est

Which nation does Rūm in the Aḥādīth of the Last Days refer to?

by Musa Cerantonio


***Please note that this is NOT the full piece, this is only the first of 2 parts, the second part is yet to be completed***


Chapter 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNS OF THE LAST DAYS

Chapter 2 - WHO IS RUM THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN?

Chapter 3 - THE HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF RUM ACCORDING TO IBN KATHIR & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EDOMITES

Chapter 4 - WHAT DEFINES RUM?

Chapter 5 - THE IDENTITY OF RUM AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND IN THE LAST DAYS

Chapter 6 - THE MOST COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED OPINIONS REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF RŪM IN OUR TIMES

Chapter 7 - WHO INHERITED THE TITLE OF RUM UPON THE FALL OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

Chapter 8 - WHO IS RUM TODAY?

Chapter 9 - WHO ARE THE TURKS MENTIONED IN THE AHADITH OF THE PROPHET?

UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNS OF THE LAST DAYS

One of the blessings that we as an Ummah have is that not only do we know about the stories of our past, but Allah has also given us an insight into certain portents of our future. Just as the Qur'ān and the teachings of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ teach us about the stories of previous nations and what became of them, so too we are told about what will happen to our nation in the days ahead of us, all the way up until the Last Day. This is indeed a blessing that helps us to prepare for what will soon occur, however it also requires that we be diligent in understanding the correct meanings and implications of each of the forewarnings and prophesies.

When we look at the signs of the coming of the Last Day we should realise that understanding exactly what is being referred to can sometimes be clear whereas at other times it is almost impossible to properly comprehend until the foretold events occur. An example of a clearly understood prediction which is mentioned in the Qur'an, in the first few verses of Sūrat Ar-Rūm:

غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ فِي أَدْنَى الْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ

The Romans have been defeated in the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will be victorious within three to nine years. [30:2-4]

The verse is very clear in stating what will happen and when. The Romans who had been defeated by the Persians would soon overcome the mighty Persian Empire and avenge their previous defeat. The time period in which it is stated that it will occur is specified with the Arabic term [fī biḍʿi sinīn] meaning within 3-9 years. This event was foretold and later occurred, within the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ and is thus seen as one of the many miracles of the Qur'an. In the instance of this prophesy there was no doubt as to what was expected to occur and when it would occur, there could thus be no misunderstanding as to what the verses meant, so this is a prophesy that we can consider to have been very clear and precise to those who read it and heard it.

An example of an unclear prophesy that has come to pass is the following prophecy that was foretold by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in the well-known 'ḥadīth of Jibrīl' that one of the signs of the Last Day would be:

"That the shepherds of camels will compete with one another in the construction of tall buildings and will boast about them." [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 50]

This ḥadīth can be said with almost no doubt to refer to the ongoing phenomenon that began in the last decade in which the people of the Arabian Peninsula have begun competing with one another to build the world's tallest tower. In the last 4 years the 2 tallest buildings in the world have been built in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and a third tower also in Saudi Arabia is set to be built which will become the new tallest building in the world once it is completed, stretching an enormous 1km into the sky. What is amazing about these buildings is that due to the rapid growth of the Arabian nations in the last half a century, many of those involved in the construction of the towers came from poor bedouin families who became overnight billionaires. I met one of the construction managers for the Burj Khalīfah in the UAE in 2010 and he told me that he came from a bedouin family and that one of his earliest memories was playing as a barefooted child in the desert while his family looked after their camels and goats. So we see that the exact words of the prophecy were true and have indeed appeared before our eyes in these days, however due to the fact that the prophecy did not contain specific details such as a precise location or a specified period of time in which it would occur, it would have been impossible for someone in the past to have looked at the ḥadīth and to have been able to understand that it would occur in the places or in these specific years in which they came to be in.

This difference in the specific details of prophecies of future events means that sometimes the meaning of the prophecies will be very clear to those who read or hear them, and that sometimes they will not be clear until the events come to pass, and yet a third category can be defined as being those prophecies which are specific about some matters but unclear regarding other matters mentioned within them. Those which fall into this third category may specify names and places but may be unclear as to who the names specifically refer to, or may mention place names that are somewhat vague such as 'the East', which may refer to any area from 'Iraq all the way to Japan or even further to the New World (the Americas), and so whilst it is clear that 'East' means a land to the east of Arabia, it would not be clear exactly which eastern land is being referred to. This type of category is one that contains some information that can help us prepare for future events, but requires analysis of the prophecy which may not be clear to all who read it due to unfamiliarity with portents of the prophecy, and may not be understood at all until the event itself occurs. With this understanding of the different types of prophecies, let us begin to look at and analyse the Aḥādīth of the Last Days which make mention of Rūm.

To begin it should be made clear that the only Aḥādīth attributed to the Prophet ﷺ that we accept are those that are authentically narrated from him [Ṣaḥīḥ], if a ḥadīth is not proven to be authentic then it cannot be used as an evidence in Islam nor can we attribute it to the Prophet ﷺ as being one of his sayings. Therefore only authentic narrations regarding Rūm and the Last Days will be discussed, as any narration that is not authentic cannot be used as evidence in Islam and must be disregarded by the Believers due to its inauthenticity. Much of the confusion about future events that people have is due to the proliferation of inauthentic and fabricated sayings falsely attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. Once we know that a ḥadīth we have heard is not authentic then we must not narrate it to others claiming that it is authentic nor give the impression that it is authentic, to do so is an error and a sin that we seek to avoid.

WHO IS RUM THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN?

Rūm [الرومِ] when referred to in the Qur'an as well as in the events contemporary to the lifetime of the Prophet refers to what is called in our days the 'Byzantine Empire'. This name is taken from the ancient name of the capital city of the Empire which was originally named 'Byzantion' and later came to be known as Constantinople. The Byzantines however did not ever call themselves by this name, rather they called their empire the 'Roman Empire' [Basileia Rhōmaiōn] as they were by all means the continuation of the Roman Empire which began as a kingdom in the city of Rome in 753 BC, located in the Italian peninsula. The Roman Empire which was based in Rome expanded throughout much of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and due to its large size was eventually split into 2 separate administrative regions - the Western Empire which was based in Rome whose people spoke Latin, and the Eastern Empire which was based in Constantinople and whose people spoke Greek. The Western Empire came to an end in 476 AD when it was defeated by German tribes from the north who had invaded their land, and so the Eastern Empire was what remained of the original Roman Empire. It continued to call itself the Roman Empire despite the fact that city of Rome itself was no longer part of it. Historians later began calling this the Eastern Roman Empire to differentiate it from the earlier Roman Empire which comprised both the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East. In order to clarify it even further the name 'Byzantine Empire' was later applied to the Eastern Empire even though this name was never used by the Romans themselves. In Arabic the Empire was simply called Rūm. A ḥadīth narrated by Ibn ʿAbbās clarifies the fact that Rūm in Arabic undoubtedly referred to the (Eastern) Roman Empire based in Constantinople, in which the details of a letter sent by the Prophet ﷺ to the leader of Rūm are mentioned, the opening portion of the letter begins:

