Roman Prophecy Debunked

 One way in which muslims try to prove the Quran is from God is with the Roman Prophecy, which the author of the Quran makes. It is argued that knowledge of the unseen is with God and him alone; therefore, if the Quran makes correct prophecies, such as the Roman Prophecy, then the Quran is from God. This article will demonstrate that the “Roman Prophecy” is not a genuine prophecy and does not provide a sound basis for attributing the Quran to God.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Introduction:

Many muslim apologists will point to Surah 30 (Surah Ar-Rum) to prove that this is the miracle of the Quran and that it is from God. The Quran states:

غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ

فِىٓ أَدْنَى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ

فِى بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ۗ لِلَّهِ ٱلْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِنۢ بَعْدُ ۚ وَيَوْمَئِذٍۢ يَفْرَحُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ

بِنَصْرِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ يَنصُرُ مَن يَشَآءُ ۖ وَهُوَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ

The Romans have been defeated

In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious

Within ten years — Allah’s is the command in the former case and in the latter — and in that day, believers will rejoice

In Allah’s help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.¹

What Muslim Apologists will interpret this as proof that Muhammad made a prophecy of the future, something bold and risky, which, if Muhammad was a liar or a deceiver and was not a true prophet, would not make as it is could fail, and they would be found out to be a false prophet.

While this sounds very convincing on the surface, once you have looked into the evidence and put this prophecy under a magnifying glass, it is clear that it is not proof for Islam or the Quran to be from God at all.

This article will now go through 5 main sections, which are

What is a prophecy

Manuscript Variants

Hadiths

Parallels to the Roman Prophecy

Quranic Exegesis

Concluding that the best explanation is that the “Roman Prophecy” is not a true prophecy at all, but there is a clear naturalistic explanation which is more probable and more parsimonious.

What is a prophecy:

The first point which needs to be done is to define prophecy, so when looking at the definition of what a prophecy is, then once we understand the definition of what a prophecy is, compare it to the “Roman Prophecy” to see if it meets the definition.

First, the etymology, when it comes to prophecy, is, seeing the connection of prophecy with προφάναι to speak on behalf of someone, to speak as representing another, the threefold gradation of prophecy can be expressed as follows. Prophecy in the broad sense is to speak in the name of God or by a divine instinct, “And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”² and, “Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy.”³ However, because things said by a divine instinct are especially naturally hidden from human reason, prophecy therefore understood in a stricter sense is the communication of divine hidden things, be they in the past, present, or future (Matt 24:8). Finally, because future contingents are most hidden, therefore, the strictest sense of the term prophecy is the announcing of these future things.

Second, it is important to understand what the term prophecy means as it has a specific sense, since it is distinguished from discernment of spirits, from interpretation of words, and the other freely given graces enumerated as St Paul teaches, “To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.”⁴ This is also taught later within the same work where it says, “But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?”⁵ Within this case, it signifies divinely given foreknowledge and the preaching of future events. In this way, it is distinguished from merely natural conjecture concerning the future, as well as from divination, which is attributed not to God but to demons.

Third, according to the First Vatican Council, prophecies are

“Quamvis enim fidei assensus nequaquam sit motus animi caecus, nemo tamen evangelicae praedicationi consentire potest sine illustratione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat omnibus suavitatem in consentiendo et credendo veritati. Ut autem fidei obsequium rationi consentaneum esset, Deus voluit externis revelationis suae factis, praesertim miraculis et prophetiis, quae cum Dei omnipotentiam et infinitam scientiam luculentissime demonstrent, divinae revelationis signa certissima atque omnium intelligentiae accommodata sint.”

“Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faith might be in harmony with reason, God willed that external proofs of His revelation, namely divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies, should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit; since these manifestly display the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, they are the most certain signs of divine revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.”⁶

This notion is grounded in the words of the prophets. Hence, according to the Church, prophecy is a supernatural fact that can come only from God and displays his infinite knowledge. It proceeds from God’s miraculous intervention in the world, though it differs from miracles properly so-called since prophecy pertains not directly to the sensible order but, rather, to the intellectual order, even if it ought to be sensibly manifested so that it may become a sign of the divine origin of religion.

Therefore, the term prophecy is taken to mean the foretelling of future events, in accord with these words of Isaiah, “shew the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods. Do ye also good or evil, if you can: and let us speak, and see together.”⁷

Fourth, we must consider the fact that, given that prophecy is concerned with those things that are distant from our knowledge, the more remote things are from our knowledge, the more they pertain to prophecy. There are three degrees of such phenomena.

