Muhammad's statements regarding Khosrau and Caesar- Part One

[TG123]

Salaam Alaikum. This post is directed towards my Muslim friends on this forum, but everyone is of course invited to read them and respond.

Sunrise in the post linked to below gave a list of predictions that Muhammad made.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7782957-11/#post64527455

One of these predictions in the list is as follows:

3. END OF CAESAR AND QISRA
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to Caesar and Qisra that after their death there will be no more Caesar and Qisra. And these empires joined the Islamic state. This happened in 638 A. D. (during the period of the second


There are several hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim that state that indeed he did teach this.

(5) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'. (Book #52, Hadith #267)

(6) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau after him; and when caesar is ruined, there will be no caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." (Book #53, Hadith #349)

(7) Narrated Jabir bin Samura: Allah's Apostle said, "When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau after him; and when caesar is ruined, their will be no caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." (Book #53, Hadith #350)


(9) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When Khosrau perishes, there will be no (more) Khosrau after him, and when caesar perishes, there will be no more caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad's life is, you will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah's Cause." (Book #56, Hadith #815)

(10) Narrated Jabir bin Samura: The Prophet said, "When Khosrau perishes, there will be no more Khosrau a after him, and when caesar perishes, there will be no more caesar after him," The Prophet also said, "You will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah's Cause." (Book #56, Hadith #816)


(12) Narrated Jabir bin Samura: The Prophet said, "If caesar is ruined, there will be no caesar after him; and if Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau, after him; and, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, surely you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." (Book #78, Hadith #625)

(13) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "If Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau after him; and if caesar is ruined, there will be no caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, surely you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." (Book #78, Hadith #626)

Search the word caesar in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

We know that Khosrau is a reference to Khosrau II, who Muhammad wrote a letter to, inviting him to join Islam. Khosrau II responded by ripping it up and wanting to kill Muhammad.

(9) Narrated Ibn Abbas: Allah's Apostle sent a letter to khosrau with Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi and told him to hand it over to the governor of Al-Bahrain. The governor of Al-Bahrain handed it over to khosrau, and when he read the latter, he tore it into pieces. (The sub-narrator added, "I think that Ibn Al-Musaiyab said, 'Allah 's Apostle invoked (Allah) to tear them all totally khosrau and his companions) into pieces. (Book #59, Hadith #708)

Search the word khosrau in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)


Caesar is a reference to Heraclius, to whom Muhammad wrote a letter to, inviting him into Islam also.

(3) Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas: Allah's Apostle wrote a letter to caesar saying, "If you reject Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the peasants (i.e. your people)." (Book #52, Hadith #187)

Search the word caesar in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

The letters that Muhammad wrote to Khosrau II and Heraclius can be seen on the site below:

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The letters of the Prophet Muhammad to the Kings beyond Arabia.pdf

 

[TG123]

The problem with the prediction that Muhammad gave regarding Khosrau and “Caesar” is that there were 2 rulers of Persia named Khosrau after the death of Khosrau II, and more than a very powerful men in the Byzantine Empire who went by the title of “Caesar” long after the death of Heraclius. It turns out that even Mehmed II referred to himself as Caesar!

Khosrau II ruled Persia until AD 628. He was a murderous conqueror, not unlike others in history. He was the one who rejected Muhammad’s letter, and he died in AD 628. After his death, there were several rulers over the empire, including one of his sons, Khosrau IV.

Khosrau died in 579 after a 58-year reign, in the midst of new treaty negotiations with Rome. Hormizd IV, a son, took the throne after killing off his rival brothers. He enforced a tough discipline in his army and the state at large, but also ensured religious toleration was followed, claiming he could not rule unless he had the good will of all the people. War with Rome, meanwhile, continued. Hormizd’s autocratic manner finally resulted in revolt led by the general Bahram in 590 (victor over the Turks the year before). Hormizd was defeated, captured, blinded and murdered.