إِلَى هِرَقْلَ عَظِيمِ الرُّومِ 
"To Heraclius the leader of Rūm" [Tirmidhī 2717]

It is understood from the words of this letter that Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ was the Byzantine Empire which was based in Constantinople and had Heraclius as its leader. History records that Heraclius (Flavius Heraclius Augustus) was the ruler of the Roman Empire from 610-641 which corresponds to the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, and so we can be sure that Rūm specifically referred to the Roman (Byzantine) Empire based in Constantinople. The clarification must be made that the city of Rome was not always part of the Byzantine Empire yet the Arabs continuously referred to it still as Rūm (the city of Rome itself was reconquered by the Byzantines and remained in their power intermittently throughout their rule) and thus Rūm does not refer to the city of Rome in Italy but rather to the Roman Empire based in Constantinople which inherited the title of the Roman Empire upon the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Germanic invaders. Therefore all of the lands which were under the control of the Roman Empire were referred to as Rūm by the Muslims. An example of this is the island of Rhodes which is located in the Mediterranean Sea, and was mentioned in a ḥadīth in which some of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ narrated:

كُنَّا مَعَ فَضَالَةَ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ بِرُودِسَ مِنْ أَرْضِ الرُّومِ 
"We were with Faḍālah bin ʿUbayr at Rhodes which is in the land of Rūm" [Abū Dāwūd 3219]

The island of Rhodes which is politically part of modern-day Greece was at the time part of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore was mentioned as being part of Rūm.  Similarly, all of the lands which were part of the Byzantine Empire were considered as being part of Rūm by the Muslims, and consequently if such lands were to be lost by the Byzantine Empire then they would no longer be considered to be part of Rūm. When the Muslims began to conquer parts of the Byzantine Empire, the lands that the Muslims gained were no longer classed as being part of Rūm, only those lands which the Byzantines still controlled were called as Rūm. The concept of what Rūm was according to the early Muslims is therefore not to be understood as a purely geographic description, as it neither referred to the city of Rome from which it took its name nor did it permanently apply to any specific land throughout all times. Rather, if a certain land belonged to the Roman Empire then it was called Rūm by the Muslims for as long as the Byzantine Empire controlled it, and if it were lost by the Empire then it would no longer be called Rūm. Therefore the entity of Rūm was understood to be the land that was controlled by the Byzantine Empire at the time. The description of which lands belonged to Rūm according to the Muslims was therefore a political description, it described any land which the Roman Empire governed and maintained political control over.

What we must understand then is that when Allah speaks about Rūm in the Qur'an, what is specifically being referred to is the empire that existed at that specific time (approx. 615 AD). The 'Romans' as mentioned in Surat Ar-Rūm are the Romans of the Byzantine Empire at the time of the revelation. Any time that Rūm would be mentioned one would have to take into account which lands the Byzantine Empire controlled in order to understand what the lands of Rūm were at that time. For example, in 615 AD Rhodes would have been considered as a part of Rūm, however throughout history it belonged to different empires and nations, depending on who controlled it. A rough timeline of the political status of Rhodes is as follows:

16th century BC - Minoa
15th century BC - Mycenae
8th century BC - Dorians
490 BC - Persian Empire
478 BC - Athenian League
408 BC - Independent Rhodes
357 BC - Caria
340 BC - Persian Empire
332 BC - Macedonian Kingdom
323 BC - Independent Rhodes
164 AD - Roman Empire
395 AD - Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire
1309 - Knights Hospitaller
1522 - Ottoman Empire
1912 - Italy
1943 - Germany
1947 - Greece

As can be seen in the timeline, in 164 AD Rhodes became a part of the Roman Empire and when the Empire split into 2 parts it then became part of the Eastern Roman Empire, or as it is known today, the Byzantine Empire. This means that since its initial settlement by the Minoans in the 16th century BC it was never known as being part of Rūm up until the Roman Empire took control of it in 164 AD, therefore the only time that Rhodes was referred to as Rūm was when it was under the political control of the Romans. Therefore, the moment that Rūm lost control of Rhodes it was no longer considered to be a part of Rūm. Other than the 400 year period of control by the Ottomans (the reason why will be pointed out later), it is clear that Rhodes was no longer a part of Rūm after it was lost by the Byzantine Empire. Today we know Rhodes as being a part of Greece, meaning that it has reverted back to Greek rule under the control of the government in Athens like it was from 478 BC - 408 BC, and just as we know that Rhodes was not a part of Rūm during the Athenian rule then, so too it is not a part of Rūm today, rather it was only when Rhodes was controlled by the Roman Empire and its successors that it was identified as being a part of Rūm.

This understanding of how a land becomes a part of Rūm is essential to understanding which lands are to be considered as Rūm at various times. Understanding that a land is a part of Rūm so long as it is controlled by Rūm helps us to identify which lands were part of Rūm at different points in history, as well as helping us to understand what constitutes Rūm itself, ie. lands that are under its political control.

THE HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF RUM ACCORDING TO IBN KATHIR & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EDOMITES

In his well-known tafsīr (exegesis) of the Qur'an, the scholar Ibn Kathīr spends some time describing who Rūm refers to in the chapter of the Qur'an named after Rūm. Like all others before and after him, he correctly explains that Rūm at the time of the revelation the Qur'an was the Byzantine Empire. At the time that Ibn Kathīr wrote his tafsīr (1370 AD), the same Roman Empire mentioned in the Qur'an was still in existence, however it had been reduced to a much weaker state and possessed only a small area of land in the corner of Europe. Despite the fact that the Romans' capital was still Constantinople, which was the most well-defended city in the world at the time, it was still a mere shadow of what it used to be. Despite its weakness and great reduction in size, it still managed to protect its capital city from invaders and it was not for almost another century after Ibn Kathīr's time that the Ottoman Muslims finally captured the city from them, effectively bringing the Roman Empire to an end.

