The Implications of Quran 30:2 and 30:3

[ReptilianPeon]

I was speaking to Robvalue via SMS (mobile) and he mentioned that he started coming back here and that my favourite members were still here. After some thought, I decided take a peek again. Recently, I've also been doing some pondering on the following section of the Quran.

Quran 30:2-3 talks about the "Romans being defeated in a nearby land".

"(30:2)The Roman Empire has been defeated- (30:3) In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-"

Ibn Al Kathir expands upon this in the Tafsir. What I found curious is how the Romans are being described as being "nearby" when Sahabah are supposed to be Mecca/Medina area. The Romans never went anywhere near Mecca/Medina as the closest they got was the Palestine area.

The Tafisr mentions Heraclius  - the emperor of the Romans from 610AD to 641AD (when he died) and his defeat and subsequent loss of Syria to the Persians. This is obviously in reference to the Byzantine–Sassanian War of 602–628. The Sassanian Empire went on to capture Jerusalem in 614AD too.

The Sassanians are coming from the east, correct? Meaning that they would have to capture the Roman province of Syria BEFORE capturing Jerusalem. This is very important, as you'll see in the next paragraph.

Consider that, Hijrah (the supposed migration of Muhammad and his cronies from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina) is only said to have occurred in the year 622AD. The migration therefore happens after the Persians had successfully conquered much of the Levant from the Romans. So...was Muhammad NOT in central Arabia at all at during this time? Why does the Quran state the Romans were nearby to the Sahabah when they were defeated.

When Da'is talk about Noah's Flood they sometimes assert that it was a "local" flood (even though the Quran mentions waves the size of mountains, etc.), so if their definition of the word local is only the immediate vicinity (e.g. one city or province) then either: the Sahabah were not where it is has been generally assumed they were and they were actually in somewhere like Petra in Jordan for example OR "local" is really not that local in their minds. Petra has been discussed before by me so I won't go into that here. Found this documentary by Dan Gibson which I need to watch at some point.

"Local" is such a vague subjective term. To me, local is whatever is within ten minutes or so walking distance of my home. What we are lead to conclude according to the evidence presented is that Muhammad was close to Palestine where the Romans were defeated? Do we toss out established history just to satisfy the claims of the Quran?


I hope that made sense! Thank you for your patience. I look forward to the responses.

---

Just to add, 'moving the goalposts' is another possibility as to the apparent difference in defining the term "local" in the two different situations. My most recent edit doesn't seem to be showing up. That's all for now.

[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

[Fireball]

Needs moar dragons.

[ReptilianPeon]

30:4, yes, adds to my theory. Good spot yragnitup. I should have added this in my initial post.

Having said that, I guess it could be plausible that they were celebrating in Mecca if the news got to them in time. But that doesn't then explain why the Romans were reported as losing "nearby", assiming he Sahabah was supposed to be in Mecca all along. Does the Quranic, therefore, not agree with what apologists have defined as being local when trying to rationalise Noah's Flood? That's what is seeming to be implied here.

The apologists not agreeing with Quranic word usage is probably the more generous interpretation. It is far more likely that the Quran is wrong about Mecca. Or rather the people who have always assumed that the Quran has been referring to Mecca are wrong because Mecca was never anywhere near the Roman borderlands.

[WinterHold]

Welcome back, R.P . Glad to have you posting again.

Translated literally:

https://quran.com/30/2-12?translations=20

Sura 30, The Quran:
Sahih International

(2) The Byzantines have been defeated
(The translator Yousif Ali used the literal, more accurate term):

Yusuf Ali

(2) The Romans have been defeated

(3) In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.

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. The timeframe wasn't mentioned in the verse also. We can very much be looking at God stating a fact that happened back in time: note the usage of "have been" in the verse.

And the victory of the Romans is set in the future, scholars say that the Arabic word "بضغ" means 3-9 years, but I personally doubt it. Only some scholars say so.

[ReptilianPeon]

Hi,

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.

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 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.

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?

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?

---

Just wanted to say I wrote the above at like midnight so I want applgise in advance if there are any typos or mistakes etc.

[ReptilianPeon]

Okay so I just ended up repeating myself yesterday... my original post was about how the defeated army was described as being "nearby" in the Quran as the time frame doesn't matter so much. I was asking the question of: Is Syria is anywhere near Mecca? It really doesn't matter whether they are called "Byzantines" or "Romans".

What matters is that the army controlling Syria lost Syria in a war. The Sahabah were said to be celebrating in Mecca which is not anywhere near to Syria. That's the reason I cited the segment.

[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.

[ReptilianPeon]

In terms of the dating, I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to do. Now, yes, I understand you are neither Sunni nor Shia and ultimately this is all practise for when I can confronted by one of the many Saudi stooges (who shout in the street and are generally very uncouth) that we seem to have here in the UK. Equally though, I haven't given up on you even though many on this website have, and there are many things which we do agree on. It's nice, refreshing, that you're more intelligent than the rabble that the oil money pays for.

What I'm doing - or at least trying to do - is to use the dates which I have been given by the majority of the Ummah against them; this is an exercise against their own dating system. Sunni and Shia combined make up the overwhelming majority of believers (in terms of actual percentage I'm not sure but it must be over 90%) so if they have agreed on the dates I'm using then that's their problem. As such, the entirety of Ar Rum (with the exception of Iyaht 17) has been dated to pre-Hijra times by the Ulama (maybe you would say they are: "scholars") so that suggests to me that according to them Sahabah were in Mecca at the time of the loss in Syria.

The years are given in ranges so it's impossible for me to know the exact day of the month and week. But this is what majority (of believers) have agreed on so I just go with what the Ulama say on it. In terms of Quranic revelation, is not for me to dispute the dates I have been given by Sunni/Shia because they related to the supposed dates of revelation of the Quran not the dates of historical events.

In terms of 30:4 I did not include this in my original post because I was unsure about it and then "yragnitup" came and said that it says that they were celebrating and I'm like: "What really?", and I jumped on it. This was seemingly in error, and I hope that yragnitup comes back to clarify what was meant by the comment. You are right in saying that it is not clear that they are in Mecca at that point (to celebrate).

For 30:2-3, however, they must have been in Mecca because it's pre-Hijra revelation and is not concerning an event in the future. 30:2-3 concern current events and what I am confused by us the use of the term "nearby". Why is the defeat said to be "nearby" when Muhammad in the vicinity of Mecca? Are you suggesting that Muhammad may not have been in Mecca? If it's a Meccan revelation then surely he must have been in Mecca?

I think I'll just concede on Romans because I'm confused and tired. I don't really want to think about it right now. I should probably add more Omega 3 to my diet.

[Minimalist]

Justinian's general, Belisarius, reconquered Italy in the 6th century but the Byzantines could not hold it.  By 568 the Lombards had invaded Italy and the Byzantines lacked the resources to sustain such a far-reaching conquest.  They maintained a few isolated bridgeheads for a while but eventually they were all gone.  In any case, this happened long before some clown invented the koran.