Brother, I asked you simple question (that would have given answer to your above question too). That is:
**Is it allowed for Muslims (from where ever they came from) to pray for the area they came from, even if that area is Darul-Kufr and people living there are non-Muslims? … **
[Note: There is no evidence that anyone from present day Iraq, that was part of Persian empire, became Muslim during the time of Prophet (SAW). Only person from Persian empire who became Muslim was Salman Farsi (RA), and he was from present day South-western Iran, south of Khuzestan-Iran)
Anyhow, I am asking you because, even if we take your argument correct that some people from Iraq who became Muslim may have asked Prophet (SAW) to pray for Iraq, than it is obvious that since Iraq at that time was non-Muslim area (Dar-ul-Kufr) and people living there were mostly Zoroastrians, living under Persian empire, than how can these people ask Prophet (SAW) to pray for that ‘Dar-ul-Kufr’ area and kuffar of that area.
If it was not people who asked Prophet (SAW) to pray for ‘our Najd’ than situation could have been different, as being Prophet (AS) of Allah, Prophet (SAW) could have prayed for an area that was not Muslim at the time, and we could have assumed that he had knowledge about that area from Gaib (given to him by Allah, that other would not know), but here situation is that people asked Prophet (SAW) to pray for Najd (our Najd), and since no one other than Prophet (SAW) used to get wahi, people could not have asked Prophet (SAW) to pray for Najd that was Darul-Kufur and where Kafirs used to live at the time (Zoroastrians).
So, when Najd (actually, our Najd … mera Najd) was present at the time people asked Prophet (SAW) to pray for that area (our Najd), referring that area as ‘our Najd’ (Mera-Najd), than I believe any person who does not fall amongst people mentioned in ayah 9:22 … that is, deaf and dumb who do not use reason … would surely going to believe without doubt that people referred to area by saying ‘our Najd’ cannot be any area other than ‘Najd’ that is even present today in Saudi Arabia.
[Please read ayah 8:22 … Inna sharra addawabbi AAindaAllahi assummu albukmu allatheena layaAAqiloon
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL: Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.]
Second thing is that, if Iraq was mentioned (that I do not believe at all), then how can you say that it was Iraq (of present day) and not Uraq in Pakistan (near Quetta), where mostly Pakhtuns are living since 1000s of years?
As for your argument about Shaam, than I have answered that question earlier, that is, Arabia north of Hijaz was known as Shaam, and when Prophet (SAW) prayed for Shaam, he (SAW) prayed for these areas, that was north of Hijaz and under Muslim rule. On the other hand, even if Prophet (SAW) prayed for an area that at the time was not under Muslim rule, than also that can be accepted, as Prophet (SAW) might be praying from his knowledge of Gaib, about future of that area … though, I believe, that is not the case and when Prophet (SAW) prayed for Shaam, he only prayed for the area that was Dar-ul-Islam at the time (immediate north of Hijaz).
As for area that were under Muslim rule during Prophet (SAW) time, it was whole of Arabian Peninsula that includes all of Najd and Yemen. Even after passing of Prophet (SAW), most of Najd stayed under Muslim rule, though some areas revolted (according to history) against Khalafat and Abu Bakr (RA) sent army to subdue them. Nevertheless, most areas stayed Muslim and did not challenged Islam. Since hadith is from time of Prophet (SAW), you cannot say that people asking Prophet (SAW) to pray for ‘our Najd’ was wrong, as they were only asking Prophet (SAW) to pray for area that was under Muslim rule (Dar-ul-Islam at the time), where mostly Muslims used to live.
I believe, once Muslim rule got extended to include Persian and Roman Empire, and since most of southern Iraq got inhabited by Arabs of Arabian Peninsula, many hadith got concocted by people (as they concocted 1000s of hadiths) not even thinking that all the areas that was then called Iraq came under Muslim rule after the passing of Prophet (SAW).
You have given a good challenge, that if I want to claim that particular hadith is wrong or concocted, than I should prove that the hadith was not there 150 years ago. I am not fond of hujjat and I believe you know that I discard hadith that seems illogical (I do not believe on anything as deaf and dumb, without using reason … because I would not like to be worst of creation, according to Ayah 8:22), so it does not matter when the hadith is written, as long as they are illogical and senseless, for me, they are concocted … something I believe you may not agree.
Anyhow, I do not want you to retract your conclusion, as that would be asking too much. 
… What I would do is, I would like you to walk the talk or comment and discuss on what you believe. I am quoting one hadith from old books (Sunnan abu Dawud), that obviously is at least over thousand years old (much older than 100 or 150 years) and I believe you must have no problem believing them. So, please reply my question with reference to that hadith (I can bring 100s of such hadith, so one I am quoting is not something uncommon):
Dawud :: Book 38 : Hadith 4396
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
Now, please do not shy away, but do comment and answer my query (what you think about the hadith and what it mentions?):
For me, this hadith is concocted, as I fear associating such hadith to Prophet (SAW), because to me, Hadith is absurd, and I could not expect such ruling from Prophet (SAW). Obviously, for you, if hadith is more than 150 years old than it must be true … hence:
If you believe that above hadith is true, than please let us know what you think about what above hadith says? … Let me elaborate:
From above hadith: Prophet (SAW) used to give wrong verdict (judgement) when judging a crime (stoning for theft instead of cutting of hand) and people used to remind Prophet (SAW) that it is theft and that he (SAW) is giving wrong verdict, than Prophet (SAW) used to correct his verdict regarding that crime, from stoning to cutting of hand, as mentioned in hadith … Well, even feet and at last his judgment that culprit should be stoned even when his crime was theft got obeyed. Most surprising is the that thief who lost his both hands and both feet, was so adamant that he still managed to steal … shows that cutting hands and feet is no deterrent, and claim that it causes deterrent in society, that reduces such crimes, becomes invalid.
