The caliphate between conspiracy and prophecy

[FearGod]

It’s a conspiracy for sure,



Most of the so called traditions or hadiths about the end of times are not authenticated actually to the prophet.



Don’t you think that events as important as this should have been mentioned in the holy Qur’an Which is memorized and authenticated by all Muslims.



How on earth you consider ISIS as Caliphate.

They do exactly what the holy Qur’an forbids them to do,



They Execute Prisoners where the holy Qur’an Forbids this;



Holy Qur’an Chapter 47

47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.





See how they take only the first sentence and leave the right next sentence in the same verse that talks about battle, this is how they think, they justify their crimes by stupid cut off as if they’re they ones who have the right to cut any sentence from any verse and give it a slogan.



Here is another verse summons the Muslim to give the food he likes to the prisoner of war.

Holy Qur’an Chapter 76

76:8 And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive,





They force Christians and Jews who are criticizes of Iraq and Syria to Pay Jezya while even the Prophet did not take the Jezya from the peaceful Jews who were living in Medina, even until his death. The Jezya was only on the Attacking Nations who were the Byzantine Roman Empire and the Ghasasena, it’s not on the normal non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim country.

They take salves from any religion other than Christians or Jews saying that they have no rights, while the holy Qur’an summons to free the slaves not to take them. And many sins the holy Qur’an state that to repent to God from them is to free the slaves.

Holy Qur’an Chapter 90

90:12 And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass?

90:13 It is the freeing of a slave



The holy Qur’an Clearly states that any peaceful Pagan or non-Muslim should be grated safety even in time of war.


Holy Qur’an chapter 4:


94- O you who have believed, when you go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah , investigate; and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of worldly life; for with Allah are many acquisitions. You [yourselves] were like that before; then Allah conferred His favor upon you, so investigate. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.


Here is another verse instructing the Muslims in war to give refuge and safety to any non-Muslims who seeks it, and ensure that he returns to his home safely


Holy Qur’an chapter 9:


6- And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.



They kill persons on what they say while the holy Qur’an directly says that Muslims should be patient not killers


Holy Quran chapter 4 verse 186:

(You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination.)





They Force person to Islam while the holy Qur’an Cleary states that there is no compulsion in religion:



Holy Qur'an chapter 2:

256- (There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in God (Allah) hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. God (Allah) is Hearer, Knower.)


Holy Qur'an Surah 10:

99- (And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?.).




ISIS are the worse manifest of extremism.


May God Help defeat these stupid criminals, Amin



Regards
Mahmoud

Didn't i put the option for conspiracy ?

I didn't actually say what is my opinion and i asked for the opinion of the others.

 

[FearGod]

Nonsense.

Rum was used to refer to the Roman Empire (Byzantine version) based in Constantinople (Istanbul), it wasn't used to refer to Christians in general or the (western) Roman Empire based in Rome which didn't exist any more. The hadiths don't make sense if it means Christians.

Various Muslims will claim Rum refers to: Christians, white people, the West, Europe, Russia, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, America, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Copts, etc.

Why so many? Because Rum doesn't exist and so people have to make up who it might be even though none of them actually make any sense.

It's more credible to just admit the hadiths are wrong rather than try to defend them by pretending that Rum doesn't quite clearly refer to the Eastern continuation of the Roman Empire based in Constantinople.

The Rumans are Christians and they came from Europe and not from Turkey,the Vatican is the heart of Europe and i think that is the reason that Daesh is planning to reach Italy or Roma because according to the prophecy it is the land of the Romans but i'll hold on my opinion that it's a conspiracy except if they indeed reached Italy.

For your information the Romans prior to the prophet's era were controlling the most parts of Europe.

 

[Augustus]

The Rumans are Christians and they came from Europe and not from Turkey,the Vatican is the heart of Europe and i think that is the reason that Daesh is planning to reach Italy or Roma because according to the prophecy it is the land of the Romans but i'll hold on my opinion that it's a conspiracy except if they indeed reached Italy.

For your information the Romans prior to the prophet's era were controlling the most parts of Europe.