The first such degree includes things that are distant from some particular man’s knowledge, whether sensitive or intellective, but not from the knowledge of all men. Thus, by his senses, a particular man knows things that are present to him as regards their place, though another man does not know of them by human sense, given the fact that they are removed from him. Thus, Elisha prophetically knew what his disciple Giezi had done in his absence, “But he said: Was not my heart present, when the man turned back from his chariot to meet thee? So now thou hast received money, and received garments, to buy oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants.”⁸ Similarly, one man’s secret thoughts of the heart are prophetically manifested to another, according to 1 Corinthians, “The secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling down on his face, he will adore God, affirming that God is among you indeed.”⁹ Likewise, in this way, what one man knows by way of demonstration may be revealed to another prophetically. However, properly and strictly speaking, a future contingent is that which, of its very nature, is indifferent to being and non-being, as are things that depend upon free choice of the will. Now, the object of prophecy, strictly so-called, is that which is a future contingent, properly speaking. It must be noted, though, that a properly contingent future thing is either absolute or conditioned. It is absolute when it does not depend upon any condition, except perhaps upon a condition that will take place, like Peter’s conversion if Christ were to look upon him. It is conditioned when it depends upon a condition that will not take place, like the conversion of Tyre and Sidon if the Gospel were announced to them and we will say, when we discuss the division of prophecy, that prophecy can be either concerned with an absolute future contingent and then it is called prophecy of foreknowledge or of predestination or with a conditioned future contingent and then it is called prophecy of denunciation.

Therefore, when looking at the “Roman Prophecy”, it is clear that it does not meet the definition of a prophecy as,

We are not told who defeated them

When they were defeated

Where they were defeated

Is the phrase a land close by directed towards the Muslims or the Romans?

Is it Pre-Hijrah or post-Hijrah?

Stating that it is in a few years is more of a guess than an actual prophecy

Manuscript Variants:

The second point concerns Manuscript Variants, which, through textual criticism, indicate that it is not a prophecy and that it was added later to substantiate the Quran’s divine origin.

First, with diacritical marks, the verse can be read in two ways: “The Romans have defeated” or “The Romans have been defeated”. Without the dotted marks, this verse could be read in two ways. As this shows, if the diacritical marks are different, then it would change the meaning of the verse dramatically, as Adam J. Silverstein says,

Clearly, the meaning of the verses changes dramatically based on which reading one opts for: In the former case (passive–active), the Byzantines will eventually emerge victorious; in the latter case, despite their early triumphs, the Byzantines will eventually be defeated (by the Muslim armies)¹⁰

Second, there is a variant reading that inverts the claims made in Q30:2–4. It is attested as a secondary reading in manuscripts with some frequency.

The canonical reading:

ġulibat-i r-rūmu … sa-yaġlibūna — “The Romans have been defeated … and they will overcome!”

The non-canonical reading:

ġalabat-i r-rūmu … sa-yuġlabūna — “The Romans have won … and they will be defeated!”

The second reading is less attested to than the first one, and this is likely due to how the muslims want to preserve orthodoxy and try to show that the Quran is a miracle rather than being the original reading. The commentators would have had much more interest in accepting and transmitting the canonical reading because this reading puts vv. 2‒3 in a framework in which the Qurʾān’s prophet foretells events easily identifiable with the eventual victory of the Believers over the Byzantines, as Shoemaker points out.

“The later commentary tradition certainly remembers the fulfillment of this prophecy as having convinced many of the truth of Muḥammad’s message”¹¹

Further variants also occur; Qurṭubī and Qummī acknowledged two additional minor variations.

3. ġalabat al-Rūm … sa-yaġlibūna, “the Romans have vanquished … they will win”;

4. ġulibat al-Rūm … sa-yuġlabūna, “the Romans have been vanquished … they will be vanquished¹²

Within these two further readings, it is clear that the verb ġalaba is always understood in either its active or passive form. As a consequence, the scenario points to either a complete victory or a total defeat of the Romans. The abrupt change in the outcome of the conflict in #1 and #2 is completely absent in #3 and #4. Very different meanings can be extrapolated from the opening verses of sūrat al-Rūm, depending on the qirāʾa that the reader chooses to follow.

Decisive for its understanding, however, is which reading (qira’at) of the Quranic wording one favours at two neuralgic points. In the preceding translation, the passive (ġulibat, “were defeated”) was presupposed for the first verb in verse 2, and the active (sa-yaġlibūn, “they will conquer”)

for the second verb in verse 3. In traditional exegesis, a further reading is transmitted, in which the first verb is translated as active (ġalabat, “they have conquered”) and the second verb as passive (sa-yuġlabūn, “they will be defeated” )¹³.

Therefore, if we don’t take the canonical reading of the verse, then it shows that there is no longer a pro-Byzantine, but an anti-Byzantine, as Nadia Maria El Cheikh states,

In this variant, the promise would no longer be pro-Byzantine, but anti-Byzantine, as the later defeat of Byzantium and the believers’ joy regarding it would be stated. In her study on the origin and reception of the respective readings.¹⁴

This means that, when we contrast the variants and recognise that Muslims seek to demonstrate that their text is from God, it is more likely that they would not accept the original but rather what would prove it to be a prophecy, which is why the canonical text has persisted.

