See also Michael Bonner on Armenia:
http://www.mrjb.ca/essays....
After 661, when Armenia was subject to the Caliphate, the customary biblical and theological explanation no longer made sense, and there arose a new school of historiography, such as Mahé described. Sebeos’ History embodies this change, and it is within the context of this outward-looking, universal history that we can explore the substance of the question.
First, Sebeos’ attitude to the Arabs. His portrait of Mohammed is downright flattering. The Arabian prophet is “well versed in the history of Moses,” and he is said to have enjoined upon his followers all manner of respectable precepts.”[7] In contrast to the perfidious Jews and the heretical Chalcedonians, both of whom have wandered from the truth, the Arabs have a legitimate claim on the patrimony of Abraham, viz. the Promised Land, and, by reason of the faithful adherence to the religion of Abraham, God grants them possession of Palestine and the Holy City, and promises them divine aid. Accordingly, as Mahé declares, the Saracen occupation of the Holy Land « n’est pas étrangère aux desseins de la Providence. »[8]
Nevertheless, the author or compiler of Sebeos’ History condemns Armenian association with the victorious Arabs. Those Armenians who have allied with the caliphate are said to have made “an accord with death,” and “a pact…with Hell.”[9] The sentiment expressed by these strong words accords well with the general Armenian reaction to Arabian rule, which soon replaced the native administration, and introduced onerous taxes under the caliph Abdel Malik (685-705). There were several Armenian revolts. Nevertheless, Sebeos interpretation of Mohammed’s role seems to have been unique in Armenian historiography, as later authors question his legitimacy, and demonise him.
In any case, Mahé lays too much stress on Sebeos’ being a Monophysite. As Kaegi has observed, in Sebeos’ History (as opposed to the Fragments) the Islamic Empire is compared to Daniel’s fourth beast, a divine retribution for all Christian sin. This is in sharp contrast to the work of John of Nikiu, who, for instance, blames Arabian success on the errors of the heretical Chalcedonians. Whereas Sebeos, as we have observed, acknowledges the legitimacy of Mohammed’s mission within the Abrahamic faith (for lack of a better term), John of Nikiu views Islam as an entirely different religion, calling Mohammed “a beast,” who invented “a detestable doctrine.”[10]
....
The author or compiler of Sebeos’ History believed, as Greenwood has observed, that he was narrating the events that should very soon culminate in the end of the world.[17] This explains the use of imagery from Daniel, and the emphasis on correct belief. The end times were “well under way,” the Caliphate was the fourth beast, and given the speed at which the Roman and Persian empires had been overtaken or humiliated, the reign of the Caliphs was likely to be meet a swift end also. The implication of this is that the Armenian nation, being steadfast in orthodoxy and having survived the tribulation, will enter Christ’s kingdom, but other nations will perish. This notwishstanding, we might be inclined to see in Sebeos’ History something much different. As we have already observed, both the Persian and the Greek nation approved the faith of Armenia, and the Arabs were sent by divine behest to destroy the world order, which was heretical on the one hand, and pagan on the other. Armenia, we might say perhaps tritely, is now free of the influence of the two hostile powers between which it had laboured for more than five hundred years: the old causes and conflicts need no longer be waged, and a new modus vivendi must be sought with the new masters of the world.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today