Your map is of the pagan Roman Empire at time of maximum expansion, it is from several hundred years before the time of the Prophet.

At the time of the prophet it looked like this:

The Empire centred in Rome that controlled most of Europe was Latin speaking and Pagan, this did not exist at the time of the prophet.

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. Its 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.

Saying Rum is Europe fits a nice contemporary narrative, but is pretty much nonsense. I would say it is also harmful nonsense as it says Europe and Muslims will be enemies till the end of time. Much better to simply admit the hadith was wrong and must have been forged by someone other than Muhammed, than make desperate attempts to defend harmful nonsense.

 

[FearGod]

Your map is of the pagan Roman Empire at time of maximum expansion, it is from several hundred years before the time of the Prophet.

At the time of the prophet it looked like this:

The Empire centred in Rome that controlled most of Europe was Latin speaking and Pagan, this did not exist at the time of the prophet.

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. Its 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.

Saying Rum is Europe fits a nice contemporary narrative, but is pretty much nonsense. I would say it is also harmful nonsense as it says Europe and Muslims will be enemies till the end of time. Much better to simply admit the hadith was wrong and must have been forged by someone other than Muhammed, than make desperate attempts to defend harmful nonsense.

How we know the history of the Romans nowadays while you claim that Muhammed didn't know who were the Romans and were they came from, that was silly

No, Egyptians and Syrians (Al-sham) were never called as Romans, but they were occupied by the Romans in which they were defeated by the Muslims, the same case when the crusaders (the Romans) invaded the region and defeated again by Saladin.

Maybe the crusaders were Chinese or Syrians.

 

[Augustus]

How we know the history of the Romans nowadays while you claim that Muhammed didn't know who were the Romans and were they came from, that was silly

No, Egyptians and Syrians (Al-sham) were never called as Romans, but they were occupied by the Romans and were defeated by the Muslims, the same case when the crusaders (the Romans) invaded the region and defeated again by Saladin.

Maybe the crusaders were Chinese or Syrians.

Why were Egypt and Syria temporarily 'occupied' but every other part of the Roman Empire that fits your distorted narrative is Rum for all of eternity, even though they were part of the Roman empire for a shorter time period and were NEVER part of a Christian Roman Empire, unlike Egypt, Syria and Turkey? Look at it this way, parts of Egypt, Syria and Palestine were part of the Pagan Roman empire for 300 years and part of the Christian Roma empire for around 300 years also (660 years total). Turkey for over 1000 years and nearly a thousand of being Christian AND Roman. Britain and much of France/Germany were part of the Pagan Roman Empire for 400 years and part of the Christian Roman Empire for 0 years (400 years total). Please tell me the logic that makes Britain, France and Germany part of Rum for ever and ever, but not Turkey, Syria and Egypt.

You seem to think that some white Christian guys from Rome, Italy were occupying the non-Christian brown people in these countries and then they were liberated by some anti-colonial Muslims. Whereas in the Europe it was a big happy family of white guys all together celebrating their shared European heritage.

It took hundreds of years for Islam to become the majority religion in MENA, probably closer to a thousand for Turkey. You are using modern concepts of imperialism, Europe and the Middle East rather than looking at the reality of what existed then.

Seeing as you mentioned the crusades, the 4th Crusade never got to Jerusalem because it was too busy sacking Constantinople. So 'Rum' was too busy attacking the Capital of the actual Rum, to get round to actually going crusading.

The Crusaders were not mostly from the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, Rum, but from the Frankish and Germanic Catholics of Western Europe who had never been part of a Christian Roman Empire. They have nothing to do with Rum. At times they made a military alliance with Rum, other times they fought against Rum.

For your concept to work, you have to arbitrarily pick and choose countries based on no objective criteria simply to fit into a preconceived narrative that best suits your worldview and relies on modern conceptions of things like 'Europe' that did not exist at the time of the Prophet.

There is no logic, no evidence, no contextual clues, no conceptual framework to suggest that the Prophet actually meant Europe, instead of the real world, physical entity of the Byzantine Empire. Rum at the time of the Prophet was any land controlled by Heraclius from Constantinople. Any land they lost, stopped being Rum. Rum = Byzantine Empire.

