• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much time do we really have?

Tom Skylark said:
Turkey and Iran talk on boosting economic ties further. Turkey represents part of Togarmah territory in Ezekiel 38:6 & Persia/Iran is represented in Ezekiel 38:5. Close economic ties strengthens the future Ezekiel 38-39 prophecy. Will Turkey leave N.A.T.O. by December 31, 2017 or is the research all compiled for nothing?
Click to expand...


Let me ask you some questions please, was Adam biological like you and i or was he different?
Would he died when he had not sinned or still walking around us now?
 
mikeb768 said:
Imo, it's not that Satan thinks that he will one day defeat God's plan/become the "winner". Satan knows that this will never be the case, it is more that he does not believe that God should have never held mankind in such high esteem, as the majority are/will be ungrateful. It's kind of like a bet, with the Devil on one end saying "just give me some time to prove to you I was right" and God then granting Satan time until the Day of Judgement. Maybe "vindication" is the proper term to describe Satan's actions and his overall outlook.

[Quran 15:36-48]

A summarized version of The origin of the Devil
Click to expand...

The Devil doesn't exist though.
 
dafydd said:
Reality. No gods, devils, djinns, fairies , goblins, leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns, gryphons, angels, imps, cherubs........
Click to expand...

Dafydd Are you claiming to be clairvoyant? Having seemingly already ruled out the existence of every entity other than what we can currently perceive?

In your opinion do you believe that "nothing exist outside the realm of current human perception"? Or that the ability of humans to perceive things which were previously unknown/ undetectable has been thoroughly exhausted?
 
mikeb768 said:
Dafydd Are you claiming to be clairvoyant? Having seemingly already ruled out the existence of every entity other than what we can currently perceive?

In your opinion do you believe that "nothing exist outside the realm of current human perception"? Or that the ability of humans to perceive things which were previously unknown/ undetectable has been thoroughly exhausted?
Click to expand...

You're using a very common fallacy. One need not be omniscient to rule out fantasy or supernatural beings. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that such things do exist. Now let's suppose that they're hiding in a remote corner on the opposite end of the universe. Would they affect our lives in any meaningful way? Would we change our behavior in accordance with their existence? Of course not. Supernatural beings that fail to interact with us in a perceivable fashion, without consequence, are not supernatural beings we have to worry about.
 
Yeah, find any of the "devils' works" that don't have a human origin.
Truly, we don't need any such a creature.
I do recall a cartoon by Bill Mauldin at the end of WWII.
AH is standing in Hell, chest out, right arm in his vest, like Napoleon, and Satan is appalled.. saying "You did all that???!!!!!"
 
dafydd said:
No, realistic. Unless you have evidence that any of these creatures exist. Let's start with the Devil. Where's your proof?
Click to expand...

Yeah that is great and all, I'm just not sure what your personal quest for proof of the Devil has to do with any of the things mentioned in the OP.

Maybe you should consider starting a new thread on that very topic.
 
mikeb768 said:
Yeah that is great and all, I'm just not sure what your personal quest for proof of the Devil has to do with any of the things mentioned in the OP.

Maybe you should consider starting a new thread on that very topic.
Click to expand...

You mentioned Satan. I do not quest after imaginary beings, that would be a gross waste of time.
 
BStrong said:
Sorry Mike, the holy book approach hasn't panned out as an accurate predictor yet, and the Q is no exception.
Click to expand...

I mentioned in the OP that if there were some portions that were found to be inaccurate that I would consider doing a revision. Can you be a little more specific in regards to your claim? So far Brian-M is the only one who has stated that he disagrees with some of the statements put forward, but he wasn't able to provide any proof as to support his arguments.
 
Brian-M said:
The Roman-Persian war ended in 629, the Quran didn't exist until after 632. But even assuming that Mohammed did predict who would before the fighting ended, so what? If he guessed the outcome randomly he'd still have a 50% chance of being right.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Brian, I didn't provide enough information to fully support the claim in the OP. Although the Quran was not in written form at the time Surah (30) Ar-Rum was revealed, scholars seem to agree that the revelation was in circulation around the years 614 to 615.

Persian dominance (614)

Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) resurgence (622)

End of the war (628)

Byzantine Persian wars (602-628) (Short video)


Ar-Rum 30th surah of the Quran

Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum


[Timeline of relevant events]

Also you are correct in your assertion that such a prediction has a 50-50 chance of being correct. But why risk it? What if the Romans had never made a comeback? If a book was filled with obviously false predictions, then would people still accept it as being divine in nature?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
Also you are correct in your assertion that such a prediction has a 50-50 chance of being correct. But why risk it? What if the Romans had never made a comeback? If a book was filled with obviously false predictions, then would people still accept it as being divine in nature?
Click to expand...

