Islam developed from a messianic sect of "Hagarenes." Muhammad united the Arabs around the concept of One God and preached that being the descendants of Abraham, the Arabs were the rightful heirs of Palestine. The members of this sect were called "muhajirun." The "hijrah" was not from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) but from Arabia to the "Promised Land," in which Jews participated. Muhammad was alive when the movement's messianic figure, Umar, entered Jerusalem in 638.
The Jews welcomed the new invaders, though the Christians deemed them barbarians. After a while there was a break-up between the Arabs and the Jews, the former asserting its distinct identity by emphasising that theirs was the true religion of Abraham. The Arabs accepted Jesus as Messiah but denied his death and Davidic decent for hating the cross.
Muhammad was first aligned with a number of non-Biblical prophets, then to a "prophet like Moses," recipient of a new revealed book. This is when the Quran was hurriedly composed as Muhammad's scripture, probably at the end of the 7th century. The notion of the hijrah was replaced with that of "Islam" and the believers came to be known as "Muslims."
The Arabs began looking for a new holy city, while still controlling Jerusalem. They needed a sanctuary associated with the grave of Ishmael. Eventually, in Abdul Malik's time, they located one in Mecca. Thereafter, Muhammad's links with Jerusalem were severed and the date of his death was adjusted to a period prior to the conquest and the hijrah was transformed into an emigration from Mecca to Yathrib.
Wow! Helluva find! Too bad she’s not around anymore. We can use more people with her intellectual character.
Yes, interesting stuff that I have read in various forms before but will give this a look.
we begin with the Doctrina Iacobi , a Greek anti-Jewish tract spawned by the Heraclean persecution. 2 It is cast in the form of adialogue between Jews set in Carthage in the year 634; it was in all probabilitywritten in Palestine within a few years of that date. 3 At one point in theargument reference is made to current events in Palestine in the form of a letterfrom a certain Abraham, a Palestinian Jew. 4 A false prophet has appeared among the Saracens ... They say that the prophethas appeared coming with the Saracens, and is proclaiming the advent of theanointed one who is to come [ tou erkhomenou Eleimmenou kai Khristou ]. I,Abraham, went off to Sykamina and referred the matter to an old man very well-versed in the Scriptures. I asked him: 'What is your view, master and teacher, ofthe prophet who has appeared among the Saracens?' He replied, groaningmightily: 'He is an impostor. Do the prophets come with sword and chariot?
and more
Truly these happenings today are works of disorder ... But you go off, MasterAbraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.' So I, Abraham,made enquiries, and was told by those who had met him: 'There is no truth to befound in the so-called prophet, only bloodshed; for he says he has me keys ofparadise, which is incredible.
There are several points of interest in this account. One is the doctrine ofthe keys. It is not of course Islamic, but there are some slight indications that itwas a doctrine which the Islamic tradition had been at pains to repress: there is agroup of traditions in which the keys of paradise are sublimated into harmlessmetaphor, 5 and a Byzantine oath of abjuration of Islam mentions the belief thatthe Prophet was to hold the keys of paradise as part of the 'secret' doctrine of theSaracens. 6 The point is not of great intrinsic interest, but it does suggest that wehave in the Doctrina a stratum of belief older than the Islamic tradition itself. Ofgreater historical significance is the fact that the Prophet is represented as aliveat the time of the conquest of Palestine. This testimony is of courseirreconcilable with the Islamic account of the Prophet's career, but it findsindependent confirmation in the historical traditions of the Jacobites, Nestoriansand Samaritans; 7 the doctrinal meaning of the discrepancy will be taken uplater. 8
And tying this around a holy stone (perhaps the black stone of the Ka'aba is related or is indeed the black stone of Emesa (Elagabalus)?) and monotheism to create unity makes sense, right?
what do you think?
his evidence of Judeo-Arab intimacy is complemented by indications ofa marked hostility towards Christianity on the part of the invaders. Theconverted Jew of the Doctrina protests that he will not deny Christ, the son ofGod, even if the Jews and Saracens catch him and cut him to pieces. 31 TheChristian garrison of Gaza put the same determination into practice, and wasmartyred for it. 32 A contemporary sermon includes among the misdeeds of theSaracens the burning of churches, the destruction of monasteries, the profanationof crosses, and horrific blasphemies against Christ and the church. 33 A violentSaracen hatred of the cross is also attested in an early account of the arrival ofthe invaders on Mt Sinai. 34 And the doctrinal corollary of all this finds neatexpression when the Armenian source mentioned above has an early Ishmaeliteruler call upon the Byzantine emperor to renounce 'that Jesus whom you callChrist and who could not even save himself from the Jews'. 35 There is nothinghere to bear out the Islamic picture of a movement which had already brokenwith the Jews before the conquest, and regarded Judaism and Christianity withthe same combination of tolerance and reserve
What the materials examined so far do not provide is a concrete pictureof the way in which this Judeo-Arab involvement might have come about. Forthis we have to turn to the earliest connected account of the career of theProphet, that given in an Armenian chronicle written in the 660s and ascribed toBishop Sebeos. 36 The story begins with the exodus of Jewish refugees fromEdessa following its recovery by Heraclius from the Persians towards 628:They Set out into the desert and came to Arabia, among the children of Ishmael;they sought their help, and explained to them that they were kinsmen accordingto the Bible. Although they [the Ishmaelites] were ready to accept this dosekinship, they [the Jews] nevertheless could not convince the mass of the people,because their cults were different. At this time there was an Ishmaelite calledMahm•t, 37 a merchant; he presented himself to them as though at God'scommand, as a preacher, as the way of truth, and taught them to know the God
Where did you get this? I haven’t been able to find one for less than $1200. I can’t even find the thesis that you quote. You said it is a must read. How?
Not a single source outside Arabia mentions Mecca before the conquests, and not one displays any sign of recognition or tells us what was known about it when it appears in the sources thereafter. That there was a place called Mecca where Mecca is today may well be true; that it had a pagan sanctuary is perfectly plausible (Arabia was full of sanctuaries), and it could well have belonged to a tribe called the Quraysh. But we know nothing about the place with anything approaching reasonable certainty. In sum, we have no context for the prophet and his message.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
But did Muhammad exist?
“The results were such that it is my conviction that it cannot be proven whether Muhammad actually lived or not,” said Kalisch. “I believe that there is no definite answer to this question, although I must admit that I tend more towards the view that he did not exist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2088564/posts
more on the nonexistence of Muhammad http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JK18Aa01.html