The Arab Conquests: Legends and Historical Reality

The events that led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire are commonly referred to as “the Islamic conquests.” However, this raises several questions: Were these conquerors truly Muslims? Were they Arabs originating from the Arabian Peninsula? More specifically, can we truly speak of “conquests”? These questions, which may seem surprising, have been re-evaluated by scholars over the past two decades, leading to conclusions that challenge our traditional understanding.

In Greater Syria, ancient Aramean kingdoms once dominated the region, and their language had become the international diplomatic lingua franca. Under the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, Arab kingdoms flourished in the area, contributing to the development of the Arabic script still in use today. As early as the 9th century BCE, Gindibu the Arab, king of Qedar, participated in a coalition against Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, with his troops fighting in the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. During the Persian era, Geshem, the king of Qedar mentioned in the Bible, opposed the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem under Nehemiah.

First and foremost, it is essential to clarify two key concepts that may cause confusion. The term “Arab” at the time referred to a person who spoke the Arabic language, much like a Greek speaking Greek or a Syrian speaking Syriac, or someone living within the cultural and geographical sphere of Greater Syria. It can be assumed that, by the 7th century, the most educated among Arabic speakers were also proficient in Syriac and Greek. For example, the inhabitants of the Ghassanid, Lakhmid, and Nabataean kingdoms spoke Arabic. The peoples of the Himyarite, Sabaean, Qataban, and Aksumite kingdoms used various Arabic dialects, written in a script distinct from that used in Syria.

In the 7th century CE, three Arabic-speaking kingdoms coexisted in Syria-Mesopotamia: the Nabataean kingdom, with Petra as its capital; the Ghassanid kingdom, under Byzantine rule; and the Lakhmid kingdom, allied with the Sassanids. Arabic was commonly spoken alongside Greek and Syriac. Syriac, derived from Imperial Aramaic, had gradually emerged as a distinct language, spreading far beyond its original borders, from the city of Edessa in southern Turkey (modern-day Urfa) to India and East Asia. The ancient Hebrew alphabet evolved in parallel, giving rise to the Syriac script. As the Quran began to be compiled, the Byzantine Empire was a linguistically diverse space, where Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Armenian were spoken. However, it is crucial to emphasize that the term “Arab” at this time had no direct connection to the present-day populations of the Arabian Peninsula.

The Collapse of Empires: A Transition of Power

The notion of “conquest” typically implies the incursion of soldiers into a territory or city, accompanied by sieges, massacres, looting, and the seizure of spoils for the enrichment of the conquerors. Yet, according to archaeological evidence, such events did not occur in the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire, despite traditional narratives recounting heroic battles. Moreover, the conquerors did not settle en masse in the conquered territories. These conquests were instead preceded by a gradual weakening of the two dominant empires of the time, the Byzantine and Sassanid Persian empires, worn down by incessant wars that had damaged their administrative institutions, particularly in tax collection. Ultimately, there was no violent conquest but rather a transition of power, with no substantial evidence of significant resistance.

The historian Moshe Sharon demonstrated in 2002 that the detailed descriptions of the battles of the Islamic conquests provided by Islamic historians such as Baladhuri, Waqidi, and Tabari (notably the battles of Yarmouk in 634, Ajnadayn near Jerusalem, and Yakouza) were merely literary accounts devoid of historical foundation.

Furthermore, it appears that the conquerors did not come from the Arabian Peninsula but from the Syro-Christian world. Thus, Egypt, North Africa, and Spain were conquered by soldiers recruited from regions already under control. These conquerors were not Muslims: they were Christians belonging to various theological currents prevalent in the Syro-Christian world. Historical sources refer to them by different names, reflecting their affiliation with heterogeneous cultural and religious groups within Greater Syria.

Critical research on the Quran and early Islam has seen significant growth in recent years. For historians, non-Islamic sources, as well as archaeological, epigraphic, papyrological, and numismatic evidence, provide far more reliable testimonies for deciphering this period than orally transmitted traditions passed down over generations. Christian chronicles written by Byzantine authors contemporary with the conquests, often direct witnesses to the events, constitute valuable sources. Devoid of apologetics and anachronisms, these accounts are far more reliable than Islamic traditions, which were recorded in writing at least two centuries after the events.

