The Implications of Quran 30:2 and 30:3

[WinterHold]

I tend to take my time before posting.

So the "Byzantines" are a mere opinion.

Either they were Byzantines or they weren't. There is no opinion.

The Eastern Roman empire IS the Byzantines. Pretty much everyone agrees - well historians that is - that it is the continuation of the Roman empire. The people living in the Eastern Roman empire identified themselves as Romans (not as Byzantines, because not all of them lived in the city of Byzantium). The term Byzantine comes from the name of the city of "Byzantium" which was the capital of the Eastern Roman empire.

The Roman empire was divided into two for administrative purposes. Somebody asked why the empire was split on Quora and there are some good explanations in reply. The Eastern Romans later took control of Rome after it fell.

In my original comment, I said:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55583-p...pid1783962

So the "Byzantines" are a mere opinion. The original Arabic word used is "Room=روم=Roman", that can very well point to the western Roman empire, too.

How you read that to be "eastern" is beyond me.

The last Western Roman emperor was Romulus Augustulus, who reigned for less than a year, having been deposed in 476 (centuries before Muhammad). The video I  have linked to by CrashCourse explains things better than I can. I hope it is useful.

The verse can very well point to the past. In other words "the Romans were defeated, and they will win again after their loss. When they win again, believers will rejoice".

Where is the time specification? where is the era meant? the verse can very well refer to the European victories in the modern era. The time frame is not mentioned, "Roman" can refer to a wide range of peoples, mostly white, reddish Europeans.

The time-frame wasn't mentioned by the Quran, okay, maybe not? However, we do know when the Romans were at war with the Sassanians and when Syria fell (as I mentioned, Jerusalem was captured by the Sassanians in 614AD so it had to have been before then). This limits us to the twenty-six years that the Romans were at war with the Sassanians; that's the time-fame.

This is an opinion; the reader has every right to contradict you with an opposing point.
I think -and believe; personally-, that the time frame is very important in deciding what the meaning is.

We have many unknowns:

1-Is the eastern or western Roman Empire meant here?
2-When is this defeat?
3-As modern humans, we know that the Romans -especially the Western- rocked earth with their victories in WW2          after centuries of darkness and defeat.
4-I know that as a Muslim, I'm happy that the Romans won, and people like "Assad" and "Putin" didn't.

So yours is an opinion; mine is another opinion.

But here's the thing...

Surah 30 (ar-Rum) is a Meccan Surah sure; meaning pre-Hijrah. However, there is Ijma for it being a "late Meccan" revelation. Meaning: it was said to have been revealed years AFTER the Romans lost Syria to the Sassanians.

See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_su..._the_Quran

Surah 30:
Late Mecca phase (620 - 622 AD).

Except 17, from Medina

Jerusalem captured by the Sassansians in 614AD, Syria fell to the Sassaisians in 609AD. Therefore, Ar Rum was revealed after the Romans lost. Or am I missing something?

Again, I make the same point I made earlier: I don't trust the accuracy of anything from Sunnah books to revelation times, and I listed the reasons why:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-36595.html

So I refuse your point since it's loosley based on the accuracy of the same faith you criticize.
I mean, if Sunni/Shiite history is so accurate to you, doesn't it mean the rest of their faith is accurate; too.

See the next verse, as pointed out by yragnitup:

Just to add, see the next verse too;

Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice (Quran 30:4)

Why would the supposed Muslims in Mecca rejoice? Maybe its the Arab Nabataens in Petra?

A guy named Hamed Abdel-Samad has some extensive videos (100s) which includes this topic but its mostly in Arabic. Only some episodes in the beginning (44) ~10 minute videos was translated by a fan and I think there was mention of Petra etc. I watched them long time ago. Maybe you can pick up some leads.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOYN5F3...iCI_JaaktA

The very next Iyaht says that they are still (or will be) in Mecca when the news reaches them. So how can they be "nearby" to the Romans as 30:3-4 claim. Is Syria anywhere near to Mecca?

?
Stating the location of Muslims (whether in Mecca or Madina) is not mentioned at all neither explicitly nor implicitly in the verses.

Here is the verses completely:

https://quran.com/30/2?translations=95

Sura 30, The Quran:
Abul Ala Maududi(With tafsir)

(30:2) The Romans have been defeated
(30:3) in the neighbouring land;1 but after their defeat they shall gain victory in a few years.
(30:4) All power belongs to Allah both before and after.2 On that day will the believers rejoice
(30:5) at the victory granted by Allah.3 He grants victory to whomsoever He pleases. He is the Most Mighty, the Most Compassionate.
(30:6) This is Allah's promise and He does not go back on His promise. But most people do not know.
(30:7) People simply know the outward aspect of the worldly life but are utterly heedless4 of the Hereafter.

I'm very, very, very interested to know where you brought your assumption about the location of Muslims from the verses above -which are the center of the topic-.
The verses don't say anything about the whereabouts of Muslims at the time.