Ibn Kathīr begins his description of the Romans by quoting from what we refer to as the isrā'īliyyāt. These are narrations which are taken from the Jews and the Christians and do not appear in either the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Ibn Kathīr held that when no evidence is available in the revelation of Allah about the previous nations, then it is acceptable to look to what Ahlul-Kitāb (ie. the people of the Book - the Jews and the Christians) said about them. This methodology is not widely accepted as a means of establishing fact, and if one is to only accept that which is authentic then they would no doubt be forced to reject such narrations. It should be noted however that even Ibn Kathīr did not quote their narrations as decisive proofs, but rather, merely as reports that may or may not have been true, and he agreed that they could not be used to claim any matter as fact due to the inability to authenticate such narrations. The isrā'īliyyāt therefore served as statements that were held by the Jews and Christians which would be mentioned only in the absence of any clear revelation on a matter.

Ibn Kathīr states about the Romans: "With regard to the Romans (Rūm), they are the descendants of Esau the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham (Al-ʿĪṣ bin Iṣḥāq bin Ibrāhīm)"

At first this statement may seem odd to those familiar with the history of the Roman Empire, as it is well known that neither the Romans from the Western Roman Empire, nor those of the Eastern Roman Empire were descended from the Biblical figure Esau who was a Semite from the Middle East. The origins of both the Western Romans and the Byzantines undoubtedly do not go back to Esau nor to any Semitic group, rather the origins of the earliest Romans go back to the tribe of the Latins (Latini) who spoke an Indo-European language (Latin) and had no links whatsoever to the Semites. The Latins had founded a number of states in the central Italian peninsula which fought one another in the Latin wars, until the strongest of the states defeated the rest and established itself as the state of all the Latins, that city-state as we know is none other than Rome. It is therefore established in history that Rome was originally founded by the Latins. So why then did Ibn Kathīr state that the Romans were descended from Esau? The origin of this statement is found in narrations of the Rabbis and scholars of the Jews, who associated the Romans with the Edomites. In fact the Roman Empire and even Rome itself was commonly referred to by the Jews as Edom (meaning 'red' in Hebrew), a practice which continues up until today. Who then were the Edomites? They were in fact the direct descendants of Esau, who was commonly known by his nickname 'Edom'.

The reason why the Jews associated the Edomites with the Romans was because the Edomites, who were located in what is today south-west Jordan as well as parts of the south-east of Palestine, allied themselves with the Romans and it was from this people that one of the ruling families of Palestine emerged. The ruler from this family that is most well known from history is Herod the Great, allegedly the ruler of Palestine at the time of the Prophet Jesus. Herod was ethnically an Edomite and ruled on behalf of the Roman Empire which at the time was still based in Rome. The Jews therefore associated the Roman Empire with the Edomites, as the Romans that they dealt with and knew of were in fact ethnic Edomites who ruled over the Palestinian areas of the Roman Empire. The fact that the Jews viewed the Edomites as Romans further shows that even to the Jews the definition of Rūm was a political one and not an ethnic one. The Jews called the Edomites as Romans because the Edomites had joined the Roman Empire and became governors of the Roman provinces in Palestine. yet another understanding that can be gained from this is that the Jews viewed the Edomites as Romans even though the Edomites followed the Jewish religion, proving that even though the Edomites did not share the pagan religion of those in Rome, that they were still part of Rūm.

It should be kept in mind that these claims regarding the Edomites are not from the Qur'an or the Sunnah but rather are narrations from the Jews and therefore do not constitute proofs for us, even though they are mentioned by Ibn Kathīr. However the premise that Rūm could be associated with an ethnic group other than the actual Romans from Rome is something seen to have been accepted and used by Muslims, Jews as well as even the Romans themselves.

The association mentioned by Ibn Kathīr of Rūm with the Edomites therefore does have a historical basis to it, as the Romans absorbed the Edomite lands and caused the demonym 'Edomite' to effectively disappear from existence as they became known as Romans and even became governors of the Roman provinces in the Middle East. The Edomites became Romans and lost their identity of Edomites over time until they were no longer recognised as being Edomites but were fully integrated Romans. This is why eventually the name 'Edomites' was dropped in favour of 'Romans', much like the descendants of the Aztecs today no longer call themselves Aztecs, but instead call themselves Mexicans, having adopted the name given to the land by the Spanish conquistadores. This is how the people that were formerly known as Edomites became known as the Romans of Palestine.

Ibn Kathīr continues, "They are the cousins of the Children of Isrā'īl, and are also known as Banī Al-Aṣfar"

The Edomites were closely related to the Jews (Banī Isrā'īl) as they were both descended from the Prophet Iṣḥāq which is why Ibn Kathīr referred to them as cousins. It is said by the Jews however that the Edomites turned away from the religion of Ishaq and began to worship the Roman idols alongside Allah, and therefore were cut off from the Jewish tribes who shunned the worship of idols. The name 'Edom' itself means 'red' in the Hebrew language and is another name of Esau, as it was said that when he was born that he was reddish in complexion. Therefore, the name 'Edomites' literally means 'the sons of the reddish one'. What is very interesting is that the term used by the Arabs to commonly refer to the Romans was 'the sons of the yellow one' (ie. Banī Al-Aṣfar). At first it may seem that the 2 colours red and yellow are different and could not be referring to the same individual or people, however a deeper knowledge of Ancient Hebrew will quickly show that they are most likely in fact referring to the same colour.

In the Ancient Hebrew language there was no clear way to say 'yellow' as no word for the colour yellow existed at the time. The closest word to yellow in the Ancient Hebrew language was yarūq which actually meant 'green', however at times it was also used to refer to the colour of gold, which we associate with the colour yellow. The fact that yellow as a colour did not exist in the Hebrew language means that there was no way to express that something was yellow, rather a Hebrew speaker would compare the shade of yellow that he saw to the nearest colour available, and in the case of a greenish-yellow he would call it green, and if it were a reddish-yellow he would call it red. This means that the usage of the term Edom to describe a 'reddish' newborn may have actually been referring to a colour that we in the English language would more likely associate with the colour yellow, something that is very common in newborns who are jaundiced, especially as a jaundiced baby does often appear to be reddish. This is why it is very likely that when the Jews called Esau 'reddish' that they could have been referring to a yellowish shade rather than a deep red.

