Three to Nine Years
As stated in history books, the Byzantines lost Jerusalem around 615 A.D., and began their rebound in 622 A.D. Thus, Romans began their victory within seven years of their loss.
According to Islamic history books, Muslims received the news of the Roman victory during the Battle of Badr in 624 A.D. – which marks the date of a strategic and major Roman victory, making the elapsed period between the Roman defeat and their victory nine years.
Refuters argue that the full victory of the Romans was in the battle of Nineveh in 627 A.D., 12 years after their defeat. The argument is simple: while this battle does mark the final Roman victory, the verses were referring to earlier strategic wins.
Whether the verses refer to the start of the victories in 622 A.D or the major victory in 624 A.D, both references lie within the stated time frame.
Two Recitations?
In Arabic language, words with similar letters and similar character arrangement can still have different meanings according to diacritics and vowel points attached to its letters. Refuters claim that a second valid recitation exists with a different vowelization that is read ghalabat-ir-Rum, which translates to ‘the Romans have been victorious’. They argue that because the verse has two recitations with contradicting meanings, a prophecy cannot exist. Some spend major time trying to falsify the prophecy by analyzing the verses according to the second recitation. However, this effort is in vain since this second recitation is itself invalid. Examining the ten possible Quranic readings shows that not one acknowledges this second reading [4].
Refuters support their argument which is stated in the Quranic commentaries of Imam Al-Qurtubi and Imam Al-Tabari, where the second recitation was read by some of the companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. However, they select not to mention that in the same pages, both Imams agree that the only correct reading is the ghulibat-ir-Rum, because of the consensus of all Muslim scholars about its validity, and because of the weakness of sayings that support the other recitation.
Furthermore, Al-Tabari explains that reading the second verse with the second recitation entails reading the third verse to mean that Romans will then be defeated, such that it reads sayoghlaboon instead of sayaghleboon. However, all Quran scholars agree that the word was only read as sayaghleboon. Accordingly, if we consider the second recitation, the verses would be stating that the Romans were victorious, and then after their victory, they will be victorious – which is not linguistically sound [5, 6].
Time of Revelation
Refuters claim that the verses were revealed on the day of Badr in 624 A.D, and are therefore simply stating events that have already taken place. They support their argument with this hadith narrated by Imam Al-Trimidhi:
{… Abu Saeed reported that during the Battle of Badr, (it was learnt that) the Romans defeated the Persians. The believers liked that and the verse was revealed: ‘Alif laam meem ghulibat-irr-rum’ to ‘yafraho al-mo’menoon’, the believers being happy at the Roman success over the Persians [7].}
Islamophobes who come across this hadith rejoice at believing they have discovered that the prophecy does not exist. The science of hadith, however, is not that simple. The books of expert scholars of hadith are written with a methodology that can only be fully appreciated and analyzed by scholars and researchers of this science.
In the science of Hadith, there is a notation that indicates the degree of a hadith’s soundness or validity. Al-Tirmidhi described this hadith to be ‘hasan ghareeb’, or ‘fine and strange’. Exploring Al-Tirmidhi’s methodologies shows that when judged this way, the sanad of the hadith, or the group of men who narrated it, contained something unusual and that this can be a reason to disregard it all together [8].
One of the narrators of this hadith is Attia Al-Oufy, who is considered weak and undependable by all Islamic scholars [9]. Hence, this hadith should not be used to support any argument. Moreover, this hadith contradicts the undisputable classification of Suart Ar-Rum as Makkan, meaning that it was revealed prior to Prophet Muhammad’s migration to Madinah in 622 A.D.[5].
In his book Asbab Al Nozool, Imam Al-Nisabori states that the verses were revealed when the Persian forces overtook the Roman empire, a news that saddened the Prophet PBUH and his followers. The Prophet hated that Pagan Persians would overtake Christian Romans. Makkah’s pagans gloated over the Roman defeat, and badgered Muslims by saying they will defeat them like Persians defeated the Romans [10].
Abu-Bakr’s Bet
The battle between Heraclius’ Byzantine army and Persians under Khosrau II. Fresco by the Italian painter Piero della Francesca, c. 1452.
Imam Al-Tirmidhi narrated another hadith detailing the bet that took place between Abu Bakr and the idolaters of Quraish after the Roman defeat;
{…The idolaters loved that the Persians should gain victory over Rome because they and the Persians were idolaters. The Muslims loved that the Romans should become victorious over the Persians because they were People of the Book.
They mentioned it to Abu Bakr who mentioned it to Allah’s Messenger. He said ‘They will soon be victorious.”
Abu Bakr mentioned this to the idolaters and they said, “Cause between us and them a term. If we win during that time then for us is this-and-that and if you gain victory then for you is this-and that.” Then he fixed the times as five years; but it did not transpire, so he mentioned that to the Prophet. He said, ‘Why did you not fix a longer period”?
The narrator supposed that he put it at ten years. And Sa’eed said that bed’e is a number less than ten. Then Rome emerged victorious over Persia. This is why Allah said; “Alif Laam Mim….”. Sufyan said, “I heard that the Romans emerged victorious on the day of Badr” [7].}
This hadith is described by Al-Tirmidhi as ‘hasan sahih ghareeb’, translating to ‘fine, correct, and strange’. According to Al-Tirmidhi’s methodologies, this annotation means that this hadith is considered an accurate one [8]. Because of the contradictions in both hadiths, the one with higher validity overrides. This further breaks down the saying that the verse was revealed in Badr.
Click for more: