• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam

Just curious to see if we can find common ground anywhere. Was Jerusalem besieged and conquered by an army from the Arabian Peninsula in 636/637?

Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) - Wikipedia

I agree the broad outline of the conquests is pretty accurate, but a lot of the pious Islamic narratives about them are likely fabricated or at least significantly embellished.


As for Jerusalem the accounts of its capture are, as one might expect of this holiest of cities, charged with religious overtones, but they are annoyingly bereft of concrete detail. A late Christian source makes a brief reference to a two-year siege, but gives no details or clarification. Our only contemporary source reports that “the Lord’s Cross and all the vessels of the churches of God” were taken away by sea to Constantinople for safekeeping, but of military matters simply says that having requested an oath from the Arabs that they would respect life and property, the people of Jerusalem submitted to the Arabs.
Hoyland, Robert G.. In God's Path

These are basically all of the earliest sources for Islam (other than the Quran, there are no Muslim sources for this era at all, they all appear much later).

Seeing Islam as Others saw it by Robert G Hoyland


This is why scholars are sceptical about accuracy of the theological tradition that you have been using - there are no sources for 200 years to support any of it.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
I agree the broad outline of the conquests is pretty accurate, but a lot of the pious Islamic narratives about them are likely fabricated or at least significantly embellished.


As for Jerusalem the accounts of its capture are, as one might expect of this holiest of cities, charged with religious overtones, but they are annoyingly bereft of concrete detail. A late Christian source makes a brief reference to a two-year siege, but gives no details or clarification. Our only contemporary source reports that “the Lord’s Cross and all the vessels of the churches of God” were taken away by sea to Constantinople for safekeeping, but of military matters simply says that having requested an oath from the Arabs that they would respect life and property, the people of Jerusalem submitted to the Arabs.
Hoyland, Robert G.. In God's Path

These are basically all of the earliest sources for Islam (other than the Quran, there are no Muslim sources for this era at all, they all appear much later).

Seeing Islam as Others saw it by Robert G Hoyland


This is why scholars are sceptical about accuracy of the theological tradition that you have been using - there are no sources for 200 years to support any of it.

Okay. Have you read this: 'Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In', by Hugh Kennedy?
 
Okay. Have you read this: 'Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In', by Hugh Kennedy?

No. But I have read the book I quoted above regarding the conquests so I understand what happened.

What does that book say that you find interesting?

(I've got his book on the Caliphate but never actually got round to reading it)
 
Top