Talk:Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Comment

Jesus, i had my doubs regarding this prophecy after reading the articles the liers at anwering Islam created, but after some research, i am truly astonished over the precision and synchronous predictions! God is great! --Striver 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

I have overhauled the article

  • improved the order and sequence of the sections
  • made headers conform with the sections' content
  • removed extra-Quranic additions from the Sura's text (the specification of "few" is not instrinsic to the text and covered elsewhere; if the Arabic terms are somehow important, this needs greater coverage, all the explanations were not needed to understand the text)
  • removed redundancies (info on the two betters)
  • restored the Muslim rebuttals again but in a more proper form
  • focused the timeline on the contents of the Sura and Hadith - general Muslim history is irrelevant to the topic and the removal of which also removes various POV issues with the former wording (war of "independence"?)
  • the addition of "Alif-Lâm-Mîm (See Muqatta'at)" doesn't seem relevant to me. If it is, please explain here on the talk page what it means and why it is relevant.
  • numbering of the verses was also off in comparison to several Quran translations, including the two contained on Wikisource)

Str1977 (smile back) 11:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed valid information, there was a reason for having two columns. I am reverting. --Striver 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a reason? Then please state it. If it is valid, I will reinclude the deleted info again.
In no case was there a reason for a general revert. Str1977 (smile back) 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the timeline of the Islamic events, to be compared to the Roman events, the whole point of the article. That is vital info that you are removing, do not remove sourced and relevant info. --Striver 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that is certainly not the point. The point of this article is this Hadith on the Sura, which deals with M's prediction of an event in Roman and Persian history. Where does the prediction deal with M's emigration, the Battles of Badr, Uhud, the Ditch, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (which didn't come expected, did it?), the first pilgrimage to Mecca, the take-over of Mecca, M's death or the Muslim conquest of Syria? Where are these related to?
The point of the article is certainly not that, and certainly not a POV pushing presentation of: Look here the Romans won, and at the same time Muslims won, which proves that the Muslims are guided by God, while those Persian "pagens" (sic) are not". If this point is raised by Muslims it must be done openly, not through implication via a timeline.
Finally, your behaviour actually makes you quite undeserving of a reply. All you did repeatedly is a global revert, reinserting typos (or did Khosrau really fight with the Gypsies), bad structure, redundancies, a wrongfully numbered Quranic text (also plagued by insertions). And of course, you haven't answered my questions above. You will see what you will get from it. Str1977 (smile back) 16:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets try again

  1. [1]
  • you removed "(three to nine)" that qunatifies "a few".
  • You removed introduction.
  • You changed Roma -> Roman. Good move.
  • You changed "Muslim war of independence" -> "Muslims victory over Meccan forces". Sure, i can live with that.
  • You removed the Muslim response to the criticism. Unacceptable.
  1. [2]
  • You removed the Muslim history column. The Muslim argument, that can be read here and other places, is about a correlation between those events. Removing the information is unacceptable.
  1. [3]
  • Again, you removed information that is expressed in the sources. Unacceptable. If you want better sources, then by all means request it, but do not just deleted information that i have put hard time collecting.
  1. [4]
  • Removing references. Unacceptable.

I keept those changes that i agreed on. I am going to revert, and make some new edits. Take a look at tell me your objections. Lets work on something we can agree on.--Striver 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see:

  • I removed "(three to nine)" that qunatifies "a few" - because it is not part of the text. It is a qualification given by M. in the Hadith. And since this qualification is the one that actually was disproved by later history (the Roman were NOT victorious within 9 years) I am actually improving the stance for the Islamic view.
  • I removed introduction, because I changed the structure and I believe my structure is better. The intro consisted of the Sura quote, the Hadith, some redundant words about Abu Bakr and Ubay and the timeline.
  • I changed Roma -> Roman. Good move. - Thanks for finally acknowledging that.
  • I changed "Muslim war of independence" -> "Muslims victory over Meccan forces", because the war was not about independence. Sure, i can live with that.
  • I removed the Muslim response to the criticism - but only the first time, when I hadn't thought things through. All the other times I moved it into the reference. After all the section was called "non-Muslim view". But we can also move the response up the Muslim view section or merge the two.
  • I removed the Muslim history column. You say "The Muslim argument, that can be read here and other places, is about a correlation between those events.", but that was exactly the point: the article didn't make such a point. I will read the link and consider how to include it and then, a separate column makes sense ... maybe, as we cannot push this POV. I will get back to you on this.
  • You say in [5] I "you removed information that is expressed in the sources" - what sources? I have checked three translations of the Quran (the two over at Wikisource and one on my hard drive) and none of these included these addition, nor did they conform to your numbering of the verses. Hence you are posting false information, all this without a reference.
  • In [6] you said I removed a reference. Yes, but there was nothing really to reference, as it was just plain historical data.

