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

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't know how the prophecy looks like and refute it blindly.

Wrong again, or are you saying that your original quote was wrong?

 

[Augustus]

Some may claim that, but I am sure that it is another failed prophecy.

Wrong! This is the joy of prophecies. They can never be wrong because if they are you just reinterpret them in accordance with the new facts or say 'it will happen later'.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) assaying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans [Rum i.e the Byzantines] 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 ofthe 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.


You can get one like the above, which talks about the eschaton arriving after a medieval style battle between the Byzantines and Muslims during which Constantinople would be captured and it's still not wrong you can change any part of it to whatever you like, So Rum doesn't mean Romans at all because they don't actually exist any more, it means Europeans, or Americans, or Turks, or Russians, or Copts, or Orthodox Christians or Christians in general or Italians (all of these are actual discussion points of various Muslims). And who knows, maybe they will fight in ranks in a pitched battle, you can't prove they won't!

 

[FearGod]

Wrong! This is the joy of prophecies. They can never be wrong because if they are you just reinterpret them in accordance with the new facts or say 'it will happen later'.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) assaying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans [Rum i.e the Byzantines] 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 ofthe 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.


You can get one like the above, which talks about the eschaton arriving after a medieval style battle between the Byzantines and Muslims during which Constantinople would be captured and it's still not wrong you can change any part of it to whatever you like, So Rum doesn't mean Romans at all because they don't actually exist any more, it means Europeans, or Americans, or Turks, or Russians, or Copts, or Orthodox Christians or Christians in general or Italians (all of these are actual discussion points of various Muslims). And who knows, maybe they will fight in ranks in a pitched battle, you can't prove they won't!

Like this one

“Camels will be abandoned and they will no longer be used for rapid journeys.”

It seems that the prophet guessed that one day humans will find away to travel by a machine to replace the camels, how lucky he was, looks like he made such prophecies for a purpose hundred of years a head, maybe to work as a messenger endlessly.

Camels were called the desert ships, no one I think in that era could even imagine that
something will replace them, but as I said the prophet was lucky, so stay as an atheist
and enjoy your life as animals do.

 

[Augustus]

Like this one

“Camels will be abandoned and they will no longer be used for rapid journeys.”

It seems that the prophet guessed that one day humans will find away to travel by a machine to replace the camels, how lucky he was, looks like he made such prophecies for a purpose hundred of years a head, maybe to work as a messenger endlessly.

Camels were called the desert ships, no one I think in that era could even imagine that
something will replace them, but as I said the prophet was lucky, so stay as an atheist
and enjoy your life as animals do.

No one could imagine horses like the horses they used in battles and for other reasons?

So far we have:

People will build tall buildings (when people had been building tall buildings for millennia)
Horses are faster than camels (when horses had been faster than camels for millennia)

And also:

The eschaton will be preceded by a medieval style battle between Muslims and a nation that hasn't existed for 500 years.

You seem to be very easily impressed.

 

[FearGod]

No one could imagine horses like the horses they used in battles and for other reasons?

So far we have:

People will build tall buildings (when people had been building tall buildings for millennia)
Horses are faster than camels (when horses had been faster than camels for millennia)

Were there tall buildings in Mecca before one hundred year, when you say for milennia
then you have to prove that tall buildings was a normal thing in that era.

Horses were used along with camels and it's known to be used for wars, but when the
prophecy says that camels will be not used for long journeys that doesn't mean it'll be
replaced by another animal, a little thinking will show you the road.

And also:

The eschaton will be preceded by a medieval style battle between Muslims and a nation that hasn't existed for 500 years.

The Europeans in ancient times were the Romans, I think that the prophet should had
used the word "Europeans" which didn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like this one

“Camels will be abandoned and they will no longer be used for rapid journeys.”

It seems that the prophet guessed that one day humans will find away to travel by a machine to replace the camels, how lucky he was, looks like he made such prophecies for a purpose hundred of years a head, maybe to work as a messenger endlessly.

Camels were called the desert ships, no one I think in that era could even imagine that
something will replace them, but as I said the prophet was lucky, so stay as an atheist
and enjoy your life as animals do.

Horses were largely replacing camels. That "prophecy" fails because it is not unexpected .

 

[Augustus]

Were there tall buildings in Mecca before one hundred year, when you say for milennia
then you have to prove that tall buildings was a normal thing in that era.

Making a prediction that "people will construct impressive buildings as a sign of wealth" is no more remarkable in the 7th C than it would be today.

