Idols from the era of Noah?

Continuing with our themes to cover the most common arguments dominating discourse surrounding the root origins of Shirk (polytheism), we turn to the matter of the supposed idols which were worshipped by the people of Noah (peace be upon him).[1]  More often than not, the juncture for beginning the discussion starts with the athar (narrative report) which has been included in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāri (Kitāb al-Tafsir), allegedly narrated upon the authority of the Companion Ibn ‘Abbās, may Allah be pleased with him.  In full, it reads as follows:

حدثنا إبراهيم بن موسى أخبرنا هشام عن ابن جريج وقال عطاء عن ابن عباس رضى الله عنهما صارت الأوثان التي كانت في قوم نوح في العرب بعد، أما ود كانت لكلب بدومة الجندل، وأما سواع كانت لهذيل، وأما يغوث فكانت لمراد ثم لبني غطيف بالجرف عند سبا، وأما يعوق فكانت لهمدان، وأما نسر فكانت لحمير، لآل ذي الكلاع‏.‏ أسماء رجال صالحين من قوم نوح، فلما هلكوا أوحى الشيطان إلى قومهم أن انصبوا إلى مجالسهم التي كانوا يجلسون أنصابا، وسموها بأسمائهم ففعلوا فلم تعبد حتى إذا هلك أولئك وتنسخ العلم عبدت

Ibrāhim ibn Musa narrated to us Hishām reported to us from Ibn Jurayj – Aṭā’ said from Ibn ‘Abbās, may Allah be pleased with him: All the awthān (idols) which were worshiped by the people of Noah were worshiped by the Arabs later on.  Regarding Wadd’, it was worshipped by the tribe of Kalb at Dumat al-Jandal; Suwā’ was  (the tribe of) Hudtheel; Yaghuth, to (the tribe of) Murād, then to Bani Ghuṭayf at al-Jurf, near Sabā’.  Ya’uq, was to  Hamdān, and Nasr was for the Ḥimyar, the branch of Dhi al-Kallā`.  The names, were of righteous men from the people of Noah.  When they died, Shayṭān whispered to their people, encouraging them to set up monuments in their councils where they used to sit and deliberate and they called them by their names.  But they were not worshipped until after those people had died and knowledge of such was forgotten.

For many, the conveyance of the details contained in this report are presented as if they are a matter of waḥy (revelation), in other words, the Qur’ān and the Ṣaḥīḥ Prophetic Sunnah.  Over the last two-hundred or so years, there are some who have made this a matter of ideology, arguing that this, together with other stories such as that of al-Lāt, are the root origins of Shirk (polytheism).

Analysis upon the text

Read the reported text very, very carefully.  We trust by this juncture you can already see it.  If not, then by the mercy of Allah, we will try to elucidate it in the following points:

1. Nowhere in the isnād (channel of transmission) or the matn (reported text) is there any mention of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him having ‘said’ this. Neither is there mention of other common wording such as ‘I heard from the Prophet,’ peace and blessings be upon him.  As such, regardless of how many take this matter to be a cornerstone of faith or ideology, it is fundamentally not part of the waḥy (revelation).  It cannot be construed or put on a par with a verse from the Qur’ān or a Ṣaḥīḥ ḥadith.
2. Looking at the last paragraph of the reported text, there are some quite glaring internal inconsistencies that are mentioned. Re-read this text closely.  It provides for detail concerning the names, purportedly to be from ‘righteous men’ from the people of Noah peace be upon him.  Yet the level of detail provided is internally inconsistent.  It refers to the whisper made by Shayṭān and how this led to the ‘building of monuments in their councils’ to commemorate ‘righteous men.’ But this can’t be determined by eye-witness account, and matters related to the unseen can only be provided for by Waḥy.  Compounding this, is how the narrative ends, by arguing that the monuments made were only worshipped after the people had died and knowledge of the original purpose forgotten.  But if this was truly forgotten, how was it then ‘rediscovered’ for the purposes of the narration?  Stated differently, if knowledge had indeed been forgotten, how was it remembered for the purposes of this narrative report, which we must expressly reiterate, is not from the corpus of waḥy, namely the preserved Dhikr sent down to the final Messenger to all mankind, the Prophet Muḥammad peace and blessings be upon him?  The implication, for those who unquestioningly accept the athar alleged to be from Ibn ‘Abbās as ‘being akin’ to Waḥy, is that this must have been from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, despite not being attributed to him.  But Waḥy cannot, indeed does not, contain any inherent contradictions.  Nor can the claim be advanced of the narrative being raised and attributed to the Prophet when clearly it is not.
3. There is no mention or inkling of any timespan or even a loosely referenced date marker within the report. This is very significant.  At present, no one has been able to conclusively put a date-marker upon the cataclysmic flood that we are told of in the Qur’ānic narrative from the era of Noah, peace be upon him.  Although, there is now a substantial body of scientific research detailing cataclysmic flooding of the earth, but that puts the approximate dating for this at the end of the last ice-age  – in the Younger Dryers period, which is around 9,000 BCE.  Coupled with that, the seminal work of Giorgio De Santilllana and Hertha Von Dechend (1977) entitled Hamlet’s Mill, has postulated that every known civilization on earth seems to have an existent memory of a global flooding of the earth.  However, the recording of that event is not by way of writing, or even relics.  It has come down to us through pre-history as being encoded in myth and storytelling to convey the event.  On occasion, astronomical phenomena witnessed during this period are also encapsulated and conveyed via myth/story telling narratives.  Given the notable absence of waḥy (revelation) on the specifics of the narrative as told, how are we to discern with any level of reasonable certainty any fact amidst the fiction?  Providing a cogent account of events so far back, potentially into the recess of pre-history, cannot be done except by divine waḥy; no channel of narration can extend that far back.