His son Khosrau II was put on the throne. He ruled as Shah to 628, and in military terms at least, was one of greatest Sassanid rulers. His armies reached to the limits of the ancient Achaemenid empire, reaching the Mediterranean coast and taking Egypt in 616. But the conquests proved ephemeral. Constantinople itself was besieged, but the Roman Emperor Heraclius allied with the Khazars and held off the Persians for ten years.

Then in 626, the Romans counter-attacked and reached the Persian capital. In the wake of these defeats, Khosrau was deposed by the army in favour of his son Khavad II. After putting his father and 18 brothers to death, Khavad himself suddenly died. Ardashir III, a boy of seven, ruled for less than two years before he in turn was deposed and killed by the generals.

Farrokhan, the [FONT=&quot]Eran Spahbod[/FONT] (Commander of the Army) and [FONT=&quot]Shahrbaraz[/FONT] (Boar of the Empire), who had led the successful campaigns against the Romans, then took the throne in his own name. He could not stop the incursions of the Khazars, however, and was in turn killed in 630. There followed two brief reigns in succession by two daughters of Khosrau, Purondokht and Azarmidokht, the only time in its long history that women ruled the Persian Empire. Although some partly successful reforms were begun, internal dissension continued, and the son of Farrokhan, Rostam (appointed as Eran Spahbod by Purondokht), had Azarmidokht blinded. The short reigns of Hormizd VI and Khosrau IV followed. A grandson of Khosrau II, Yazdegerd III finally re-established some internal calm in 632.

Avalanche Press

Clearly, the statement that there will be no Khosraus after Khosrau (a reference to Khosrau II) is false.

Muhammad said also that after “Caesar” (a reference to Heraclius) there will be no more Caesars. This too was not true.

Heraclius (like Khosrau, also a murdering imperialist) actually did not use the title Caesar to describe himself, but instead used a Greek word.

While Heraclius enjoyed military success, major changes occurred internally under his rule. Greek replaced Latin as the official language of the empire and Heraclius adopted the Greek title of in place of the Latin Caesar, Augustus, or Imperator.

Roman Emperors DIR Heraclius

Nevertheless, the title “Caesar” was given to many powerful men in the Byzantine Empire. In fact, Mehmed II assumed this title also!

Eastern Roman Empire

The Byzantine emperor Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople
In the Eastern Roman Empire (called "Byzantine Empire" by later historians), Caesar (Greek: Καῖσαρ) continued in existence as a title marking out the heir-apparent, although since the time of Theodosius I, most emperors chose to solidify the succession of their intended heirs by raising them to co-emperors. Hence the title was more frequently awarded to second- and third-born sons, or to close and influential relatives of the Emperor: thus for example Alexios Mosele was the son-in-law of Theophilos, Bardas was the uncle and chief minister of Michael III, while Nikephoros II awarded the title to his father, Bardas Phokas.[3][4] An exceptional case was the conferment of the dignity and its insignia to the Bulgarian khan Tervel by Justinian II, who had helped him regain his throne in 705.[5] The title was awarded to the nephew of Empress Maria of Alania, George II of Georgia in 1081.
According to the Klētorologion of 899, the Byzantine Caesar's insignia were a crown without a cross, and the ceremony of a Caesar's creation (in this case dating to Constantine V), is included in De Ceremoniis I.43.[6] The title remained the highest in the imperial hierarchy until the introduction of the sebastokratōr (a portmanteau word meaning "majestic ruler" derived from sebastos and autokratōr, the Greek equivalents of Augustus and imperator) by Alexios I Komnenos and later of despotēs by Manuel I Komnenos. The title remained in existence through the last centuries of the Empire. In the Palaiologan period, it was held by prominent nobles like Alexios Strategopoulos, but from the 14th century, it was mostly awarded to foreign rulers of the Balkans such as the princes of Wallachia, Serbia and Thessaly.[4] In the mid-14th century Book of Offices of pseudo-Kodinos, the rank comes between the sebastokratōr and the megas domestikos.[4]
Ottoman Empire

