محمدصادق هدایت زاده

The prophecy of Ghulibat al- Rūm (the Romans has been vanquished) (Q.30:2) in the opening verses of Surah al-Rūm has become a point of controversy within the Sunni and Shi'i exegetical tradition, due to its reference to a historical-unseen ( ghaybī ) event. By posing the question of what intellectual and methodological foundations underlie this exegetical conflict, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the two primary approaches to understanding these verses. The research hypothesis posits that this dichotomy is rooted not in minor details, but in a profound rupture in epistemological sources, textual function, and semantic horizons. Employing a qualitative content analysis method and examining classical exegetical sources, the article demonstrates that the first approach (historical-narrative), relying on the principles of contextualism and the primacy of the apparent meaning ( aṣālat al-ẓāhir ), understands the prophecy as a retrospective proof validating the veracity of the prophetic mission. Conversely, the second approach (esoteric-hermeneutic), based on the exclusive authority of “those firmly grounded in knowledge” ( al-rāsikhūn fī  al-ʿilm ), interprets these verses as a prospective charter for eschatological glad tidings and the political guidance of the Ummah . The findings reveal that this duality is clearly traceable across epistemological foundations (the authority of history vs. the authority of the Imam's naṣṣ ), textual function (a static proof vs. a dynamic charter), and semantic horizons (linear temporality vs. cyclical trans-historicism). Ultimately, this research redefines these verses as a methodological focal point for recognizing fundamental schisms within the exegetical tradition.