The authors of the much controversial and absolutely essential 'Hagarism : The
Making Of The Islamic World', once put under various pressures, ended up
dissociating themselves from this work of theirs a few years after it was
published. Just as they have managed to retain their academic job as a result of
this self-denial of theirs, so the content of 'Hagarism : The Making Of The
Islamic World' is still as valuable.
"Virtually all accounts of the early development of Islam take it as axiomatic
that it is possible to elicit at least the outlines of the process from the
Islamic sources. It is however well-known that these sources are not
demonstrably early. There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in
any form before the last decade of the seventh century, and the tradition which
places this rather opaque revelation in its historical context is not attested
before the middle of the eigth. The historicity of the Islamic tradition is thus
to some degree problematic: while there are no cogent internal grounds for
rejecting it, there are equally no cogent external grounds for accepting it. In
the circumstances it is not unreasonable to proceed in the usual fashion by
presenting a sensibly edited version of the tradition as historical fact. But
equally, it makes some sense to regard the tradition as without determinate
historical content, and to insist that what purport to be accounts of religious
events in the seventh century are utilisable only for the study of religious
ideas in the eighth. The Islamic sources provide plenty of scope for the
implementation of these different approaches, but offer little that can be used
in any decisive way to arbitrate between them. The only way out of the dilemma
is thus to step outside the Islamic tradition altogether and start again. If we
choose to start again, we begin with the Doctrina Iacobi, a Greek anti-Jewish
tract spawned by the Heraclean persecution. It is cast in the form of a dialogue
between Jews set in Carthage in the year 634; it was in all probability written
in Palestine within a few years of that date. At one point in the argument
reference is made to current events in Palestine in the form of a letter from a
certain Abraham, a Palestinian Jew.
A false prophet has appeared among the Saracens... They say that the prophet has
appeared coming with the Saracens, and is proclaiming the advent of the anointed
one who is to come [...]. I, Abraham, went off to Sykamina and referred the
matter to an old man very well versed in the Scriptures. I asked him: 'What is
your view, master and teacher, of the prophet who has appeared among the
Saracens?' He replied groaning, mightily: 'He is an impostor. Do the prophets
come with sword and chariot?
Truly these happenings today are works of disorder... But you go off, Master
Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.' So I, Abraham, made
enquiries, and was told by those who had met him: 'There is no truth to be found
in the so-called prophet, oniy bloodshed; for he says he has the keys of
paradise, which is incredible.'
(...)
We have so far confined our attention to the messianic aspect of the conquest of
Palestine; but as might be expected, the sources provide indications of a wider
intimacy in the relations of Arabs and Jews at the time. The warmth of the
Jewish reaction to the Arab invasion attested by the Doarina and exemplified by
the 'Secrets' is far less in evidence in later Jewish attitudes. More
significantly, it is entirely absent from those of contemporary Christians,
whether Orthodox or heretical. At the same time the sources attest the
translation of these philo-Arab sentiments into concrete political involvement:
the Doctrina refers to 'the Jews who mix with the Saracens', while according to
an early Armenian source the
governor of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the conquest was a Jew.
This evidence of Judeo-Arab intimacy is complemented by indications
of a marked hostility towards Christianity on the part of the invaders.
The converted Jew of the Doarina protests that he will not deny Christ, the son
of God, even if the Jews and Saracens catch him and cut him to pieces. The
Christian garrison of Gaza put the same determination into practice, and was
martyred for it. A contemporary sermon includes among the misdeeds of the
Saracens the burning of churches, the destruction of monasteries, the
profanation of crosses, and horrific blasphemies against Christ and the church.
A violent Saracen hatred of the cross is also attested in an early account of
the arrival of the invaders on Mt Sinai. And the doctrinal corollary of all this
finds neat expression when the Armenian source mentioned above has an early
Ishmaelite ruler call upon the Byzantine emperor to renounce 'that Jesus whom
you call Christ and who could not even save himself from the Jews'. There is
nothing here to bear out the Islamic picture of a movement which had already
broken with the Jews before the conquest, and regarded Judaism and Christianity
with the same combination of tolerance and reserve."
http://ebooks-freedownload.com/2010/04/hagarism-making-of-islamic-world.html