How convincing is the Qur'an anyway? In which respects?

[Remté]

So...they think there is a prophecy about end times plus tall buildings, then go ahead and build tall buildings. That seems a somewhat strange choice.

Islam teaches that for those who are good the life to come is the goal.

I don't think it is useful to speculate why they build tall buildings. Psychologically it isn't at all unlikely that a Muslim may take this prophecy into account while planning or building such buildings. They may feel pride or attachment, but all that is practically irrelevant.

 

[Augustus]

What it means they'll land in, it means they'll come into land from sea otherwise
from air, you won't land from land to land and even the word in Arabic is
تنزل , which mean they'll be dropped from air into land.

Can it also mean dismount (from their horses)?

So who do you think those Romans who'll be landed in Dabiq, are they coming
from Turkey, of course not because their lands are in contact with Syria, which
means there's no landing, do you think the Egyptian Romans will land in North
Syria or from Jordan.

As I said to you, you need to think and not just reading the words.
There's no doubt that this army is coming from the west (Al Rum)

You are simply redefining the hadith to align with your personal prejudices.

One problem with your logic is that Rum needs to be in possession of Constantinople in order to fulfil the prophecies. As I said, you need to think and not just read the words

So after refounding Constantinople, the Byzantines will arrive in rowing boats:

Ka'b said: " In the conquest of Rome, an army will leave the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis) with an easterly wind. None of their rowing oars break and none of their ropes get cut-off, til they reach Rome. They will conquer it. It (Rome) has a tree which is mentioned in the Book of Allah ... whoever hangs his weapon or ties his horse to it is considered by Allah one of the best martyrs. Ka'b also said: "Amoria will be conquered before Nicaea , Nicaea before Constantinople, and Constantinople before Rome." (Kitab al-Fitan)

Then, not only do we have the Byzantine Empire fighting in medieval ranks, and arriving onboard dromons, we have the elite Muslim troops fighting on horseback:

Abu Huraira said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "When the Battles occur, battalions (or brigades) of the Mawali, the best among the Arabs, in terms of horses and arms. By them, Allah supports the religion (of Islam)." (Sahih Muslim)

And fighting with swords:

While the Muslims are busy distributing the spoils (booty) of war, after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will shout: 'The Anti-Christ has taken your place among your family (or in your land).' The Muslims will then come out, but will find out that it is not true. And when they arrive to Al-Sham (Damascus or Syria), he (Anti-Christ) will come out. While they (Muslims) are preparing to fight him, and drawing up their ranks, prayer time will come and then, Jesus the son of Mary will descend and lead (or join) them in prayer. When Allah's enemy (Anti-Christ) sees him (Jesus), it will dissolve just as the salt dissolves in water. If Jesus were to leave him (Anti-Christ) alone, he (Anti-Christ) would melt to death anyway, but Allah will have him (Anti-Christ) killed by his (Jesus') hand, and he (Jesus) will show the Muslims his (Anti-Christ's) blood on his (Jesus') spear." (Sahih Muslim)

Then the bedouin will fight a might horseback battle with the Romans, which is fair enough, although it seems somewhat optimistic to believe there will be an oversupply of European virgins

Abdullah ibn 'Amr talking about the third War with the Romans said:
...
So the Arabs will seek help from the bedouins, then they will march until they reach Amaq (valleys) of Antioch where the greatest of the battles will occur, until the horses are soaked in bloodup to their flanks. Allah will withhold victory from all, until the angels will say: "O Lord, will You not help Your believing slaves?" So, He will say: "Not until they have had many martyrs."

... and on that day, there will be an over-supply of virgins, and the spoils will be distributed using large scoops." (Kitab al-Fitan)

Then the Turks will invade on horseback:

Ka'b bin Alqama said: "The Turks will invade the Jazeerah (Northern Iraq) and their horses drink from the Euphrates. Allah will afflict them with the plague that kills them and none of them will survive except one man." (Kitab al-fitan)

Then "Europe" (or whoever Rum is) would need to become the majority of the World's population

Mustaurid al-Qurashi reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people. (Sahih Muslim)


Who could possibly fail to be persuaded by that?

 

[FearGod]

Can it also mean dismount (from their horses)?

I think you're kidding here or making a stupid comment.

You are simply redefining the hadith to align with your personal prejudices.

I didn't, and if I did then where exactly?

