I am very clear because I have said on this forum I believed those invaders had different faiths
What faiths, what invaders?
and I said the invasions started in the east and in the west
1/ What West, Spain? Who?
2/West
invaded who when?
Still you come up with saying I believe Jews incited the Arabs for those "conquests" and that I believe all those Arabs followed some Abrahamism.
Yes you never said that.
Well you mixed the 2 notions and I cannot help you with that.
There are not 2 notions. You still invent. You read to much comics.
I am asking you about your arguments for saying Sebeos is an older text than people think.
Same arguments as Penn for John. (ter)
I am still waiting to go back to the previous posts about the Penn argument that you consider apply as well for Sebeos you've wrote, because my mouse does not want to go there. On time it wants, I'll go .
. It is ridiculous because I said on this forum that I don't believe Muhammad existed (for very good reasons) but the evidence in the texts make me look wrong and I don't wanna shout "Interpolation" to discard those texts. Therefore, I am open to a sourced or crystal clear rationale to put those texts away. I already know your vague arguments but they need to be more precise in order to address the strange theories about the origins of Islam reported by 3 different armenian sources from different eras.
I have
already sufficiently developed here why I considered the framework Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Muhammad was a fiction.
Sufficiently. Against all (to my knowledge...) texts, including the Doctrina Jacobi. Including Crone's "northern sanctuary" etc.
You want the arguments, go read them.
But think you have sources but you have your own bias ; your rationale doesn't address the following (or maybe it does in your book I don't know) ; 2 different angles to consider :
1)
- Chjronical of Khuzistan does mention "they worship there to the honor Abraham", Jacob of Edessa speaks about "the patriarchal place of their race aka the kaba", Anastasius speak about "he place where those who hold us in slavery have the stone and the object of their worship" so namely places in the Sinai/Neguev region,
You quoting sources. One addresses sources after criticise them. It is called source criticism. And after one have understood what the sources mean in their milieu, why, what when, etc, one see what fit with other sources, etc.
I will not do it here lol.
- if we want to refer to Sozomen 2 centuries before, that does tie up with Abrahamism because they were flocking to places ascribed to Abraham by the tradition,
If
you want.
Personally I do not. Why? Because the Arabs were Christianized in Palestine. From 450 to 600. Then your Abrahamism was totally residual. That it was existed for some,
sure. That Sozomen did not invent,
sure.
But it was no longer
relevant in 600. You get me, or NOT?
I think you do not. Because you trust Nevo and the
Chjronical of Khuzistan does mention "they worship there to the honor Abraham", Jacob of Edessa speaks about "the patriarchal place of their race aka the kaba", Anastasius speak about "he place where those who hold us in slavery have the stone and the object of their worship" so namely places in the Sinai/Neguev region, As you've never read others scholars on that topic. Because you would have known that Arabs were Christianized in Palestine in 600.
Between 600 and 630 they lose their jobs, and they lose Constantinople.
- tradition states that Abraham built different altars during his wanderings, including in the Sinai region
Why not : what tradition (s)?
2)
- does the Quran tell us where the House is ? No
It does : in an arid valley etc.
- does the Quran mention building something in Jerusalem ? No
You believe the Quran? Lol!
He mention Ishamel and Abraham re building something. The only Temple who have to be rebuild is the Jerusalem one.
- does tradition state that Ismael was in Jerusalem (or Mount Moriah) ? No
The Quran is ambiguous about whom has been sacrificed on Mount Moriah (haha!)
- but tradition state that Ishmael was living in the wilderness of Paran (Sinai region)
It could be anywhere in wilderness.
So your whole theory just crumble. (1) and (2) tell us that Arabs had a reason to have a sacred place but outside Jerusalem and no reason to build a house of prayer in Jerusalem.
1/He mention Ishamel and Abraham re building something. The only Temple who have to be rebuild is the Jerusalem one. Who is crumbled? You.
2/ The Quran is ambiguous about whom (read the text) has been sacrificed on Mount Moriah. Why is it ambiguous? Why it need that ambiguity? Why he does not say what all the world knows? Simply that it is Isaac? (hahaha!)
Who is crumbled? You. Why? Because you're an amateur.
In fact, you saw Gallez writing it and you thought that it sounded good but you don't agree with Gallez Judeo-Nazarenes so you looked for something else and you came up with C14/Muhajirun. Now you cannot change because like the Mecca/Medina/Kaba fairy tale, it will go away.
You mean you see no one adhering to your biased opinion.
You're a great scholar
Topic: Qur'anic studies today