credibility whatsoever and that they are flawed at their very core.

The larger building shows no evidence of ever being a mosque, but the small building on the bottom right of the image does. Can you guess which building Gibson used as part of his thesis?

RELATED: Why Muslim Women Tend to Fall for the “All Men Are Evil” Myth

The Mosque of Umm al Walid

It appears that Gibson’s claims regarding the mosque of Umm al Walid facing Petra have no factual basis and that they are simply not true. A quick glance at a satellite image of the actual ruins reveals that the mosque is oriented towards the south, not Petra.

But it gets worse. In his presentation, Gibson didn’t even show the real ruins of Umm al Walid. He, in his typical fashion, manipulated the evidence in order to somehow force it to fit his false narrative. Once again, this is yet another clear indicator that he lacks any credibility.

What Gibson presented in his original work as being Umm Al Walid mosque.

The real ruins of Umm Al Walid.

And this is not some isolated instance. Gibson makes numerous such blunders throughout his work, only eventually correcting them after others pointed out his glaring mistakes.

It raises some important questions:

Why didn’t he ensure that his “research” was accurate to begin with, rather than leaving it for others to come by and correct him before fixing his “mistakes”?

How incompetent does someone have to be in order to make such an array of amateur “mistakes”?

Isn’t is quite evident by this point that there is a clear agenda here?

How could anyone take such blatantly fraudulent “research” seriously?

Gibson seems to be so extremely desperate in his frantic search to find any “evidence” whatsoever—anything that can somehow be bended to support his claims—that he’s more than willing to actually distort and manipulate the facts if doing so helps to further his nonsensical claims.

True scholarship requires honesty and integrity, and, sadly, Gibson is sorely lacking in both.

Qasr El Bai’j

The red arrow is pointing towards Petra, and the green arrow is pointing towards Makkah.

Let us now delve into Gibson’s claims regarding the castle of El Bai’j.

He alleges that the buildings were facing Petra, but let’s take a closer look at his evidence. According to archaeologist reports, there is no clear qiblah that can be established at this site, and there is no evidence of a mosque.

Yet, despite this, Gibson seems to have a different perspective. He has drawn a qiblah that points towards Petra, despite there being no concrete proof to support his claim.

Again, this raises an important question:

Why would he do that?

It seems that Gibson, in his desperate attempts to find even the smallest shred of evidence to support his theory, deems it perfectly fine to resort to misrepresentation and manipulation of the facts.

RELATED: Debunking the Christian “Miracle of Fátima”

Umm Jimal

When it comes to the Umm Jimal mosque, Gibson seems to once again be stretching the facts. Despite his claims that the mosque faced Petra, the reality is quite different. Archaeologists who have studied the site report that no mosque was found there, and that the buildings themselves predate the Islamic period. I mean, just take a look at this:

Umm al-Jimal is also notable for two important inscriptions relating to its Nabataean culture: an ‘altar’ inscribed in honour of Dushara, a powerful god associated with Zeus and Dionysus, and part of a tomb inscription which is a valuable witness of the transition of Nabataean script to an Arabic style and of the rise in power of the Tanukh, a confederacy of Arab tribes whom the Romans enlisted as part of their frontier forces. Unfortunately, both inscriptions have recently suffered damage due to a lack of protection of the site. In an ideal world, there would be some restoration work to shore up some of the walls that are threatening to collapse. With such a large site, this would be a huge undertaking.

Gibson’s insistence that some of these buildings were possibly used as a mosque is nothing more than mere conjecture. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that can be used to support his baseless assertions.

Gibson is simply more invested in promoting his own despicable agendas than he is in presenting accurate information.

Siraf Mosque

Let us now look into the mosque of Siraf and the claims Gibson makes about it. He asserts that it was built in 750 and was facing Petra. However, his claims are not based on any sort of accurate historical evidence. In fact, archaeologist David Whitehouse confirms that the very first mosque in the city dates back to the 9th century, not the 8th century as Gibson suggests.

Moreover, the testimony of one of the inhabitants of Siraf reveals that this mosque was originally a Sassanid monument and was only converted into a mosque later on. Gibson’s mistake in relation to the date of the mosque’s construction and its origin as a Sassanid monument leads one to seriously question the validity of his claims.

To add to this, an Iranian media outlet states that David Whitehouse found evidence that the earliest mosque in Siraf dates back to the ninth century CE; and that, in 2009, archaeologists identified Sassanid layers and artifacts near the mosque.

This Iranian media outlet stated the following:

In addition to the castle, Siraf is home to an ancient congregational mosque and cemetery. David Whitehouse found evidence that the earliest mosque in Siraf dates to the ninth century CE. He found ruins of a congregational mosque surrounded by many other smaller mosques. Archeologists have identified Sassanid layers and artifacts near the mosque in 2009.

Despite these findings, Gibson’s book still claims that the first mosque in Siraf was built in 750 and that it was facing Petra. Once again, it is clear that his claims are not actually supported by any accurate historical evidence.

Excerpt from Gibson’s latest book, Let The Stones Speak.

Misinterpretation of Mosque Orientation

Gibson’s erroneous claim that early mosques faced Petra is a testament to his flawed interpretation of mosque orientation. When we delve into the orientation of mosques in Africa, Spain and the Middle East, we find that they were all directed to the southeast or southwest. Thus, Gibson’s attempt to create a new variety of mosques which face between Petra and Makkah is baseless, as these mosques were simply oriented towards the southeast.

It would seem that the Africans were not very skilled when it came to directing themselves toward Petra or Makkah…

Furthermore, Gibson’s bias is manifestly evident throughout his thesis. He clearly started with his conclusion and tries his hardest to make the data fit his theory rather than the other way around. He wants us to believe that the mosques facing between Petra and Makkah were pointing at Petra when, in fact, they were just oriented south.

The fact that some orientalists and Islamophobes have credited his theory is only a testament to their own personal lack of intellectual honesty.

It is important for Muslims to remember that some so-called “academics” will go to any lengths necessary in order to try and undermine Islam. Gibson’s theory is just another attempt to rewrite our history and distort our religion.

As Muslims who are true to our faith, we must reject such fraudulent attempts at undermining the teachings of our religion outright and, instead, uphold the traditional orientation of the qiblah towards Makkah, as supported by historical evidence, over fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence and the teachings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Whenever such people try to manipulate the facts, we must always be ready to debunk the lies and shine a bright light on the truth.

In conclusion, Gibson is both biased and glaringly incompetent. His thesis is extremely flawed. His arguments, as well as their foundations, are baseless. His supposed evidences are merely distortions and factual inaccuracies. His shoddy “research” is nothing more than agenda-driven drivel.

Let us not fall prey to those who seek to undermine our faith, heritage, and history.

Interesting young Samuel was sleeping in the Temple when the Temple was not built until much later? The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was (1 Samuel 3:3) Does that argument ring a bell?

Does Hadith condemn the infant girls buried alive?

 Does Hadith condemn the infant girls buried alive?

D

Waqar Akbar Cheema

[divider]

Among the hadith reports with apparently problematic meanings is one related as;

“الوائدة والموءودة في النار”

Usually it is understood as:

“The woman who buries her daughter alive (al-wa’idah), and the girl who is buried (al-ma’udah) will both enter Hell.”

As such, without any context, the hadith is recorded in Sunan of Abu Dawud on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud,[1] and has been deemed authentic by a number of scholars.[2]

In view of the fact that this appears to contradict the principle laid down by the Qur’an that no one will have to bear the burden of sins of others[3] and more specifically the fact that Qur’an itself alludes to the poor little girls buried alive by certain Arabs before Islam implying that they would be putting to question people responsible for such atrocities on the Day of Judgment rather than being tormented themselves,[4] it has evoked different responses from Muslim scholars since early centuries of Islam.

To some this hadith talks about the burier and the buried in a specific incident and thus its implication is restricted to a specific girl buried alive and not all such girls.[5] Some have further added that the specific girl meant was not even infant or a small child rather she had come of age though some versions of the hadith suggest her brothers thought otherwise. Others have argued that like the child killed by Khidr in the story mentioned in Qur’an the specific girl, even if small, had had predilections of disbelief like her mother. All these interpretation have the undertone of restricting the implications of the apparently general wording of the Prophet (ﷺ) to the specific case.

A few scholars, nevertheless, take a more ingenious approach of parting with the apparent meanings of the hadith suggesting the word “al-ma’udah” does not actually refer to the one buried alive rather to the one for whom or on whose behest (or even consent) she was buried. Accordingly, they imply that the actual construction was supposed to be “al-ma’udah laha” – the adjunct clause (sila), laha,  being elided (mahzuf).

Both these ways of restricting the implications of hadith to the specific incident and the ingenious interpretation appear to be borne of apologetic concerns or seem altogether desperate. This, however, is only before we see more detailed versions of the hadith like the one preserved by Ahmad b. Hanbal in his well-known Musnad.

عن سلمة بن يزيد الجعفي، قال: انطلقت أنا وأخي إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: قلنا: يا رسول الله، إن أمنا مليكة كانت تصل الرحم، وتقري الضيف، وتفعل، وتفعل هلكت في الجاهلية، فهل ذلك نافعها شيئا؟ قال: ” لا ” قال: قلنا: فإنها كانت وأدت أختا لنا في الجاهلية، فهل ذلك نافعها شيئا؟ قال: ” الوائدة والموءودة في النار، إلا أن تدرك الوائدة الإسلام ، فيعفو الله عنها “

Salama b. Yazid al-Ju‘fi said: I and my brother went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and asked, “Messenger of Allah! Our mother Mulaika kept the ties of kinship, honoured the guest and did so and so [good deeds] and she died in the times of ignorance [before Islam]; will her good deeds benefit her?” He said, “No.” We [then] asked, “In the times of ignorance, however, she had our sister buried alive, will that benefit her [i.e. our sister]?”[6] The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Al-Wa’idah and al-Ma’udah will enter Hell except if al-Wa’idah lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her.”[7]

A few facts need to be delineated before we set on to appreciate their significance with regards to meanings of the hadith.

1) The men asking the Prophet (ﷺ) were inquisitive about the fate of their deceased relatives i.e. their mother and sister. First they asked about their mother and learnt that her good deeds would not help her in life hereafter as she had died before accepting Islam.

2) Next they asked about their sister that she was buried alive wondering if this would benefit her in the life hereafter. In mentioning the fate of their sister, however, they mentioned that it was their mother who had her buried, a fact they had not mentioned while asking about their mother moments before.

3) Upon this the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The woman who buried her alive (al-wa’idah) and al-ma’udah [laha] will both enter Hell” following it with a clarification that “except if the one who buried her lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her.”

4) As generally understood “the woman who buried her alive” refers to the mother of the girl but here the clarifying remark of the Prophet (ﷺ) that “if she lived to accept Islam” tells us that it was not meant about the mother of the girl for it had already been mentioned that the mother of the girl had died before Islam. This in turn tells us that the subject of the burying act here was not the mother of girl buried but some other woman.

5) In view of pt. 4, therefore, we can conclude that al-ma’udah here meant the mother of the girl whose active involvement in the heinous act was mentioned by her sons.

Accordingly, we see that the most significant part of the narration are the clarifying remarks of the Prophet (ﷺ) “except if the one who buried her lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her” because alongwith the prior mention of the death of mother of the girl they are evidently about a woman other than the mother of the girl which in turn leads us to the understanding that the “al-ma’udah [laha]” in fact refers to mother of the girl who was equally responsible for the heinous crime.

In view of the details above we can conclude that:

1. “al-ma’udah [laha]” here refers to the mother of the girl buried alive for she had her buried, and “al-wa’idah” refers to a woman burier of the infant girl who was someone besides her mother.
2. the remarks about two women entering Hell had a specific context and they do not relate to the infant girl buried alive.

This interpretation is not the brainchild of this author rather a number of scholars from the past centuries have mentioned this. Al-Qadi al-Baidawi (d. 685/1286), for instance, wrote;

ولعل المراد بالوائدة: القابلة, وبالموؤدة: الموؤدة لها وهي أم الطفل, فحذفت الصلة, إذ كان من ديدنهم أن المرأة إذا أخذها الطلق حفر لها حفرة عميقة, فجلست عليها, والقابلة وراءها تترقب الولد, فإن ولدت ذكرا أمسكت, وإن ولدت أنثى ألقتها في تلك الحفرة, وأهالت عليها التراب

Perhaps, ‘the burier’ (al-wa’idah) refers to the midwife, and ‘al-ma’udah’ to the one for whom burying was done i.e. the mother of the infant. The adjunct (‘for whom’) was thus omitted. It was their custom that when a woman would be in labour pains a deep hole was dug for her on which she was made to sit. Meanwhile the midwife remained behind her waiting for the child. If the mother bore a boy the midwife would hold him and if the mother bore a girl she would through her in that hole and put mud on her. [8]

Others who gave this interpretation include al-Tibi (d. 743/1342),[9] Ibn al-Malak (d. 854/1450),[10] al-Manawi (d.1031/1622),[11] al-Mazhari (d. 1225/1810),[12] al-Alusi (d. 1270/1854),[13]and al-Sahanpuri (d. 1346/1927).[14] More recently al-Albani (d.1420/1999)[15] adopted a similar interpretation.

This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that some others narrations of the report, albeit those with weaker chain of narrators, mention by the way of condemnation only the mother of the infant buried alive and no one else.[16]

Hadith tradition as great and generally careful it has been is nevertheless a human endeavour and at times there is a possibility for some details or nuances to a talk being missed, as is evident in comparison between the narrations of it preserved in the works of Abu Dawud and Ahmad b. Hanbal. It is, therefore, only natural to view isolated reports in tandem with other reports and established ideals. In another hadith recorded by both Abu Dawud in his Sunan and Ahmad b. Hanbal in his Musnad, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is reported to have made a very general announcement;

عن حسناء بنت معاوية الصريميه، قالت: حدثنا عمي، قال: قلت للنبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-: من في الجنة؟ قال: “النبي في الجنة، والشهيد في الجنة، والمولود في الجنة، والوئيد في الجنة”

Narrated Hasana’ daughter of Mu‘awiyah: She reported on the authority of her paternal uncle: I asked the Prophet (ﷺ): Who are in Paradise? He replied: Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise, infants are in Paradise and children buried alive are in Paradise.[17]

In light of all these details it is clear that rightful translation of the hadith conveying its actual meaning is,

The one who buried the infant girl and the one who had her buried will both enter Hell.

There is no condemnation of the infant girl buried alive.

[divider]

References & Notes:

[1] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 4717; see next note for further references

[2] The scholars who authenticated it include Ibn Hibban (al-Sahih, Resalah ed. Hadith 7480), Ibn ‘Asakir, (Mu‘jam al-Shuyukh, Dar al-Basha’ir, Hadith 1142) Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Adhim, Dar al-Taiba, Vol.5, 60), al-Haithmi, (Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, Maktaba al-Qudsi, Hadith 466) al-Albani (Tahqiq Mishkat, Hadith 112), Muqbil b. Hadi al-Wadi‘I (al-Jami’ al-Sahih mimma laisa fi al-Sahihain, Hadith 1192, 4389) and Hussain Salim Asad, (Ed. Majm‘ al-Zawaid, Dar al-Ma’mun, Hadith 473)

[3] Qur’an 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7; 53:38

[4] Qur’an 81:8-9

[5] Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 7480; Ibn Hibban makes his understanding of the hadith clear through the heading of the chapter he places this hadith in; “Mention of the report that has put in doubt one who does not have profound knowledge that an infant girl buried alive shall surely enter Hell.”

[6] That it referred to the sister of the men asking is evident from the flow of the speech itself. Moreover, it is clearly mentioned in some narrations of the hadith; see al-Baghawi, Mu‘jam al-Sahaba, (Kuwait: Dar al-Bayan, 2000) Vol.3, 116; Ibn Manda, Ma‘rifah al-Sahaba, (Al-Ain: UAE University Press, 2006) 688, al-Baihaqi, al-Qada wa al-Qadr, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Obeikan, 2000) Hadith 620; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhid lima fi al-Muwatta min al-Ma‘ani wa al-Asanid, (London: al-Furqan Publishers, 2017) Vol.11, 381; Ibn ‘Asakir, Mu‘jam al-Shuyukh, (Damascus: Dar al-Basha’ir) Hadith 1142