One problem with your logic is that Rum needs to be in possession of Constantinople in order to fulfil the prophecies. As I said, you need to think and not just read the words

You're absolutely wrong, fighting the westerners in Dabiq doesn't mean that
Constantinople belong to them, why not Syria belong to them as well.
actually the hadith shows that Syria is with the Muslims and the army from
Medina is to support the Muslims.against Rums invading Syria.

So after refounding Constantinople, the Byzantines will arrive in rowing boats:

Who said that?

Ka'b said: " In the conquest of Rome, an army will leave the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis) with an easterly wind. None of their rowing oars break and none of their ropes get cut-off, til they reach Rome. They will conquer it. It (Rome) has a tree which is mentioned in the Book of Allah ... whoever hangs his weapon or ties his horse to it is considered by Allah one of the best martyrs. Ka'b also said: "Amoria will be conquered before Nicaea , Nicaea before Constantinople, and Constantinople before Rome." (Kitab al-Fitan)

This hadith is Munqati, not referred to the prophet.

Then, not only do we have the Byzantine Empire fighting in medieval ranks, and arriving onboard dromons, we have the elite Muslim troops fighting on horseback:

Abu Huraira said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "When the Battles occur, battalions (or brigades) of the Mawali, the best among the Arabs, in terms of horses and arms. By them, Allah supports the religion (of Islam)." (Sahih Muslim)

It doesn't mention when such battles should occur, people had fought by horses
just before 100 years, modern weapons have been produced recently,
during the crusaders, all fights were by the sword and the horse.

And fighting with swords:

While the Muslims are busy distributing the spoils (booty) of war, after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will shout: 'The Anti-Christ has taken your place among your family (or in your land).' The Muslims will then come out, but will find out that it is not true. And when they arrive to Al-Sham (Damascus or Syria), he (Anti-Christ) will come out. While they (Muslims) are preparing to fight him, and drawing up their ranks, prayer time will come and then, Jesus the son of Mary will descend and lead (or join) them in prayer. When Allah's enemy (Anti-Christ) sees him (Jesus), it will dissolve just as the salt dissolves in water. If Jesus were to leave him (Anti-Christ) alone, he (Anti-Christ) would melt to death anyway, but Allah will have him (Anti-Christ) killed by his (Jesus') hand, and he (Jesus) will show the Muslims his (Anti-Christ's) blood on his (Jesus') spear." (Sahih Muslim)

This hadith was reported by سهيل بن أبي صالح
http://www.addyaiya.com/uin/arb/printall.aspx?type=product&productId=445

بِلاَلٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُهَيْلٌ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏

If you know arabic you'll realize from the link that this person has been badly affected
by the death of his brother and he used to forget a lot and that makes his hadith unreliable.

Then the bedouin will fight a might horseback battle with the Romans, which is fair enough, although it seems somewhat optimistic to believe there will be an oversupply of European virgins

Abdullah ibn 'Amr talking about the third War with the Romans said:
...
So the Arabs will seek help from the bedouins, then they will march until they reach Amaq (valleys) of Antioch where the greatest of the battles will occur, until the horses are soaked in bloodup to their flanks. Allah will withhold victory from all, until the angels will say: "O Lord, will You not help Your believing slaves?" So, He will say: "Not until they have had many martyrs."

... and on that day, there will be an over-supply of virgins, and the spoils will be distributed using large scoops." (Kitab al-Fitan)

Then the Turks will invade on horseback:

Ka'b bin Alqama said: "The Turks will invade the Jazeerah (Northern Iraq) and their horses drink from the Euphrates. Allah will afflict them with the plague that kills them and none of them will survive except one man." (Kitab al-fitan)

All these hadiths you mentioned weren't referred to the prophet(hadith Munqaṭi), I know you know that but you're a deceiver.

Then "Europe" (or whoever Rum is) would need to become the majority of the World's population

Mustaurid al-Qurashi reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people. (Sahih Muslim)


Who could possibly fail to be persuaded by that?

