You sound like Odon Lafontaine who says the same thing as you :
Well... I'm not a spokesperson for someone else... Am I?
Gallez thesis hasn"t been disproved so far(same as your "nothing has come to refute it")
1/You do not understand : "I have this (last) view since almost two years now, and nothing has come to refute it".
I (just) meant that in what I have read (in academia, books etc) nothing has come (new sources, ideas, discoveries, etc) that could refute the (provisional) conclusion I have now.
2/Articles have been written which disprove the affirmation on which Gallez thesis is built : he says that the Quran refers not to Christians with the word "nasara".
He is wrong."nasara" refers to Christians. As Gallez do not respond (to these articles...) Lafontaine (an amateur like you) build a real labyrinth to respond to Griffith, Jullien, Brelaud, De bié, etc., and he says that one does not understand the Gallez thesis.
(Like Muslim says that one does understand the Quran, it it the same thing...)
One does understand it very well:
The affirmation of Gallez (tome 1, p.281, n. 480 and 481) proves that he has not understood that this appellation after the 4th c.comes not
from Christians themselves but from officials Persians, and that it is a pejorative
appellation. One does not care how Christians were naming themselves, they were naming like this by others
Because he says (481) : " but in Persia it had probably been almost three centuries since the Christians in Persia had in turn abandoned
the denomination of nasrayé. "
But not the Persians Edouard!!!
It is the Persians who continued to name them like that!
one knows very well that they were calling themselves krîstyānâ/ê or mshīḥayyê. The Persians were the rulers
, they named people like they wanted to name them!
is in Iraq with the Christians as the most nearest collaborators of the Persians? Japanese, Aliens?
The main concept of his thesis on which all is build does not work.
Gallez thesis is disproved.
Gallez thesis is the only one that explain the history of Islam
It is the most complete landscape. One can do better, without an idealogical bias and idiosyncrasies.
Writing the early history of Islam is mostly giving one's opinion
It is the view of someone (you) who is an amateur. Like Odon Lafontaine.
in front of the same facts, 2 different people would come to 2 different interpretations.
It depends on many factors ; then, maybe not
However, a lot has been done reagrding unearthing the true early history of Islam and it shouldn't be discarded.
I'm not really sure of that. But, these last two years some works (articles, etc) have allowed me to progress considerably in my thesis