Theological Currents and Christian Movements in the 7th Century

In the 7th century, Christianity dominated the Byzantine Empire, but divergent theological currents had emerged in its eastern provinces. These movements, challenging the dogmas established by the Councils of Nicaea (325), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), rejected Pauline theology, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinitarian dogma. Among them were the Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites. Some, like the Docetists, even denied the crucifixion of Jesus, considering it an optical illusion.

Communities such as the Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Elkesaites were Christians attached to Judaic practices and biblical laws but were considered heretical by the imperial Christian mainstream. Their beliefs are reflected in apocryphal gospels such as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, as well as in an abundance of Syriac literature from northern Syria, particularly the homilies of Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) and Jacob of Serugh (451–521).

Surprisingly, the figure of Muhammad is entirely absent from the Quran. Unlike Jesus in the New Testament or Moses in the Torah, Muhammad does not occupy a central place in it. His legendary biography was written only about two centuries after his death, by Ibn Hisham (d. 830) in his work titled Sīra. Subsequently, many sayings attributed to Muhammad were compiled in the Hadiths by scholars such as Al-Bukhari (810–870), Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (821–875), and Muhammad al-Tirmidhi, before being integrated into the works of historians like Tabari (839–923) in his Tafsir. These theologians, hailing from Khorasan in northeastern Persia, were geographically distant from the Hijaz in central Arabia. Moreover, the Hadiths themselves contain numerous contradictions, making it difficult to construct a coherent portrait of Muhammad.

In contrast to these theologians, modern historians have access to chronicles written in Christian Syria that mention Muhammad during his lifetime. However, although their authors lived close to the conquests, they struggled to define the identity of the conquerors, using various ambiguous terms: Tayaye (or Tayyiiye), Sarakenoi (Saracens), as well as “sons of Ishmael” or “sons of Hagar” (Hagarenes), designations inspired by the patriarchal narratives of the Bible. The conquerors were also referred to by other variants: Agarenoi, Hagraye, Mahgraye, Moagaritai, or in Arabic, muhajirun, meaning “fighters in the path of God.” They referred to themselves as mu’minun (believers) rather than Muslims. Their adversaries, however, called them mushrikun (polytheists), adherents of the Trinity.

The diversity of names attributed to the conquerors reflects their varied origins and calls into question their provenance from the Hijaz. This raises further questions: Were the conquests carried out in the name of Islam? Did the conquerors come from the Arabian Peninsula? To these questions, historical analysis answers in the negative. The conquerors were not Muslims, and their adversaries did not identify them as such, for Islam as a religion only took shape two and a half centuries later. It is therefore difficult to assert that the rulers of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus were Muslims, as this may be a retroactive invention of the Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad.

One of the first scholars to question the nature of the conquests that shook the Byzantine and Sassanid-Persian empires was the archaeologist Yehuda D. Nevo (1932–1992). In his book Crossroads to Islam, co-authored with Judith Koren, he concluded that the Arab Empire preceded Islam. His research is based on some 400 inscriptions in early Arabic script discovered west of Sde Boker in the Negev. Nevo rejected Islamic traditions regarding the nature of the conquests, arguing that the Byzantins struggled to maintain their provinces due to administrative issues and declining tax revenues in remote regions. Consequently, imperial authorities ceased paying the salaries of governors, effectively abandoning these territories to local leaders who took advantage of the situation to collect taxes for themselves. In time, these leaders accepted the new conquerors without resistance, as their religion did not differ significantly from their own beliefs. Nevo also argued that the name “MHMD” was not a personal name but a title meaning “the Glorified,” referring to the new rulers.

Non-Islamic Sources: Historical Revelations

What, then, do the Christian chronicles of Syria reveal about these conquests and the historical Muhammad? Three of them describe him as a cross-border merchant. Jacob of Edessa (633–708) portrays him as a land merchant in the Holy Land, Phoenicia, and Arabia in northern Mesopotamia, referring to him as “Mahmat.” The Armenian bishop Sebeos, in his work on Emperor Heraclius (661), also mentions Muhammad as a merchant, stating that the Jews of the region had asked him for permission to rebuild the Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem in 640. Sebeos refers to the conquerors as “sons of Ishmael” or Hagarenes.