Mehmed II and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadios. After the Fall of Constantinople, Mehmed claimed the title of "Caesar" of Rome (Kayser-i Rûm), although this claim was not recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Christian Europe. Mehmed's claim rested with the concept that Constantinople was the seat of the Roman Empire, after the transfer of its capital to Constantinople in 330 AD and the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos.[7] He was not the only ruler to claim such a title, as there was the Holy Roman Empire in Western Europe, whose emperor, Frederick III, traced his titular lineage from Charlemagne who obtained the title of Roman Emperor when he was crowned by Pope Leo III in 800 - although never recognized as such by the Byzantine Empire.
In the Middle East, the Persians and later the Arabs continued to refer to the Roman and Byzantine emperors as "Caesar" (in Persian قیصر روم Qaisar-e-Rūm). Thus, following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the victorious Ottoman sultan Mehmed II was the first of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire to assume the title "Caesar of the Roman Empire" (Ottoman Turkish Kayser-i-Rûm). Here, the Caesar title should not be understood as the minor title it had become, but as the glorious title of the emperors of the past, a connotation that had been preserved in Persian and Arabic. The adoption of the title also implied that the Ottoman state considered itself the continuation, by absorption, of the Roman Empire, a view not shared in the West. Acting in his capacity as Caesar of the Roman Empire, Mehmed reinstated the defunct Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Caesar (title) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammad’s statements that after Caesar there will be no more Caesar and that after Khosrau there will be no Khosrau, is quite clearly false.

I thank Sunrise for bringing this prediction of Muhammad to my attention in his thread, and I thank God for His guidance and showing me that Muhammad’s prediction in this case is wrong.

 

[sunrise0]

You seem to either ignore or not know the fact that some of the Prophet's predictions happened during his lifetime.
what if none of them happened? how many people do you think would have apostated ?

also he did many miracles right then, which were the reason behind many who embraced Islam in addition to the fact that he was known to be an honest trusted man.

 

[TG123]

You seem to either ignore or not know the fact that some of the Prophet's predictions happened during his lifetime.
what if none of them happened? how many people do you think would have apostated ?

also he did many miracles right then, which were the reason behind many who embraced Islam in addition to the fact that he was known to be an honest trusted man.

Salaam Alaikum. I certainly believe that some of Muhammad's predictions did happen in his lifetime and it is possible that he did some supernatural acts that would come across as miracles to his followers and other people.

How is this relevant to the point I have raised about the obviously false prediction about there being no Khosraus after Khosrau and no caesars after Caesar? Khorau II was succeeded for a brief time by one of his sons. Heraclius (who Muhammad addressed as Caesar in his letter) did not call himself Caesar to begin with, and after his death there were other caesars not only in the Byzantine Empire, but also the Ottoman Empire.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Found this online:


Ruining of Caesar and Khosrau and spending of their wealth in the way of Allah

Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau after him; and when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands is my life, you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause."

Abu Hatim commented that the Prophet's statement, "When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau afer him" means, in his controlled territory which was Iraq; and his statement, "when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him" means in his controlled territory which was Syria. The statement does not mean that no one would be installed as Khosrau or Caesar after the death of both. Actually, these two lands were conquered, as predicted, and all praise and favor belong to Allah. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Hajar said in his famous work, Fath Al-Bari: "Khosrau is the title for whoever ruled the Persian Empire while Caesar was the title for whoever ruled the Roman Empire. This statement of the Prophet (saw) raised some questions. The Persian empire lasted till the Caliphate of 'Uthman (ra) when the last of their emperors was killed. The Roman Empire lasted in a similar manner."

These ambiguities could be cleared by what was meant in the Hadith, which was that Khosrau's authority shall not abide in Iraq and that Caesar's authority shall not abide in Syria. This is reported from Ash-Shafi'i. He also said, "The Prophet (saw) was prompted into making this statement by the fact that the Quraish used to come to Iraq and Syria as traders. When they embraced Islam, they feared that they would be prevented from entering these two regions because of their acceptance of Islam. So, the Messenger of Allah (saw) made this statement to them in order to allay their fears and to give them good tidings that Roman and Persian control over the two regions shall come to an end."

The kingdom of the Caesar lasted for some time and he lost only the control of Syria and its surroundings while Khosrau lost his entire kingdom. The wisdom behind this, according to some scholars, is that when the Prophet's letter came to the Caesar, he accepted it and almost embraced Islam. As for Khosrau, when the letter of Allah's Messenger came to him, he tore it and the Prophet (saw) prayed to Allah to tear apart his kingdom. And this happened.

Al-Khattabi said: "the meaning of 'when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him' is that there shall not be any Caesar who would be as powerful and influential as the Caesar of that time. The Caesar then was living in Jerusalem, a city without visitation rights where Christians did not have complete religious rites. No one had ever gone to Rome without having visited the city either publicly or secretly. So, the Caesar of the time was expelled from the city and its treasures were rendered open, and no Caesar ever held control over the city afterwards."

Yusuf al-Hajj Ahmad - Book: The unchallengeable miracles of the Qur'an


All praises belong to Him for blessing us with the perfect religion of Islaam.

 

[TG123]

Found this online:


Ruining of Caesar and Khosrau and spending of their wealth in the way of Allah

Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau after him; and when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands is my life, you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause."

Abu Hatim commented that the Prophet's statement, "When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau afer him" means, in his controlled territory which was Iraq; and his statement, "when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him" means in his controlled territory which was Syria. The statement does not mean that no one would be installed as Khosrau or Caesar after the death of both. Actually, these two lands were conquered, as predicted, and all praise and favor belong to Allah. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Hajar said in his famous work, Fath Al-Bari: "Khosrau is the title for whoever ruled the Persian Empire while Caesar was the title for whoever ruled the Roman Empire. This statement of the Prophet (saw) raised some questions. The Persian empire lasted till the Caliphate of 'Uthman (ra) when the last of their emperors was killed. The Roman Empire lasted in a similar manner."

These ambiguities could be cleared by what was meant in the Hadith, which was that Khosrau's authority shall not abide in Iraq and that Caesar's authority shall not abide in Syria. This is reported from Ash-Shafi'i. He also said, "The Prophet (saw) was prompted into making this statement by the fact that the Quraish used to come to Iraq and Syria as traders. When they embraced Islam, they feared that they would be prevented from entering these two regions because of their acceptance of Islam. So, the Messenger of Allah (saw) made this statement to them in order to allay their fears and to give them good tidings that Roman and Persian control over the two regions shall come to an end."

The kingdom of the Caesar lasted for some time and he lost only the control of Syria and its surroundings while Khosrau lost his entire kingdom. The wisdom behind this, according to some scholars, is that when the Prophet's letter came to the Caesar, he accepted it and almost embraced Islam. As for Khosrau, when the letter of Allah's Messenger came to him, he tore it and the Prophet (saw) prayed to Allah to tear apart his kingdom. And this happened.

Al-Khattabi said: "the meaning of 'when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him' is that there shall not be any Caesar who would be as powerful and influential as the Caesar of that time. The Caesar then was living in Jerusalem, a city without visitation rights where Christians did not have complete religious rites. No one had ever gone to Rome without having visited the city either publicly or secretly. So, the Caesar of the time was expelled from the city and its treasures were rendered open, and no Caesar ever held control over the city afterwards."

Yusuf al-Hajj Ahmad - Book: The unchallengeable miracles of the Qur'an


All praises belong to Him for blessing us with the perfect religion of Islaam.

Assalamu Alaikum, LoveBeingAMuslimah, and thank you for sharing the explanation.

A few questions/comments I would make regarding the explanation.

How does Ash-Shafi'i know that Muhammad said this when he was reassuring Muslims who were worried about doing business in Syria and Iraq? Is this mentioned in the hadiths we have in Bukhari or Muslim or other authentic hadiths?

Why could not Muhammad have said that there will be no more Caesar in Syria and no more Khosrau in Iraq? That would have been more of a true statement than saying there will be no more caear after Caesar and no more khosrau after Khosrau.

If I am not mistaken, Ash-Shafi'i lived from 767-820 AD. I am quoting a Wikipedia source, I know, but to my knowledge this is correct. He lived long after Muhammad. I would like to see evidence of the context of the conversation that he alleges happened which gives the prediction the meaning he ascribes to it.
Al-Shafi‘i - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If Muhammad meant that there would be no more Roman control of Syria and no more Persian control of Iraq, he would have been 50% correct. Although the Byzantines never retook Syria, the same if not true of Iraq.


The Safavid Dynasty was a regime that controlled Persia as well as Iraq and other parts of the former Persian Empire for 2 centuries. It was a Shia government, and it engaged in religious persecution and at times even mass murder of Sunni Muslims.

The Modern Middle East- A Political History since the First World War, Mehran Karmava, p. 29. Only excerpts of this book are available online. I have not read it its entirety.
The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War - Mehran Kamrava - Google Books


Referring to Sah Esmail, during whose reign Emrani lived, Tome Pires, the Portugese ambassador to China who visited Iran 1511-12, noted:

He (Sah Esmail) reforms our churches, destroys the mosques of Moors who follow (the Sunna of) Muhammad, and never spares the lives of any Jew.


"The Judeo-Persian poet 'Emrani & his Book of Treasure", p. 20

The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War - Mehran Kamrava - Google Books


During the Safavid Dynasty, Sunni Muslims and other non-Shias living in the Persian Empire (which included Iraq) were persecuted for their faith.

The Safavids went as far as to proclaim Shia Islam the official religion of their empire.

The founder of the dynasty, Ismāʿīl I, as head of the Ṣūfīs of Ardabīl, won enough support from the local Turkmens and other disaffected heterodox tribes to enable him to capture Tabrīz from the Ak Koyunlu (Turkish: “White Sheep&#8221, an Uzbek Turkmen confederation, and in July 1501 Ismāʿīl was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan. By May of the next year he was shah of Iran. In the next 10 years he subjugated the greater part of Iran and annexed the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad and Mosul; despite the predominantly Sunnite character of this territory, he proclaimed Shīʿism the state religion.
Safavid Dynasty (Iranian dynasty) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Also, Khosrau II died in AD 628, and Iraq was invaded by the Muslims in AD 633. That means that for 5 years after the death of Khosrau, Iraq was still ruled by the Persian Empire.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192807007.001.0001/acref-9780192807007-e-2008


To sum up my response:

A) I have not yet seen any evidence that when Muhammad said there will be no caesar after Caesar and no khosrau after Khosrau, he meant it as a reassurance to Muslims that the Roman Empire will not rule in Syria again and that the Persian Empire will not rule in Iraq again. If you can present me hadith evidence that shows Ash-Shafi's words to be true or even how he explained how he came to this conclusion, it would be very helpful.

B) If Muhammad meant that the Byzantine Empire will no longer rule over Syria after the death of Heraclius and that the Persian Empire will not rule over Iraq after the death of Khosrau II, he would have been 50% correct. While the Byzantines never again took control of Syria or Jerusalem, the Persians did indeed take control of Iraq after the death of Khosrau II. An example of this would be under the leadership of Shia Muslims of the Safavid Dynasty, who launched a vicious campaign of persecution against Sunnis and other non-Shias that included forceful conversions and murders. Also, Persian rule over Iraq lasted for 5 years after his murder in AD 628.

As an aside, Shias were also being subjected to persecution at this point by Sunni leaders in areas they controlled.

Everyone knows that in parts of the world at that point that were ruled by governments that claimed to be Christian, persecution of any sort did not take place.*

*Full sarcasm unfortunately intended

 

[sunrise0]

Muslim
Book 041, Number 6973:
Abu Huraira reported that Allh's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: (Khusrau king of Persia) would die and Qaisar (Ceasar King of Rome) would die; there would be no Qaisar after him, but, by one in Whose Hand is my life, you would spend their treasures in the cause of Allah.


anoth

​

er point:

The hijrah (Prophet’s migration to Madeenah)