Again, take the advice you offer in your signature.

 

[FearGod]

Why were Egypt and Syria temporarily 'occupied' but every other part of the Roman Empire that fits your distorted narrative is Rum for all of eternity, even though they were part of the Roman empire for a shorter time period and were NEVER part of a Christian Roman Empire, unlike Egypt, Syria and Turkey? Look at it this way, parts of Egypt, Syria and Palestine were part of the Pagan Roman empire for 300 years and part of the Christian Roma empire for around 300 years also (660 years total). Turkey for over 1000 years and nearly a thousand of being Christian AND Roman. Britain and much of France/Germany were part of the Pagan Roman Empire for 400 years and part of the Christian Roman Empire for 0 years (400 years total). Please tell me the logic that makes Britain, France and Germany part of Rum for ever and ever, but not Turkey, Syria and Egypt.

Simply because the Romans came originally from the west regardless of the places they occupied later on.

You seem to think that some white Christian guys from Rome, Italy were occupying the non-Christian brown people in these countries and then they were liberated by some anti-colonial Muslims. Whereas in the Europe it was a big happy family of white guys all together celebrating their shared European heritage.

No, i don't think it like that.

It took hundreds of years for Islam to become the majority religion in MENA, probably closer to a thousand for Turkey. You are using modern concepts of imperialism, Europe and the Middle East rather than looking at the reality of what existed then.

How that is related to the origin of the Romans.

Seeing as you mentioned the crusades, the 4th Crusade never got to Jerusalem because it was too busy sacking Constantinople. So 'Rum' was too busy attacking the Capital of the actual Rum, to get round to actually going crusading.

Several hundred thousand Roman Catholic Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the church.[5][6] These crusaders were Christians from all over Western Europe under feudal rather than unified command, and the politics were often complicated to the point of intra-faith competition leading to alliances between combatants of different faiths against their coreligionists, such as the Christian alliance with the Islamic Sultanate of Rûm during the Fifth Crusade. Furthermore, whoever joined the ranks of the crusaders gained spiritual immunity, Pope Urban II promised forgiveness of all sins to whosoever took up the cross and joined in the war.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crusaders were not mostly from the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, Rum, but from the Frankish and Germanic Catholics of Western Europe who had never been part of a Christian Roman Empire. They have nothing to do with Rum. At times they made a military alliance with Rum, other times they fought against Rum.

That change nothing, they were in alliance with the Romans which is the case of today too.

For your concept to work, you have to arbitrarily pick and choose countries based on no objective criteria simply to fit into a preconceived narrative that best suits your worldview and relies on modern conceptions of things like 'Europe' that did not exist at the time of the Prophet.

Europe for that time was the Romans, the word "Europe" or European wasn't known for that era.

There is no logic, no evidence, no contextual clues, no conceptual framework to suggest that the Prophet actually meant Europe, instead of the real world, physical entity of the Byzantine Empire. Rum at the time of the Prophet was any land controlled by Heraclius from Constantinople. Any land they lost, stopped being Rum. Rum = Byzantine Empire.

The Muslims in that era were in knowledge of where the Romans came from and even the Jews were in contact with the Roman's empire and hence the region were in full knowledge of the origin of the Romans.

Again, take the advice you offer in your signature.

You need to educate yourself,i chose this signature because i used to debate some humans like you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I don't think it even qualifies as coincidence.

Many people project a lot of hope into the concept of the Caliphate and dearly want to see it materialize.

That is as far as it goes IMO. It is just wishful thinking.

 

[Augustus]

Simply because the Romans came originally from the west regardless of the places they occupied later on.

They came from Rome, and the surrounding regions of Rome originally. Why include the rest of Europe, which, as you admit, didn't really exist a a concept.

If you want to create an imaginary region then Mediterranean would be more accurate and relevant. This was the centre of Civilisation.

How you can equate them with all of Western Europe i really don't know.

How that is related to the origin of the Romans.

You decided that the criteria for being Roman was that you were in the Roman Empire and Christian.

