The conquerors were not Muslims, and their enemies did not call them that, because Islam had not yet been born, and the Qur’an had not yet been finalized. Muhammad's fighters called themselves "Mu’minun" (believers) Maaminim in Hebrew, not "Muslims." The Christian Byzantines called the conquerors Tayyaye or Mahgraye Magaritai (a reference to mahgraye, possibly meaning “emigrants” or “those from the Hijra”), those who prayed facing Mecca, or as in some sources Agareni (Hagarenes), originating from Hagar, of Abraham. But the image of Mecca has nothing to do with the image of the Lord. A Syriac text from the year 682 makes a clear distinction between two types of rulers: Those with a shadow similar to the mahgraye (emigrants of Ishmael) And those whose shadows are aligned with the image of God. The Arab conquest is described as a blow to the country. Most of the names we were given for the conquerors are much more aligned with terms for looters and violent conquerors than with the image of a source from God. Archaeology does not reveal signs of culture, construction, or religious expansion — only signs of destruction, looting, burning of cities, or mass killings. The conquerors were not motivated to spread a new religion. Their motive was to gain control over new territories in order to collect taxes, take spoils, and recruit forced labor. They divided the conquered area economically — soldiers received land or workers as property. Part of Muhammad’s conquests in the Syria–Eretz Israel region raises the question: Did the companions of Muhammad and the early religious leadership know the details of the conquests and Muhammad’s involvement in them? If they did know, how could they not oppose it? If they didn’t know, how is it that they were later portrayed as kings who helped conquer the Holy City of Jerusalem and established the Islamic myth?
This is a question from the perspective of revisionist historians such as Patricia Cron, Michael Cook, who argue: The sources of Islam were written decades after the period described. The first conquerors may not have been acting in the name of “Islam” at all, but rather were desert Arabs who took advantage of the weakness of neighboring empires. It was only in later generations that a coherent Muslim narrative was organized—the Quran, the Hadith, and the biographies of Muhammad pbuh were written—to provide religious legitimacy for political rule. In other words: even if Muhammad’s pbuh followers were not religious in the sense we understand them today, the generations that followed them transformed them into holy leaders and “religious heroes” to unite the Muslim nation and justify the conquests, especially of Jerusalem—which became an important religious symbol. So Muhammad's pbuh companions likely knew and led the conquests, driven by a combination of religious faith, political ambition, and tribal loyalty. And if they did not act in the name of an organized religion, then the religious narrative was subsequently constructed to frame the events as a divine mission and establish the Islamic empire. What I find fascinating is that Umar ordered the area cleaned and built a simple wooden prayer structure — which would eventually become the Al-Aqsa Mosque and later be joined by the Dome of the Rock (completed under Caliph Abd al-Malik in 691 CE). According to early Islamic traditions: Umar allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem, after they had been banned under Byzantine Christian rule. There have been Jewish prayer or ritual presence on the Mount at the time, Scholars have identified early Islamic-era coins (Umayyad) with inscriptions in Arabic referring to "Bayt al-Maqdis" (بيت المقدس), which is the Islamic name for Beit HaMikdash in Jerusalem — literally “The Holy House” or “The Sanctuary” as Jews call it.AS both were called Maamenim, The believers. And some Jewish sources indicate limited sacrificial activity - Kurban in 7th century. These coins frequently reference Bayt al‑Maqdis Jerusalem, Holy Temple and in some rare cases employ Jewish Temple symbolism like the menorah. The menorah as a Jewish-Muslim symbol. An Umayyad coin with the Jewish symbol of the menorah beside a text from the Muslim declaration of faith
"conquests, driven by a combination of religious faith, political ambition, and tribal loyalty." Explain to me like I'm a five-year-old, how is this different from the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, and Colonization?
Minorities felt much more protected under Muslims, in those days Jews escaping Inquesition found refuge in Muslim countries. Yes, as a second rate citizens and had to pay special tax. But as Ottomans called themselves protectors of the lands. As long as people submit to Islamic law. Otherwise conquest is conquest. Some occupiers view themselves as liberator.
This wasn't a political post. It's interesting history, and some revisions of it. Good or bad is relative. What is good in one's person eyes can be evil in others persons eyes.
I thought Muslims didn’t exist yet? Ottomans did not exist till centuries after than the time period of debate. What you are saying in your statement is correct, just unrelated to the previous points.
It was a response to some statements made in one of the replies about Muslims. As to when Muslims existed it's all in definitions. Today it's Shahada, Muhammad pbuh was added to the definition. But early initual concept was simple. Any person who submits to Allah is a Muslim. This way it's like one who is a bealiver, so if Abraham submitted, or David, Elijah, they are Muslims according to early pre Muchammad pbuh definition. The real understanding and the key was to submit or fase sword. As to legends of conquest, a lot of revisionism is taking place.
I asked how they are different, not how, and they are similar but with different justified names and western perspectives