Broken channel

Is this athar (narrative report) Ṣaḥīḥ – authentic beyond reasonable doubt?  Is it actually from Ibn ‘Abbās? We would argue that there is compelling evidence to show that it is not, on either count.  Moreover, it is not just inauthentic, ḍaef, but it is a broken line of reporting.  In the Tafsir of ‘Abd al-Razzāq there is a report from Qatādah.  Limited in scope in that it doesn’t have additional embellishments added to it.

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن قتادة في قوله تعالى {لا تذرن آلهتكم ولا تذرن ودا ولا سواعا ولا يغوث ويعوق ونسرا} قال كانت آلهة يعبدها قوم نوح ثم كانت العرب تعبدها بعد فكان ودا لكليب بدومة الجندل وكان سواع لهذيل وكان يغوث لبني غطيف من مراد بالجرف وكان يعوق لهمدان وكان نسر لذي الكلاع من حمير

‘Abd al-Razzāq: from Ma’mar from Qatādah, concerning where He the Almighty says: ‘Do not renounce your gods! Do not renounce Wadd’, Suwā’, Yaghuth, Ya’uq, or Nasr!’  He said: ‘They were the ‘gods’ worshipped by the people of Nuḥ, thereafter, the Arabs worshipped them.  Wadd’ was at Kulayb in Doumat al-Jandal; Suwā’ was to the Hudtheel, Yaghuth was to the tribe of Ghuṭeef from Murād at Jarf, Ya’uq was at Hamdān and Nasr was to the Dhi al-Kallāh from Ḥimyar.’[2]

Note here the report offered by Qatādah.  It is concise without any further additions.  Thereafter in his Tafsir, ‘Abd al-Razzāq immediately followed it up with the following:

عن ابن جريج عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس مثله إلا أنه قال: صارت الأوثان التي كانت في قوم نوح في العرب ثم ذكر مثل حديث قتادة

From Ibn Jurayj from Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni from Ibn ‘Abbās, reporting similar to it, except that he said: ‘All the awthān (idols) which were worshiped by the people of Nuḥ were worshiped by the Arabs later on,’ then he mentioned similar to the ḥadith of Qatādah.[3]

Here, the identification of the narrator ‘Aṭā’’ as mentioned by al-Bukhāri – but it is  Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni.  This is also recorded in in al-Jamah’ al-Ṣaḥīḥayn:

أخرجه أَبُو مَسْعُود فِي تَرْجَمَة عَطاء بن أبي رَبَاح، ثمَّ قَالَ إِن حجاج بن مُحَمَّد وَعبد الرَّزَّاق روياه عَن ابْن جريج فَقَالَا عَن عَطاء الْخُرَاسَانِي. وَقد ذكر أَبُو بكر البرقاني عَن الْإِسْمَاعِيلِيّ نَحْو ذَلِك، وَحَكَاهُ عَن عَليّ بن الْمَدِينِيّ. وَالله أعلم

It is reported by Abu Mas’ud in the biography of Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabaḥ, thereafter he said: Ḥajjāj ibn Muḥammad and ‘Abd al-Razzāq narrated it from Ibn Jurayj, they said from Aṭā’ al Khurāsāni.  It is mentioned by Abu Bakr al-Barqāni from al-Ismā’ili, mentioning about that and it is narrated from Ali ibn al-Madini, and Allah knows best.[4]