Actually being Christian had nothing to do with Roman identity, to be Roman you needed to be part of Romania and buy into the idea that you were Roman.

It was a multi-ethnic Empire, much of which was outside Europe. the only criteria needed to be considered Roman was to a) be part of Romania and b) to adopt a vague concept of 'Romanness'.

You weren't Roman if you a) weren't part of the Roman Empire b) didn't adopt Roman norms

Several hundred thousand Roman Catholic Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the church.[5][6] These crusaders were Christians from all over Western Europe under feudal rather than unified command, and the politics were often complicated to the point of intra-faith competition leading to alliances between combatants of different faiths against their coreligionists, such as the Christian alliance with the Islamic Sultanate of Rûm during the Fifth Crusade. Furthermore, whoever joined the ranks of the crusaders gained spiritual immunity, Pope Urban II promised forgiveness of all sins to whosoever took up the cross and joined in the war.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

That's what I said, Catholic Western Europeans, not orthodox Romans from the Roman Empire. as you point out, they were not a greatly united force and often fought with each other, including sacking Constantinople. Events around this time were why the Orthodox and Catholic Churches formally split, further highlighting the difference between the Northern/Western Europeans and the Mediterranean Romans.

The Crusades were not led by the Roman Empire, which was also a victim of some of the Crusades.

You also highlight the Islamic Sultanate of Rum, which was in Anatolia and was a precursor to the Ottoman Empire. Honestly, you would have a much stronger argument if you claimed that Turkey was Rum rather than Europe as they took over most of the Byzantine Empire and it is where the last people who considered themselves authentic Romans lived.

Again, this doesn't fit your preconceived narrative though

That change nothing, they were in alliance with the Romans which is the case of today too.

They were also in alliance against the Romans. America, Russia, France and Britain were in alliance in WW2, doesn't make them the same country

Europe for that time was the Romans, the word "Europe" or European wasn't known for that era.

You are correct that Europe didn't exist, but not correct to say that Europe was the Romans. The Roman Empire was not a European Empire despite the fact that its founders were from a tiny area that later came to be part of what we now call Europe.

The Romans were the Romans. It was a statement of fact, not a vague metaphor.

Here is a map from 700. It looked very similar at the time of the Prophet. Care to reconsider that 'Europe was the Romans'?

The Muslims in that era were in knowledge of where the Romans came from and even the Jews were in contact with the Roman's empire and hence the region were in full knowledge of the origin of the Romans.

What do you mean the Jews were in contact with the Roman Empire? Most Jews lived in the Roman Empire.

The Muslims of that era would have considered people from Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, etc as Romans. If they had any knowledge of them, they would not have considered the Franks, the Britons and the Goths Romans. Muslims (and non-Muslim allies) defeated the Romans in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. Muslims didn't defeat the Romans in Spain; they defeated the Visigoths.

The Roman Empire was centred on Constantinople, while it saw itself as the cultural continuation of the Empire founded in Rome, being Roman wasn't about European ethnicity or a European centric worldview, it was about the simple fact of being part of the Roman Empire and accepting its norms. At the time of the prophet, Romans would have considered the various peoples who made up almost all of Western Europe as being barbarians.

You are applying modern concepts to ancient times. Such conceptions of identity didn't exist then. The Roman Empire had absolutely nothing to do with any geographic area except that which was part of the Roman Empire at any given time.

You need to educate yourself,i chose this signature because i used to debate some humans like you.

People who provided significant amounts of evidence about why you are wrong? Your only argument is that the city of Rome is now in Europe so all of Europe = Rome and something vague and incoherent about Christians. This is just an ideological view, rather than one based on any reasonable interpretation of what Rum meant at the time of the Prophet.

It is a modern view, based on modern realities, and requires a highly 'creative' approach to facts and evidence so that they can be clumsily forced to 'fit' the narrative that you desperately want to be true, even though it makes no logical sense.

 

[FearGod]

They came from Rome, and the surrounding regions of Rome originally. Why include the rest of Europe, which, as you admit, didn't really exist a a concept.