[7] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 15932; etc. classified as sahih in Muqbil b. Hadi al-Wadi‘I, al-Jami’ al-Sahih mimma laisa fi al-Sahihain, (San‘a: Dar al-Athar, 2013) Hadith 1192, 4389

[8] Al-Baidawi, Qadi Nasir al-Din, Tuhfah al-Abrar Sharh Masabih al-Sunnah, (Kuwait: Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, 2012) Vol.1, 110

[9] Al-Tibi, Sharaf al-Din, al-Kashif ‘an Haqa’iq al-Sunan, (Makkah: Maktaba Nazar Mustafa al-Baz, 1997) Vol.2, 575

[10] Ibn al-Malak, Muhammad b. ‘Izz al-Din, Sharh Masabih al-Sunnah, (Beirut: Idara Thaqafah al-Islamiyya, 2012) Vol.1, 129

[11] Al-Manawi, Zain al-Din, Faid al-Qadir, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Tijariya, 1356 AH) Vol.6, 370

[12] Al-Mazhari, Thana Ullah, al-Tafsir al-Mazhari, (Quetta: Maktaba al-Rashidiya, 1412 AH) Vol.10, 206; after mentioning this interpretation he writes, “No other interpretation of the hadith is plausible.” (لا يمكن فى الحديث الا هذا التأويل)

[13] Al-Alusi, Shahab al-Din Mahmud, Ghra’ib al-Ightirab, (Baghdad: Maktaba al-Shabandar, 1327/1909) 105; al-Alusi mentions that on his trip to Samsun (Turkey) some of the notables of the city asked him about a few issues including reconciling the hadith under discussion with the idea that children of disbelievers will also enter Paradise. He says he mentioned this explanation and “with it the dust of doubts was cleared.” (وبهذا يتجلى الغبار)

[14] Al-Saharanpuri, Khalil Ahmad, Badhil al-Majhud fi Hal Sunan Abi Dawud, (India: Markaz Abu al-Hasan Nadvi, 2006) Vol.11

[15] Ale Nu‘man, Shadi b. Muhammad, Mawsu‘a  al-‘Allama al-Mujaddid al-‘Asr Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, (San‘a: Markaz al- Nu‘man, 2010 ) Vol.5, 918 (Section 772); Video Clip of al-Albani where he mentioned this interpretation is also available here; to al-Albani the elided adjunct clause here was “lahu” making al-ma’udah refer to the father of the buried infant.

[16] From Ibn Mas‘ud through Abu Yaqzan ‘Uthman b. ‘Umair: Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 3787; al-Bazzar, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 2009) Hadith 1534; al-Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taimiya, 1994) Hadith 10017; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Hadith 3385; al- Asbahani, Abu Nu‘aim, Hilya al-Awliya, (Cairo: al-Sa‘adah, 1974) Vol.4, 238

From Ibn Abi Mulaika through Ibn Abi Laila: al-Dawlabi, al-Kuna wa al-Asma’, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2000) Hadith 326

It may be argued that some versions of the report say “Your mother and the child she buried alive are in Hell” which does not take the interpretation offered here. In response it suffices to say that such versions come through exceptionally weak narrators such as through Jabir al-Ju‘fi as with al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Resalah Publishers, 1994) Hadith 4365. Jabir al-Ju‘fi has been termed as liar by a number of early scholars. Accordingly Shu ‘aib al-Arnaut has graded the narration has “Extremely Weak.” Another such narration comes through Suleman b. Qarm b. Mu’adh who was a weak narrator and Yazid b. Murra whose trustworthiness is not attested. See al-Tiyalsi, al-Musnad, Edited by Dr. Muhammad al-Turki (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 1999) Hadith 1402. Moreover, such an addition is odd for it is not mentioned in other reports.

[17] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 2521; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 20583, 20585; classified as hasan by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani and Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut and sahih by Al-Albani. It is likewise reported authentically through Hasan al-Basri, see Ibn al-Ja‘d, ‘Ali, al-Musnad, (Beirut: Mo’assasah Nadir, 1990) Hadith 3063