Deceiving again and you purposely didn't show the whole hadith

Mustaurid al-Qurashi reported:

I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people. 'Amr said to him (Mustaurid Qurashi): See what you are saying? He said: I say what I heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Thereupon he said: If you say that, it is a fact for they have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ اللَّيْثِ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي اللَّيْثُ، بْنُ سَعْدٍ حَدَّثَنِي مُوسَى بْنُ عُلَىٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ قَالَ الْمُسْتَوْرِدُ الْقُرَشِيُّ عِنْدَ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ وَالرُّومُ أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَمْرٌو أَبْصِرْ مَا تَقُولُ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَقُولُ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ لَئِنْ قُلْتَ ذَلِكَ إِنَّ فِيهِمْ لَخِصَالاً أَرْبَعًا إِنَّهُمْ لأَحْلَمُ النَّاسِ عِنْدَ فِتْنَةٍ وَأَسْرَعُهُمْ إِفَاقَةً بَعْدَ مُصِيبَةٍ وَأَوْشَكُهُمْ كَرَّةً بَعْدَ فَرَّةٍ وَخَيْرُهُمْ لِمِسْكِينٍ وَيَتِيمٍ وَضَعِيفٍ وَخَامِسَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ جَمِيلَةٌ وَأَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنْ ظُلْمِ الْمُلُوكِ ‏.‏

So they're majority in the sense of being much better than Muslims near the end time
and I agree with it 100%, don't you.
Indeed a deceiver.

 

[Augustus]

I think you're kidding here or making a stupid comment.

Was given as a translation by Google translate, I was asking if this is a possible usage because translate isn't always reliable.

You're absolutely wrong, fighting the westerners in Dabiq doesn't mean that
Constantinople belong to them, why not Syria belong to them as well.
actually the hadith shows that Syria is with the Muslims and the army from
Medina is to support the Muslims.against Rums invading Syria.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A'maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah's eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).

All these hadiths you mentioned weren't referred to the prophet(hadith Munqaṭi), I know you know that but you're a deceiver.

It was narrated that Al-Nawaas ibn Sam‘aan said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Muslim will use the bows, arrows and shields of Ya’jooj and Ma’jooj as firewood, for seven years.”



Also, you never answered whether it is the most logical designation to consider Arabs as being closely related to Eskimos because they are both "Asians". You said that continental identity was the best way to think of "Europeans" earlier.

So Arabs, as "Asians", are more closely related to Eskimos than they are to Egyptians or Tunisians, who as "Africans" are more closely related to Zulus.

 

[FearGod]

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A'maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah's eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).

The hadith was narrated by Suhail Bin Abi Saleh (سُهَيْلُ بنُ أبي صالح)
He was affected by the death of his brother Abad and he was talking with his
own self and his memory was badly affected as well.

I can't find in English his story but it's well documented in Arabic.

سُهَيْلُ بنُ أبي صالح:
كان ثقة، كثير الحديث، وروى عنه أهل المدينة، وأهل العراق، وروى ابن أبي ذئب وغيره من أصحابه، وقالوا: وَجَدَ سهيْل على
أخيه عبّاد وَجْدًا شديدًا حتى حدّث نفسه. توفي سهيل في خلافة أبي جعفر المنصور.
سهيل بن أبي صالح

It was narrated that Al-Nawaas ibn Sam‘aan said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Muslim will use the bows, arrows and shields of Ya’jooj and Ma’jooj as firewood, for seven years.”

I don't know in which era Yajooj and Majooj, will they be here after 100 years after 200 years
and I don't know how the world will look like at that era.

Also, you never answered whether it is the most logical designation to consider Arabs as being closely related to Eskimos because they are both "Asians". You said that continental identity was the best way to think of "Europeans" earlier.

So Arabs, as "Asians", are more closely related to Eskimos than they are to Egyptians or Tunisians, who as "Africans" are more closely related to Zulus.

You can't compare Arabs to Eskimos, the Eskimos are so far and living in an icy weather,

You said that Jesus can't be a Romanian citizen because he hasn't sufficient social rank
and you think that Europe isn't connected to the Roman Empire, then can you explain
how Europe worship Jesus (insufficient social rank), how Jesus is worshiped by the Roman
empire (all Europe)

 

[Augustus]

You can't compare Arabs to Eskimos, the Eskimos are so far and living in an icy weather,

Of course you can, they are both Asians, and for you the key unit of identity is the continent.

If we can say Spaniards and Norwegians from the arctic circle are obviously both Rum, then we can say Tunisians are Africans and should be linked to the Zulus, and Arabs are Asians and should be linked to the Koreans and the Eskimos.

Tunisia, Egypt and Syria belonged to the same culture/region as Italy and Greece for far longer than they have belonged to different cultures.

They are only seen as 'Arab' today due to imperialism and geopolitics of the last 1000 years.