If I go to a small town in the developing world and predict that there will be taller buildings there in the future, I will be right.

Yes tall buildings were a thing long before that era Lighthouse of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Anyway tall is a relative term, and in the ancient world could have meant simply a house of several stories which, again, were common.

Horses were used along with camels and it's known to be used for wars, but when the
prophecy says that camels will be not used for long journeys that doesn't mean it'll be
replaced by another animal, a little thinking will show you the road.

A little imagination and after the fact rationalisation will get you almost anything you want if you have a preconceived agenda to support.

It doesn't say that they won't be replaced by another animal, that's just your spin. Horses, chariots, carriages, etc. all existed back then and were faster than the camel.

And, even if we take you spin at face value, would it be remarkable for someone today to predict an unidentified yet faster forms of transport will appear in the future?

The Europeans in ancient times were the Romans, I think that the prophet should had
used the word "Europeans" which didn't exist.

That's because the concept of 'Europeans' didn't exist. The civilisation at that time was centred on the Mediterranean, and Rum was a Mediterranean Empire that also held some territory in Northern Europe for a short period of time.

In the 7th C, Rum was centred in 'Turkey' and was mostly outside of Europe, in Syria, Egypt, the Levant, etc. Western Europe was divided into numerous factions such as the Visigoths, Franks, Saxons, etc.

Syria and Turkey were far more integral to Rum than France, Germany or Britain. North-Western Europe was never part of a Christian Roman Empire such as the Rum being descibed.

It is a very, very stupid argument driven by bigotry, anachronism and historical illiteracy.

 

[FearGod]

Making a prediction that "people will construct impressive buildings as a sign of wealth" is no more remarkable in the 7th C than it would be today.

If I go to a small town in the developing world and predict that there will be taller buildings there in the future, I will be right.

Yes tall buildings were a thing long before that era Lighthouse of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Anyway tall is a relative term, and in the ancient world could have meant simply a house of several stories which, again, were common.

And the imagination of the prophet just comes to be true within the last few years while you think
tall buildings were common, tell us how many tall buildings were in Europe in the 8th century
or even any where in the world.

A little imagination and after the fact rationalisation will get you almost anything you want if you have a preconceived agenda to support.

It doesn't say that they won't be replaced by another animal, that's just your spin. Horses, chariots, carriages, etc. all existed back then and were faster than the camel.

And, even if we take you spin at face value, would it be remarkable for someone today to predict an unidentified yet faster forms of transport will appear in the future?

What if he said pens won't be used anymore, what if he said ships won't be used anymore,
why just mentioning camels won't be used for long journeys, like in ancient times they
thought of him as a magician and you believe that he was lucky.

That's because the concept of 'Europeans' didn't exist. The civilisation at that time was centred on the Mediterranean, and Rum was a Mediterranean Empire that also held some territory in Northern Europe for a short period of time.

In the 7th C, Rum was centred in 'Turkey' and was mostly outside of Europe, in Syria, Egypt, the Levant, etc. Western Europe was divided into numerous factions such as the Visigoths, Franks, Saxons, etc.

Syria and Turkey were far more integral to Rum than France, Germany or Britain. North-Western Europe was never part of a Christian Roman Empire such as the Rum being descibed.

It is a very, very stupid argument driven by bigotry, anachronism and historical illiteracy.

You don't know as I know in what the Rum means according to the Muslim world, it's
in simple word, the Europeans today.

Who are the Romans? Are they Arabs, Are they Persians, Are they Indians, Are they Chinese? maybe Africans.

Reading and memorizing events won't help you if you don't use your mind.

 

[Remté]

Like this one

“Camels will be abandoned and they will no longer be used for rapid journeys.”

It seems that the prophet guessed that one day humans will find away to travel by a machine to replace the camels, how lucky he was, looks like he made such prophecies for a purpose hundred of years a head, maybe to work as a messenger endlessly.

Camels were called the desert ships, no one I think in that era could even imagine that
something will replace them, but as I said the prophet was lucky, so stay as an atheist
and enjoy your life as animals do.

This was not in the Quran?

 

[Augustus]

And the imagination of the prophet just comes to be true within the last few years while you think
tall buildings were common, tell us how many tall buildings were in Europe in the 8th century
or even any where in the world.

Define 'tall'?

4 stories? thousands.

What if he said pens won't be used anymore, what if he said ships won't be used anymore,
why just mentioning camels won't be used for long journeys, like in ancient times they
thought of him as a magician and you believe that he was lucky.