Most surprising thing is that, 4 times Prophet (SAW) gave wrong judgment and corrected himself when people reminded him that he is giving wrong judgment … and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] time when Prophet (SAW) gave wrong judgment, stoning for theft when it should have been cutting of hand (or feet, that at time did not existed), people also gave up and stoned the thief to death because thief was left with no limbs.
Further, according to Islam, if a criminal get punished for the crime, and that punishment is death, than Muslims are not supposed to mutilate his dead body, rather assume that Allah will forgive him, and thus his Namaz-e-Janaza and proper burial becomes duty of Muslim, but this unfortunate thief was thrown in well. How sad.
Now, I do not know or can say that if it is crime itself (murder) to kill someone who only did theft, or it is valid punishment for thief in Islam. But from hadith, it seems that is what happened, that a person was brutally killed (stoned to death) for theft on order of … (if one accept the hadith).
For me, I get away by saying that this whole hadith is concocted, as it is illogical and senseless hadith, and one cannot expect Prophet (SAW) making such mistakes, giving punishment of stoning when person only stole. But, what you think?
By the way, can you clear my confusion and tell me how long Prophet (SAW) stayed in Mecca and how long in Madina?
What I learned till now is that, Prophet (SAW) stayed in Mecca 53 years of his life and 10 years in Madina. … Though after getting wahi first time and declaration of Prophet-hood … initially Prophet (SAW) declared Prophet-hood to his close ones … still, Quran was revealed to Prophet (SAW) for 13 years in Mecca… and 10 years in Madina.
This is the first time (from hadith) I learned that Prophet (SAW) stayed in Mecca 10 years and in Madina 10 years. … Nice hadith, isn’t it? And it is hadith from most respectable hadith book, Bukhari Shareef. Narrators are also most respected, one being Aisha (RA) and other being ibn Abbas (RA).
Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 61 :: Hadith 502
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet remained in Mecca for ten years, during which the Qur’an used to be revealed to him; and he stayed in Medina for ten years.
Well, there are many hadith that give me shiver associating them to Prophet (SAW), as to me it seems obvious lies or illogical in every respect, but then … I am not blind followers (accept like deaf and dumb, without reasoning) like some, who accept things but do not understand or think, so I accept them as concocted hadith. Here is one hadith from Bukhari:
Can you put your money where your belief is?
Would you invest in hospital (abortion centre) proposal, where according to proposal, all known black snakes would be kept, and would be shown to any women who would like to get abortion, hoping that looking at snake would cause her to abort? … No operation, no illegal abortion, no law breaking activity, as looking at snake cannot be called illegal or abortion in this way be classified as crime. Here are several hadith to back the business proposal:
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 518
Narrated Ibn Umar: He heard the Prophet delivering a sermon on the pulpit saying, “Kill snakes and kill Dhu-at-Tufyatain (i.e. a snake with two white lines on its back) and ALBATROSS (i.e. a snake with short or mutilated tail) for they destroy the sight of one’s eyes and bring about abortion.” …
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 527
Narrated 'Aisha: Prophet said, “Kill the snake with two white lines on its back, for it blinds the on-looker and causes abortion.”
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 528
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet ordered that a short-tailed or mutilated-tailed snake (i.e. Abtar) should be killed, for it blinds the on-looker and causes abortion."
**
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 529**
Narrated Abu Mulaika:
Ibn Umar used to kill snakes, but afterwards he forbade their killing and said, "Once the Prophet pulled down a wall and saw a cast-off skin of a snake in it. He said, 'Look for the snake. 'They found it and the Prophet said, “Kill it.” For this reason I used to kill snakes. Later on I met Abu Lubaba who told me the Prophet said, ‘Do not kill snakes except the short-tailed or mutilated-tailed snake with two white lines on its back, for it causes abortion and makes one blind. So kill it.’ "
Sahi Muslim :: Book 26 : Hadith 5545
Ibn 'Umar reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanding the killing of dogs and the killing of the striped and the short-tailed snakes, for both of them affect the eyesight adversely and cause miscarriage. …
Muslim :: Book 26 : Hadith 5550
Nafi’ reported that Abu Lubaba b. 'Abd al-Mundhir al-Ansari (first) lived in Quba. He then shifted to Medina and as he was in the company of 'Abdullah b. 'Umar opening a window for him, he suddenly saw a snake in the house. They (the inmates of the house) attempted to kill that. Thereupon Abu Lubaba said: They had been forbidden to make an attempt to kill house snakes and they had been commanded to kill the snakes having small tails, small snakes and those having streaks over them, and it was said: Both of them affect the eyes and cause miscarriage to women.