All in all, you are still not cooperative. Yes, this time it was no full revert but you still chose to remain blind to most outrageously unacceptable mistakes. We will see. Str1977 (smile back) 19:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, having now perused the new state of the article, some comemnts:

  • The header Introduction heads no introduction. We don't need no introduction for such a short article (unless you would call the very first lines an introduction, but these don't need a header).
  • The Quran text now seems allright, both in numbers and in wording (I trust you with the Arabic).
  • The points "Abu Bakr" and "Ubay" is still not useful, the info should be moved into the Hadith section.
  • The sentence in 1.4. is ungrammatical and pointless, as is the entire section consisting only of this sentence.
  • Re the timeline I still have to read your "mau" link. However, the timeline text is substandard and sometimes containing bits like "decisive Roman victory", which is only a qualifier for an unnamed event.
  • The Hadith section should be moved up IMHO, since it is closely linked to the sura and the timeline is based on it.

Str1977 (smile back) 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I have read the article you linked to. It was hard prose and I can't understand why it stops in the middle of the narrative, but nonetheless, here is my assessment:

You wrote, "The Muslim argument, that can be read here and other places, is about a correlation between those events." - well, I see that this article interprets the "Muslims will rejoice" as a prediction of a Muslim victory (more commonly I have read that this refers to Muslims rejoicing at the Roman Christian's victory over the Persian pagans. In any case, it is an interpretation that is worth including, best by linking an quoting the relevant passage in that text. I will look for the same interpretation in the other linked Muslims articles.

Please, explain to me what Muslim victory is meant by this.

To include this, I propose we change the structure to:

1. Sura text
2. Hadith (including the info about the betters)
3. Muslim interpretation (including the point above)
4. non-Muslim view
5. Timeline (which, coming after all these interpretations makes much more sense than preceding them) which will include the relevant Muslims data but the more precise Roman data from my overhaul.
6. References

As I said, points 3. and 4. can be merged into one section with two sub-sections.

Tell me, what you think. Be cooperative. Str1977 (smile back) 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason i insisted on having a introduction comes from my experience in this article: Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah. In its afd, it was saved from deletion after i accepted the advice of adding a introduction section. But if you feel that is not necessary here, i can live with it.

Your suggestion seems agreeable, ill work on it, take a look and say how you feel on it. About the transliteration, i know very little Arabic myself, all info i have comes from articles i have read regarding this very topic. You can get transliterated verses from here: [7], just look to the right. peace--Striver 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, btw, the "decisive victory" part is accurate and undisputed, just look at the sources. --Striver 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The "decisive victory" part cannot be "accurate and undisputed", as it is an interpretation, a correct one, maybe, but still an interpretation. But what are the fact behind that intepretation. The least we must do is mention the fact before we add the interpretation. And from the information I could gather there was no battle (and hence no victory in 630. In that year Heraclius made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem and restored the True Cross. Of course, this was the symbolic end to this war and reason for much rejoicing among Christians (not knowing what calamities would follow). Agree with the rest. Str1977 (smile back) 10:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this:

"In verse 3, the Arabic word "adna al-ardi" that is translated as "a near land" can also be translated just as accurately to "in the lowest land". Muslims view this to be relevant, arguing that Palestine, the land were the Romans became victorious, is the lowest land on the earth."

I do not know whether the Arabic translation is accurate. However, the interpretation with the lowest must be attributed, especially since it is - in this form at least - bogus: the land in which the Romans were victorius (to use a better expression) was not Palestine, but Mesopotamia. Str1977 (smile back) 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, lets add the cross thing. There was no fighting at the conquest either, they surrendered. Regarding the other stuff, i have read it, its not my OR. However, i do not remeber were i read it, so i can agree with having fact tags till i find them. If you insist, i could life without them also. thanks for your comments. --Striver 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Striver,
no one is rushing to remove the yet unreferenced information, so you have some time to find them.
I am still not completely happy with the wording of the timeline, the decisive victory etc. Since the time has passed, I will soon post my preferred version of the timeline (at first as inclusive as possible. It will contain something like "marking Roman victory" in 630, since (in contrast to the Mecca take over, which was thoug without a battle a military victory) this event was no victory militarily (it was a victory of faith, if you will).
The Muslim parallel events interpretation still needs to be properly worded, according to what can be referenced, but I will now make the timeline as iclusive as possible.
I will also post the structure envisaged above.
Bear with me until I have finished. Str1977 (smile back) 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

The many fact tags look shocking at first, but here is my explanation:

I made the identification sequence more logical: the Muslims identified with the monotheist Romans, which caused the Meccan pagans do side with the Persians (and probably also, the Persian involvement in Yemen, which I hadn't thought about before).

I do not doubt the taunting, but it is narrated, if I am not mistaken, to us by Muslim tradition. I would like a reference for this, but more importantly for the taunt "and you Muslims will be next". I am curious about the latter issue, because otherwise the Meccans didn't make serious efforts to defend their paganism (yes, socially lowstanding Muslims got persecuted but there was no unified effort, according to what I read). But maybe they only meant: "once the Romans are out, you will see the folly of your faith". In any case, a reference, please.

I would like a reference too for the interpretation that the Sura includes a prediction of a Muslim victory, as I personally only see Muslim rejoicing (at the Roman victory) in there. But a reference will satisfie me.

The structure is now like this:

  • Introduction - gives the situation, the war, the taunts and the fact that M. announced the sura.
  • The sura quote itself
  • The Hadith, now introducing the thing about Abu Bakr's bet (best ti keep it all together - however, we can still have a very short reference to the bet in the introduction section)

If you insist, I don't object to Sunni being reintroduced. However, I have always wondered: are the fact of the first four Caliph's rule not undisputed among all Muslims, Sunni, Shia and Kharijites? Yes, Shia (and I note that you are one) do dispute the legitimacy of these rules, but not the fact surely? But I am not insistent on this.

I haven't look into the Interpretation section yet (I have only seen that you expanded it.)

My creating the new timeline in an inclusive fashion doesn't mean that I advocate the inclusion of all these events. This depends on their relevance to the interpretation (and hence my first reading these). We will discuss this later.

I hope this will help for now, because now I really have to go. Str1977 (smile back) 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. Is it ar-Rum or al-Rum? I hitherto always wrote al-Rum to make this consistent with the article's title. If this is wrong, we should eventually make all these correct. Str1977 (smile back) 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Im looking at the changes. My first reaction is that you changed the BH template to reverse, now it gives the first entry as CE. This will achieve your aim in this article, but will make the template dysfunctional in all other that use it. But that is not my main concern, my main objection to displaying the CE dating system above the AH system is that is is a hadith article about Muslims and a Qur'anic verse, and therefore it makes more sense to use the AH system above the CE system. Ill look further into your suggestion right now. --Striver 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you had just created it. I think for various reasons that this sequence CE/AD - AH is better:

  • the former is more common to the English reader (a global reason)
  • the sequence coincides with our columns in the timeline (a local reason)
  • the article is not only an Islamic article but also one about an event of Western (Roman) history

More explanations later ... I am a bit tied up. Str1977 (smile back) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that N BH is changed to N BH. That is inferior, since N links to the CE year.

Further, your three points:

  • Arabic is also a global language, and the Muslim dating is also a global dating system.
  • True
  • Yes, but this article is about the Islamic view of the events, not the joint Western-Islamic view of it. Let us remember that both the verse and hadith took part in the Islamic world, and that both the verse and hadith are only notable in the Islamic world. If any non-Muslim would bother, it would only be since the Muslims bother.

