This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/academicquran by /u/Resident1567899 on 2023-09-10 13:28:02.
I've been reading up a bit on the non-Islamic sources of Islam within the first 50 years (special thanks for u/chonkshonk for the post!) and there seems to be stark differences between these non-Islamic sources and traditional Islamic ones.
For example, non-Islamic sources seem to mention Muhammad was alive during the conquest of Jerusalem and Palestine like Doctrina Iacobi which mention Muhammad coming with the Saracens. Sebeos mentions Muhammad giving a speech to his followers about conquering the land of Israel. Maybe also Thomas the Presbyter since he mentions a battle between the Romans and "Arabs of Muhammad". But in Islamic sources, Muhammad was said to die before the conquest so is there anything I'm missing here?
Second, the brutal killings of civilians by the Arabs mentioned in sources like Doctrina Iacobi, Thomas the Presybester, a Syriac fragment from 637 and the chronicler from Khuzistan. But as I've heard, Muslim massacres and killing of civilians were rare. So which one is it?
Third, the names of the conquerors. Traditional Muslim sources claim they were called Muslims but non-Islamic sources, too many to choose from called them as Tayy, a northern Arab tribe or Hagarenes (mhaggre) or perhaps comes from the word Muhajirun. But why? Why didn't use the word Arab or Muslim? Was there a language barrier or did the word Arab and Muslim did not exist yet in their languages?
What is the perspective of scholars on this? Is the traditional narrative true or the non-Islamic one? Is there a reconciliation here?