Ibn Shihaab said: ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Maalik al-Mudliji, who was the nephew of Suraaqah ibn Maalik ibn Ju'sham, told me that his father informed him that he heard Suraaqah ibn Ju'sham saying, "The messengers of the kuffaar of Quraysh came to us declaring that they had assigned for the persons who would kill or arrest the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and Abu Bakr, a reward equal to their bloodmoney. While I was sitting in one of the gatherings of my tribe, Bani Mudlij, a man from them came to us and stood while we were sitting, and said, 'O Suraaqah! No doubt, I have just seen some people far away on the shore, and I think they are Muhammad and his companions.' " Suraaqah added, "I too realized that it must have been they. But I said 'No, it is not they, but you have seen so-and-so, and so-and-so whom we saw setting out.' I stayed in the gathering for a while and then got up and left for my home. I ordered my slave-girl to get my horse which was behind a hillock, and keep it ready for me.

Then I took my spear and left by the back door of my house dragging the lower end of the spear on the ground and keeping it low. Then I reached my horse, mounted it and made it gallop. When I approached them (i.e. Muhammad and Abu Bakr), my horse stumbled and I fell down from it, Then I stood up, got hold of my quiver and took out the divining arrows and drew lots as to whether I should harm them (i.e. the Prophet and Abu Bakr) or not, and the lot which I disliked came out. But I remounted my horse and let it gallop, giving no importance to the divining arrows. When I heard the recitation of the Qur’aan by the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who was not looking around although Abu Bakr kept doing that, suddenly the forelegs of my horse sank into the ground up to the knees, and I fell down from it. Then I rebuked it and it got up but it could hardly lift its forelegs from the ground, and when it stood up straight again, its forelegs caused dust to rise up in the sky like smoke. Then again I drew lots with the divining arrows, and the lot which I disliked, came out. So I called to them to let them know they were safe. They stopped, and I remounted my horse and went to them. When I saw how I had been hampered from harming them, it came to my mind that the Cause of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (i.e. Islam) would become victorious. So I said to him, "Your people have assigned a reward equal to the bloodmoney for your capture." Then I told them all the plans the people of Makkah had made concerning them. Then I offered them some journey food and goods but they refused to take anything and did not ask for anything, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "Do not tell others about us." Then I requested him to write for me a guarantee of security. He ordered 'Aamir bin Fuhayrah to write it for me on a piece of animal skin, then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went on his way."

This is a summary of some of the events of the hijrah. Whoever wants to know more may consult references such as al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer, 4/168-205

Islam Question and Answer - The hijrah (Prophet’s migration to Madeenah)

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Assalamu Alaikum, LoveBeingAMuslimah, and thank you for sharing the explanation.

Wa Alaikum

How does Ash-Shafi'i know that Muhammad said this when he was reassuring Muslims who were worried about doing business in Syria and Iraq? Is this mentioned in the hadiths we have in Bukhari or Muslim or other authentic hadiths?

1.) God knows best. But Imaam ash-Shafi'ee is among our greatest scholars (one whose understanding of legal jurisprudence is still followed today).

2.) The point was that there are reconciliations to this. Basically, it is not an irreconcilable contradiction unlike what you are trying to portray.

3.) You once asked how I knew the livestock wasn't poisoned by the Amalekites to harm the Israelites when I questioned the Old Testament verse of people being commanded to kill even livestock. This isn't mentioned in the Bible, but you were trying to come up with an explanation as to why God would command such a thing. You came up with something similar regarding babies, if I recall correctly (that who knows, maybe their parents taught them to hate the Israelites).

So why are you allowed to propose theories but we aren't? And this isn't even a theory from us laymen, it is something that the scholars put forth. If it's not based on the Qur'aan and sunnah, could it be wrong? Absolutely. But the point is that there are explanations. And whatever it is, we definitely believe everything from the Qur'aan & the sunnah to be the truth and we know that there aren't any irreconcilable contradictions.

The Safavid Dynasty was a regime that controlled Persia as well as Iraq and other parts of the former Persian Empire for 2 centuries. It was a Shia government, and it engaged in religious persecution and at times even mass murder of Sunni Muslims.

They weren't Khosrau.

 

[TG123]

Salaam Alaikum, Sunrise and LoveBeingAMuslimah. I will try to respond to the points you made in both threads, tomorrow or later this week.

 

[TG123]

Wa Alaikum

Same to you.

1.) God knows best. But Imaam ash-Shafi'ee is among our greatest scholars (one whose understanding of legal jurisprudence is still followed today).

2.) The point was that there are reconciliations to this. Basically, it is not an irreconcilable contradiction unlike what you are trying to portray.

3.) You once asked how I knew the livestock wasn't poisoned by the Amalekites to harm the Israelites when I questioned the Old Testament verse of people being commanded to kill even livestock. This isn't mentioned in the Bible, but you were trying to come up with an explanation as to why God would command such a thing. You came up with something similar regarding babies, if I recall correctly (that who knows, maybe their parents taught them to hate the Israelites).

So why are you allowed to propose theories but we aren't? And this isn't even a theory from us laymen, it is something that the scholars put forth. If it's not based on the Qur'aan and sunnah, could it be wrong? Absolutely. But the point is that there are explanations. And whatever it is, we definitely believe everything from the Qur'aan & the sunnah to be the truth and we know that there aren't any irreconcilable contradictions.

Actually, you make a very good point here. I did offer possible explanations for the passages in the Bible you had questions about, so it isn't right of me to criticize Imam Shafi'i or the others you quoted for doing the same thing. I apologize for this, it was hypocritical of me.

As my response then, I will respond to the explanation you gave, rather than ask what were the sources of these men.

They weren't Khosrau.

However, the source you cited says that "Khosrau" was a title to whoever ruled the Persian Empire. The Safavids did have a Persian empire, so their rulers who persecuted Muslims, by the definition given by Ibn Hajar, would be Khosrau also.

Also, if we want to make the assumption that the Persian Empire being referenced to is only the empire that ended in the 7th century, the statement would still be incorrect. Khosrau II was suceeded by several men who held the territory for another 5 years after he died. Being the leaders of the Persian empire, they too would have been "khosrau" according to the explanation.

Abu Hatim commented that the Prophet's statement, "When Khosrau is ruined, there will be no Khosrau afer him" means, in his controlled territory which was Iraq; and his statement, "when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him" means in his controlled territory which was Syria. The statement does not mean that no one would be installed as Khosrau or Caesar after the death of both. Actually, these two lands were conquered, as predicted, and all praise and favor belong to Allah. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Hajar said in his famous work, Fath Al-Bari: "Khosrau is the title for whoever ruled the Persian Empire while Caesar was the title for whoever ruled the Roman Empire. This statement of the Prophet (saw) raised some questions. The Persian empire lasted till the Caliphate of 'Uthman (ra) when the last of their emperors was killed. The Roman Empire lasted in a similar manner."...

 

[Arthra]

TG...

I think you may be confusing the Sassanids of whom Khosrau II was one with the Safavids...

He was the last king of Persia to have a lengthy reign before the Muslim conquest of Iran, which began five years after his death by assassination.

Khosrau II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Safavids were Muslims:

Safavid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TG123]

TG...

I think you may be confusing the Sassanids of whom Khosrau II was one with the Safavids...

He was the last king of Persia to have a lengthy reign before the Muslim conquest of Iran, which began five years after his death by assassination.

Khosrau II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Safavids were Muslims:

Safavid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure if LoveBeingAMuslimah or too many other Muslims n this forum would agree that the Safavids were Muslims. Also, as I have showed, if the explanation that LoveBeingAMuslimah displayed was correct, even if it was a reference to only the Persian Empire, Muhammad still would have been wrong since there were other rulers who briefly reigned after Khosrau II over Iraq.

 

[Arthra]

I'm not sure if LoveBeingAMuslimah or too many other Muslims n this forum would agree that the Safavids were Muslims. Also, as I have showed, if the explanation that LoveBeingAMuslimah displayed was correct, even if it was a reference to only the Persian Empire, Muhammad still would have been wrong since there were other rulers who briefly reigned after Khosrau II over Iraq.