Your argument #1 is neutralized by my #1, your #2 is valid, but my #3 is more important that the estetical value that #2 gives. --Striver 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • 19 BH: Good addition
  • 13 BH: Good addition
  • 10 BH: You changed 610 to 11 BH. I dont know wich one is more accurate, so no comments.
  • 8 BH: is jamed into 7 BH, needs to be given its own row. Why did you combine those years? The source does not seem to agree with the addition of 8 BH into 7 BH.
  • 3 BH: You moved the year of sorrow to this date. Why? According to a number of sources, Khadija was born in 565 A.D. and died one year before the Hijra (migration of the Holy Prophet and his followers from Mecca to Medina) in 623 A.D.
  • 1 BH: removed. Why?
  • 1 AH: You removed the "turning point" additions. It is an important point that Muslim make that it was the Roman turning point, it was their first victory. At the same time, the Muslim event is a turning, it is not for nothing that the AH era starts from here.
  • 2 AH: "Heraclius advances into northern Media." is not the point the Muslims make. They dont care about media, whatever that is. their point is "Penetration of Persia by Heraclius"
  • 3 AH: removed. Why?
  • 4 AH: More descriptive. Can live with it. Can you please add a source?
  • 5 AH: More descriptive, good.
  • 6 AH: Better prose, good. But "By about March 628 Heraclius could regard himself as victorious" was removed. Why?
  • 7 AH: Better prose, more info, very good. However, you removed "Meccans temporarily leave Mecca so the Muslims can do the pilgrimage", the most notable part of the event.
  • 8 AH: Better prose, good.

I will not revert, but await your answer. This is time consuming, but productive. Peace.--Striver 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that my above concerns have not been addressed. It's ok, im not in a rushm, ill read the bellow comments for now. --Striver 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings. The above was posted in edit conflict. I have not yet really read your posting and will reply later. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now to address your points above, leaving out those voicing agreement:

"I saw that N BH is changed to N BH. That is inferior, since N links to the CE year." - I fixed that now.

Further, your three points:

  • "Arabic is also a global language, and the Muslim dating is also a global dating system". - That might be so (thoug I'd think a regional language would be more accurate) but irrelevant - this is the English language WP. But what has language to do with this? The Muslim dating system is not a global system. The AD/CE system is ... and it is easily recoqnizable for most English speakers, even if they are Muslims.
  • True and very relevant.
  • "Yes, but this article is about the Islamic view of the events" - no it isn't. WP articles are normally now about "one side's view of the events" - that would be a POV fork and is not allowed. This article is about the Hadith on that Sura. But the facts underlying them (and the timeline is a place for facts) is not any side's view.

But one more thing: one of our quoted references (the Muslim scholar) gives a date by first naming the date AD and then AH. It would be confusing to suddenly switch. For this very same reason I have now, in my redone template employed the term "AD" ... for consistency's sake.

As for the list of other points:

  • Apparently I miscounted the years BH by one. I will correct those immediately.
  • 613/14 is jamed into one line, as right now it covers events from both years, as the campaign lasted into two years. I did not only base myself on the scaruffi link, but also on the information given in the article on Khosrau. I have now found out that Damascus was taken 613, so I separated this from the rest.
  • The Year of Sorrow I have always seen placed in 619. The WP article names two options, but 619 is more sensible since we need time for the mission to Taif and all these pledges at Akaba.
  • The Visigothic conquest of southern Spain is totally off-topic in this article, since this is concerned with the Roman-Persian war.
  • I removed the turning point addition, because this is not the "turning point in Roman history". There are far more important dates in Roman history, let's see: the battle at the Alia, the victory in the First Punic war, Marius' reforms, the victory of Caesar over Pompey or Octavius over Marcus Antonius, the Battle at the Milvian Bridge, the Battle of Adrianople (the biggest Roman defeat ever) etc. etc. This is certainly not it. It was a reversal in this, final war against Persia. However, from the Roman perspective it didn't matter much in the end, as all these liberated provinces were later lost again. You who against whom. As for the Muslim event of that year, I did insert the note that it is the beginning of the calendar, which is much more telling than the term turning point. However, I definitely didn't like the usage of the same word for both events, as this is exactly the kind of POV pushing I wished to avoid. If Muslims view it that way, it belongs into the Muslims view section, but the timeline is supposed to give the facts and not imply interpretations. Dis-allowed.
  • That Muslims don't care about Media is completely irrelevant. As I said: this timeline gives facts. Let the Muslims make their point elsewhere in the article. Also, I guess you know where Media is? It is the nothern part of Iran, an important centre of the Persian Empire.
  • The ommission of Uhud was an oversight.
  • I used the WP article on Khosrau. That's not a proper reference but there is no reason to doubt it.
  • By about March 628 Heraclius could regard himself as victorious" was removed, because it is not a real fact.
  • I hardly think that "Meccans temporarily leave Mecca so the Muslims can do the pilgrimage" is more notable than your prophet doing seven rounds around hist sanctuary. An article about the event is linked. I guess your interpretation wants to link via the word "evacuation", but again this is implication (the two events are not nearly the same) and POV pushing. Dis-allowed.