In contrast, the pro-Byzantine reading has persisted against the later tendency as the one favored by the majority. Most recently, Tommaso Tesei has brought further religio-historical arguments for the pro-Byzantine reading of the Quranic wording into play.¹⁵

Finally, Qurʾān manuscripts began to include vowel diacritical marks in the course of the second Islamic century. This alternative reading, which reverses the entire story, is still frequently added to manuscripts, though always as a secondary reading in green or yellow ink, as demonstrated below.

What shouldn’t be done is to know the original reading is to go to, he social history of Mecca and Medina on the basis of an interpretation formulated hundreds of years later that rests on the assumption that a prophecy was in fact fulfilled.

This raises questions: what exactly is this verse about? Is it really a prophecy at all? If so, did the Quran get it right or wrong? That seems to depend on the variant you choose. If a “prophecy” can be interpreted in opposite ways, then is there any real risk in making the prophecy? If the Romans win, it’s interpreted that way; if the Persians win, it can be interpreted that way instead. The only possible way you’re wrong is if it takes more than “a couple of years,” or possibly a year.

What this shows is the likely outcome is that the golden marks, which are added later is not the orginal and what is done later but the msulims as Muhammad did not want to add something to the Quran that he did not know, as the Quran teaches, he did not know the future, so to give it divine origin, Muslims, as they were competing with Christians, decided to add these verses.

Quite possibly then, these verses were added to the Qurʾān only sometime after Muḥammad’s death, as the Muslims found themselves increasingly in competition with Christianity. In this context, such a tradition may have been invented in order to have Muḥammad successfully predict future world events, as Jesus, for instance, had predicted the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44, 21:5–24).¹⁶

Hadiths:

The third point to consider is that, even if there is no issue with the manuscript variants it still fails to be a prophecy, and this is because there are many hadiths which teach that the verses were revealed after the prophecy had happened, which shows that the verse should not be read as a future event; likewise, it shows that the prophecy did not happen.

حَدَّثَنَا نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْجَهْضَمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا الْمُعْتَمِرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم *غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏:‏ ‏(‏يفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفَرِحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ كَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ‏:‏ ‏(‏غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ ‏.‏

Abu Sa’eed narrated: “On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, up to His saying: ‘the believers will rejoice — with the help of Allah… (30:1–5)’” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians.”¹⁷

The second hadith that also teaches this is also within Tirmidhi, which says,

حَدَّثَنَا نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْجَهْضَمِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الْمُعْتَمِرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏(‏يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفْرَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ‏.‏ وَيُقْرَأُ غَلَبَتْ وَغُلِبَتْ يَقُولُ كَانَتْ غُلِبَتْ ثُمَّ غَلَبَتْ هَكَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ غَلَبَتْ ‏.‏

“On the Day of (the battle of) Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated…” up to His saying: ‘…the believers will rejoice. (30:1–4)” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians.¹⁸

Likewise, there is a third hadith which also says the same thing,

حَدَّثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ الْفَزَارِيِّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ * فِي أَدْنَى الأَرْضِ ‏)‏ قَالَ غُلِبَتْ وَغَلَبَتْ كَانَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يَظْهَرَ أَهْلُ فَارِسَ عَلَى الرُّومِ لأَنَّهُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ أَهْلُ أَوْثَانٍ وَكَانَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يَظْهَرَ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ لأَنَّهُمْ أَهْلُ كِتَابٍ فَذَكَرُوهُ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ فَذَكَرَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ أَمَا إِنَّهُمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَذَكَرَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ لَهُمْ فَقَالُوا اجْعَلْ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكَ أَجَلاً فَإِنْ ظَهَرْنَا كَانَ لَنَا كَذَا وَكَذَا وَإِنْ ظَهَرْتُمْ كَانَ لَكُمْ كَذَا وَكَذَا فَجَعَلَ أَجَلَ خَمْسِ سِنِينَ فَلَمْ يَظْهَرُوا فَذَكَرُوا ذَلِكَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏”‏ أَلاَ جَعَلْتَهُ إِلَى دُونِ — قَالَ أُرَاهُ الْعَشْرِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ سَعِيدٌ وَالْبِضْعُ مَا دُونَ الْعَشْرِ قَالَ ثُمَّ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ بَعْدُ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏:‏ ‏(‏يفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ‏)‏ قَالَ سُفْيَانُ سَمِعْتُ أَنَّهُمْ ظَهَرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ إِنَّمَا نَعْرِفُهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ ‏.‏

from Ibn ‘Abbas, regarding the saying of Allah, Most High: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (30:1–3)” he said: “Ghulibat wa Ghalabat (defeated and then victorious).” He said: “The idolaters wanted the Persians to be victorious over the Romans because they too were people who worshiped idols, while the Muslims wanted the Romans to be victorious over the Persians because they were people of the Book. This was mentioned to Abu Bakr, so Abu Bakr mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and he said: ‘They will certainly prevail.’ Abu Bakr mentioned that to them, and they said: ‘Make a wager between us and you; if we win, we shall get this and that, and if you win, you shall get this or that.’ He made the term five years, but they (the Romans) were not victorious. They mentioned that to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he said: “Why did you not make it less (than)” — He (one of the narrators said): I think he said: “ten?” He said: Sa’eed said: “Al-Bid’ is what is less than then” — he said: “Afterwards the Romans have been victorious.” He said: “That is what Allah Most High said: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated’ up to His saying: ‘And on the day, the believers will rejoice — with the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills (30:1–5).’ Sufyan said: “I heard that they were victorious over them on the Day of Badr.”¹⁹