If you want to create an imaginary region then Mediterranean would be more accurate and relevant. This was the centre of Civilisation.

How you can equate them with all of Western Europe i really don't know.

Exactly as you may equate Syria as a Muslim Arabic state with Saudi Arabia.

You decided that the criteria for being Roman was that you were in the Roman Empire and Christian.

Actually being Christian had nothing to do with Roman identity, to be Roman you needed to be part of Romania and buy into the idea that you were Roman.

It was a multi-ethnic Empire, much of which was outside Europe. the only criteria needed to be considered Roman was to a) be part of Romania and b) to adopt a vague concept of 'Romanness'.

You weren't Roman if you a) weren't part of the Roman Empire b) didn't adopt Roman norms.

What about the Roman catholic, what about the church, what about Jesus, What about Christianity, What about Geography ?

Don't you think that Egypt belong to the Muslim world even though they weren't 2000 years ago.

Why we say Europeans for the french and the Italian ?,the same that we say the Saudi and Syrian as Arabian.
Did the prophet say that Saudis will fight the Romans or the Egypians will fight the Romans ?
Hope you did understand as i'm exhausted with your stubbornness.

That's what I said, Catholic Western Europeans, not orthodox Romans from the Roman Empire. as you point out, they were not a greatly united force and often fought with each other, including sacking Constantinople. Events around this time were why the Orthodox and Catholic Churches formally split, further highlighting the difference between the Northern/Western Europeans and the Mediterranean Romans.

The Crusades were not led by the Roman Empire, which was also a victim of some of the Crusades.

You also highlight the Islamic Sultanate of Rum, which was in Anatolia and was a precursor to the Ottoman Empire. Honestly, you would have a much stronger argument if you claimed that Turkey was Rum rather than Europe as they took over most of the Byzantine Empire and it is where the last people who considered themselves authentic Romans lived.

Again, this doesn't fit your preconceived narrative though.

Catholic or Orthodox both when facing Islam are Christians, similarly Sunnah and shiaa both are Muslims when facing Christianity.

They were also in alliance against the Romans. America, Russia, France and Britain were in alliance in WW2, doesn't make them the same country.

Yes, but when facing Islam then they'll be in alliance against Islam

You are correct that Europe didn't exist, but not correct to say that Europe was the Romans. The Roman Empire was not a European Empire despite the fact that its founders were from a tiny area that later came to be part of what we now call Europe.

The Romans were the Romans. It was a statement of fact, not a vague metaphor.

Here is a map from 700. It looked very similar at the time of the Prophet. Care to reconsider that 'Europe was the Romans'?

.

If the Romans wasn't the right name for the Christians of Europe then which better word should be used before 1500 years

What do you mean the Jews were in contact with the Roman Empire? Most Jews lived in the Roman Empire..

I mean that they know at that era where did the Romans come from.(Europe today)

The Muslims of that era would have considered people from Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, etc as Romans. If they had any knowledge of them, they would not have considered the Franks, the Britons and the Goths Romans. Muslims (and non-Muslim allies) defeated the Romans in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. Muslims didn't defeat the Romans in Spain; they defeated the Visigoths..

The Romanians occupied many places and withdrew but originally they came from Europe and still considered as so.

The Roman Empire was centred on Constantinople, while it saw itself as the cultural continuation of the Empire founded in Rome, being Roman wasn't about European ethnicity or a European centric worldview, it was about the simple fact of being part of the Roman Empire and accepting its norms. At the time of the prophet, Romans would have considered the various peoples who made up almost all of Western Europe as being barbarians..

OMG, So the Romans are Turkish or Hindus or Japanese.

You are applying modern concepts to ancient times. Such conceptions of identity didn't exist then. The Roman Empire had absolutely nothing to do with any geographic area except that which was part of the Roman Empire at any given time..

So we can't call the Egyptians as Muslims, just Egyptians.

People who provided significant amounts of evidence about why you are wrong? Your only argument is that the city of Rome is now in Europe so all of Europe = Rome and something vague and incoherent about Christians. This is just an ideological view, rather than one based on any reasonable interpretation of what Rum meant at the time of the Prophet..

Which evidences ?

It is a modern view, based on modern realities, and requires a highly 'creative' approach to facts and evidence so that they can be clumsily forced to 'fit' the narrative that you desperately want to be true, even though it makes no logical sense.

The economic Sanctions agains Iraq and Syria wasn't true, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now if Syria lost the war then the whole Syria will be An Islamic state that plans to invade the world by ground invasion and if we'll keep striking them by air then that won't stop them from controlling the land.

I imagine they will be dusting off those old plans for "Desert Storm" then.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly as you may equate Syria as a Muslim Arabic state with Saudi Arabia.

You are talking about things that happened hundreds of years after the Prophet. You are applying modern categories to ancient times.

Anyway, not sure how closely I would associate Levantines with Hijazi Arabs. Those in the Levant have always been more cosmopolitan with a stronger scholarly and artistic culture than the insular Arabs of the Hijaz.

about the Roman catholic, what about the church, what about Jesus, What about Christianity, What about Geography ?

What about them? If the prophet meant Christians he would have said Christians.

Why we say Europeans for the french and the Italian ?,the same that we say the Saudi and Syrian as Arabian.
Did the prophet say that Saudis will fight the Romans or the Egypians will fight the Romans ?
Hope you did understand as i'm exhausted with your stubbornness.

There was a word for Christians in Arabic, had the Prophet meant Christians I'm sure a man of his articulacy could have communicated that point perfectly well.

Surely a genuine prophecy could have found a more accurate term than one that meant specifically 'the Byzantine Empire', the real world entity who were led by the Emperor Heraclius.

Catholic or Orthodox both when facing Islam are Christians, similarly Sunnah and shiaa both are Muslims when facing Christianity.

Back to your ideological view of the eternal enmity of Muslims and Christians.

As you quoted anyway, remember when the Crusaders allied with the Islamic Sultanate of Rum? Why do you think it was called the Islamic Sultanate of Rum by the way? Could it be because everyone new that Rum was the Byzantine Empire? Or could you call it it the Islamic Sultanate of Western European Christians instead?

Yes, but when facing Islam then they'll be in alliance against Islam

And when the Catholics fought the Romans was it a civil war?

If the Romans wasn't the right name for the Christians of Europe then which better word should be used before 1500 years

Pretty sure a word that referred to Christians specifically would contain some aspect of the word Christian. Christendom would be some form, although I don't know when the word was first used so it may be anachronistic to apply it in this case, but maybe not.

But this is really the core of the issue, you are so desperate for the word Rum to mean Christians of Europe that you frame all aspects of your thought in regard to this.

Rum was the real world Roman Empire, not a metaphor. The only reason you need a new definition is because it no longer exists. The problem is there is no clear replacement, which is why different Muslims think it means Europe, Italy, Turkey, Russia, Christians, America, the Orthodox church, the Catholic Church or whatever else their guess is. In the Islamic tradition, Rum meant Byzantine Empire, that it meant European Christians in general is an innovation.

If it is so obvious, why can't even Muslims decide who it is?

I mean that they know at that era where did the Romans come from.(Europe today)

I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty. The origins of Rome were 1000 years before this, Roman related to the culture not the City. The capital was Constantinople (the new Rome) and had been for hundreds of years, including many when Rome wasn't even part of the Roman Empire. Modern historians tend to treat the Byzantine empire as being distinct from the older Roman Empire due to its significantly different nature.

I highly doubt the average Roman in Syria, Egypt or Anatolia knew or cared about this history. Even if the educated elite knew the history, the Roman Empire was so big and so diverse that the idea that most people thought of them as having come from Rome itself hundreds of years ago certainly cannot be treated as a fact.

The Romanians occupied many places and withdrew but originally they came from Europe and still considered as so.

You are thinking in modern terms again.

OMG, So the Romans are Turkish or Hindus or Japanese.

No, they no longer exist. They stopped existing in the 15th century.

The Turks is a better shout than Western Europe though, as some Muslims will agree.

So we can't call the Egyptians as Muslims, just Egyptians.

