[Quranic Reflection]: (2) The Romans have been defeated

[Deesse23]

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?

[WinterHold]

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.

---

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.

[Paleophyte]

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.

[WinterHold]

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.

[Deesse23]

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.

[WinterHold]

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.

[Deesse23]

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   )?

[WinterHold]

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.

[Deesse23]

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"?

[Anomalocaris]

Rome was a big empire. Their systems in architecture, agriculture and even their political method is enough to keep one baffled.

It was an empire way ahead of its time, with achievements reaching to the standards of modern culture.

In the Quran; they are mentioned by the name:

Sura 30, The Quran:
https://quran.com/30/1-11

Dr. Mustafa Khattab

(1) Alif-Lãm-Mĩm.
(2) The Romans have been defeated
(3) in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph

Dr. Ghali

(4) Within several years. To Allah belongs the Command ever before and ever after, and upon that day the believers will exult.

Dr. Mustafa Khattab

(5) at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful.
(6) ˹This is˺ the promise of Allah. ˹And˺ Allah never fails in His promise. But most people do not know.
(7) They ˹only˺ know the worldly affairs of this life, but are ˹totally˺ oblivious to the Hereafter.

Verse "2" specified the Romans by the name: الروم. That is utterly important; actually the prophecy it made in verse "3" did come true. The Romans might lost their empire, but their empire did triumph, and today we see their shadow everywhere; America; Europe; Asia and Africa.

I'm happy that the Roman civilization triumphed. I mean we saw what other civilizations do to Muslims and believers in God. The Roman-style allowed for fair elections, allowed for multi-cultural world; allowed for respect to the law -which Rome did-.

Let us not forget how China burned our books; while Britain kept the oldest Quran in its museums.

The ethic that sees Multi-cultural as a desirable thing is a modern concept certainly not inherited from Rome.   If anything, it was created on an ad Hoc basis to better attract old world population from where ever it can get it to more quickly exploit the land the successors of romans had taken from the native Americans.   

 The fact that “multi-culturalness” of the old world managed to exist through the period when the world had been dominated by the west, the putative successor of Rome, the survival was not because of any influence of the heritage of Rome, but because the West was beset by internal strife, and had insufficient population needing to emigrate,  to be able brush aside other long established and populous cultures of the old world, such as those of India, China, and your own, and not because of any value any in the western world placed on “multi-cultural” because of Rome.  You might say that a multi-cultural world exists because Rome fell and therefore the west was divided. 

If Rome had not fallen but had instead retained its internal dynamism and cohesion and continued its expansion, the old world today would very likely be a mono-culture roman world in which Islamic civilization certainly would not exist, or perhaps a bipolar world with Roman culture dominating the western half of euroasia and Chinese culture dominating the eastern half, again in which no Islamic civilization is likely to exist.   So if Rome had Prospered, there would not none of your books in any hallowed museums.   There would be none of you, so to speak. 

To see how multi-cultural the legacy of the Rome permitted when it it had a population advantage and it was within its power to do brush aside other cultures, look at how well the indigenous cultures of north and South America, and Australia flourished under the successors of Rome.

Yes, Chinese government today is much more likely to take a lethal view of dissension, political, social or religious, than the leading western powers.  But that is a transient phenomenon when seen over thousands-year life span of major cultures.  If we were to go back back a fraction of that span, we would find leading western powers to viciously more intolerant of political, social and religious than the Chinese now, or then.    Crusades and inquisition sound familiar?