Muslims may appeal to a hadith that purports to place the prophecy as having first been revealed in Mecca before the event occurred to prove it is a miracle.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ، حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ نِيَارِ بْنِ مُكْرَمٍ الأَسْلَمِيِّ، قَالَ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ * فِي أَدْنَى الأَرْضِ وَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ * فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ‏)‏ فَكَانَتْ فَارِسُ يَوْمَ نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ قَاهِرِينَ لِلرُّومِ وَكَانَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ يُحِبُّونَ ظُهُورَ الرُّومِ عَلَيْهِمْ لأَنَّهُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ أَهْلُ كِتَابٍ وَفِي ذَلِكَ قَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ‏:‏ ‏(‏يوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ ‏)‏ فَكَانَتْ قُرَيْشٌ تُحِبُّ ظُهُورَ فَارِسَ لأَنَّهُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ لَيْسُوا بِأَهْلِ كِتَابٍ وَلاَ إِيمَانٍ بِبَعْثٍ فَلَمَّا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى هَذِهِ الآيَةَ خَرَجَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رضى الله عنه يَصِيحُ فِي نَوَاحِي مَكَّةَ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ * فِي أَدْنَى الأَرْضِ وَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ * فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ‏)‏ قَالَ نَاسٌ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ فَذَلِكَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ زَعَمَ صَاحِبُكُمْ أَنَّ الرُّومَ سَتَغْلِبُ فَارِسًا فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ أَفَلاَ نُرَاهِنُكَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ قَالَ بَلَى ‏.‏ وَذَلِكَ قَبْلَ تَحْرِيمِ الرِّهَانِ فَارْتَهَنَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَالْمُشْرِكُونَ وَتَوَاضَعُوا الرِّهَانَ وَقَالُوا لأَبِي بَكْرٍ كَمْ تَجْعَلُ الْبِضْعُ ثَلاَثُ سِنِينَ إِلَى تِسْعِ سِنِينَ فَسَمِّ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكَ وَسَطًا تَنْتَهِي إِلَيْهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَسَمَّوْا بَيْنَهُمْ سِتَّ سِنِينَ قَالَ فَمَضَتِ السِّتُّ سِنِينَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَظْهَرُوا فَأَخَذَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ رَهْنَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلَمَّا دَخَلَتِ السَّنَةُ السَّابِعَةُ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَعَابَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ تَسْمِيَةَ سِتِّ سِنِينَ لأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى قَالَ ‏:‏ ‏(‏في بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ‏)‏ قَالَ وَأَسْلَمَ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ نَاسٌ كَثِيرٌ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ حَدِيثِ نِيَارِ بْنِ مُكْرَمٍ لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ ‏.‏

“When (the following) was revealed: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious in Bid’ years (30:1–4).’ — on the day that these Ayat were revealed, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and the Muslims had wanted the Romans to be victorious over them, because they were the people of the Book. So Allah said about that: ‘And on that day, the believers will rejoice — with the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills, and He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful (30:4 & 5). The Quraish wanted the Persians to be victorious since they were not people of the Book, nor did they believe in the Resurrection. So when Allah revealed these Ayat, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, went out, proclaiming throughout Makkah: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious, in Bid’ years (30:1–4).’ Some of the Quraish said: ‘Then this is (a bet) between us and you. Your companion claims that the Romans will defeat the Persians in Bid’ years, so why have have a bet on that between us and you?’ Abu Bakr said: ‘Yes.’ This was before betting has been forbidden. So Abu Bakr and the idolaters made a bet, and they said to Abu Bakr: ‘What do you think — Bid’ means something between three and nine years, so let us agree on the middle.’ So they agreed on six years; Then six years passed without the Romans being victorious. The idolaters took what they won in the bet from Abu Bakr. When the seventh year came and the Romans were finally victorious over the Persians, the Muslims rebuked Abu Bakr for agreeing to six years. He said: ‘Because Allah said: ‘In Bid’ years.’ At that time, many people became Muslims.”²⁰

The issue is as follows: first, we can determine from this hadith that the Byzantine victory occurred on the day of Badr (624AD), and that the “Qur’anic prophecy” came seven years earlier, in 617AD. But these dates don’t line up with what happened, as within five years of 617, the muslims would flee to Medina. This raises the question of how Abu Bukar is being depicted as being in Mecca in the year six (623 AD) to pay the wager. Further examination of the hadith reveals no mention of the hijra; it also implies that the Muslims remain in Mecca in the seventh year.

