The following is supposed to be a prophecy, which confirms Muhammad’s prophetic claims:
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful A. L. M. The
Roman Empire has been defeated – In a land close by; but they, (even) after
(this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious – Within a few years (bid’i).
With God is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the
Believers rejoice – With the help of God. He helps whom He will, and He is
exalted in might, most merciful. S. 30:1-5 Yusuf Ali
Muhammad is allegedly referring to the defeat of the Roman at
the hands of the Persians and their subsequent victory, which was supposed to
take place within a few years.
Suffice it to say, this so-called prophecy raises a host of
problems, all of which expose Muhammad as a false prophet.
To begin with, this passage is a great example of just how
incoherent, incomplete and unintelligible the Quran truly is. The prophecy
states that the Romans have been defeated in a land close by. Yet we are not
told who exactly
defeated them, when exactly
were they defeated, and where exactly
were they defeated.
For instance, is the “land close by” referring to the Muslims or
the Romans? If one claims that it is addressing the Muslims then this still
leaves us with the problem of identifying the precise location of the land. A
land close by the Muslims can be a reference to Medina (provided that this was
“revealed” during the time they were still in Mecca), Mecca, Syria, Turkey,
Lebanon, Jerusalem, Persia, etc.
However, if it is directed at the Romans themselves, then the
land close by can refer to land near either Turkey (Constantinople) or Rome.
How does anyone know for certain?
Second, who defeated the Romans and how does one know for
certain seeing that the passage fails to provide the name of the victors?
Third, when was this “prophecy” given? Is it pre-Hijrah or
post-Hijrah? Since the prophecy states that the Romans would be victorious
within a few years, knowing the precise date of this alleged prophecy is an
essential and integral part of verifying whether it came to pass or not.
Fourth, this alleged prophecy refutes the Quran’s own assertion
that it is a clear book which provides complete details for all of its verses:
“… Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has
sent down unto you the Book (The Qur’an), explained in detail…” S. 6:114
Hilali-Khan
“Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Qur’an) which We have explained in detail
with knowledge, – a guidance and a mercy to a people who
believe.” S. 7:52 Hilali-Khan
“… And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything,
and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender.” S.
16:89 Arberry
“A Book whereof the
Verses are
explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know.”
S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan
Yet, as I already noted, this particular texts fails to
identify who defeated
the Romans, the place where they
were defeated, and when exactly
they were defeated. And, as I also indicated, these details are vitally
important since they help us to determine whether the victory came to pass
exactly as stated within the Quran.
Unfortunately for Muslims, the Quran fails to provide such
crucial information, leaving them no choice but to consult documents that were
written centuries after Muhammad’s death in order to make sense out of this
so-called prediction.
As such, this alleged prophecy not only establishes that
Muhammad was a false prophet, but it also demonstrates that the Quran is
grossly mistaken for claiming to be a fully detailed scripture.
The other problem that Muslims are faced with is that they do
not know for certain whether this text is speaking of the Romans being defeated
and then experiencing a victory.
The reason why they cannot be sure that this is the original
meaning is because the Muslim scripture was initially written without vowel
markings. As such, the Arabic word sayaghlibuna,
“they [Romans] shall be victorious,” is what some of the later scribes took the
consonantal text to mean.
However, the text without vowel markings could just as easily
have meant the Romans were going to be defeated. The difference is in the
addition of two vowels so that instead of having sayaghlibuna, the
verse could have legitimately been read as, sayughlabuna, “they (i.e. Romans) shall
be defeated.” The same is the case with the word ghulibati, “have been
defeated.” This could have easily been ghalabat,
“have defeated.”
The Quran would, therefore, be saying that though the Romans are
victorious some unnamed group would soon defeat them. In fact, this is
precisely how some of the older Quranic versions interpreted the consonantal
text!
The late, great Christian missionary C. G. Pfander explains:
“But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by
informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu’r Rum. He tells us that some read غَلَبَتِ instead
of the usual غُلِبَتِ, and سَيُغْلَبُونَ instead of سَيَغْلُبُونَ. The rendering will then be: ‘The
Byzantine have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be
defeated in a small number of years,’ &c.
If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr’s bet with Ubai
must be a fable,2 since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims
began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which
Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are.
The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became the
conquerors of “the well-watered land of Syria” (على ريف آلْشام), and that the passage predicted
that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the
Tradition which records the ‘descent’ of the verses about six years before the Hijrah
must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at
earliest. It is
clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written
down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is
right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at
which the verses were ‘sent down’, (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to
show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled.
Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad’s prophetic office.
“Therefore the whole argument founded upon the supposed
prophetic element in the Qur’an breaks down when examined…” (Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq – The Balance of Truth,
revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18,
A-9503, Villach Austria], PART III. A Candid Inquiry Into The Claim Of Islam To
Be God’s Final Revelation, IV. An Examination of the Contents of the Qur’an, in
order to decide whether these prove its inspiration, pp. 279-280; bold and
capital emphasis ours)
Interestingly, this is exactly how the following modern versions
of the Quran translate the passage!
The Romans HAVE
WON. At the lowest part on the earth. But after THEIR VICTORY, THEY WILL BE
DEFEATED. In a few more years. The decision before and after is
for God,
and on that day the believers will rejoice. The Message: A Translation of the
Glorious Qur’an
The Romans HAVE
WON, At the lowest point on the earth. But after THEIR VICTORY, THEY WILL BE
DEFEATED. In a few more years. The decision before and after is for
God, and on that day those who acknowledge will rejoice. (Quran Reformist Translation,
translated and annotated by Edip Yuksel, Layth Saleh al-Shaiban, & Martha
Schulte-Nafeh, Brainbow Press 2007)
Here are the comments of the translators to the Reformist Quran,
explaining why they rendered the verses the way they did:
030:002-05 You might have noticed that
we translated the reference of the verb “GHaLaBa”
differently than the traditional translations. Instead of reading the verb in
30:2 as “ghulibat”
(were defeated) we read as “ghalabat”
which means just the opposite, “defeated.” Similarly, we also read its
continuous/future tense in the following verse differently. The prophecy of
this verse was realized in 636 four years after the death of Muhammad, when
Muslims confronted the army of Byzantine Empire around Yarmuk river, in one of
the most significant battles in history. Under the command of Khalid bin Walid,
the Muslim army beat the Christian imperial army of four or more times their
numbers. The six-day war, Yarmuk, occurred in area near the Sea of Galilee and
Dead Sea, which are located in the lowest land depression on earth, 200-400
meters below the sea level. (Ibid., p. 268)
Thus, since vowel points were not added until sometime after the
death of Muhammad, Muslims, therefore, have no way of knowing with absolute
certainty that the version, which the masses have come to accept as the
original, is actually the correct reading and understanding of the consonantal
text. As such, the Muslims have no way of definitively proving that the reading
preferred by these modern Quranic translators is mistaken.
But it gets a whole lot worse for Muslims, as we are about to
see in the next part of my discussion https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/the-prophecy-that-exposed-muhammad-as-a-fraud-pt-2/.
IHS
No comments:
Post a Comment