Colour spectrum showing the transition between green, yellow and red

The name Banī Al-Aṣfar is mentioned in the Sunnah and is used to refer to the Romans, an example of this is in a ḥadīth narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

إِنَّهُ يَخَافُهُ مَلِكُ بَنِي الأَصْفَرِ
"Verily even the King of Banī Al-Aṣfar (referring to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor) fears him." [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2978]

Is it possible therefore that the Romans who are referred to as 'the sons of the yellow one' in Arabic are indeed the same 'sons of the red one' referred to in Hebrew? It seems very likely, and the fact that it is stated clearly that both names refer to the Romans makes it hard to assume that it could be referring to anyone else but the Romans. Banī Al-Aṣfar and the Edomites are most likely one and the same, both referring to the sons of Esau who later became Romans. This explains why Ibn Kathīr described Banī Al-Aṣfar as being Romans as well as cousins of the Jews, a description that applies only to the Edomites and no other group throughout history.

Ibn Kathīr continues describing Rūm by mentioning that they were later the ones who built the Temple of Jupiter in Damascus, and they eventually embraced Christianity and based themselves in the city of Constantinople. By mentioning this we see clearly that he associates Rūm with none other than the Roman Empire which was founded in the city of Rome, and he does not differentiate between the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, but calls them both Rūm. History shows that it was indeed the Romans who built the Temple of Jupiter in Damascus, and we know that they abandoned paganism in favour of Christianity. His association of Rūm with not only the Romans of his time, who were the Eastern (Byzantine) Romans, but also the earlier Western Romans shows that he accepted that Rūm is not a monolithic state based in one area that does not change, but rather he conceded that the definition Rūm changed over time in very significant ways. 2 of those changes are most important to note - firstly that Rūm formerly worshiped many gods and were pagans, however they later became Christians, meaning that Rūm was not defined by any specific religion, but rather the nation remained as Rūm even when they adopted Christianity. This implies that Rūm does not have to be Christian, as there was a time when it was in fact a pagan nation. The second important point is that Rūm changed in location but still continued to be called Rūm. It went from being based in Rome to being based in Constantinople, and was still called Rūm by Ibn Kathīr even after it lost control of the city of Rome. From Ibn Kathīr's descriptions of Rūm it becomes clear that the only factor that he recognises as defining Rūm over time is that of allegiance and belonging to the political control of the Empire that began in Rome.

WHAT DEFINES RUM?

Since it is known and accepted that Rūm significantly changed over time, as it developed from a small city state based in the city of Rome, to becoming the Kingdom of Rome, then the Roman Empire, and eventually the Byzantine Empire, the question arises, what is it that defines Rūm? Since it is understood that Rūm, despite being founded in Rome and named after the city still continued to be called Rūm even after the empire lost control of the city of Rome, it is therefore essential to understand what it is that defines Rūm and which factors are irrelevant to its definition.

The first factors that we can understand as being irrelevant to defining Rūm, and why they are irrelevant are as follow -

Location - Rūm was founded in the city of Rome and it remained its capital for 8 centuries, until later being transferred to the city of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) where the capital of the Empire remained for another 11 centuries. The capital of the Western Roman Empire was also located for brief periods in the cities of Milan and Ravenna. The actual area of Rūm changed over time, it began as a small kingdom that controlled only the city of Rome, and then at its peak controlled most of Europe, all of Anatolia, much of the Caucusus as well as the Middle East and large parts of Egypt and North Africa. Control of the actual city of Rome was not always in the hands of Rūm, and by the time of the Byzantine control of Rūm the city of Rome was lost completely in the early 9th century and was never again regained by Rūm up until today. The fact that Rūm has had control over so many areas, and that it was founded in Rome and later ended up only being the city of Constantinople shows that Rūm is not specific to any area, rather it was always defined as being located wherever Rūm had control of. The Qur'an and Sunnah confirm this, locating Rūm only in the areas contemporaneously controlled by Rūm, and not permanently in any specific area.

Type of State - Rūm has gone through various stages of existence, beginning as a kingdom (753 BC-509 BC), then a republic (509 BC-27 BC), and then an empire (27BC-1453AD). Since it has existed in many forms, it is understood that Rūm has no specific designation as any type of state, rather it has existed in many different forms, and we are not told in the Qur'an or Sunnah that it must be of any of these types.

Ethnicity/Tribe - Rome was first ruled by a king from the Latini (Latins) and had a majority Latin populace, however its second king was from the tribe of the Sabines. As Rome grew it began to absorb many of the surrounding tribes such as the Albans, the Sabines and the rest of the Latins, and eventually it absorbed all of the tribes of the Italian peninsula, from the Sicels and Italoites in the south, to the Samnites and Umbrians in the central peninsula, to the Etruscans, Umbrians and Celts in the north. As Rome grew it controlled much of Europe and its rulers came from the following tribes and peoples:

Latin, Sabine, Etruscan, Celt, various Italian tribes, Gaulish, Spanish, Dacian, Moesian, Illyrian, Carthaginian, Syrian, Mauretanian, Pannonian & Danubian.

Romans rulers of the early Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire came from the tribes mentioned, and this shows that Rome was not defined by any one tribe or ethnicity. This is why the Roman Empire eventually continued to be under the control of Greek Byzantines yet was still considered to be Rūm, as the definition of Rūm was never defined by any specific ethnicity. Further to this nowhere in the Qur'an or Sunnah are we told that Rūm is associated with any specific tribe, other than the mention that Banī Al-Aṣfar are one of the Roman tribes (more on this later).

Language - Rūm had 2 main languages in the past, they were Latin and Greek. Latin was the language of Rome up until the fall of the Western Empire, after which the Eastern Byzantine Empire took control of Rūm and the language of the Empire became Greek. Along with these 2 official languages, many other languages would have been spoken by the people over whom the Romans ruled, however the 2 main languages that were spread throughout the Empire were Latin and Greek. The fact that Rūm existed with its official language as both Latin and Greek shows that no language is specific to Rūm, nor are we told in the Qur'an or Sunnah that Rūm has a specific language which it speaks.

Religion - Rūm began as a kingdom that worshiped the Greek gods and gave them Latin names, forming what came to be known as the Roman Religion. In its early stages Rūm was therefore a pagan empire. In the year 380 the Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian, and the religion of the empire was changed from paganism to Christianity. Throughout the centuries, various forms of Christianity were present even among the Roman emperors, some were trinitarian, some were Arian (unitarian) and some were between the two and are referred to as semi-Arians. The Eastern Empire later followed Orthodox Christianity whilst the Western Empire remained loyal to the Pope in Rome and became known as Catholics. Along with Christianity, many Jews lived in Rūm in the province of Palestine and the Roman Empire regulated their religious affairs and tolerated Judaism. It has also been uncovered by historians that for many centuries a large part of the Roman soldiers followed a religion known as Mithraism which came from Persia. Since all of these religions existed in Rūm and the official religion of Rūm changed often over the centuries, it is clear that no single religion ever defined Rūm, rather religion is not and has never been a decisive factor in the identity of Rūm.

So if Rūm was not defined by location, type of state, ethnicity, language or religion, what was it that defined Rūm over the many centuries? The answer, as eluded to earlier is that Rūm is a political state that is identified by political affiliation with its leadership. Even when the Roman Empire split and the Western Empire collapsed, it continued via the Eastern Empire which had already become the political centre of Rūm and was the seat of its capital and seat of its political power. Every definition listed above may be considered to have been specific traits of Rūm at certain times, but they are not what defined Rūm and therefore in attempting to identify Rūm in our times it is only the political identity of Rūm that matters and not any of the above points.

THE IDENTITY OF RUM AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND IN THE LAST DAYS

And so the question now arises - If in the past Rūm referred only to the Roman Empire, then who should Rūm be understood to refer to in prophecies concerning our times and the Last Days? The remnants of the Roman Empire based in Constantinople eventually fell to the hands of the Muslims when Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ conquered the city in 1453, destroying the Roman Empire which had lasted for many centuries. If it were not for the mention of Rūm in the prophecies of the Last Days one would normally would assume that Rūm effectively ended with the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Empire in 1453, however the fact that the Prophet ﷺ mentioned Rūm in future events means that without doubt Rūm will exist in the Last Days and in fact never ceased to exist but rather continued to exist under a new identity. Just as the Western Roman Empire was destroyed and thus the Byzantine Empire inherited the title of Rūm, so too with the fall of the Byzantines, the identity of Rūm was 'inherited' by a new entity, and would continue to be in existence until the Last Days. So since we know that both the Roman Empire based in Rome no longer exists, and that the Byzantine Empire who inherited the identity of Rūm also no longer exists, one must wonder - who then inherited the title of Rūm? Who is Rūm today and will they be the same Rūm mentioned in the prophecies mentioned by the Prophet of Allah ﷺ?

I am surely not the first to ask these questions nor the first to discuss this matter, in fact I can safely assume that many of you reading this will have asked yourself this question in the past and may have even heard various opinions as to whom Rūm refers to from others. I am familiar with the various opinions and understandings as to who Rūm refers to in the prophecies, and I am aware that there is much differing on this subject and no agreed conclusion to the question about the identity of Rūm. This is due to the nature of the prophecies being as I described above clear in some areas yet unclear in other areas. The identity of Rūm is never specifically tied to any group or location and due to this many of the classical scholars assumed that Rūm would refer to the same Roman Empire that they knew in their times, and this would be the most obvious conclusion to draw so long as one expected the Roman Empire to last until the time of the prophecies, however once the Roman Empire fell and ceased to exist, the identity of Rūm thus became unclear which is why there are no agreed upon understandings of who Rūm will be and how we are to know who they are in our times. Before analsysing the various opinions as to who Rūm is I will first let you know that I do have a very strong opinion on whom Rūm is and after looking at the opinions of others I will explain why I hold this opinion and leave you to decide for yourself if you agree or disagree. What must be understood however is that I am not claiming without doubt that I am right and others are wrong as the nature of the prophecies is unclear and thus we can only make conclusions based upon our understandings, and we should not insist that our conclusions are correct as the matters are yet to occur and we should be cautious about claiming to know what will happen in the future, this is why I will state that I have an opinion about which I strongly support based upon the evidences which I will present, but in no way do I claim that what I support is going to be correct beyond doubt, we always say about such matters of the future 'Allāhu Aʿlam' (Allah alone knows best). With that said, here are some of the most common opinions regarding the identity of Rūm, I will save my own opinion for later on in the piece after these opinions are discussed.

THE MOST COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED OPINIONS REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF RŪM IN OUR TIMES

1. The Byzantine (Roman) Empire - This was originally a unanimous opinion and was held by almost all of the scholars of the Ummah up until 857 AH (1453 AD). The opinion was based upon the fact that the Roman Empire was always known as Rūm by the Muslims, it was identified by the Prophet ﷺ and the Companions as Rūm, and was the only entity ever referred to by the Muslims as Rūm.

Why this opinion is incorrect - Despite the fact that it was correct that the Byzantine (Roman) Empire was indeed Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, this opinion did not take into account the fact that Rūm could be destroyed and that the title of Rūm would be passed to a new and different entity, just like this occurred when the original Roman Empire based in Rome was destroyed and ceased to exist, and the Byzantines inherited the title. Those who held this opinion cannot be held to blame for not assuming that the Roman Empire would be eliminated as this is something that was not available for them to know at their time, and considering that the Roman Empire still existed in their time it would have been the most obvious conclusion to assume that Rūm would still be the Roman Empire in the Last Days.

2. Italy - This opinion relies on the fact that Italy is where the Roman Empire was founded and its capital city is Rome. In an example of synecdoche 'Rome' in political parlance is understood to refer to the Italian Republic, just as 'Washington' refers to the government of the USA and thus the entire nation. Therefore Rūm should be understood to mean Italy as Rome in our times refers to Italy.

Why this opinion is weak - As mentioned above, the city of Rome itself has nothing to do with defining Rūm. The Byzantine Empire was known as Rūm even when it did not control the city of Rome, and culturally Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ had very little in common with the city of Rome. History shows that the title of Rūm was inherited by the Byzantines from the Western Roman Empire and at no point did it revert back to the city of Rome or to any entity in the Italian peninsula.

3. Russia - This opinion relies on the conclusion that since the majority of Russians belong to the Orthodox church which was the official denomination of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time of its fall, that Russia, having the largest Orthodox population on Earth are therefore the most deserving to inheret the title of Rūm. Another suggestion is that upon the fall of the Roman Empire many Russians began to refer to Moscow as the 'Third Rome', implying that it was the successor of the Roman empires based in Rome and Constantinople (which is called by them the 'second Rome') and therefore as some Russians called Moscow the third Rome that it is a proof that Russia, to which Moscow belongs, is Rūm in our days.

Why this opinion is weak - The definition of Rūm had never been understood to be a religious definition. In fact the Roman Empire was originally pagan and worshiped the Greek and Roman gods, yet none ever claimed that is was necessary to follow the pagan Roman religion to be called Rūm. Further to this, the religious denomination of Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ cannot be described as belonging to the Orthodox Church as the schism between the Western Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Christians had not yet occurred, and did not take place until the year 1054. This meant that during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, Rūm was still under the patronage of the Pope based in Rome. After the schism between the Western Church and the Eastern Church it is true that the city of Constantinople became the seat of the Orthodox Church which was the state religion of the Roman Empire, however the seat of the Orthodox Church until today remains in Istanbul (the modern name for Constantinople) and not in Moscow or any part of Russia. Never at any point in history was the authority of the Orthodox Church transferred to Russia. A further point worth noting is that Russia itself was never a part of the Roman Empire, nor did Russia inherit anything from the Roman Empire in any way, and as has already been shown, the title of Rūm is inherited by those who control the domains of Roman Empire and not merely by professing the same religion as the people of Rūm.

4. The Orthodox Christian Nations - The reasoning for this is the same as point number 2, that those who share the religion of the Byzantine Romans are the inheritors of the title of Rūm, except expanded to include all Orthodox Christian peoples of the world.

Why this opinion is weak - Similar to the opinion on Russia above, this opinion relies on the notion that having a shared religion with the Byzantine Romans implies that they should inherit the title of Rūm. Like with the opinion regarding Russia, this definition too is incorrect. If Rūm were to have been defined by the religion of the state, then all Orthodox nations would have been called Rūm by the Muslims throughout time, but this was never the case. The Orthodox Christian people outside of the Roman Empire were never referred to as being part of Rūm by the Muslims throughout history and thus this opinion is not correct.

5. Europe/EU - This opinion relies on the supposition that Europe as a whole is the 'cultural successor' of the Roman Empire. It is suggested also that as predecessor organisation of the EU which was called the EEC was founded in the city of Rome, in what was called the Treaty of Rome, that the EU is essentially a 'Roman' organisation. It is also said that since the Germanic nations of Europe in the past formed an alliance which called itself the 'Holy Roman Empire' in 962, it should be seen that even the Germanic people who live in the heart of Europe can be called the cultural successors of Europe.

Why this opinion is weak - Whilst it is true that the Western Roman Empire was the foundation for much of Europe's culture and identity, we must remember that Rūm was not a European empire. In fact most of the land of Rūm was located outside of Europe, divided mostly between the Middle East and North Africa. Therefore any illusion that Rūm was somehow 'European' is entirely incorrect. The culture of Rūm was very different to that of Europe today and the the 2 cultures have very little in common. It is known from history that in no way did Europe ever inherit the title of Rūm, nor does the EU even attempt to claim such a thing. At the time of the Prophet ﷺ the majority of Europe was not part of the Roman Empire and thus Europe had very little do with Rūm, it is only seen that it did in the minds of those trying to create a European unity based on the myth of a shared culture founded primarily upon the influence of the Western Roman Empire. As for the the Germanic-dominated 'Holy Roman Empire', it existed at the same time as the Roman Empire and was an entirely separate entity with no links at all to Rūm, and therefore could in no way be an inheritor of the title of Rūm. Further to this, there was nothing Roman at all about the Holy Roman Empire, it was simply a case of Germans appropriating the name 'Roman' trying to seek legitimacy with the Catholic Church against the Eastern Roman Empire. The reality as described by the European writer Voltaire was that the Holy Roman Empire was "Neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

6. The USA & the Western nations - This opinion is similar to the previous one, in that it is suggested that 'Roman culture' did not only influence Europe, but also the USA which was founded by Europeans and therefore it should be said that the USA and the European-influenced Western nations in general are the cultural successors of Rome. It is pointed out by those holding this opinion that the USA often builds its government buildings in Roman styles and that it uses the Latin language for its national and state mottoes.

Why this opinion is weak - Western culture has very little to do with Rūm which was primarily an Eastern and not a Western entity. Even though the USA has some parts of its culture that are taken from the Western Roman Empire, most of its modern culture has nothing to do with the Eastern nor Western Roman Empires. Neither the USA nor any Western nation ever claimed to be the successors of Rome, nor did they inherit anything from Rūm in any way. As for the use of the Latin language, this itself is rather meaningless as the state language as well as the most spoken language of Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ was Greek and not Latin.

7. Christendom - This opinion suggests that since Christianity was the religion of Rūm that therefore Christendom and the Christian nations in general should be seen as being the successors of Rūm in our days.

Why this opinion is weak - As has been established already, the definition of Rūm was never a religious definition, but rather was defined as being the nation which inherited the political authority of the Roman Empire. The Prophet ﷺ never referred to any Christians that he interacted with as being Romans, nor did he ever infer that Christianity had anything to do with Rūm. Therefore to claim that every Christian somehow belongs to Rūm would be an error. If we were to claim that Roman by its definition meant 'Christian' then the companion of the Prophet ﷺ Ṣuhayb Al-Rūmī (Suhayb the Roman) would surely not have continued to refer to himself by such a name as it would have implied that he were not a Muslim but rather a Christian! The definition of Rūmī in his name is that he came from the lands controlled by the Roman Empire, and was therefore a Roman even though he abandoned their religion.

During the time of the Crusades in which the Christians invaded Palestine and its surrounding areas, the Roman Empire still existed and the European Crusaders were actually opposed to the Eastern Roman Empire and attacked the Roman city of Constantinople. This shows that the European Christians were in fact enemies of Rūm and had little in common with its people and did not consider themselves to be Romans in any way, despite their common religion. In addition to this, the Muslims never referred to the Christian Crusaders as being Romans, rather they called them farānj (Franks), yet again showing that Rūm was only associated with the Roman Empire and not with Christendom in general.

8. Romania - This opinion suggests that since the name of Romania is derived from the name 'Rome' that it qualifies to be called Rūm, especially as the Byzantine Empire was colloquially known as Rōmanīa during its existence.

Why this opinion is weak - There is no evidence to suggest that simply having the name Rome implies that a nation has inherited the title of Rūm. If this were the case then any country could rename itself 'Rome' and claim to be Rūm but this is not at all how the inheritance of the name of Rūm works, as has been explained above.

These above are the eight main opinions as to the identity of Rūm in our times that are commonly encountered and represent the many different reasonings given for why some believe that each qualifies to be Rūm. There are other opinions that some hold however they are either inherently weak and flimsy, without any proof or they are very rarely discussed and therefore unfamiliar to most. Some of the opinions even border on being absurd conspiracies, and it seems that the imaginations of certain folk truly run wild and some outrageously absurd opinions as to who Rūm is can be heard. It almost seems that the only conspiracy about Rūm that I have not encountered yet is that Rūm is actually an alien nation who will invade our planet! Due to the absurd nature of such theories there is no reason to mention them especially as each of them is easily debunked using the same lines of reasoning applied to the opinions above. An example of this would be to suggest that the Gypsies of Europe are to be considered as Rūm because the name which they use for themselves is 'Roma' which sounds like Rome. Such reasoning is not correct and is dismissed as weak and baseless.