The truth behind the famous athar (narrative) that appears in collection of al-Bukhāri is that it is not established as being from Ibn ‘Abbās because it is interrupted in two places.  The channel is thus broken and inauthentic.  Al-Bukhāri reports it only with the forename given – Aṭā’, without further attribution.  ‘Abd al-Razzāq reports this athar in his Tafsir with an explicit attribution, stating it is Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni from Ibn ‘Abbās.  The majority of scholars concur that al-Bukhāri errs here, thinking that the Aṭā’ is Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabaḥ.  In fact, the correct viewpoint is that it is Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni as it is recorded in the Muṣṣanaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq.  Ḥajjāj ibn Muḥammad al-‘Awar followed suit in this and both of them firmly established by the judge of Ṣanā’ Hishām ibn Yusuf al-Abnāwi in Ibn Jurayj.  It should be noted that the narrator Hishām ibn Yusuf clarifies that the Aṭā’ is Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni, which is confirmed by what the Imām, Ali ibn al-Madini said in al-‘Ilal:

سمعت هشام بن يوسف قال: قال لي ابن جريج سألت عطاء عن التفسير من البقرة وآل عمران؟ فقال: اعفني من هذا. قال هشام: فكان بعد إذا قال: عطاء، عن ابن عباس قال الخراساني. قال هشام: فكتبنا ما كتبنا، ثم مللنا. قال علي: يعني كتبنا (ما كتبنا) أنه عطاء الخراساني. قال علي بن المديني: وإنما كتبت هذه القصة لأن محمد بن ثور كان يجعلها: عطاء، عن ابن عباس فظن الذين حملوها عنه أنه عطاء بن أبي رباح

I heard Hishām ibn Yusuf say, ‘Ibn Jurayj said to me; I asked Aṭā’ about the Tafsir from al-Baqara and al-‘Imrān.’  So he said: ‘Spare me from this.’  Hishām said: ‘It was after when he said: ‘Aṭā’ from Ibn ‘Abbās,’ he said: ‘al-Khurāsāni.’  Hishām said: ‘We wrote what we wrote, then tired.’  Ali said: ‘We wrote what we wrote – meaning, that he is Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni.’  Ali ibn al-Madini said: ‘Rather, I wrote this story because Muḥammad ibn Thawr used to make it (as) – Aṭā’ from Ibn ‘Abbās.  So those who transmitted it thought it was (referring to) Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabāḥ.[5]

Note the testimony provided by Hishām ibn Yusuf.  He said that what Ibn Jurayj had from Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabaḥ in terms of Tafsir was limited to that of Surah al-Baqara (ch2) and al-‘Imran (ch3), at the most, which is what the faqih would need, and certainly not as far up to, or including Surah Nuḥ (ch71).  Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabāḥ is foremost a faqih, not a man from Tafsir.  Hence there is no weight to any argument that this could have been heard or mentioned under a different subject other than Tafsir, neither does it hold any plausibility. What strengthens the argument for the invalidity of making the attribution of Aṭā’ to Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabāḥ in this athar which al-Bukhāri cited, is confirmation that the ruling to be applied here is the narrative is in fact broken, and that this is actually not from Ibn ‘Abbās.  He is innocent from the attribution made in this narrative.  There are a series of additional points that will further substantiate this argument.  Among them are the following – firstly, the inappropriate use of the phrasing within the narration – ‘the names of righteous men from the people of Nuḥ,’ which does not accord with the eloquence and linguistic accuracy for which Ibn ‘Abbās is renowned for, let alone the preservation and astute memory of Aṭā’ ibn Abi Rabāḥ.

Moreover, despite his accolades, Ibn Jurayj is considered as being a mudallis with having the worst of tadlees.  As he is described by Imām al-Dāraquṭni: ‘The evilest of tadlees is the tadlees of Ibn Jurayj, for he has ugly tadlees which is only used when from a majruḥ.’[6]  Thus, it is concluded that Ibn Jurayj must have taken this from a man (narrator) who is majhul majruḥ.  Accordingly, it is highly likely that the athar which al-Bukhāri recorded is from Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni, who in turn has taken that from a majhul majruḥ by itself.  He trusted him and believed him, in turn attributing it to being from Ibn ‘Abbās.  Or, he it could be from the acts of his son Uthmān ibn Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni, who included him in his father’s book.

