(January 5, 2020 at 2:37 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 2:15 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Here is a quote from the link you posted.

The Byzantines have been defeated

The verse in Arabic says: "الروم"
The Romans.

Dont talk to me, talk to yourself: YOU posted a link that refers to the BYZANTINES.
Why post something you dont agree with?
You dont even have the faintest clue why "Rum" was translated with "Byzantines", do you? As usual you dont know jack shit about the stuff you are patronizing, do you?

(January 5, 2020 at 2:47 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 2:37 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The verse in Arabic says: "الروم"
The Romans.

Dont talk to me, talk to yourself: YOU posted a link that refers to the BYZANTINES.
Why post something you dont agree with?
You dont even have the faintest clue why "Rum" was translated with "Byzantines", do you? As usual you dont know jack shit about the stuff you are patronizing, do you?

No. The link is spot on.
Change the translator name from the top right menu:

-Press "settings"
-Press "translations"

Then choose the name I specified in the OP which is "Dr. Mustafa Khattab"

That is the most accurate translation for the verse, which translates the word "روم" for the right translation: Romans.

---

(January 5, 2020 at 2:47 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 2:37 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The verse in Arabic says: "الروم"
The Romans.

Dont talk to me, talk to yourself: YOU posted a link that refers to the BYZANTINES.
Why post something you dont agree with?
You dont even have the faintest clue why "Rum" was translated with "Byzantines", do you? As usual you dont know jack shit about the stuff you are patronizing, do you?

Rum is translated to "Byzantines" because in some Sunni/Shiite literature it is interpreted like so.

(January 5, 2020 at 1:53 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 12:51 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I don't think you know much about history. The Roman Republic was an oligarchy and the Empire was a dysfunctional dynasty. Neither had anything approaching fair elections. Try Athens instead. They're a few streets over and a couple of centuries ahead of the Romans in terms of governance. The Roman "multicultural world" included such high-minded advances as the destruction of the Second Temple period in Israel and the Sack of Carthage, just to name a few of the more prominent ones. They are the culture that coined the term decimation. Their "respect for law" amounted to imposing it at sword point and then ignoring it when it became inconvenient.

Go read a history book so you can make some arguments that don't sound utterly ignorant.

Rome had a senate. I'm not discussing other cultures; but discussing the Roman culture that had a senate and carried out "voting".

Rome's Senate was made of rich Senators elected by rich Senators. It was never a democracy.

And you still haven't told us when the Romans fulfilled this prophecy. Their empire is dust.

(January 5, 2020 at 9:39 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 1:53 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Rome had a senate. I'm not discussing other cultures; but discussing the Roman culture that had a senate and carried out "voting".

Rome's Senate was made of rich Senators elected by rich Senators. It was never a democracy.

And you still haven't told us when the Romans fulfilled this prophecy. Their empire is dust.

The Roman empire's center fell; but its legacy thrived and hundreds of civilizations carried out its method.
If you wanted to see the Roman overcoming of ages look at the U.S.

I don't call the "leaving of proxies" a decisive fall.

(January 6, 2020 at 1:10 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 9:39 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Rome's Senate was made of rich Senators elected by rich Senators. It was never a democracy.

And you still haven't told us when the Romans fulfilled this prophecy. Their empire is dust.

The Roman empire's center fell; but its legacy thrived and hundreds of civilizations carried out its method.
If you wanted to see the Roman overcoming of ages look at the U.S.

I don't call the "leaving of proxies" a decisive fall.

What the consensus is, is that the sura mentioned is speaking about events during the 7th century, where there was a war between the Byzantine and the Sassanid Empire. You are welcome to demonstrate, why you of all people have the *correct* interpretation of sura 30.

...which leaves open the issue of your god being a shitty communicator. If he means Romans he could have written "Romans", and if he means "Byzantines" he could have written "Byzantines".

Yeah, Quran is the most fabulous piece of arabic language, couldnt have been possibly written by human hand, but it cant tell the difference between "Rome" and "Byzantium". *Fabulous* indeed.

(January 6, 2020 at 4:37 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 6, 2020 at 1:10 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: The Roman empire's center fell; but its legacy thrived and hundreds of civilizations carried out its method.
If you wanted to see the Roman overcoming of ages look at the U.S.

I don't call the "leaving of proxies" a decisive fall.

What the consensus is, is that the sura mentioned is speaking about events during the 7th century, where there was a war between the Byzantine and the Sassanid Empire. You are welcome to demonstrate, why you of all people have the *correct* interpretation of sura 30.

...which leaves open the issue of your god being a shitty communicator. If he means Romans he could have written "Romans", and if he means "Byzantines" he could have written "Byzantines".

Yeah, Quran is the most fabulous piece of arabic language, couldnt have been possibly written by human hand, but it cant tell the difference between "Rome" and "Byzantium". *Fabulous* indeed.

The verse did specify "explicitly" the Romans.
The Arabic word is "روم". I'll break it so you can read it:

ر = R
و = OO -or just U-
م = M

While "Byzantines" is:

ب = B
ي = Y
ز = Z
ن = N
ط = stressed T
ي = Y
ي = Y
ن = N

Make sure yourself; look at the verse and compare the words.

Thats not an answer to why your specific interpretation is the *true* one, especially in the light of the fact that not only "some sunni and shiite literature" views this as a description of 7th century events, but that this is the view of a majority of scholars.

So, why are you right, and most other people wrong (as usual   )?

(January 6, 2020 at 6:11 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Thats not an answer to why your specific interpretation is the *true* one, especially in the light of the fact that not only "some sunni and shiite literature" views this as a description of 7th century events, but that this is the view of a majority of scholars.

So, why are you right, and most other people wrong (as usual   )?

I think this is the right interpretation "Rum" refers to Rome -either Eastern or Western; the word is not specific to an empire-, while "Byzantine" is specific to the Eastern Empire.

(January 6, 2020 at 6:46 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I think this is the right interpretation "Rum" refers to Rome -either Eastern or Western; the word is not specific to an empire-, while "Byzantine" is specific to the Eastern Empire.

Its not possible that the Quran is talking about the Byzantine Empire, which was a contemporary of the people writing the Quran?
How do you know the sura refers to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire some 800 years later, and not to the current, ongoing war with the Sassanid Empire?
Does the Quran say "the Romans WERE defeated" or does it say "the Romans WILL BE defeated"?