The priest Thomas the Presbyter, living near Edessa, reports (in 643) that a commander named “Mahmat” led soldiers who, in February 634, clashed with the Byzantines near Gaza, killing their commander and 4,000 Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan villagers. These conquerors, called Tayaye, had seized all of Mesopotamia within two years.

The Doctrina Iacobi (640), a polemical Christian text from Carthage, recounts that a Jew from Caesarea named Justus testified that the Saracens had killed the Byzantine commander, much to the satisfaction of the Jews, and conquered Gaza on July 16, 634. Their leader was a Saracen prophet who announced the imminent coming of Christ, the Messiah, holder of the keys to paradise. This prophet allegedly consulted an elder of the community, who explained that true prophets do not present themselves to the people armed to the teeth. This testimony establishes a clear link between Muhammad, the Messiah Jesus, Israel, and the Jews.

The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius (638–560), reports in his sermon of December 634 that the Ishmaelites were camped around Jerusalem and that, out of fear, Christians avoided traveling to Bethlehem for Christmas. He describes the invaders as cruel “Saracens,” accusing them of destroying and burning cities and villages, looting property, desecrating churches, and killing Byzantines. According to him, their goal was the conquest of the entire world. In 635, he chose to sign a peace treaty with the conquerors of Jerusalem, assisted by Jews. These testimonies reinforce the idea that Muhammad may have participated in the conquest of Jerusalem as a military leader, remaining active well beyond the presumed date of his death (632). In contrast, Islamic tradition attributes the conquest of the city and the construction of the Dome of the Rock to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab.

The historian Thawafil ibn Tuma (Theophilus of Edessa) describes in his Chronicon (638) a young Muhammad leaving Yathrib in Arabia to trade in the Holy Land. Fascinated by the region and the belief in one God, he returned to his clan before conquering southern Syria as a commander of the Tayyaye. He praised the richness of the land of Israel to his soldiers, claiming that their faith would grant them a land as fertile. His troops encountered no resistance and returned with considerable spoils.

A Syriac chronicle from 660, originating in Khurasan (western Iran), mentions that God sent countless Ishmaelites against the troops of the Sassanid king Yazdegerd, led by “Mahmud.” No wall or gate could stop them, and they conquered all of Persia. The Syriac monk Yoḥannan Bar Penkaye (687) describes Muhammad as a cruel ruler whose soldiers were so loyal that they executed anyone who disobeyed him.

The first non-Muslim mention of Muhammad as a general, king, and prophet appears in the Syriac chronicle of Zoknin (717). His troops forced the Romans to flee eastward, conquered the entire Holy Land, and ruled there. Muhammad, their first king, is said to have ruled for seven years, imposing laws and advocating the existence of one God.

The first epigraphic mention of the name Muhammad dates only to 685, on a coin from Bishapur (southeastern Iran), during the reign of Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr (692–624). Two other mentions of Muhammad appear in graffiti and papyri from the ruins of Almird, northwest of the Dead Sea, dating to the early 8th century. It is surprising that from 738 onward, the name Muhammad, as well as those of Mecca and the Kaaba, are absent from these writings. It is possible that the name “Mahmoud” in these inscriptions was merely an honorary title.

Many scholars consider the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (646–705) of the Umayyad dynasty as a turning point in the process of Islamization and Arabization of the empire’s administration, at the expense of Greek and Syriac. Naturally, this Arabization initiative did not happen overnight, and it took many years for the diverse populations of the conquered territories to adopt Arabic as a cultural language. As for Islamization, this is a historical anachronism: more than a century passed before Islamic theologians wrote the biography of Muhammad and compiled the Hadith traditions, which were developed outside the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Sassanid Persia, by authors born in the 9th century in Khurasan.