Another point to consider is that, if we assume the Roman victory occurred not in Mecca but in Medina around the time of the Battle of Badr, as Muslim apologists might claim. There is still no tradition indicating that Muhammad presented this miracle as proof of his prophethood to either the Jews of Medina or the Meccan pagans. Aside from this version of the tradition involving Abu Bakr, there is no other evidence that the Meccan pagans converted to Islam in large numbers following the fulfilment of this prophecy. In fact, during the Medinan period, fewer than ten Jews converted to Islam.

حَدَّثَنَا مُسْلِمُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنَا قُرَّةُ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لَوْ آمَنَ بِي عَشَرَةٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ لآمَنَ بِي الْيَهُودُ ‏”‏‏.‏

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Had only ten Jews (amongst their chiefs) believed me, all the Jews would definitely have believed me.”²¹

Likewise, this is repeated in other hadiths that state the same, but this would not be expected if they recognised it as a miracle.

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَبِيبٍ الْحَارِثِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا قُرَّةُ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لَوْ تَابَعَنِي عَشْرَةٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ لَمْ يَبْقَ عَلَى ظَهْرِهَا يَهُودِيٌّ إِلاَّ أَسْلَمَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

If ten scholars of the Jews would follow me, no Jew would be left upon the surface of the earth who would not embrace Islam.²²

Parallels To The Roman Prophecy:

The fourth point to bring up is that, let's say there is no issue with the variants, the verses were revealed before the event had happened, it would still not meet the definition of a prophecy, and this is because, around the time of Muhammad, there were also Similar Prophecies which were circulating around the time.

Talmud,

In the Talmud, the rabbis also speak of this event, so either they received revelation, or this is not unknown knowledge of the future; this also shows that it does not meet the definition of prophecy above.

R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Rabbi said: Rome is designed to fall into the hand of Persia, as it was said: Therefore hear ye the counsel of the Lord, that He hath taken against Edom; and His purposes that He hath purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: surely the least of the flock shall drag them away, surely their habitation shall be appalled to them.²³

2. Silver Coin,

Get Gloria Veritatis’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Enter your email

Subscribe

Remember me for faster sign in

There is a silver coin minted by Heraclius that also bears a prophecy of the Roman event; thus, if Muslim apologists want to claim this is a miracle, they will have to explain why it was minted on coins before the event.

A silver coin minted by Heraclius from 615 onwards — after the loss of Jerusalem in 614 — contains on one side the image of Heraclius and his son and on the other side — next to a cross on a globe and a three-stepped base — the inscription: “Deus adiuta Romanis” (“God, help the Romans”)²⁴

The Quranic emphasis on the “Help of God” has the same impetus as the coin inscription: “God, help the Romans” (Deus adiuta Romanis). The coin minted in 615 had a propagandistic function, in light of the heavy setbacks in the fight against the Sassanids, to remind the public of the Help of God and to mobilise support for a conclusive victory of Byzantium over the Sassanids. The same function is also fulfilled by the Quranic promise: the early Muslim community is assured that their monotheistic brethren in faith will ultimately prevail. That the community of the Prophet saw itself rather on the side of their monotheistic brethren in faith is also evidenced by the interpretation in the exegesis, that the Meccans equated the Prophet and his followers with the Byzantines and understood the victory of the Sassanids as a victory of their own pagan faith over monotheism

Kaegi already places the minted coin and the Quranic prophecy in connection with the unrest that had arisen after the severe defeats against the Sassanids.²⁵

He refers to sources from the seventh century (Chronicle of Theophylact Simocatta, Syriac Alexander Legend, Sefer Elija), which each contain a pro-Byzantine promise of the ultimate victory of the Byzantines over the Sassanids and, in doing so, strongly remind one of the Quranic wording.²⁶

3. History of Maurice,

Composed by Theophylact Simocatta during the reign of Heraclius, the author reports a prophecy attributed to the Sasanian sovereign Khosrow II. The scene takes place before the outbreak of the Byzantine-Sasanian conflict when, after being dethroned by the usurper Vahram, Khosrow fled to Byzantine territory. Theophylact’s report reads as follows:

But I will not overlook what Chosroes, who was well versed in the burdensome folly of the Chaldaeans concerning the stars, is said to have prophesied at the height of the war. For when the renowned John, the general of the Armenian force, jeered at him on account of his lack of order, and said that it was wrong for a king to be perverse in his ways and outlandish in the impulses of his heart, they say that the barbarian said to the general: If we were not subject to the tyranny of the occasion, you would not have dared, general, to strike with insults the king who is great among mortals. But since you are proud in present circumstances, you shall hear what indeed the gods have provided for the future. Be assured that troubles will flow back in turn against you Romans. The Babylonian race will hold the Roman state in its power for a threefold cyclic hebdomad of years. Thereafter you Romans will enslave Persians for a fifth hebdomad of years. When these very things have been accomplished, the day without evening will dwell among mortals and the expected fate will achieve power, when the forces of destruction will be handed over to dissolution and those of the better life hold sway.²⁷