Str1977 (smile back) 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can live with many of your "POV pushing. Dis-allowed." arguments, we can put those views in the Muslim view section. I still reject the AH-CE argument, i will refer to policy and guidelines further ahead. As of right now, the article seems rather stable, with me less than content, but not in the mood to spend the time arguing my case, i have other issues in hand right now. Ill get back to this topics sometime in the not to far future. Until then, thanks for a good cooperation. Peace. --Striver 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the dating issue, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Different_calendars. This IMHO clearly indicates that the preferred dating is the AD/CE system (with either style being equally acceptable) and that the AH system can and should be added in case of it being suitable, e.g. in cases of Islamic history. The MOS doesn't say, that the AH should take precedence. Remember that this is the English-language Wikipedia. In the Arabic WP, things may look different.

I may also add that this article, with which you should be familiar, had no AH dates for quite a while (not that the "the first usage stays", usually employed between AD and CE, counts between AD/CE and AH but if it did, the scales would tip in favour of AD/CE as well. Str1977 (smile back) 09:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Str1977 (smile back) 09:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Section break

The introduction had better prose now. I feel that i lacks the mentioning of the Meccans siding with the Z, since they perceived them as fellow "pagans". I read about that, but have no source at hand. The "next in line" thing was just my prose, you are free to change it. "once the Romans are out, you will see the folly of your faith" sounds fine, i don't remember the dialog, i read it some time ago.

Yemen? Interesting, i had not thought of that- neither do i know much about it. Care to share info?

I view a conspiracy to assassinate Muhammad as a "unified effort"...

I would like a reference too for the interpretation that the Sura includes a prediction of a Muslim victory, as I personally only see Muslim rejoicing (at the Roman victory) in there. But a reference will satisfie me.

Dont think i have the reference right now, but i very sure that the Muslims interpret it as rejoicing at a predicted Muslim victory. I will add ref when i stumble at it again.

Structure looks fine.

Shi'a also call their imams as "Caliph". caliph means literary "successor", and we view Ali as the only righteus successor. In fact, Shi'a quote hadith were Ali is referred to as "Khalifullah" (unless im wrong), and i am very sure that Shi'a quote hadith were Muhammad refers to Ali as his Caliph. So we need a "Sunni" qualifier to make this clear. In fact, i am have herd that Sunni's view the rejection of the "caliph" status of the usurpers as apostacy, making it again clear that Abu Bakr is being a Caliph also implies religious importance and not only secular power. The only caliph that can NPOV be called just "caliph" is Ali, since both Shi'a and Sunni agree on him being a Caliph, ie. successor.

ar-Rum and al-Rum is two different ways of readint the same arabic words. Arabs do not pronounce the "l" and instead put more emphasize on the first following letter since its "hard" to say the proper way. . "ar-Rum" is how it is read "al-Rum" is what is written. --Striver 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To address these points:

1. A source would very much help, as we could then point to this.

2. The Yemen story goes like this: some inhabitants of Yemen were Christian in the 6th century AD, when the ruler converted to Judaism and started persecuting the Christians. They called for help, and since the Emperor was occupied elsewhere he asked the Negus of Aksum to intervene. And so he did, conquering the land and ending the persecution. Yemen became a part of Abyssinia. During that time the governor of Yemen aimed at erradicating paganism and therefore marched an army, including some elephants, to a near-by centre of paganism called Mecca and its pagan shrine, the Kaaba, but under unclear circumstances failed to conquer. You know this episode, alluded to in the Quran (Muhammad says God intervened on behalf of the pagan Quraish) and because Muhammad was born in the same year 570. Now, the Judaist ruler and his family had not been completely destroyed and they send to Persia and asked the Sassanids to intervene on their behalf. They did this and occupied Yemen around 600, but instead of restore the local dynasty, they made Yemen a privince of their Empire. The hold wasn't very strong and gradually waned when the Sassanids were defeated by the Romans. Now I do not have positive knowledge in this, but the pagan Quraish might have remembered the Persians intervening against those that had earlier marched on Mecca.