Originally found in 1890 in the Russian Ural mountains, the “Shigar idol” is perhaps the earliest known statue of its kind. 9ft tall, it is believed to have been carved somewhere around the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago.

Embellishments

Less we are remiss or not as diligent as we strive to be, we remind ourselves at this juncture of the reported wording as it has been recorded by al-Bukhāri:

Despite what the text does contain, it is manifestly clear to the reader what it doesn’t.  There is no mention whatsoever of ‘graves,’ or the ‘devotion to the graves of the deceased.’  Yet despite this within Majmu’ al-Fatāwa’ we find some truly wild claims and embellishments that were made by Imām Ibn Taymiyyah.  In particular, the following are of striking note:

وَهَذَا كَانَ أَوَّلَ أَسْبَابِ الشِّرْكِ فِي قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَعِبَادَةِ الْأَوْثَانِ فِي النَّاسِ قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ كَانَ بَيْنَ آدَمَ وَنُوحٍ عَشَرَةُ قُرُونٍ كُلُّهُمْ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ ثُمَّ ظَهَرَ الشِّرْكُ بِسَبَبِ تَعْظِيمِ قُبُورِ صَالِحِيهِمْ

And this was the first cause of Shirk among the people of Nuḥ and the worship of Awthān among the people. Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘Between Adam and Nuḥ, there were ten qarn, all of them adhering to Islam.’ Then Shirk emerged due to the veneration of the graves of their righteous people.[7]

قَالَ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ السَّلَفِ هَؤُلَاءِ كَانُوا قَوْمًا صَالِحِينَ فِي قَوْمِ نُوحٍ فَلَمَّا مَاتُوا عَكَفُوا عَلَى قُبُورِهِمْ فَلَمَّا طَالَ عَلَيْهِمْ الْأَمَدُ عَبَدُوهُم

More than one from the Salaf said: ‘These (people) were from a righteous people, individuals (who were) from the people of Nuḥ. When they died, their followers devoted themselves to their graves. As time passed, they began worshipping them.’[8]

Even in the famous (or rather infamous) story of al-Lāt, which we will come to shortly, again allegedly from Ibn ‘Abbās, there is no mention of a grave.  It would seem here that the conflation is made for ideological or even dogmatic purposes.  But these sit squarely outside the realm of authentic reported channels, let alone the final and complete Waḥy (revelation).  Embellishments, additions or even fabrications and outright lies, have no place in serious discussions.  These phantasms that relate to ‘graves’ should really now be completely abandoned.

The Qur’anic verses

What do the verses of the Qur’an say upon this matter?  The wording as set out by Allah the Exalted and Majestic is as follows:

قَالَ نُوحٌ رَّبِّ إِنَّهُمْ عَصَوْنِي وَاتَّبَعُوا مَن لَّمْ يَزِدْهُ مَالُهُ وَوَلَدُهُ إِلَّا خَسَاراً وَمَكَرُوا مَكْراً كُبَّاراً وَقَالُوا لَا تَذَرُنَّ آلِهَتَكُمْ وَلَا تَذَرُنَّ وَدّاً وَلَا سُوَاعاً وَلَا يَغُوثَ وَيَعُوقَ وَنَسْراً وَقَدْ أَضَلُّوا كَثِيراً وَلَا تَزِدِ الظَّالِمِينَ إِلَّا ضَلَالاً

Noah said, ‘My Lord, they have disobeyed me and followed those whose riches and children only increase their ruin; who have made a grand plan, saying, “Do not renounce your gods! And do not renounce Wadd’, Suwā’, Yaghuth, Ya’uq, or Nasr!”  They have led many astray. Lord, bring nothing but destruction down on the evildoers![9]

While the mufasireen have differed on explanations and approach, there is no unanimity, ijmā; that these names listed are the ‘gods’ which were during the time of Noah, peace be upon him.  Looking at the statements made by the mufasireen (exegetes) in the round, several issues appear to have been huddled together, without expressly or always consistently disentangling them.  The fact that several South Arabian tribes later had five-Aṣnām bearing the same names as mentioned in the verses from Surah Nuḥ, doesn’t necessarily have a direct impact on interpreting the verses as they stand.