I believe you're incorrect as clearly the Safavids were indeed Muslims.. and their dynasty began in 1501 the sixteenth century
and using the same "logic" you could also "disprove" a prophecy of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Mark 13:1-6, i.e.,

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Even after the "destruction" of the Temple of Jerusalem there was left the "wailing wall".

 

[LoAmmi]

I believe you're incorrect as clearly the Safavids were indeed Muslims.. and their dynasty began in 1501 the sixteenth century
and using the same "logic" you could also "disprove" a prophecy of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Mark 13:1-6, i.e.,

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Even after the "destruction" of the Temple of Jerusalem there was left the "wailing wall".

Ah, all I can say is:

*snicker*

 

[TG123]

I believe you're incorrect as clearly the Safavids were indeed Muslims.. and their dynasty began in 1501 the sixteenth century

The explanation quoted by LoveBeingAMuslimah said that "khosrau" means a ruler of the Persian Empire. The Safavids did run a Persian empire.

Even if we want to though assume that the title meant the ruler of the Persian empire during Muhammad's day, the prophecy would still be a false one. Persian control over Iraq lasted for an additional five years, under several other rulers.

and using the same "logic" you could also "disprove" a prophecy of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Mark 13:1-6, i.e.,

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Even after the "destruction" of the Temple of Jerusalem there was left the "wailing wall".

The Western Wall was not part of the Temple of Jerusalem, but an outer wall around it.

When Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., only one outer wall remained standing. The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them; it was not even part of the Temple itself, just an outer wall surrounding the Temple Mount. For the Jews, however, this remnant of what was the most sacred building in the Jewish world quickly became the holiest spot in Jewish life.

History & Overivew of the Western Wall | Jewish Virtual Library

Jesus was right.

 

[Arthra]

TG

Well thanks for your reference on the wailing wall.. I had thought of it as being what was left of the general structure of the Temple and so have learned from your reference that it is generally held to be..

The rapid collapse though of Khosrau and Caesar seems still to me to be fairly accurate..that is, the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanids after years of battles seem to collapse of their own weight. Arabia before Islam had been divided and more or less exploited by these more powerful states.

 

[smaneck]

The problem with the prediction that Muhammad gave regarding Khosrau and “Caesar” is that there were 2 rulers of Persia named Khosrau after the death of Khosrau II, and more than a very powerful men in the Byzantine Empire who went by the title of “Caesar” long after the death of Heraclius. It turns out that even Mehmed II referred to himself as Caesar!

Congratulations!

You've proven that ahadith which were not written down until two or three centuries after Muhammad are not that reliable.

 

[smaneck]

there were other caesars not only in the Byzantine Empire, but also the Ottoman Empire.

The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire never called themselves ceasars.

 

[smaneck]

The Safavid Dynasty was a regime that controlled Persia as well as Iraq and other parts of the former Persian Empire for 2 centuries.

I'm not sure why the Safavids entered into this discussion, but they were Turks, not Persians.

 

[TG123]

TG

Well thanks for your reference on the wailing wall.. I had thought of it as being what was left of the general structure of the Temple and so have learned from your reference that it is generally held to be..

No problem. The wall sorrounded the Temple, but was not part of it. Jesus' prophecy came true.

The rapid collapse though of Khosrau and Caesar seems still to me to be fairly accurate..that is, the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanids after years of battles seem to collapse of their own weight. Arabia before Islam had been divided and more or less exploited by these more powerful states.

I am not denying any of this, however, that is different from what Muhammad said in the hadiths that I cited. He said there would be no khosrau after Khosrau, and no caesar after Caesar. There were a few khosraus and many more caesars after Khosrau II and Heraclius (who didn't go by the title of Caesar to begin with) who ruled over Persia and the Byzantine Empire.

If we want to go by the explanations provided by LoveBeingAMuslimah and state that this was a reference only to Persian control over Iraq and Byzantine control over Syria, the prediction would be 50% correct because Iraq was ruled by a few more Persian rulers after the death of Khosrau II.

In either case, Muhammad's prediction on this was wrong.