You said that Jesus can't be a Romanian citizen because he hasn't sufficient social rank
and you think that Europe isn't connected to the Roman Empire, then can you explain
how Europe worship Jesus (insufficient social rank), how Jesus is worshiped by the Roman
empire (all Europe)

At the time of Muhammad, Western Europe hadn't been part of Rum for centuries. When the Arabs conquered Spain from the Visigoths, they didn't think "we are fighting Rum". When they were defeated by the Franks, they didn't think "We've been beaten by Rum". It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

Ever wondered why there is a division between Catholic and Orthodox that pretty much runs along the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire?

The Western Empire disappeared a few of decades after the Christianisation of the Empire. Most of the Christianisation of Europe occurred under the Goths, Franks, Vandals, Anglo-Saxons, etc.

Much of Western Europe could very easily have become Arian Christian, although one Gothic king converted due to his wife.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Of course you can, they are both Asians, and for you the key unit of identity is the continent.

By what definition?

 

[Augustus]

By what definition?

By @FearGod 's definition that he needs to support his ideology.

My argument is that there was no such thing as "Europe" <7th C and that the regions that surround the Med formed a historical civilisation, even though they are now termed "Africa", "Asia" and "Europe".

North western Europe does not really share the same heritage as this classical civilisation and basically appropriated it over the past few hundred years, so when he associates the Byzantine Empire/Rome with Western Europe (rather than Anatolia, Syria, etc.) this is based on a flawed understanding of history.

Modern geo-political identities obscure the ancient world, for example Greeks, Turks and Levantines are mostly the same ethnic group and belonged to the same historical civilisation, yet depending on where they are born today they are "Europeans", Turks or Arabs purely by historical accident.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

By @FearGod 's definition that he needs to support his ideology.

My argument is that there was no such thing as "Europe" <7th C and that the regions that surround the Med formed a historical civilisation, even though they are now termed "Africa", "Asia" and "Europe".

North western Europe does not really share the same heritage as this classical civilisation and basically appropriated it over the past few hundred years, so when he associates the Byzantine Empire/Rome with Western Europe (rather than Anatolia, Syria, etc.) this is based on a flawed understanding of history.

Modern geo-political identities obscure the ancient world, for example Greeks, Turks and Levantines are mostly the same ethnic group and belonged to the same historical civilisation, yet depending on where they are born today they are "Europeans", Turks or Arabs purely by historical accident.

Oh, I quite agree. For example, I'm always pleasantly bemused by "white" supremacists whose heritage wouldn't even have been considered "white" any more than a hundred years ago, or less.

 

[FearGod]

Of course you can, they are both Asians, and for you the key unit of identity is the continent.

If we can say Spaniards and Norwegians from the arctic circle are obviously both Rum, then we can say Tunisians are Africans and should be linked to the Zulus, and Arabs are Asians and should be linked to the Koreans and the Eskimos.

Tunisia, Egypt and Syria belonged to the same culture/region as Italy and Greece for far longer than they have belonged to different cultures.

They are only seen as 'Arab' today due to imperialism and geopolitics of the last 1000 years.

Where did I define people according to the name of their continents?
when I say Europe it's because today we call people of that area as Europeans
when they come from that lands then we call them today Europeans where as in
the past people coming from Europe were called Romanians, for example
Egyptians regardless of their religion and language, they're still Egyptians.

At the time of Muhammad, Western Europe hadn't been part of Rum for centuries. When the Arabs conquered Spain from the Visigoths, they didn't think "we are fighting Rum". When they were defeated by the Franks, they didn't think "We've been beaten by Rum". It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

I think it's very easy to recognize the Rums as the Europeans of today, if we understand
history and not just reading it we'll find out who were the Rums, according to the battles
between the Persians who were idol worshipers and the Rums who were people of the book,
The idolators of the Arabia were with the Persians whereas Muslims were with the Rums,
this indicates that Rums according to Muslims are the Christians(people of the book).

Now who do you think the Christians that will land in Dabiq(north east Syria) are they the Egyptians or are they the Turks, of course they are the Europeans of today or the crusaders as in the near past.

Ever wondered why there is a division between Catholic and Orthodox that pretty much runs along the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire?

Still the same book.(the bible)

The Western Empire disappeared a few of decades after the Christianisation of the Empire. Most of the Christianisation of Europe occurred under the Goths, Franks, Vandals, Anglo-Saxons, etc.

