- I don't believe all those arabs were muhajirun, the islamic narrative itself highlighting another party the ansar, and the Medina covenant mentionning the jews, the believer, the muslims,
We have the evidence : PERF 558 (643) Egyptian papyri :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERF_558
I don't think all those arabs were muhajirun and that the conquest in the east was linked with he conquest in the west (meaning under one banner), and the Sunni/Shia war might derive from that,
Muhajirun is used in Egypt (643) in Iraq (scribal non Muslim sources) : transcribed in Greek in Egypt "Magaritae",and Syriac in Iraq "Magrayé" word unknown before the taking over of the Arabs. This words are clearly the transcription of Muhajir/un
What I want to show with the above example is that you have 3 different sources referring to the same calendar but the way they do is different. The wording "according to the Arabs" comes from non Arab scribes and clearly shows that they didn't report it as in Arab sources
but the way they do is different
It supposed to be the same way by the historiographers of the 9th : we have the contrary.>> the historiographers of the 9th are wrong.
The wording "according to the Arabs" comes from non Arab scribes and clearly shows that they didn't report it as in Arab sources
You do not know that ; they report differently of what will be the way of the 9th c. They report differently because the Arabs who exists at that time, does not correspond to those who have been imagined by the historiographers of the 9th.
One inscription in the baths of Hammat Gader refer to the year X according to the arab, an inscription on a dam in Taif refer to the year X, and a papyrus dated the same year as the inscription of the baths of Hammat Gader refer to the year X according to the jurisdiction of the believers.
Precisely, this shows that what recounts the historiographers of the 9th is inexact about the Arabs of the taking over in the years 630.