The events foretold by Khosrow in this passage concern the conflict between the Byzantines and Persians that would occur immediately after the prophecy was uttered. In fact, there are few doubts that the description of the initial fortune of the “Babylonian race”, later overturned by the Roman power, refers to the evolution of the Byzantine-Sasanian war

4. Another prophecy,

The conflict between the two empires occurs in a Syriac apocalypse attributed to Ephrem that was in fact composed around the early 7th century, among the events predicted to take place in the future, Ps.-Ephrem alludes to the war between Romans and Persians:

And the Assyrians will gain authority over the region of the Romans […] But just as the Nile, the river of Egypt recedes again from what it flooded; so too will Assyria recede Back to their own country. For the Romans, once again will be found In their ancestral land. Then evil will increase on the earth.²⁸

5. In addition to Christian authors,

Several 7th-century Jewish sources refer to the Byzantine-Sasanian conflict. In the Jewish apocalyptic work Sefer Elijah, we read, in connection with the events that the angel Michael reveals to Elijah at Mount Carmel:

The last king who rules Persia shall come up against the Romans three successive years until he expands (his gains) against them for twelve months. Three mighty warriors will come up to oppose him from the west, but they will be handed over into his control. Then the lowliest of the kings, the son of a slave woman and whose name is Gīgīt, will confront him from the west […] At that time he will attack the faithful people, and he will provoke at that time three agitations […] On the twentieth (day) of Nisan, a king shall come up from the west, ravaging and horrifying the world. He shall encroach upon “the holy beautiful mountain” (Dan 11:45) and burn it. Most cursed among women is the woman who gave birth to him: that is “the horn” that Daniel foresaw, and that day will be one of torment and battle against Israel.²⁹

The last king of Persia appears as the last member of the Sasanian dynasty, which is destined to collapse soon after the conflict ends. The author of Sefer Elijah appears to confuse, or perhaps conflate, the Sasanian ruler Kavad II and Khosrow II. In addition to identifying the last king of Persia, the prophecy contains references to the actual conflict. The precarious opposition to the Persians by the three (enigmatic) mighty warriors echoes the initial crisis of the Byzantines. The prophecies mentioned show a clear resemblance to the prophecy in Q 30:2‒6. To fully appreciate these resemblances, we must first analyse the cultural and historical contexts in which these Christian and Jewish texts were produced.

In this context, it is easy to imagine how the prophecy on the Rūm in Q 30 may have entered the Qurʾānic corpus. As the proto-Muslim community started its expansion in the imperial Middle Eastern territories, it was joined by Arabs who had been in direct contact with the Byzantine world. Of course, predictions on the Byzantine-Sasanian may have reached the Ḥiǧāz. However, given that Q 30:2‒7 could only have been formulated after 628, just a few years before the first reported Arab raids in the Palestinian province, it is easier to assume that the transmission took place when the proto-Islamic community reached the environment where the other prophecies on the conflict were produced.³⁰

The main purpose of the author of the Neṣḥānā is to predict the glorious future of the Byzantine Empire. This task is achieved by two prophecies, attributed respectively to Alexander and to Tūbarlaq, king of the Persians and an avatar of Darius III. This second prophecy is particularly important because it relates to the event reported by Theophylact Simocatta. The prophecy is reported at the end of the Neṣḥānā, after the account of Alexander’s victory over the king of Persia. Here, Tūbarlaq gives Alexander a written version of the divination articulated by his astrologers

According to this prognostication, “Persia should be laid waste by the hand of the Romans, and all the kingdoms be laid waste, but that power should stand and rule to the end of time, and should deliver the kingdom to the Messiah who is to come.³¹

The views opposed to those exposed in Sefer Elijah are found in the prophecy attributed to Khosraw II, as reported in Theophylact Simocatta’s History of Maurice. The prophecy is presented as an admonishment on the unpredictability of fate, addressed by the overthrown shah to a Roman general who mocks him. However, the account undoubtedly bears a second, more important implication. Putting a prophecy about the final outcome of a war-to-come in the mouth of the one who will later figure as the opponent of the Byzantines in this conflict means making him foretell, and implicitly admit, his eventual defeat by the latter

Previous scholarship has not failed to notice the propagandistic agenda underlining Khosraw’s prophecy.³²

In both cases, a prognostication about the future of the Greco-Roman Empire is uttered by the Persian archenemy, who is destined to succumb. It is not improbable that the author of the Neṣḥānā knew pseudo-prophetic material of the kind reported by Theophylact Simocatta. We can imagine that he used a similar prophecy in which Darius III/Tūbarlaq anticipated his successor, Khosrow II, by foretelling the outcome of the conflict between his dynasty and Alexander’s.