Regardless, they're the people of the book(Rums)

Much of Western Europe could very easily have become Arian Christian, although one Gothic king converted due to his wife.

What we have today is a Christian Europe regardless of divisions and we have the Nato organization as well.

 

[Augustus]

The idolators of the Arabia were with the Persians whereas Muslims were with the Rums,
this indicates that Rums according to Muslims are the Christians(people of the book).

Now who do you think the Christians that will land in Dabiq(north east Syria) are they the Egyptians or are they the Turks, of course they are the Europeans of today or the crusaders as in the near past.

I don't think it will be anyone, but the Hadith thinks says it will be the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps they will make a comeback, it's not impossible after all.

Seeing as within a few years the majority people in Western Europe will likely be irreligious rather than Christians, it might be your best bet.

Muslims generally didn't see Crusaders as Rum, or Europeans btw, they are mostly referred to simply as Franks.

Regardless, they're the people of the book(Rums)

They had a word for Christians in the 7th C, it meant Christians.

Instead they used the word Rum which meant Rum. No one for the first 1000+ years after that hadith was created interpreted Rum as meaning "Europeans".

Maybe Persians actually means Asians. So, seeing as Eskimos are probably idolaters too so perhaps they are the Persians. Everyone just made a mistake for 1000 years and got them confused.

It's easily done apparently.

What we have today is a Christian Europe regardless of divisions and we have the Nato organization as well.

NATO includes Turkey.

 

[FearGod]

I don't think it will be anyone, but the Hadith thinks says it will be the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps they will make a comeback, it's not impossible after all.

Seeing as within a few years the majority people in Western Europe will likely be irreligious rather than Christians, it might be your best bet.

Muslims generally didn't see Crusaders as Rum, or Europeans btw, they are mostly referred to simply as Franks.

Crusaders were also called as al-Rum a

The Byzantines are still referred to in our texts as al-Rum. Sometimes, especially during the early period of the Crusades, the term al-Rum was also used to refer to the Franks. Upon the arrival of the Crusaders, the Arabs tended to confuse them with the Byzantines. Mostly, however, and especially with time, the new term al-Ifranj was coined for the Franks, reflecting an emerging distinction between Byzantines and Crusaders. It did not take long for a new image of the Ifranj, dissociated from that of the Byzantines, to emerge. However, both the terms Ifranj and Rum were at times used to mean Christian, in general.
The Islamic View of Late Byzantium - Page 3

They had a word for Christians in the 7th C, it meant Christians.

And they have a word for Syrians and they have a word for Egyptians and the Christians
of Egypt were called copts(till today)

Instead they used the word Rum which meant Rum. No one for the first 1000+ years after that hadith was created interpreted Rum as meaning "Europeans".

In the time of the prophet the word Europeans weren't used, the word Romans doesn't
belong to any part in this world except Europe, this word was originated in Europe.

Maybe Persians actually means Asians. So, seeing as Eskimos are probably idolaters too so perhaps they are the Persians. Everyone just made a mistake for 1000 years and got them confused.

It's easily done apparently.

The Iranians were called Persians, even though they're Iranians today but still they're the same
people of Persia.

NATO includes Turkey.

But not included in the European union even though Turkey worked hard as to be included.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Perhaps the best example of how bizarre those claims are is the anecdote of how the Qur'an predicts, apparently accurately by the perception of some, that Makkah is somehow "the center of Earth"."

Please quote the verse where Quran claims that Makkkah is the center of Earth. Please also quote the verses in the context for correct understanding.

The narratives of Hadith are to be understood within the meaning of the text of verses of Quran and their context verses, and not outside it.

Regards

 

[Augustus]

Crusaders were also called as al-Rum a

the term al-Rum was also used to refer to the Franks. Upon the arrival of the Crusaders, the Arabs tended to confuse them with the Byzantines.

i.e they called them it by mistake, which they quickly realised:

"It did not take long for a new image of the Ifranj, dissociated from that of the Byzantines, to emerge. "

In the time of the prophet the word Europeans weren't used, the word Romans doesn't
belong to any part in this world except Europe, this word was originated in Europe.

Obviously it would be most logical to consider that the Byzantine Empire was "European" rather than Mediterranean. Not sure how any could consider that Rum was not simply Europe.

How could anyone think that this was an Empire centred around the Med, and that it would be stupidly anachronistic to think of it as being "European"

This must be another European Empire then seeing as it is run from the same city, and includes pretty much exactly the same territories.