Camels are still used by some bedouins.

Horses were used for long journeys in the past.

That you find this magical says a lot for your credulity and little for your critical reasoning skills.

You don't know as I know in what the Rum means according to the Muslim world, it's
in simple word, the Europeans today.

Who are the Romans? Are they Arabs, Are they Persians, Are they Indians, Are they Chinese? maybe Africans.

Reading and memorizing events won't help you if you don't use your mind.

What it means for bigots in the present, means absolutely nothing about what it meant in the past. Most people are as historically illiterate as you are.

If you want to be anachronistic, in the 7th C the Romans were 'Africans' in Egypt, and 'Arabs' in Syria and 'Turks' in Turkey.

They weren't 'Europeans' in France, or Germany or Britain or America or Russia, and the concept 'European' made about as much sense as calling 7th C Syrians 'Arabs' or 7th C people from 'Istanbul' Turks.

The Empire the prophet would have known as Rum, was Christian, Greek speaking and centred in Constantinople. The majority of its citizens certainly were not from what we would now identify as Europe, especially not Western Europe. It's not like it was a big load of modern Italians walking around the Empire fighting the Muslims, it was Arabs, Armenians, Anatolians, Syrians, Thracians, Egyptians and whoever else lived in the areas they controlled.

Why is Rum Europe? Might as well say Rum is Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too because when the prophet died, parts of all of these countries were actually part of Rum, unlike almost all of Europe. They were also Christian.

Saying the Prophet was referring to some hypothetical concept of Europe which didn't exist at the time he was alive and didn't reflect the Rum he knew, rather than saying he was referring to one of the world's 2 main powers who dominated the region is a touch ridiculous. Every piece of available evidence, every contextual clue, and even basic logic points to this being true. The only reason you deny this is because the prophecy is factually wrong and has been falsified.

You have ideological grounded bigotry to uphold though, so it's not like facts or reason will have any impact. Keep clutching at dem straws.

 

[FearGod]

This was not in the Quran?

Yes it wasn't in the quran, it seems that you follow the quran only and I don't see
any problem with it.

 

[FearGod]

Define 'tall'?

4 stories? thousands.

This isn't an answer to my question, I repeat again

And the imagination of the prophet just comes to be true within the last few years while you think
tall buildings were common, tell us how many tall buildings were in Europe in the 8th century
or even any where in the world.

Camels are still used by some bedouins.

Horses were used for long journeys in the past.

That you find this magical says a lot for your credulity and little for your critical reasoning skills.

Camels aren't used by anybody for journeys, bedouins are living in the modern century
similar to other humans.

What it means for bigots in the present, means absolutely nothing about what it meant in the past. Most people are as historically illiterate as you are.

If you want to be anachronistic, in the 7th C the Romans were 'Africans' in Egypt, and 'Arabs' in Syria and 'Turks' in Turkey.

LOL, Egyptian romans, Arabian Romans
what the hell you're talking about

They weren't 'Europeans' in France, or Germany or Britain or America or Russia, and the concept 'European' made about as much sense as calling 7th C Syrians 'Arabs' or 7th C people from 'Istanbul' Turks.

The Empire the prophet would have known as Rum, was Christian, Greek speaking and centred in Constantinople. The majority of its citizens certainly were not from what we would now identify as Europe, especially not Western Europe. It's not like it was a big load of modern Italians walking around the Empire fighting the Muslims, it was Arabs, Armenians, Anatolians, Syrians, Thracians, Egyptians and whoever else lived in the areas they controlled

.

The Romans originally came from Europe, specifically from Rome, they controlled some lands in the Mediterranean, but it doesn't make the Syrians to be Romanians or the Egyptians to be Romanians..etc,

For example if an empire coming from the east (say China) and they controlled
some lands in Europe, does it make the Europeans Chinese?

Why is Rum Europe? Might as well say Rum is Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too because when the prophet died, parts of all of these countries were actually part of Rum, unlike almost all of Europe. They were also Christian.

As I said controlled by the Romans coming from Europe doesn't make the people in the
occupied lands Romanians, the Romanians as people are Europeans in origin.

Saying the Prophet was referring to some hypothetical concept of Europe which didn't exist at the time he was alive and didn't reflect the Rum he knew, rather than saying he was referring to one of the world's 2 main powers who dominated the region is a touch ridiculous. Every piece of available evidence, every contextual clue, and even basic logic points to this being true. The only reason you deny this is because the prophecy is factually wrong and has been falsified.