Stoyanov rightly observes that these apocalyptic prophecies forged in Byzantine wartime propaganda inevitably develop the scenario of a Roman victory, setting the stage for the advent of the eternal kingdom of Christ.³³

Quranic Exegesis:

Now that we have repeatedly shown that “Roman Prophecy” is not a genuine prophecy due to numerous issues, it is more parsimonious and better explained as not of divine origin. Taking all of this into account, we can finally interpret what the verses in Surah Ar-Rum are talking about.

30:2 The Romans have been defeated

In the opening verses of Surah Ar-Rum, the canonical reading (ġulibat al-Rūm … sa-yaġlibūna) indicates that the Romans' defeat and victory over their unnamed enemy closely parallels the dynamic described in other 7th-century texts. prophecies.

The parallelism is especially close to Khosrow’s prophecy in the History of Maurice.³⁴

The Apocalypse of Ps.-Ephrem, where the alternation of Roman defeat and victory is exposed as clearly as in the Qurʾānic passage. These parallels suggest that the canonical reading should be regarded as the original reading and that the prophecy in Surah Ar-Rum addresses the conflict with the Sasanians.

Furthermore, within the case of verses 2 and 3 in Surah Ar-Rum, the commentators transmitted two main readings, the canonical reading ( ġulibat al-Rūm … sa-yaġlibūna, “the Romans have been vanquished … they will vanquish” ) and the non-canonical reading ( ġalabat al-Rūm … sa-yuġlabūna, “the Romans have vanquished … they will be vanquished” )

However, if one follows the non-canonical reading of verses 2 and 3, it refers to the struggles between a Byzantine army and members of the proto-Muslim community in the “Roman” Middle East at an indeterminate time. In this case, the opening sentence “the Romans have vanquished” refers to an armed engagement between Byzantines and proto-Muslims, in which the Byzantines were victorious. The commentaries, the alternatives of defeat/victory or victory/defeat, are explained as involving either the Sasanians and the Romans or the Believers and the Romans.

30:3 In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious

The Romans’ victory in verses 2-3 should be noted, as the prophecies studied here employ the vaticinium ex eventu, as is typical in apocalyptic texts. This literary device accurately attributes recent events to an authoritative historical figure in the present cases of Elijah, Ephrem, and Khosrow II. When the present is projected into the past, it becomes the future, and whoever can predict the future becomes a seer, a visionary, a prophet and hence, a person whose words should be listened to. By using a vaticinium ex eventu, an author improves his own prophetical authority or better, the authority under whose name he writes. Once he has gained the reader’s confidence in his prophetic credentials, he formulates a “genuine” prediction about the “real” future, thereby expressing his own expectations. One may reasonably believe, as in the other prophecies, that the prophecy in the Qurʾān represents a vaticinium ex eventu and that verses 2-3 of Surah Ar-Rum were formulated to enhance the author's prophetic authority in the eyes of the readers/listeners.

It is easy to imagine that these Arab fighters would have had a direct knowledge of ideological and propagandistic prophecies relating to the conflict.³⁵

30:4 Within ten years — Allah’s is the command in the former case and in the latter — and in that day, believers will rejoice

The “Roman prophecy” followed that after the Roman victory, the end would come. Thus, in verse 4, the Quran states that after the Roman victory, the “believers will rejoice,” as God would now bring about the end of the world. The Qur’an itself contains several “prophecies” about how the hour is near, the end is coming very soon, and so forth. ( Qur’an 20:15, 33:63; 54:1; 78:40). This language can be seen to be taken from the Gospels, e.g. Luke 21:28; John 5:25. To simply add the details, some hadith try to establish prophecies for when the end of the world will come (e.g. Sahih al-Bukhari 50) while others go further and paint it as a very near event (Sahih Muslim 2953a-c, 2984, 2538).

From this perspective, verses 4-7, like other contemporary prophecies, the Qurʾānic passage situates the conflict involving the Romans within an apocalyptic framework. In fact, the claims at v. 4, “God is in command, first and last”. With this notion in mind, a question must be asked whether “that day” in Surah Ar-Rum refers to the Romans’ victory. In fact, the display of joy by the Believers refers not to Roman success in the war, but to the Judgment whose appointment, as in other contemporary texts, is believed to follow the end of the conflict. If so, then the “prophecy” is claiming the unavoidable realisation of God’s plan for human salvation, and not about the Byzantine military triumph. In that case, the function of the opening of the Surah, which is verses 2 to 3, is not to magnify the Roman success in the war, but rather to acquire prophetical authority by predicting an event “destined to happen” ‒ a function that coincides with the parallel vaticinia ex eventu on the Byzantine-Sasanian conflict used in contemporary prophecies.

30:5 In Allah’s help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.