 

[FearGod]

the term al-Rum was also used to refer to the Franks. Upon the arrival of the Crusaders, the Arabs tended to confuse them with the Byzantines.

i.e they called them it by mistake, which they quickly realised:

"It did not take long for a new image of the Ifranj, dissociated from that of the Byzantines, to emerge. "

No they didn't make mistake, the crusaders were the Rums and the west Europe were
engaged in the war, read here

Obviously it would be most logical to consider that the Byzantine Empire was "European" rather than Mediterranean. Not sure how any could consider that Rum was not simply Europe.

How could anyone think that this was an Empire centred around the Med, and that it would be stupidly anachronistic to think of it as being "European"

This must be another European Empire then seeing as it is run from the same city, and includes pretty much exactly the same territories.

The Ottoman empire isn't Syria, isn't Egypt, isn't Iraq, but it's the Turks invading these areas,
the same thing with the Romanians(al rum) coming from today Europe and invaded some areas in the Mediterranean.

 

[Augustus]

No they didn't make mistake, the crusaders were the Rums and the west Europe were
engaged in the war, read here

Yes, then the Latin Franks stabbed the Greek Romans in the back by keeping the the territories for themselves.

When the crusaders captured territory, these didn't become part of the Byzantine Empire. Do you believe the Muslims were not intelligent enough to understand this? I believe they quickly worked out the difference because they weren't stupid, perhaps you disagree?

Crusader states - Wikipedia

The Ottoman empire isn't Syria, isn't Egypt, isn't Iraq, but it's the Turks invading these areas,
the same thing with the Romanians(al rum) coming from today Europe and invaded some areas in the Mediterranean.

As I've probably told your 15 times to no avail, you keep thinking of modern nation states and modern concepts of nationality and race. You seem to think the Roman Empire was sort of like 19th/20th C European colonialism. Almost no one of any significance in the Byzantine Empire was from "Italy".

The Byzantine Empire was a Greek speaking Empire based in Anatolia. Anatolia, Syria, the Levant, etc. were Hellenistic (Greek) cultures, and populated by the same ethnic group as Greece was. From Greece to the Middle East (Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.) you had a common ethno-cultural grouping. This group was part of the same empire for 1000+ years. It wasn't a few independent nations colonised by Italians.

Empire was territory, and to rule territory you spread your culture and integrate locals into your society. In turn, your culture is affected by the culture of the locals so, over time, you create something new. This is what the Arabs did after their conquests. As you can see in the Middle East today, over 1000 years culture spreads a great deal.

Places in Asia/North Africa Graeco-Roman world for 1000 years were not imagining some glory days before they were colonised by Italians. They were Graeco-Roman societies the same as the ones in "Europe".

You think that because France, Germany and Britain were part of the Roman Empire for 400 years they are forever 'Roman', yet places that were far more important and were part of the Roman Empire for up to 1500 years were somehow independent entities colonised by Europeans and shouldn't be considered Roman at all.

This is a very stupid argument.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, then the Latin Franks stabbed the Greek Romans in the back by keeping the the territories for themselves.

When the crusaders captured territory, these didn't become part of the Byzantine Empire. Do you believe the Muslims were not intelligent enough to understand this? I believe they quickly worked out the difference because they weren't stupid, perhaps you disagree?

Crusader states - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_states

Very easy to realize that the western Europe was involved, it doesn't need intelligence.
Actually the pop in southern France pushed to help the Romans to fight the Muslim world
and that was the start for the crusade.

As I've probably told your 15 times to no avail, you keep thinking of modern nation states and modern concepts of nationality and race. You seem to think the Roman Empire was sort of like 19th/20th C European colonialism. Almost no one of any significance in the Byzantine Empire was from "Italy".

The Byzantine Empire was a Greek speaking Empire based in Anatolia. Anatolia, Syria, the Levant, etc. were Hellenistic (Greek) cultures, and populated by the same ethnic group as Greece was. From Greece to the Middle East (Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.) you had a common ethno-cultural grouping. This group was part of the same empire for 1000+ years. It wasn't a few independent nations colonised by Italians.

Empire was territory, and to rule territory you spread your culture and integrate locals into your society. In turn, your culture is affected by the culture of the locals so, over time, you create something new. This is what the Arabs did after their conquests. As you can see in the Middle East today, over 1000 years culture spreads a great deal.