3. The conspiracy came only very late and was not planned very effectively. The point is, had the Quraish got together from the start, maybe under one strong leader, and decided to stamp out Islam, they would have probably succeeded, at least in human terms. This same lack of unity also shows later at Badr, after the victory at Uhud (when they didn't attack Jathrib - though that has also to do with Abdallah ibn Ubay guarding the city) etc. Even in the attempt on M's lief does the lack of unity and a shying aways from hurting him (hence every clan must have an representative) show. You, as a Muslim, may read God working this.

4. Of course, the Caliph is also a religious office, as the head of Islam. However, I am asking whether it is disputed that these Caliphs were Caliphs? Even if they were illegitimate according to the Shia, they were universally acknowledged by all Muslims, including Ali. And when looking at the situation, there were no denominations called Sunni and Shia at that early time. Abu Bakr was Caliph of all the Umma and not just of one part of it. But this is an issue extending way beyond this article, as there are countless references to a "Sunni Caliph" on WP. We cannot solve this here.

5. I know, that "ar-Rum" and "al-Rum" are just two readings of the same word and that ar/al is the article. We should use one form consistently, depending on which transliteration is more common. If it is ar-Rum we should eventually move the article. Str1977 (smile back) 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Thanks :)

3.Ok, cool, now i know what the Persians did there.

4. Initially, Muhammad had the protection of Banu Hashim, who was a very powerful clan at the time, due to historical reasons, unless im mistaken. Abu Talib, its head, protected him. Even though this was the case, he was indeed assaulted both verbally and physically. And those who did not have clan-protection were outright killed after extensive torture. After a while, all the other clans had enough of the Banu Hashim and excommunicated the whole bunch, Muslim as well as non-Muslims. All Banu Hashim (note: Not all Muslims), were forced to relocate, and they did that for three years, having no food due to the blockade. Eventually was the blockade seized, but Abu Talib died shortly after that, followed by a coordinated assassination attempted and the migration.

5. I go with Al-Rum, have always preferred "al".--Striver 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4. I know about the boycott, but this was implemented half-heartedly and eventually abandoned. The attempt didn't follow immediately after Abu Talib's death (though that did worsen M's situation considerably). Also the failed mission to Taif was a heavy blow and I have read a theory that M. was only saved (being locked in the orchard of one of his enemies) by directing his missionary activity not at the Quraish but at the pilgrims coming to Mecca. Among these were those from Jathrib, who made the the first pledge of Akaba, leading to the second pledge. The Quraish got wind of these pledges, suspecting conspiracy. After more and more Muslims left Mecca, the Quraish eventually decide to kill M. but since all matters were discussed openly and they took their time in assembling a "representative death squad" (since no clan wanted to do it alone, fearing the consequence would be a blood feud), M. was warned and escaped. But I do not know how we got there anyway, as all this is not actually relevant to the Sura.

5. Okay, then we'll leave it at Al-Rum. Str1977 (smile back) 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of "A Muslim site"/ Hesham Azmy plus weight of text.

The section in the "Muslim response" , which has links to rebuttals from Muslims includes the statement that "A Muslim site writes:" etc etc and copies the text (which is OK as the sites says so) but it is unclear as to the notability of the http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/index.html site i.e. the author is stated as Hesham Azmy (on a hotmail address). There is also a dislocate in the section is also that both the links in the rebuttals refer to "Sam Shamoun’s article “Muhammad’s False Prophecies” " which I cannot see any text is quoted. This adds an undue weight by copying text on one side but not anything from the Sam Shamoun text. Was that person i.e. Sam Shamoun deemed less relevant ? If so then why is the rebuttal from Hesham Azmy or Sami Zaatari still relevant and especially why is so much copied in from "A Muslim Site" ? Ttiotsw 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/d/Talk%7EHadith_of_the_prediction_in_Sura_al-Rum_99ec.html"