Correct. More than 10% of the population are not Muslims.

The economic Sanctions agains Iraq and Syria wasn't true, it doesn't make sense.

What a bizarre analogy to make.

What evidence is there from the the sources themselves that Rum meant anything other than the Byzantine Empire? Put yourself back in the 7th century, no modern knowledge, no benefit of hindsight, no ideological bias, no hostility to Europeans and tell me how you can interpret Rum as being anything other than the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Shad]

Not true, Iraq was known since the 6th century and Syria was known as Al-Sham.

Nope that is Syria and Syria-Palestine not Iraq

 

[Shad]

How we know the history of the Romans nowadays while you claim that Muhammed didn't know who were the Romans and were they came from, that was silly

No, Egyptians and Syrians (Al-sham) were never called as Romans, but they were occupied by the Romans in which they were defeated by the Muslims, the same case when the crusaders (the Romans) invaded the region and defeated again by Saladin.

Maybe the crusaders were Chinese or Syrians.

The Byzantium called themselves Roman. Peoples in the mentioned areas were in part Roman due to colonization of the Pagan Roman Empire. Also before the fall Roman made all it's people citizens so in fact Roman. Roman was not an ethnic group but a social rank which was standard for centuries.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Are you serious about that isis is the Caliphate fortold by the prophet PBUH?
That is insult on behalf of the prophet PBUH. These savage dogs kills and beheads muslims left and right.

I dont support them. They are extremely violent, harsh and lack mercy. Totally the opposite of prophet Muhammad pbuh.


But i must say some of their nasheed songs are beautiful.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Not true, Iraq was known since the 6th century and Syria was known as Al-Sham.

The origin of the name Iraqis disputed. There are several suggested origins for the name. One dates to the Sumerian city of Uruk (or Erech) ; another maintains according to Professor Wilhelm Eilers, The name al-‘Irāq, for all its Arabic appearance, is derived from Middle Persian erāq "lowlands".

Under the Persian Sassanid dynasty, there was a region called "Erak Arabi," referring to the part of the south western region of the Persian Empire that is now part of southern Iraq. The name Al-Iraq was used by the Arabs themselves, from the 6th century, for the land Iraq covers.
http://www.rohama.org/en/content/1010

The prophet has connected the Caliphate with the events in Syria and Iraq

Muslim: Book 41, Number 6961:

Abu Nadra reported: We were in the company of Jabir b. ‘Abdullah that he said:
“It may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams. We said, “Who would be responsible for it?” He said, “The non-Arabs would prevent them.” He again said,
“There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinar and mudd.” We said, “Who would be responsible for it?” He said, “This prevention would be made by the Romans.” He (Jabir b. Abdullab) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having said: “There would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it”. I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-’Ala, “DO you mean ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-Aziz?” They said, “No (he would be Mehdi).”

Also the main point is that the prophet got a knowledge that the caliphate at one point of time will end and tyrants will rule the Arab world instead of a just caliphate and then he pointed out that Iraq and Al-sham will be in trouble till the caliphate born once again.

So you think of it as coincidences, maybe who knows.

Maybe this period is where Al-Mahdi comes. Interesting period.

But one thing is sure. It cant be baghdadi who is seen wearing expansive watch (Omega) while the people of Iraq and Syria are being killed by his mad followers and many others perish from hunger.

 

[FearGod]

Are you serious about that isis is the Caliphate fortold by the prophet PBUH?
That is insult on behalf of the prophet PBUH. These savage dogs kills and beheads muslims left and right.

I dont support them. They are extremely violent, harsh and lack mercy. Totally the opposite of prophet Muhammad pbuh.


But i must say some of their nasheed songs are beautiful.

I do still believe that it's a conspiracy on Islam and i may only believe it to be the prophecy if they reached Roma because it isn't an easy job to do so, time will reveal the truth.

 

[FearGod]

Maybe this period is where Al-Mahdi comes. Interesting period.

But one thing is sure. It cant be baghdadi who is seen wearing expansive watch (Omega) while the people of Iraq and Syria are being killed by his mad followers and many others perish from hunger.

I don't trust the media so much, i can only believe it to be the prophecy if Roma becomes a Muslim state and which is impossibility, but if it happened then it'll be the great evidence and sign for the end time.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I do still believe that it's a conspiracy on Islam and i may only believe it to be the prophecy if they reached Roma because it isn't an easy job to do so, time will reveal the truth.

I dont believe some guys on tanks and ak47 can roll in Rome. Infact capturing Turkish Villages And Alawi towns is impossible for them, let alone Rome which is extremely catholic stronghold.

To capture Rome, the caliph must have support from muslims in heart and minds. Muslims must be united behind one leader. Also the muslims should be up to dated on modern warfare, not only tanks but also warplanes.
Thats not the case with Baghdadi. He forcefully wants the oath of muslims, and if u dont give u are killed. And lets behonest the guy is a murder. Stabbing in the back of mujahideen (Fsa, islamic front etc)fighting in Syria.
He is more of divider than uniter.

I think the prophecy is about amir al mumineen Mahdi. Or atleast other righteous caliphs before him. Because u must not forget there are 12 righteous caliphs as foretold by prophet pbuh. Till now the counting is at 6 :
The four rightly guided caliphs and Hassan radiyallah anhum , also some include Umar ibn abdulaziz rahimullah, which makes 6.

 

[FearGod]

I dont believe some guys on tanks and ak47 can roll in Rome. Infact capturing Turkish Villages And Alawi towns is impossible for them, let alone Rome which is extremely catholic stronghold.

To capture Rome, the caliph must have support from muslims in heart and minds. Muslims must be united behind one leader. Also the muslims should be up to dated on modern warfare, not only tanks but also warplanes.
Thats not the case with Baghdadi. He forcefully wants the oath of muslims, and if u dont give u are killed. And lets behonest the guy is a murder. Stabbing in the back of mujahideen (Fsa, islamic front etc)fighting in Syria.
He is more of divider than uniter.

I think the prophecy is about amir al mumineen Mahdi. Or atleast other righteous caliphs before him. Because u must not forget there are 12 righteous caliphs as foretold by prophet pbuh. Till now the counting is at 6 :
The four rightly guided caliphs and Hassan radiyallah anhum , also some include Umar ibn abdulaziz rahimullah, which makes 6.

The prophet Muhammed started his message from weakness, no one believed him except Abu baker because he knows the prophet very well and how sincere he was.

Did you think it was an easy job that a single man was able to convert the Bedouin to a great nation ?

It is very hard to reach Rome and in a case that they did then it'll be the miracle.

There's one hadith which says that those men will be savages, show no mercy toward the enemy and don't fear death,their hairs will be tall and their enemies fear to face them in a fight and they'll be called by the names of their towns such as Baghdadi, Halabi, Zarqawi..etc

So only time can reveal the truth.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

The prophet Muhammed started his message from weakness, no one believed him except Abu baker because he knows the prophet very well and how sincere he was.

Did you think it was an easy job that a single man was able to convert the Bedouin to a great nation ?

It is very hard to reach Rome and in a case that they did then it'll be the miracle.

There's one hadith which says that those men will be savages, show no mercy toward the enemy and don't fear death,their hairs will be tall and their enemies fear to face them in a fight and they'll be called by the names of their towns such as Baghdadi, Halabi, Zarqawi..etc

So only time can reveal the truth.

If i remember that hadith is about khawarij. It says how long their hair is, how they use cities as nicknames, how they behave with people.


Hazrat Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him) If you see the black flags, then remain on the ground and do not move a hand or a leg. A group of weaklings will then appear their hearts are like iron. They are the owners of the state (dawla). They fulfill neither a contract nor a covenant. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their names are a kuniya (i.e Abu so – and-so) and their lineage (surnames) are a town. Their hair is unwinding, like the hair of a women. (Do this) untill they differ in it between themselves, then Allah will give the right to whomever HE desires.
Reference : Kitaab Al Fitan: Nu’am bin Hammad, p157, Hadith # 557


Some say this is false hadith, not mentioned in any book.