I understand that if you think Sebeos got his information from arab people, then the words caliphs, kabaa, zem zem, mecca, islam, should show up in Sebeos narratives.
Like in the all non Muslims sources, all informations we have, have its first origin in statements of Arabs who take the political power in Syria/Armenia/Palestine, etc. It seems difficult to deny that. From where, Armenians, Syrians, etc could have received these information about a prophetic figure apart Arabs? From little green men? One have to be serious.
It is not only Sebeos that did not speak of "caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran", Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc. It is all the non Muslims sources of the 7th c. and until sometimes the first quarter of the 8th c.
So it is not Sebeos only. It is all. How do you explain that? It is inexplicable.
On the other hand, it is remarkable that the informations Arabs give are circumscribed to informations easily deducible from the Quranic texts (Abraham/prophet/God) and never go beyond this Quranic frame. Never. What that mean? That there is Quranic texts. But those are not at all originating from the story ("caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran", Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc.) recounted by the historiographers of the 9th c. That is the logical explication.
what puzzle me in what you say is that the Sebeos narrative still seem to show a salvation history, and scholars date Sebeos writing from the early 650/660's. So it would mean that this salvation history has either some kind of truth or was written quite early, and I don't believe that as the first sira originates from the 8th century and we don't have the original text,
What I call 'Salvation History' is the account of the historiographers of the 9th c. concerning the origin of the Quranic text and the figures associated with it. It happens to be that these figures does not match the figures Uthmān and Muawiya as we know it from non Muslims sources : there is no mentions about them
or from them (Muawiya) of "caliphs" Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran", Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc. So all the historical affirmations about the figures associated with the Quranic texts, from the historiographers of the 9th c. are not corroborated by any scriptural sources of the 7th c. : Arabs and non Arabs. It's a fact. Uthmān and Muawiya have been clothed with all this stuff by the historiographers of the 9th c. But themselves never attest it. There is not a piece of allusion from them.
- there are different non muslims epigraphical and scriptural sources that do mention Omar
I look forward to see your sources.
Uthman (the Tayma writing though not islamic in its content neitheir),
I do not understand what you say.
lists of caliphs and length of their reign starting with Muhammad in different non muslim scriptural sources including some early as 640,
In 640? What sources exactly?
List of Arabs "Kings", not "caliphs" "Companions" or collectors of a "Quran". It is very different of what recounts the historiographers of the 9th c.
"Muhammad" is in the Quranic texts, it is then normal that it is mentioned. As I already said, Arabs of the 7th c. give informations that are circumscribed to informations easily deducible from the Quranic texts (Abraham/prophet/God) and never
go beyond this Quranic frame to talk about very important facts : Mecca/Medina, etc.