Then it either wouldn't have been included at all, or would have been explained away using Q 22:52.
 
A'isha said:
Then it either wouldn't have been included at all, or would have been explained away using Q 22:52.
Click to expand...

It is pretty hard to take something back after it has been publicly declared.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the fact that Abu Bakr was able to win 100 camels from this same prophecy. This was of course before the divine decree that prohibited gambling was sent down.
Hazrat Abu Bakr Wagers Ubayy Bin Khalaf
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
It is pretty hard to take something back after it has been publicly declared.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the fact that Abu Bakr was able to win 100 camels from this same prophecy. This was of course before the divine decree that prohibited gambling was sent down.
Hazrat Abu Bakr Wagers Ubayy Bin Khalaf
Click to expand...

Wow those camels would have been useful when the Muslims then decided to go and console* their Christian brethren.

*by console I mean invade and resume the slaughter of the just recovering and unprepared byzantines. What great and concerned friends they were.
 
Hungry81 said:
Wow those camels would have been useful when the Muslims then decided to go and console* their Christian brethren.

*by console I mean invade and resume the slaughter of the just recovering and unprepared byzantines. What great and concerned friends they were.
Click to expand...

If you would have bothered to read what was posted, you would have noticed that the camels were actually given away as charity in the end.
 
Hungry81 said:
Wow those camels would have been useful when the Muslims then decided to go and console* their Christian brethren.

*by console I mean invade and resume the slaughter of the just recovering and unprepared byzantines. What great and concerned friends they were.
Click to expand...
They invaded Persia too and consoled their Zoroastrian brethren. In fact they conquered the whole of Persia, but failed to take Constantinople, and much of the Roman Empire.
 
mikeb768 said:
It is pretty hard to take something back after it has been publicly declared.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the fact that Abu Bakr was able to win 100 camels from this same prophecy. This was of course before the divine decree that prohibited gambling was sent down.
Hazrat Abu Bakr Wagers Ubayy Bin Khalaf
Click to expand...

Except that's not exactly what happened. Your link above glosses over it, but according to the ahadith recorded by At-Tirmidhi, Abu Bakr lost his bet (your link gets around this by claiming that Abu Bakr extended the bet before he lost it, but that's not supported by At-Tirmidhi). After Q 30:1-6 were revealed, Abu Bakr went and told this to the Quraysh.

According to one tradition recorded by At-Tirmidhi, the Quraysh told Abu Bakr to set a time limit of his choosing for their bet, and he picked five years. After that five years had passed, and the Romans weren't victorious, Abu Bakr told Muhammad about his failed bet, and Muhammad told Abu Bakr that he should have bet nine years, not five, since bid'i means "less than ten".

According to another tradition recorded by At-Tirmidhi, it was the Quraysh who suggested the time limit for the bet, saying that since bid'i means anywhere between three and nine, they should split the difference and make the bet for six years. Abu Bakr agreed, and when six years passed with no Roman victory, the Quraysh took what they had won per the terms of the bet. When the Romans defeated the Persians the next year, the Muslims rebuked Abu Bakr for only betting six years, and he replied that since the prediction was for "three to nine years" and victory came in seven years, he may have lost the bet but the prediction of Muhammad was true.

You'll note the discrepancy here in just exactly when the Roman victory was supposed to have happened. Your link above says that the Roman victory came nine years after Q 30:1-6 was revealed (though it doesn't say what specifically that "victory" was), which matches one of the traditions relayed by At-Tirmidhi. But the other tradition relayed by At-Tirmidhi says that the Roman victory actually happened two years earlier. Other traditions, as related by Abul A'la Maududi, say that the Roman victory happened exactly ten years after Q 30:1-6 was revealed, because "bid'i in Arabic applies to a number up to ten" (and he counts from 614 AD, rather than the 615 AD used by others to determine when the "Roman victory" happened).

We can see what's happening here: people after the fact are doing things like making charts of events by year (such as the one at your wiki length above about the hadith of the prediction), picking some event of their own choosing, declaring it the "Roman victory" of the ayah, and then retrofitting what Muhammad must have meant by bid'i (and when he said it) in order to make sure that their chosen event fits within the prediction. And, as we can see with the evolution of the story about Abu Bakr's bet going from him losing, to him losing but declaring that Muhammad's prediction was right after all, to him winning, the "miraculousness" of the prediction became ever more embellished as time went on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom