Shamoun began with the Quranic prophecy of the Byzantine (i.e., “Roman”) victory against the Persians in Surah Al-Rum, 30:2-4. It has been established by most authorities that the meaning of the word بِضْعِ in verse 4 is “three to nine years”. The verses were revealed in Mecca around 615 CE.
These verses were revealed when Sapur, the king of the Persians, overcame the lands of al Sham and what surrounded them from the lands of al Jazirah and the farthest regions of the Roman territories. He forced Heraclius, the king of the Romans, to withdraw all the way to Constantinople and besieged him there for a long period. Then the rule returned to Heraclius, as will be mentioned.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (6/297)
Then the prophecy was fulfilled by the year of the battle of Badr in 624 CE (the battle of Badr occurred in March 624),
When the Byzantine emperor Heraclius had begun to turn the tide of the war in his favor (minor victories had occurred as early as 622 CE). Thus, it was within the maximum 9-year period.
The map below shows the movements of Byzantine and Persian armies between 610 and 624 CE during the Byzantine–Sasanian War. It traces the Persian advances under generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin as they invaded Asia Minor, Syria, and Armenia, reaching close to Constantinople. It also shows Emperor Heraclius’ counteroffensives starting in 622 CE, moving through Asia Minor into Armenia and toward Persian-held territory.
Sam Shamoun appealed to the At Tabari’s Tarikh, to argue that the verse was referring to the Byzantine “victory” over the Persians in the year of Hudaybiya (628 CE), which would be 13 years after the revelation of the verse.
Shamoun only appealed to al-Tabari’s “History” (Tarikh al-Tabari) and completely ignored his tafsir, which I will show later.
Second, it is well-known that Heraclius scored a series of victories against the Persians, beginning much earlier than 628.
According to the chronology provided by Walter Kaegi, Heraclius won “morale-building victories” against the Persians in April 622, and in 624, he began his invasion of Armenia, scoring victories at Dvin and Takht-i-Suleiman. By the end of the year, Heraclius had defeated the Persian general Shahrbaraz near Arcesh. Thus, the prophecy was fulfilled!
Sam Shamoun only quoted one part of Tarikh al-Tabari (Volume 8, trans. Fishbein), while ignoring the fuller and more relevant discussion in Volume 5 (trans. C.E. Bosworth). This shows either laziness or deliberate distortion on his part.
If he had actually done research, he would have found that al-Tabari explicitly links the Quran verses in Surah al-Rum to the historical conflict between Abarwiz, the Persian king, and Hiraql, the Byzantine emperor. Al-Tabari makes it clear that these verses were revealed about their battles, which I have now quoted directly.
Not only that, even the translator Bosworth confirms this in a footnote, stating that the verse is usually taken to refer to a battle during the Persian invasion of the Levant in 613–614. Bosworth even refers to an earlier footnote explaining that the Persians took Damascus in 613 and entered Palestine in 614 after defeating the Byzantines in the Hawran region. This is exactly the kind of event described in Surah al-Rum.
Al-Tabari also reported that Kisra sent Rumiyuzan to Syria, where he advanced into Palestine. That matches the same timeframe and context. So we see clearly that Tarikh al-Tabari supports the traditional understanding of the prophecy in Surah al-Rum. Shamoun’s failure to mention any of this only exposes the weakness of his so-called research.
Al-Tabari confirmed this in his tafsir as well.
The “defeat” in the “nearest land” refers to the loss of Syria, and more importantly, Jerusalem in 614 (see al-Tabari’s commentary above). Though the losses suffered were catastrophic, they did not result in the total conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Sassanid Empire. The capital Constantinople never fell, despite a joint Avar-Persian siege even as late as 626. As the Tafsir as-Sa’di explains, as shown below.
In the same way, in the Quran, verse 3 simply states that the Byzantine defeat in Syria would be followed-up within a “few years” with a victory. This is exactly what happened. It was not until 622 that Heraclius began his string of victories and turned the tide against the Persians. By 624, he had begun his invasion of Persian territory.
The Persians prevailed over the Romans and defeated them, but
did not take over their lands except the areas closest to their borders.
And the polytheists o f Makkah rejoiced at that, whilst the Muslims
were saddened by it. But Allah told them and promised them that the
Romans would defeat the Persians,
Tafseer As-Sa’di Pg 1326
Next, Shamoun resorted to another poorly researched argument. Following the lead of C.G. Pfander, Shamoun appealed to a variant reading of Surah Al-Rum, verses 2-3. Instead of “ghulibat” (غُلِبَتِ) in verse 2 and “sa-yaghlibuna” (سَيَغْلِبُونَ) in verse 3 in the traditional reading, the variant reads “ghalabat” (غَلَبَتِ) and “sa-yughlabuna” (سَيُغْلَبُونَ), respectively.
In other words, the variant reading states that the Byzantines have been “victorious” but will be “defeated” in a “few years”. Obviously, this reading, if authentic, could not have been revealed around 615 CE. Thus, perhaps considering himself clever, Shamoun deluded himself into thinking that he had refuted the prophecy because Muslims cannot determine which reading is authentic. Even if we accept the variant reading, it still came true.
Sam Shamoun says: A Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians.
This is just wrong, Ahmad Ali Al-Imam says a shadhdh (anomalous) recitation of the Quran is one that does not meet the accepted conditions for being part of the Quran.
According to Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH), Abu Shamah (d. 665 AH), and Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 AH) it is a recitation that lacks widespread or well-known transmission. Makki and Ibn al-Jazari add that even if the chain is strong, it is still rejected if it goes against the Uthmanic script or proper Arabic. Or, if the chain is weak, even if the words match the script and grammar, it is still not accepted. Even if it meets all the conditions, if the people have not accepted it or it is not well-known, it is also rejected.
As it turns out, the variant reading of Surah Al-Rum is “shadhdh”, i.e., “anomalous”. As Al-Imam explains, this reading is only attributed to some Companions (e.g., Ali, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Umar) and Successors (e.g., Mu’awiyah ibn Qurrah and al-Hasan). However, it is considered anomalous because the scholars reject it. The only authentic recitation accepted by the people and regarded as successive is the second one [ghulibat and sa-yaghlibuna]”
So, the variant reading has been rejected by scholars because it is not based on a “successive” transmission (i.e., it is not mutawatir). This is also confirmed by C.E. Bosworth in a footnote in his translation of Tarikh al-Tabari. Bosworth notes that a less authoritative, single reading has ghalabat al-Rum.
This was also the view of al-Tabari himself, as stated in his tafsir, which Shamoun completely ignored during his sloppy research. In his commentary, al-Tabari stated that: “The only correct reading for us is ghulibat al-Rum and no other reading is acceptable, for it enjoys the authoritative consensus of the qurra.”
Nevertheless, let us assume that the variant reading is the correct one. If that is the case, then it obviously could not have been revealed around 615 CE, as previously mentioned.
The historical context does not allow it. Therefore, it must have been revealed much later, perhaps around the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah (628 CE).