Moreover, unlike the verses that recount the story of Ibrāhim, peace be upon him, these verses in question relating to Nuḥ do not mention the word for idol(s) – ṣanam / Aṣnām.  Rather, they expressly state ‘your gods,’ [آلِهَتَكُمْ].  Hence we cannot say with any degree of certainty, unless it is established by waḥy, that the people of Nuḥ had these false ‘gods’ represented in the form of Aṣnām / Awthān, or, whether they were abstractions of some kind.  That is a later iteration of the Arabs.  Identifying the five listed names as being the leaders and/or chiefs from the people of Nuh peace be upon him is not out of sync with the broad literature of Tafsir and in would seemingly provide a neater fit with the wording as has been expressed in the opening two verses: ‘Noah said, ‘My Lord, they have disobeyed me and followed those whose riches and children only increase their ruin; who have made a grand plan, saying.’

Idols bearing the same names in Arabia

That the ‘gods’ which the Arabs had, or to be precise some of them, notably from South Arabia, represented by the well-known five Aṣnām as mentioned in the report beginning this piece, originally trace back to the names of the arrogant tyrannical leaders from the people at the time of Nuḥ peace be upon him.  They are not from the era of Nuḥ, peace be upon him, namely after his departure from this temporal domain.  This is an indication for the critical researcher to strive to understand this fascinating historical evolution, and perhaps we will be able to return to the matter soon or in another context.  Precisely how these South Arabian tribes had Aṣnām matching these five names, remains a mystery, because no waḥy (revelation) has come to provide clarity upon the matter.

Despite this, and here we return full circle, the pre-Islamic Arabs did not depict these five names as all being men.  Recall, the original athar – ‘The names, were of righteous men from the people of Noah.’ Yet there is an eye-witness account which has been cited in al-Taḥrir wal’ Tanweer from Abu Uthmān al-Nahdi indicating otherwise:

قال أبو عثمان النهدي: رأيت يغوث صنما من رصاص وكانوا يحملونه على جمل أحرد (بالحاء المهملة أي يخبط بيديه إذا مشى) ويسيرون معه ولا يهيجونه حتى يكون هو الذي يبرك، فإذا برك نزلوا وقالوا: قد رضي لكم المنزل، فيضربون عليه بناء ينزلون حوله. وكان يغوث على صورة أسد. وكان لهمدان صنم اسمه يعوق وهو على صورة فرس؛ وكان لكهلان من سبأ ثم توارثه بنوه حتى صار إلى همدان. وكان لحمير ولذي الكلاع منهم صنم اسمه نسر على صورة النسر من الطير

Abu Uthmān al-Nahdi said: I saw Yaghuth it was a ṣanam (idol) made of lead.  They would carry it upon a camel that was called ‘Aḥrad,’ the letter ha being pronounced softly, while walking with it.  They wouldn’t disturb it until it was brought to provide blessings.  Once it was brought, it was lowered and then said: May your home be blessed; they would then construct a sanctuary around it.  Yaghuth was in the form of a lion.  Hamdān had ṣanam called Ya’uq, which was in the image of a horse.  Ka’lān was from Saba’, thereafter his sons inherited it until it (came down to) Hamdān. And Ḥimyar and Dhi Kallāh’ from among them, the ṣanam was named Nasr, which was in the form of an eagle from the birds.[10]

Ibn ‘Asākir also records another narrative which provides some additional details:

قرأت على ابي القاسم زاهر بن طاهر عن أبي عثمان الصابوني أخبرنا أبو العباس محمد بن احمد بن محمد السليطي أخبرنا أبو حامد أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن الحافظ حدثنا احمد بن حفص وعبد الله بن محمد الفراء وقطن بن ابراهيم قالوا أخبرنا حفص حدثني ابراهيم عن عاصم الأحول عن أبي عثمان انه قال أسلمت في حياة رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، وقد حججت بيغوث وكان صنما من رصاص لقضاعة، تمثال امرأة، وعبدت ذا الخلصة، ودورت الأدورة: ثم ائتنفت الإسلام

I read (in audience) upon my father al-Qāsim Zāhir ibn Tāhir from Abu Uthmān al-Ṣābuni, Abul’Abbās Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Salayṭi reported to us Abu Ḥāmid Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ḥāfiz reported to us Aḥmad ibn Ḥafṣ, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Firāra’ and Qaṭan ibn Ibrāhim narrated to us, they said Ḥafṣ reported to us Ibrāhim narrated to me from Aāṣim al-Aḥwal from Abu Uthmān that he said: ‘I embraced Islam during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and I had (previously) made pilgrimage to Yaguth, which was a ṣanam made from lead, belonging to (the tribe of) Quḍḍā’ah; (Yaguth) was a statuette of a woman.  I also had worshipped Dhi al-Khalṣa, revolving around them.  After which, I converted to Islam.’[11]

When considering these and other reports or narratives collectively, they would strongly suggest that the Aṣnām (idols) of Wadd’, Suwā’, Yaghuth, Ya’uq and Nasr held by pagan Arab tribes were in the forms, or representations of – a man, woman, lion, horse and an eagle, whether in that precise order or otherwise.   Hence the only certain definitive point is that they were Aṣnām that were worshipped by some Arab tribes.  They existed during the era of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, being revered by those tribes, as is shown by many narratives.  Everything else above and beyond that, is nothing but pure speculation, myth and legend.  How or even why they are named after the tyrannical individuals in Surah Nuḥ remains unclear.

Conclusions

There has been attempts by many Muslim scholars in seeking to provide a cogent explanation to a) how mankind departed from Tawḥeed, b) what meaning underpins the Qur’ānic verses and c) how to interpret the mass of additional reports, often found in the Tafsir literature.  Often, and as usual, there is the false and fabricated attribution to the Imām, the acclaimed litterateur, Abdullah ibn ‘Abbās, may Allah be pleased with him.  Little wonder that attempts try, even belatedly, to pin a statement to his attribution, for he was a prolific scholar, the interpreter of the Qur’ān, and a foremost intellectual.  Allah bestowed upon him a remarkable mind that never ceased to question, explore and seek truth and knowledge.  All of this is a blessing and benefit for the wider Muslim Ummah, provided that those who have come after him have properly exercised due diligence in studying, scrutinising, reviewing and seeking verification.  Submission, however, should be solely to Allah and His Messenger, without any increase or decrease, without blindly accepting anything.

One must conclude that the narratives which are munqaṭi and mursal, together with fabrications and outright lies, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.  They have been used to corrupt and befog the minds of far too many, for far too long.  Clinging to them not only shows intellectual bankruptcy, but also profound misguidance doctrinally.

Endnotes

[1] This short piece is a summation based upon two-chapters which are to appear in the forthcoming English edition of Volume 2 in the series Kitāb al-Tawḥeed, [Vol. 2, Part V, The Historic Reality of Paganism in Arabia; (Arabic) pp. 522/552], by Professor Muḥammad ibn Abdullah al-Massari.  Each of the chapters is far lengthier than what is presented here and provides for far greater detail upon the topic overall.  We have made some augmented additions to the arguments as presented by the Professor.

[2] Tafsir ‘Abd al-Razzāq [Vol. 3, p. 349]

[3] Ibid.

[4] al-Ḥumaydi al-Jamah’ al- Ṣaḥīḥayn [Vol. 2, p. 84 (Shamela edition)]

[5] See: al-Mizzi, Tahzeeb al-Kamāl fi Asmā’ al-Rijāl [Vol. 7, no. 4568, p. 158].  The entire entry for Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni spans [pp. 153/158].

[6] Several references can be sourced for this quote from Imām al-Dāraquṭni, including provided by Ibn Ḥajar in Ṭabaqāt al-Mudalliseen, [p. 41].  Essentially here meaning that the Tadlees of Ibn Jurayj occurs from narrators who have been severely criticised.

[7] Ibn Taymiyyah Majmu’ al-Fatāwa’ [Vol. 1, p. 155, (Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah: Beirut)]

[8] Ibid. [p. 242]

[9] Qur’ān, 71: 21/24

[10] al-Taḥrir wal’ Tanweer, [p. 193].  Ibn Sa’d has a detailed entry on Abu Uthmān al-Nahdi in al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubra [Vol. 7, pp. 97/98], noting that his name was Abdar-Raḥman ibn Mull; he was alive in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, but didn’t see him.  He was thiqa (trustworthy), having met and narrated from several senior Companions.  Although initially residing in Kufa, he died in Basra at the beginning of the governorship of al-Ḥajjāj.  In al-Taqreeb [p. 393, no. 4017], al-Ḥāfiz records he was thiqa thabt (resolutely trustworthy) being from the senior Tabi’een.  He died in the year 95AH and it was said that he was 130 years old.

[11] Ibn ‘Asākir, Tārikh Dimishq [Vol. 35, pp. 471/472].  For additional details on the nature of these idols held by the pre-Islamic Arabs, one can refer to Dr Jawād Ali (1968), al-Mufaṣṣal fi Tārikh al-‘Arab Qablal’Islam, [Vol. 6, pp. 256/264].  He summarises and often subsumes much of what earlier scholars like al-Kalbi and al-Wāqidi wrote on the matter.