In his work Writings on Islam, the Nestorian priest John of Damascus (Mansur ibn Sarjun, 676–749) provides a testimony about this new religion during the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. According to him, a prophet named Muhammad emerged, linked to a monk who was a disciple of the Christian theologian Arius, from Cyrenaica, who opposed the concept of the Trinity. This monk allegedly introduced Muhammad to the biblical stories of the Old and New Testaments, leading him to found his own dissident sect. This prophet claimed that there was only one God, creator of the universe, who was neither begotten nor begets. As for Christians, John refers to them as mushrikūn (associators), as they affirm that Christ is the son of God and God himself. Muhammad, on the other hand, maintained that Christ was a spirit of God but created, and that Jesus was the son of Mary without being born of a man. In his testimony, John does not mention the term “Islam” or “Muslim” and does not seem to have been aware of a book called the “Quran.” By 740, the Quran had likely not yet been compiled into a single codex, and the Hadith narratives had not yet been recorded by Islamic theologians in Khurasan.

The Image of Muhammad: Between Historical Reality and Legend

In addition to these chronicles, the name Muhammad appears prominently in the monumental inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. This octagonal structure, built on the Temple Mount by Abd al-Malik, was primarily intended as an architectural rival to the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The inscription adorning its walls mentions two messengers of God: Jesus, son of Mary, and Muhammad. Both are defined within the same theological framework. However, contrary to expectations, Jesus receives a more detailed and prominent mention than Muhammad, whose name appears only in a schematic form. Some scholars argue that the inscription “MHMD” does not refer to a proper name but rather serves as a title or epithet. Some interpret this as a reference to Jesus himself, while others see it as a generic term for the rulers of the time. According to the latter interpretation, the theological formula “Muhammad, messenger of Allah. May Allah bless him” could be understood as “Abd al-Malik, messenger of Allah. May Allah bless him.”

Here are some excerpts from the inscription:
“There is no god but Allah. He is one, without partner (…) Muhammad is the servant of Allah and His messenger. This is the truth. Allah and His angels bless the prophet (…) O People of the Book, do not go to extremes in your religion and speak nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say ‘Three.’ Desist, it is better for you. Allah is one God. He is far exalted above having a son (…) Allah is sufficient as a protector. The Messiah would never disdain to be a servant of Allah, nor would the angels near to Him (…) O Allah, bless Your messenger and Your servant Jesus, son of Mary. Peace be upon him the day he was born, the day he dies, and the day he is raised alive. That is Jesus, son of Mary, a statement of truth about which they dispute. It is not for Allah to have a son. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is (…)”

These inscriptions clearly reflect the intensification of internal Christian debates on the Christological nature of Jesus: “Allah is one. Allah is complete. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none like Him.” This text rejects the divinity of Jesus as well as the dogma of the Trinity and illustrates the process of forming a dissident religion within Syro-Christian society. The rejection of the Trinity is also expressed in the following inscription: “He sent His messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, contrary to the opinion of the mushrikūn (associators).” Notably, the term “Islam” is still absent from this imperial inscription, which cannot be a coincidence.

The testimonies written at the time, close to the events, unequivocally demonstrate that the Syro-Christian Empire preceded the birth of Islam. Moreover, the figure of Muhammad in these chronicles diverges from that of Islamic traditions. Consequently, it appears that the conquests were not aimed at spreading a new religion but rather at extending political influence over new territories following the decline of Byzantine and Sassanid authorities, with the goal of collecting taxes, seizing spoils, and looting property to support military finances. The undeniable involvement of Muhammad in the conquests of Greater Syria and, in particular, Jerusalem raises the question of whether the authors of the Sīra and Hadith were aware of the details of these conquests and Muhammad’s participation in them. It is likely that, if they had been, they would not have hesitated to glorify their hero for the conquest of the holy city and his contribution to the founding of the empire.

According to these chronicles, it appears that the figure of Muhammad was considerably more heroic than that which emerges from Islamic traditions. Muhammad was undeniably linked to Jesus Christ, the community of the nasāra, and the Christian communities that remained faithful to the laws of the Torah. Above all, Muhammad was undoubtedly the military leader whose troops conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines, with the help of the Jews, who showed him the location of the Temple. Furthermore, archaeological excavations in the conquered territories have revealed no evidence of sieges, city destructions, or fires, elements characteristic of violent conquests. The conquerors were generally welcomed without significant opposition. The research conducted in recent decades profoundly alters our understanding of the beginnings of Arab-Islamic culture in the world.