Since the Quran is a very old document and probably already canonized before 630,
Dye will disagree with you with Surah 18 about Dhul-Qarnayn.
with the emphasis on the Arabness as a manner to distinguish themselves from the more mainstream Jewish and Christian religion.
The emphasis on arabness comes later and the use of this language is because of the targeted audience rather than in order to separate communities.
In the power vacuum that existed as a result of the Roman/Sasanian wars (the Arab clients were not kept under control anymore but grew in strength and confidence), an Arab political tacticus decided to use this "Arab society's" doctrine to form a new identity: not Roman, not Persian. This to rally the troops and lay hands on the spoils to be found in West and East of the Arab heartland.
What you are describing is the muslim narrative ; that narrative is not backed up by non muslim sources.
Only a few "wise"men knew the content and they had the ear of the influential generals doing the conquests.
Any proof of what you are saying because I personally think there is no link between the "conquerors" and the Quran, or let's say this doesn't show up in the sources I read.
And stating anti rabbanite and Christian views? Curious attitude, right?
How you deal with that?
sects doctrinal dispute
Yes.Influential generals were influenced themselves by the "wise"men;
The ex Arab clients did not. They must have had a strong nucleic religion before expanding in the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.
So you think all those "conquerors" were driven by the same religious doctrina, from the west to the east ? Interesting but only the muslim sources say this to my knowledge.
The narrative was developed by people who knew nothing of the text's origin. As I said to Marc, it developed first in few lines from the Quranic texts and was through time augmented.
I don't think that is correct. I think they didn't care about what the Quran say. They needed to link Quranic texts and the life of a prophet ; later addition were the consequences of doctrinal and political fights ; the Quran was not the source of those writings, reason being the difference when one look at Quran vs ahadith/Sira/Tabari and other muslim scholars war history. They struggled not to explain the Quran but to fit the meaning of the texts into their narrative.
Why was the transmission line cut? If it was the people in power who had the Quran, it was simple enough to transfer the ideas and the history to the next generation.
Because the text didn't fit the story but they had to link both ; no transmission cut but alteration of the meaning of the texts on purpose. This doesn't mean that later on some people were not lost when screening through the Quran and trying to make sense of it.