You have ideological grounded bigotry to uphold though, so it's not like facts or reason will have any impact. Keep clutching at dem straws.

You can't change facts, eastern and western Europe are united even today, remember
the Crusaders and where did they come from, maybe the Egyptian Romanians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't an answer to my question, I repeat again

And the imagination of the prophet just comes to be true within the last few years while you think
tall buildings were common, tell us how many tall buildings were in Europe in the 8th century
or even any where in the world.



Camels aren't used by anybody for journeys, bedouins are living in the modern century
similar to other humans.



LOL, Egyptian romans, Arabian Romans
what the hell you're talking about

.

The Romans originally came from Europe, specifically from Rome, they controlled some lands in the Mediterranean, but it doesn't make the Syrians to be Romanians or the Egyptians to be Romanians..etc,

For example if an empire coming from the east (say China) and they controlled
some lands in Europe, does it make the Europeans Chinese?



As I said controlled by the Romans coming from Europe doesn't make the people in the
occupied lands Romanians, the Romanians as people are Europeans in origin.



You can't change facts, eastern and western Europe are united even today, remember
the Crusaders and where did they come from, maybe the Egyptian Romanians.

Does it matter? You never did requote that verse as you originally quoted it to me. Now you have changed it to "tall buildings will be built". Did you not see the list I posted on what makes Biblical prophecies fail? That verse in the Quran fails for one of those reasons. It is not an unlikely event at all.

 

[Augustus]

LOL, Egyptian romans, Arabian Romans
what the hell you're talking about

Basic history.

The problem is you have no idea about pre-modern history and thus have no idea how stupid your arguments are. You lack the ability to see beyond modern political geography and modern concepts of 'race', both of which are artificial and didn't exist in the 7th C.

Egypt was part of the Greek world, then part of the Roman world for 1000 years. Syria too. What do you think they were? Arabs?

Being a Roman citizen required you to a) be from the Roman Empire b) be of sufficient social rank. That's it.

It had nothing to do with being 'European'.

The Romans originally came from Europe, specifically from Rome, they controlled some lands in the Mediterranean, but it doesn't make the Syrians to be Romanians or the Egyptians to be Romanians..etc As I said controlled by the Romans coming from Europe doesn't make the people in the
occupied lands Romanians, the Romanians as people are Europeans in origin.

Of course the Syrians were Romans. They were part of the Graeco-Roman world for 1000 years. They are ethnically the same as the Greeks and Anatolians (Rum). There was even a Syrian Emperor, Philip, born in Arabia-Petrea.

The Romans originally came from the Med, just like the Greeks, The Phoenicians, The Cathoginians, the Levantines, The Israelites, etc.

To think that the ancient Romans and Greeks should be grouped with the Norwegians, Icelanders and Irish rather than these people is a mark of historical illiteracy.

For example if an empire coming from the east (say China) and they controlled
some lands in Europe, does it make the Europeans Chinese?

Yes. That is exactly how it worked.

We call the Syrians, Palestinians and Levantines 'Arabs' today, that certainly isn't a marker of ethnicity, just the result of Arab imperialism.

They were invaded by a foreign people, who were ethnically and linguistically different from them. Over time they adopted the culture and language of the invaders, but they didn't magically change their DNA to become peninsular Arabs.

Had they been invaded by the Chinese in the 7th C, remained part of various Chinese Empires and today remained culturally and linguistically Chinese we would call them Chinese. That would be exactly the same as calling them Arabs.

Syrians, Levantines, Palestinian Jews, Greeks, Anatolians are all of the same ethnic origin as has been proved by modern science. Yet today some are 'European', others 'Turks' and others 'Arabs'. Had there not been the reconquista, Spanish would today be 'Arabs' not 'Europeans'. If history had been different some could be 'Chinese' (just as all modern Chinese aren't Han Chinese, they just live in places conquered by the Han Chinese).

You can't change facts, eastern and western Europe are united even today, remember
the Crusaders and where did they come from, maybe the Egyptian Romanians.

The problem is you don't know any facts, just ideological bigotry.

They didn't come from Rum, they were mostly Franks and Normans. Rum still existed, Western Europe wasn't part of it.

If you knew your history, then you'd also know they weren't united. Why do you think the Crusader States existed? Why weren't they part of the Byzantine Empire as the Byzantines had wanted?

 

[FearGod]

Basic history.