Within verse 5, “God helps whoever He pleases”, suggests that the victory of the Rūm is in accordance with God’s wish and is part of the project. That the Qurʾān here is addressing sacred history is confirmed by the temporal expression at verse 4 and on that day, which, in the Qurʾān, refers to the Day of the Judgment. An imperial-eschatological and apocalyptic interpretation of Q 30:2–7 has also been proposed by Shoemaker, following Tesei:

“In such a way, this Byzantine wartime propaganda quickly reached Muhammad’s followers and was adapted into a new version that replaced Rome’s unique eschatological mission with simple conviction that the eschaton was imminent. Thus, according to such an eschatological reading, the Qur’ān’s reference to these events should perhaps be translated instead as follows: ‘The Romans have been defeated in the nearest (part) of the land [the Holy Land]. But after their defeat, they will triumph in a few years. The reign of God is before and after, and on the Last day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. The Promise of God!’”³⁶

Later Muslim exegetes also noticed this. They subsequently constructed a narrative around it to explain the verse. But those exegetes wrote hundreds of years after the composition of these verses. There is no good reason to assume their interpretation is correct. The exegetes reasoned that the Byzantines were Christians, so they at least believed in one God, like Muḥammad and his followers. The Sassanids, by contrast, were polytheists like the much-detested polytheists in the Qurʾān. Thus, the Qurʾān sides with the monotheists against the polytheists. Verse 5 should be read in dependence on the preceding verse: “And on that day the believers will rejoice at the help of God, He helps whom He wills. He is the Mighty and Merciful.”

In contrast, the contextualization with the monotheistic invocation formulas from South Arabia suggests that the preposition bi is used here to introduce the invocation of God’s help. The rejoicing of the believers on that day, on the other hand, refers to the victory already assured in verses 3 and 4 assured the later victory of the Byzantines, so that the following translation for Q 30:2-6 results:

2 Defeated are the Byzantines 3 in the nearby land. But they will triumph again after their defeat, 4 in a few years! With God lies the decision, before and after. And on that day, the believers will rejoice. 5 With the help of God! He helps whom He wills. He is the Mighty and Merciful. 6 The promise of God! God does not break His promise! But most people have no knowledge!

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence presented above, the best explanation of Surah Ar-Rum is not that it contains a prophecy yet to be fulfilled, and that the author of the Quran had knowledge of the unseen. But rather a naturalistic explanation of the event, which can be seen by the parallels of the prophecy, the manuscript variants, and likewise the date that the verse was revealed.

References:

[1] Quran 30:2–5 M. Pickthall Translation

[2] Exodus 7:1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[3] 1 Corinthians 14:1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[4] 1 Corinthians 12:10 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[5] 1 Corinthians 14:6 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[6] Vatican I Dei Filius, Chapter 3

[7] Isaiah 41:23 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[8] 2 Kings 5:26 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[9] 1 Corinthians 14:25 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Translation

[10] Q 30: 2‒5 in Near Eastern Context by Adam J. Silverstein Page 12

[11] Shoemaker 2011, 154.

[12] Cf. El Cheikh 1998, 361

[13] cf. Nadia Maria El Cheikh, “Sūrat Al-Rūm: A Study of the Exegetical Literature,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 118, №3, 1998, pp. 356–364, here p. 361

[14] Cf. ibid., pp. 356–346.

[15] Cf. Tommaso Tesei, “The Romans Will Win! Q 30:2–7 in Light of 7th-century Political Eschatology.” In: Der Islam, Vol. 95, №1, pp. 1–29

[16] Shoemaker 2011, 154

[17] Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3192

[18] Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2935

[19] Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3193

[20] Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3194

[21] Sahih al-Bukhari 3941

[22] Sahih Muslim 2793

[23]The Soncino Babylonian Talmud, YOMA Book I Folios 2a-27b Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5771 Page 28

[24] Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext Eschatologie und Apokalyptik in den mittelmekkanischen Suren by Zishan Ahmad Ghaffar Page 170

[25] Cf. Walter Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, Cambridge 2000, pp. 207–210.

[26] Cf. ibid., 7–16

[27] History 15.3‒7, trans. in Whitby and Whitby 1983, 153

[28] https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/pseudo-ephrem-syriac/

[29] Trans. Reeves 2005, 33

[30] The Romans Will Win!” Q 30:2‒7 in Light of 7th c. Political Eschatology by Tommaso Tesei Page 23

[31] Trans. in Wallis-Budge 1889, 158

[32] Theophylact Simocatta 1986, 153, nn. 80, 81; Reinink 1985, 274, n. 47, 279; id. 2002, 87‒89; id. 2003, 159–160; Stoyanov 2011, 63–64.

[33] Stoyanov 2011, 63–64.

[34] Shoemaker 2014, 537‒538

[35] The Romans Will Win!” Q 30:2‒7 in Light of 7th c. Political Eschatology by Tommaso Tesei Page 21

[36] The Apocalypse of Empire: Imperial Eschatology in Late Antiquity and Early Islam by Stephen J. Shoemaker Page 153