WHO INHERITED THE TITLE OF RUM UPON THE FALL OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

What should be clear is that the definition of Rūm and which nation may inherit its name is that Rūm at the time of the Prophet ﷺ earned the name as it was the political successor of the Roman Empire founded in the city of Rome, therefore political succession of the original Roman Empire is what defines a nation as being Rūm. The first major succession occured when the Roman Empire transferred its capital to 'New Rome' which was the city of Constantinople and the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was formed. As soon as the Western Empire fell and ceased to exist then the Byzantine Empire became Rūm as they were the political successors of Rome and the holders of the remnants of the land of the Roman Empire. As a reminder, a nation does not need to be Christian to be called Rūm as it has been established that Ṣuhayb, the Muslim companion of the Prophet ﷺ was named Rūmī (Roman) despite being a Muslim, and the Prophet would never have allowed a Muslim to call himself by such a name if it were synonymous with being a Christian. So with the understanding that Rūm is defined by political succession and acquisition of the remaining land of the Roman Empire the answer to who the successor of the Byzantine Empire upon its fall is very clear - The successor to the Byzantine Empire and thus the inheritor of the title Rūm was the Ottoman Empire.

With the Muslim conquest of Constantinople and the few remaining Roman lands, the Ottoman Empire successfully defeated Rūm and wiped the Byzantine Empire from the world maps. The entity which held the name Rūm since the time of the Prophet ﷺ had been defeated and ceased to exist, not controlling any land nor having any power. The last piece of land which Rūm held had been conquered by the Ottomans, as the rest of their land had been in the decades previous to the fall of Constantinople. Upon the defeat of the Romans the Muslim ruler Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ fully acknowledged that he considered himself the inheritor of the nation of Rūm and began to refer to himself as the Caesar of Rome [Qayṣar Al-Rūm], adopting the title used by the Roman rulers for himself, and openly acknowledged that his nation was the 'new Rome' and had thus inherited the title of Rūm from the Byzantines. The land which we refer to as Anatolia (which makes up most of modern-day Turkey) continued to be called Rūm by the Muslims for many centuries afterwards, and some cities within Anatolia still bear the name of Rūm within them until today. The Muslim inhabitants of the newly-conquered Constantinople and Anatolia often called themselves Rūmī and there are numerous examples of famous Islamic figures who carried this name from among the Ottomans.

It should therefore be very clear that the Ottoman Empire became Rūm upon the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The Ottomans were the political successors of the Byzantines, taking over their capital city and conquering all of the land which they controlled. The Ottomans openly considered themselves to be the successors of Rūm, their leader called himself the ruler of Rūm and the Ottoman people living in Constantinople and Anatolia called themselves Rūmī (Romans). This shows that the Ottomans fulfil the criteria as the successors and inheritors of Rūm and no other nation or people can claim what the Ottomans did. In fact no other nation considered themselves to be the inheritors of Rūm, it was only the Ottomans who declared themselves as Rūm.

After the conquest of Constantinople, Gennadios, the Christian Patriarach of Constantinople who was the leader of the Orthodox Christians and the head of the Orthodox Church openly declared that he (and therefore the Orthodox Church) acknowledged Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ as the new Caesar of Rome and that the Ottoman Empire was indeed the inheritor of Rome. This firmly established that the Ottomans were the new Rūm. The fact that even the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church declared that the Ottomans were the successors of Rūm makes the position held by some that Russia or the Orthodox nations are Rūm impossible to hold, as the Orthodox themselves declared that Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ was the new Caesar of Rome and the Ottomans who succeeded him in turn inherited that title. Therefore those who incorrectly claim that the Orthodox Church were the inheritors of the title of Rūm as they shared the same religion as the Byzantines must acknowledge that even the Orthodox Church itself declared that the Ottomans were the successors of Rūm and not the Orthodox Church.

So to summarise the points regarding the reasons why the Ottomans inherited the title of Rum and not any other nation -

- The Ottomans were the ones who defeated the Byzantines, took possession of all their lands, their capital city and inherited their political rule.

- The Ottomans conquered the lands of Rūm and conquered all of the areas that Rūm ever controlled in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as almost all of the former Roman lands of Eastern Europe.

- The Ottomans were the only nation that claimed to be the inheritors of the title of Rūm and they openly used this title.

- Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ openly declared himself the Caesar of Rome and used that title for himself upon the fall of the Byzantine Empire and he was the only leader to do so.

- The Orthodox Patriarch Gennadius openly declared that Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ was the new Caesar of Rome, and that the Ottomans were the inheritors of the Roman Empire.

As a further addition, despite being shown earlier that ethnicity and bloodline play no part in defining who Rūm is, it may be notable for some that Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ was a descendant of the Byzantine royal family, as were many of the Ottoman sultans. The second Ottoman sultan Orhan married a Byzantine princess named Asporsha who was the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Andronikos III, Sultan Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ was a descendant of Orhan and Asporsha. In addition to this there was also a nephew of one of the Byzantine emperors who was an ancestor of Muḥammad Al-Fātiḥ, again adding to the fact that the Sultan was closely related to the Byzantine rulers by blood.

Therefore considering the above points it should be very clear that the Ottomans were in fact the political successors of Rūm and the inheritors of the title of Rūm, a fact that they not only accepted but openly promoted. No other nation could lay claim to any of the factors in inheriting the tile of Rūm that the Ottomans did, and so the conclusion that the Ottomans were the sole inheritors of Rūm and continued to be Rūm throughout its existence up until its fall in 1923.

WHO IS RUM TODAY?

So the question arises, since the Ottomans were the political successors and inheritors of Rūm, who then is Rūm in our day? The answer is rather simple, just ask yourself - Who are the political successors and inheritors of the Ottoman Empire? The answer should be very clear, the successor of the Ottoman Empire is well known to be the Republic of Turkey.

Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) was a commander in the Ottoman Army in the period in which the empire became weakened and was ready to fall to the European powers. He successfully defended the Ottoman lands in Anatolia and its surrounding areas ensuring that the lands would not be lost entirely. It was in this period that the Ottoman Empire came to an end at the hands of the Turkish Nationalists who overthrew the empire which had existed for more than 6 centuries and established the Republic of Turkey in its place. The Sultanate was abolished and Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new republic. Turkey as a new nation succeeded the Ottoman Empire and took control of the former Ottoman lands, including its capital city Istanbul. Despite being a secular state which was opposed to the Islamic Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic adopted many of the symbols of the Ottomans such as the national flag which was red with a white crescent moon and star. This symbol in itself predates Ottoman usage and was used by the Eastern Roman Empire as the flag of the city of Constantinople, it was adopted by the Ottomans when they conquered Rūm and ever since it became associated with the Ottoman Empire and consequently its successor state - Turkey. It is worth noting as well that genetically, the inhabitants of Turkey are more closely related to the Roman/Byzantine inhabitants of Rūm than to the Turks of Central Asia from whence their name came. The Turkish people are essentially the descendants of the Byzantines and are more closely related to Europeans, Circassians and Caucasians than to the Mongols or Turks with whose name they share.

Since the Turkish acquisition of the title of Rūm from the Ottomans, no nation has completely defeated the Turkish nation nor been able to acquire their political power or land. Therefore Rūm in our times continues to be the Republic of Turkey and will have been the only nation of Rūm that most of us have ever known (except for the very few who lived in Ottoman times). It is not foreseeable in the very near future that Turkey should fall to any of the European powers who for the time being are favourable towards Turkey and some wish to see it join the EU. Rather the only current threat to Turkey is on its southern borders, and this is where the relevance of Turkey being Rūm in the Last Days becomes clear. Up until this point I have only provided evidence that analyses why Turkey is Rūm according to inheritance of the title and land from the Byzantine Empire. However, to properly understand why Turkey is Rūm we now must look at the relevant Aḥādīth concerning Rūm in the last days to see how Turkey fits in to our current situation.

One of the first confusions that one may find in looking at the Prophetic Aḥādīth is that there are many mentions of 'Turks' and some become confused and incorrectly associate these Aḥādīth with the modern Republic of Turkey. In order to understand why these Aḥādīth are not relevant to the discussion of Rūm it must be explained lest there remain any misconceptions as to who the Turks are that were mentioned by the Prophet.

WHO ARE THE TURKS MENTIONED IN THE AHADITH OF THE PROPHET?

The Prophet of Allah said:

دَعُوا الْحَبَشَةَ مَا وَدَعُوكُمْ وَاتْرُكُوا التُّرْكَ مَا تَرَكُوكُمْ ‏
Leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone. [Abū Dāwūd 4302]

In this Ḥādīth the word 'Turk' is used to identify a specific group of people, and the general identity of this group was known to the Arabs at the time of the Prophet just as the identity of the Abyssinians was known to them. The 'Turks' were a people located to the east of Persia, and to the west of China. They extended all the way up into Northern Siberia and covered most of the areas of Central Asia. The early Muslims referred to the area which they inhabited as Mā Warā' An-Nahr [ما وراء النهر ] which means 'The land beyond the river', in this case referring to the Oxus river which is located along the border of modern-day Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The people who lived in this land spoke the Turkic language, the oldest known examples of which are found written around Eastern Mongolia as well as East Turkestan which is located in present-day China.

The first Turkic empire to exist was the Gِöktürk Empire (also referred to as the Turkic Khaganate) whose population spoke the Old Turkic language. The empire existed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad and it was the population of this empire that was known to the Arabs as the Turks, and in fact the Gِöktürks themselves simply referred to themselves as 'Turks'. During the lifetime of the Prophet this empire stretched all the way from Northern Persia to Eastern Mongolia. It must be noted however that at no point did the Turks reach the area of Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) nor did they reach any of the areas close to it. The Gِöktürk empire covered almost all of Central Asia and Mongolia as well as large parts of South-Eastern Russia and Northern China.

                                                   (A map showing the location of the Turkic Empire and the Byzantine Empire c. 600 AD)

In the year 1206 the Mongol Empire was founded and the Mongols (who were not Turks but spoke a closely related language) quickly conquered the Turks and began to invade the Muslim lands. As the Mongol Empire spread eastwards towards the Muslims the bulk of their soldiers were the Turks who they had recently conquered, and the eventual clash between the Mongol led Turks and the Muslims was described in the prophecy of the Prophet:

لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ التُّرْكَ قَوْمًا وُجُوهُهُمْ كَالْمَجَانِّ الْمُطْرَقَةِ يَلْبَسُونَ الشَّعَرَ وَيَمْشُونَ فِي الشَّعَرِ
The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight with the Turks, a people whose faces would be like hammered shields wearing clothes of hair and walking with shoes made of hair. [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2912]

This Ḥādīth undoubtedly refers to the Mongol-Turkic army that the Muslims fought and defeated in what was the largest assault ever witnessed upon the Muslim lands until today. The Ḥādīth is amazing in that it even specifies the specific type of shoes that the Mongols would wear, something that is amazing since the Mongol invasion occurred 6 centuries after the life of the Prophet, yet he mentioned even down to the finest details how this army would be. The 'Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire' (Atwood, 2004) mentions that the traditional footwear of the Mongols and their people at the time of the Mongol Empire was made out of the hair of cows, and on some occasions sources mention that also the hair of camels would be used.

So we see that the prophecies of the Turks referred to the Mongols and Turks of Central Asia and therefore are irrelevant to the discussion about Rūm, as the Republic of Turkey has nothing to do with the Turks mentioned in the Aḥādīth of the Prophet. The reason that the Turkish nation adopted this name is that when the Turkic culture of Central Asia spread along with the Mongol invasion, the Western Turkic languages became spread all the way to Anatolia, and eventually became the primary language of the area. The inhabitants of Anatolia however as discussed previously are not genetically related to the Turks, except for small traces found in some of the eastern villages of Turkey, nor did they have any political link to them whatsoever. The majority of the population of Turkey today are more closely related to the Eastern Europeans, the Kurds and the inhabitants of Syria than the Turks. The similarity in name is only due to a loose linguistic relation and was rarely used even during Ottoman times, when the term 'Turk' was used to refer to villagers, primarily in Eastern Anatolia and was seen as a derogatory term, much like how the term 'Mongol' is used in English. Mustafa Kemal however, upon becoming the leader of Turkey embraced this term and used it for the Turkish Republic in order to distance the nation from Europe to their east and the Arabs to their south, and tried to promote a 'Turkic identity' through the shared linguistic relationship with the Turks of Central Asia. Therefore it should be clear that the Turks referred to in the Aḥādīth were in fact the Turks of central Asia who were absorbed by the Mongols and later fought against the Muslims, and that the identity of these Turks is not in any way related to the nation of Turkey, despite the similarity in their names.


(To be continued... Part 2 will be released shortly insha'Allah)