The problem is you have no idea about pre-modern history and thus have no idea how stupid your arguments are. You lack the ability to see beyond modern political geography and modern concepts of 'race', both of which are artificial and didn't exist in the 7th C.

Egypt was part of the Greek world, then part of the Roman world for 1000 years. Syria too. What do you think they were? Arabs?

Being a Roman citizen required you to a) be from the Roman Empire b) be of sufficient social rank. That's it.

It had nothing to do with being 'European'.




Of course the Syrians were Romans. They were part of the Graeco-Roman world for 1000 years. They are ethnically the same as the Greeks and Anatolians (Rum). There was even a Syrian Emperor, Philip, born in Arabia-Petrea.

The Romans originally came from the Med, just like the Greeks, The Phoenicians, The Cathoginians, the Levantines, The Israelites, etc.

To think that the ancient Romans and Greeks should be grouped with the Norwegians, Icelanders and Irish rather than these people is a mark of historical illiteracy.



Yes. That is exactly how it worked.

We call the Syrians, Palestinians and Levantines 'Arabs' today, that certainly isn't a marker of ethnicity, just the result of Arab imperialism.

They were invaded by a foreign people, who were ethnically and linguistically different from them. Over time they adopted the culture and language of the invaders, but they didn't magically change their DNA to become peninsular Arabs.

Had they been invaded by the Chinese in the 7th C, remained part of various Chinese Empires and today remained culturally and linguistically Chinese we would call them Chinese. That would be exactly the same as calling them Arabs.

Syrians, Levantines, Palestinian Jews, Greeks, Anatolians are all of the same ethnic origin as has been proved by modern science. Yet today some are 'European', others 'Turks' and others 'Arabs'. Had there not been the reconquista, Spanish would today be 'Arabs' not 'Europeans'. If history had been different some could be 'Chinese' (just as all modern Chinese aren't Han Chinese, they just live in places conquered by the Han Chinese).



The problem is you don't know any facts, just ideological bigotry.

They didn't come from Rum, they were mostly Franks and Normans. Rum still existed, Western Europe wasn't part of it.

If you knew your history, then you'd also know they weren't united. Why do you think the Crusader States existed? Why weren't they part of the Byzantine Empire as the Byzantines had wanted?

According to your thoughts or readings, what the Romans were according to Arabs during
the 7th century, where they Syrians or Egyptians or Palestinians?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

According to your thoughts or readings, what the Romans were according to Arabs during
the 7th century, where they Syrians or Egyptians or Palestinians?

The Byzantine Empire. As @Augustus has already detailed, the term commonly used (al-Rūm) was used to describe them. It's a somewhat ambiguous term, and most research concludes that the exact meaning of it changed over time. However, it seems clear that at the timeframe you are talking (7th century) it was a reference to Byzantium and her empire.

The Western Roman Empire, including Rome herself, had been lost for 150 years by that time, in any practical sense, and had been on the wane for a long time before that.

How much do you know about the schism between the east and west of the Roman Empire?

 

[Augustus]

According to your thoughts or readings, what the Romans were according to Arabs during
the 7th century, where they Syrians or Egyptians or Palestinians?

Syria, Palestine and Egypt were all part of Rum, so they were all Rum. That's the way ancient empires worked.

Lots of the Arabs worked for Rum as mercenaries or regular soldiers, and others for the Persians.

Do you think the 7th C Arabs thought Rum was Norway and Britain?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And the imagination of the prophet just comes to be true within the last few years while you think
tall buildings were common, tell us how many tall buildings were in Europe in the 8th century
or even any where in the world.

Insulae were probably at least 10 storeys high (some reports are 20, but that seems doubtful to me), and they were common in Ancient Rome, 600 years before the time frame you are talking about.

Would they have been desribed as 'tall'? Sure, why not? Tall is a completely relative measure.

I'm very tall when walking in Papua New Guinea, and not at all tall when walking in Norway.

 

[Remté]

Insulae were probably at least 10 storeys high (some reports are 20, but that seems doubtful to me), and they were common in Ancient Rome, 600 years before the time frame you are talking about.

Would they have been desribed as 'tall'? Sure, why not? Tall is a completely relative measure.

I'm very tall when walking in Papua New Guinea, and not at all tall when walking in Norway.

The prophet Muhammad referred to the beduin Arabs when he said they would be competing on building of tall buildings.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The prophet Muhammad referred to the beduin Arabs when he said they would be competing on building of tall buildings.

Sure, but the question by @FearGod pertained to tall buildings 'anywhere in the world'.