You really think they believe this is historical ,Who tell them this then ?
Yes. I think this guys believed that what they recounted was historically true. For one good reason: What they recounted was their explication of the existence of the Quran they had before their eyes.
Unfortunately for your theory, when Ibn Ishaq wrote the Sira, he left clues that show he didn't believe in what he was writing ;
Ibn Ishaq for us has wrote nothing. It is Hicham (d. 830). Ibn Hicham has predecessors about the life of the prophet.
therefore, no they didn't believe in good faith about what they were telling ; they knew they were making stories up.
I'm not convinced.
They did hence why they said they were related to the prophet by blood ;
One thing is to recount this to the masses, another is to build an epic romance to say the same thing (Mecca/Kaba...) Shia says that Ali is the cousin of the Prophet: Shia now believe it. It is of course a lie. Ali was an Arab leader in al Hira.
otherwise, why say this unless you tell me they believed this in good faith or this was the historical truth.
That they were related by blood is propaganda for themselves; you mixes two things here which are not tied : 1/ their own stuff and what they recount about the Quran (Sira litterature) These are two different things .
I am just reading the course of events ; the Arab invasion has its roots in the Muhammad legend ;
Not for me.
The legend of Muhammad predates the Abbassids tells the Abbassids themselves. You still did not see who has taken this story from his hat.
Question is who was that Muhammad exactly ? a clue : not the one from the tradition.
It was no one. Only 4 times in Quranic texts.
Again, no papyrus mention Mecca as the destination of pilgrimmage at the time of Abd Al Malik so, that there was a pilgrimmage I don't dispute that, I only dispute your saying that it was Mecca centric at the time of Abd Al Malik after he defeated Ibn Az Zubayr;
Yes, that is what I think. Because the one who make emerge the "Quranic Muhammad " taken as the one to whom God addressed is Zubayr : 685 Bishapur coin.Muhammad rasul Allah.
so far you haven't given any proof of your assumptions and the documents you are pointing me too don't hold that information neither. So, apart from the muslim tradition, I don't see how you can be so sure of this.
I'm not sure. I consider I'm rather right view the stuff. Muslim tradition is useful when it recounts things which does not serve the Master narrative. I have not reason to not examine what it have to say ; and here, the fact that the papyri does not mention Mecca, yes ... It does not mention Jerusalem or whatever as well.