The religion of the Ishmaelites is seen as a sect of Christianity by John of Damascus.
None connexion with the fact that Judaism and Christianity are long established movements and no sects.
My question to Mundi was how he explains the anti Rabbanite and anti Christian stance and was related to the origin of the authors of the texts which is not written (for me) after the conquest as you think.
John of Damascus has never had a Quran in hand. All what he says are reports from conversations with muhajirun. There is an excellent reason which evidences that fact. Even if what he reports correspond to what may say the Quran, one thing is to hear it from others, another thing is to read it. He might have change his mind about his thesis of an Arian monk, taking into account for example the anti rabbanite stance (which is not at all Arian...) and other topics the Quran raises and which is curiously absent of his statements. Why his muhajirun did not speak of this in their conversations? They had, without doubt, good reasons to do it.
It is interesting to note that John do not speak about the Jews; it is normal; there is less Jews in the ex roman Empire (Damascus) than in the East from which originate Sebeos et al. who accused them to have help the Arabs to conquest.
When Trinitarian and Arian Christians verbally abused each other, they do like the Quran
John had, at least, the excuse to not have the Quran in hand to read it entirely. You do not have it. You did not really read the text you post about in this forum.
; they are not against Christianity per say ; they are against an interpretation of Christianity ;
Which interpretation (s?)
it could have come from them (though this is not what I think nor what the sources say).
I'm not really sure that military people were alone in the Arab staff to build something (for them, not the Jews...) on the esplanade in Jerusalem; it is not a "military" action, but a cultic one. Of course, all is sometimes possible, but, in Antiquity these roles are for different people. That is why I think that military was flanked by people who knew the cultic stuff to do one time arrived in Jerusalem.
It is what the sources say; I rebutted all your theories about that; you swallow Sebeos without make the critique of the sources which is a fundamental element of historical methodology. Again, you want the sources to fit your thesis, but they (unfortunately...) did not, when correctly examined.
You wanted to say that I don't have the same assumptions as you have.
Nope, I say that you do not read the Quran; that is why you have such assumptions. The trend is to say what you say; many parts of it are written after the conquest. It allows to bypass the incomprehensibility of the text; "Guys! it is like this because it is a layers text,etc".
It resolves all the issues, end of story. Gallez, Dye, Sinai, Donner, etc. are on this same line.Cuypers is on the other one.
I think that using this bypass is the solution de facilité
However, what I mean is that someone didn't look into the Quran and thought "oh yeah it is talking about a prophet so let's write about him by taking items from the book" ; the rationale was more "we have a book, we need to build a prophet figure so let's link the 2 though they have nothing to do with each other (like the interpolation in Surah 17:1 shows).
The one do not prevent the other one. Curious that you did not see that. Apart 17,1 how much examples have you of the building of the prophet figure introduced/interpoled in the text like 17, 1?
The Quran is about texts you can find in christian and jewish writings.
Yes. But the Quran do something to these texts. It modifies them, arrange them in its own specific way to express what one can read in it .
In a way your assumption, if I understood it properly, would fit the existence of a prophet at the beginning of Islam
I though that I had clearly state since 2 long years that I did not think that Muhammad (or anyone else portrayed as him ...) had existed and was at the origin of the Quranic texts. Maybe I did badly.
; otherwise, it doesn't make sense.
Yet it does, be sure of it. But as I did not give (all) on what I build things, it is normal that you does not understand.
But I said enough (I think...) to show that I have something to say in the topic.