Places in Asia/North Africa Graeco-Roman world for 1000 years were not imagining some glory days before they were colonised by Italians. They were Graeco-Roman societies the same as the ones in "Europe".

You think that because France, Germany and Britain were part of the Roman Empire for 400 years they are forever 'Roman', yet places that were far more important and were part of the Roman Empire for up to 1500 years were somehow independent entities colonised by Europeans and shouldn't be considered Roman at all.

This is a very stupid argument.

Religion play its rule here, the Muslim world have the same religion where as Europe
have a different religion(people of the book), Christianity and which is what distinguish
the Romans from the Persians, from Muslims, from Hindus.

I wonder why you can't get it.

 

[Augustus]

Very easy to realize that the western Europe was involved, it doesn't need intelligence.

It takes a small amount of intelligence to realise "Western Europe" as a meaningful concept didn't exist.

But, seeing as they had conquered Spain from the Visigoths and were defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Tours, the Muslims understood that "Western Europe" wasn't Rum seeing as they were frequently interacting with the actual Rum.

Just like they could easily differentiate between Berbers tribes and Ethiopians despite both being "Africans".

Actually the pop in southern France pushed to help the Romans to fight the Muslim world
and that was the start for the crusade.

Do you understand the concept of alliances?

When the Turks helped the German to fight WW1 that didn't mean that the Turks actually became Germans.

 

[FearGod]

It takes a small amount of intelligence to realise "Western Europe" as a meaningful concept didn't exist.

But, seeing as they had conquered Spain from the Visigoths and were defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Tours, the Muslims understood that "Western Europe" wasn't Rum seeing as they were frequently interacting with the actual Rum.

Just like they could easily differentiate between Berbers tribes and Ethiopians despite both being "Africans".

Do you understand the concept of alliances?

When the Turks helped the German to fight WW1 that didn't mean that the Turks actually became Germans.

I don't have to waste a lot of time in nonsense while the thing is clear.
Dabiq is located in north of Syria open to the Mediterranean sea, so
which forces will land in Dabiq if not coming from Europe, that word
(Europe) didn't exist and what was known at that time is the Roman empire
which is originated in Europe.

Also it's assumed that Muslims are already in Dabiq but support came from
Saudi Arabia, how the prophet was sure that north of Syria will be a Muslim
land and that the Roman will attack it near the end time.

Arabs were weak compared to the Persians and the Romans and their expand
during Islam was kind of a miracle and there's a hadith which says that Arabs
will be back to weakness and the caliphate will be lost and that will be so till
God make the change, things is already planned to be as it's.

 

[Augustus]

I don't have to waste a lot of time in nonsense while the thing is clear.
Dabiq is located in north of Syria open to the Mediterranean sea, so
which forces will land in Dabiq if not coming from Europe, that word
(Europe) didn't exist and what was known at that time is the Roman empire
which is originated in Europe.

If he had meant Europe he could have said "the lands of the Franks, Visigoths, Saxons which used to be a part of the Roman Empire a few centuries ago".

Instead he said Rum, which very, very obviously didn't mean Western Europe as it meant Rum, which is why no one interpreted it to mean Western Europe until the 20th C.

It would be somewhat strange to interpret the purple area as being "European" after all.

Arabs were weak compared to the Persians and the Romans and their expand
during Islam was kind of a miracle

Not really, they basically won a couple of major battles, one against each. Maybe 15-20,000 troops against 15-30,000 troops. Many of the Arab troops would have previously fought in the Roman/Persian Army too and their defection would have weakened the empire's forces which had already been devastated by the long-term consequences of a devastating plague.

After the defeat of the Roma and Persian field Armies, the Middle East was there for the taking.

Slightly smaller armies won battles all of the time in the past, massively outnumbered forces (10-1 or more )winning wasn't even that rare. 250 Normans defeated an army of a few thousand Muslims at the Battle of Cerami for example.

Army size was less important than experience and morale as an inexperienced and demoralised force could easily be routed by a far smaller army.

Also, in terms of scale of conquest, the Mongols conquests took more territory in less time.

Impressive military victories no doubt. Nowhere near miraculous though.

there's a hadith which says that Arabs
will be back to weakness and the caliphate will be lost and that will be so till
God make the change, things is already planned to be as it's.

Maybe he recreates the Byzantine Empire then.

Do you think this is impossible? If not, why are you certain Rum is Europe?