I have a spare half hour, so I decided to go back and check out your posts in more detail.
Unfortunately, you didn't read them very well or understand the history they are based on.
Ermmm, your own post proves that neither empire ever attacked the peninsula, and certainly not the Muslims. Never
Short history lesson:
Much of the Roman Army was not classical Roman Legionaries, but were mercenaries hired from the local 'barbarians'. In the Roman/Persian wars, a lot of fighting was done by these mercenaries, who also helped exert imperial control/influence in the border areas and beyond.
These mercenaries were called foederati:
The term foederati had its usage and meaning extended by the Romans' practice of subsidising entire barbarian tribes such as the Franks, Vandals, Alans, Huns and the Visigoths, the last being the best known, in exchange for providing warriors to fight in the Roman armies...
In the east, foederati were formed out of several Arab tribes to protect against the Persian-allied Arab Lakhmids and the tribes of the Arabian peninsula. Among these foederati were the Tanukhids, Banu Judham, Banu Amela and the Ghassanids.
It doesn't require an invasion to have an offensive and defensive military presence in the region, you just hire local tribes as mercenaries to do your bidding. These mercenaries attacked many people in the peninsula.
These are indisputable facts.
Again, what the hell are you on about???????????????????????????
YOUR post shows that relations were mutual. There is absolutely nothing in this to indicate that the Muslims had to fight in self defense.
It would be easier if you just relax, open your mind, and think critically for a minute. Remember, you didn't know any of this until I told you, so you have to accept there is a good chance the cited experts are right and you are wrong. Also try to read more carefully and remember what the actual context is, not what you misremember the context as being.
You were ridiculing the idea that Romans could have attacked peninsula Arabs and suggested that even entertaining the possibility was closed-minded ignorance. This is what you were wrong about.
My post shows that Arabia was strategically and economically important and that Romans
foederati were active throughout Arabia. They maintained their status through violence. They could certainly have attacked another tribe, and it is inane to argue otherwise.
AFAIK, there is no evidence to say they did or they didn't attack the group who would later refer to themselves as Muslims (but who then seem to have called themselves believers). Ultimately, we have to say we don't really know.
There is a good chance the proto-Muslims emerged from among Roman aligned tribal groups, at some point they stopped being aligned with them and started to seek independent power.
This would certainly be a potential reason for Roman foederati to attack them. The idea is at least plausible, not ridiculous as you claimed. The problem is that unless you trust the unreliable religious narratives written 2 centuries later, we know very few specific about what was happening at this point.
I would say the balance of probabilities is Romans stopped paying many mercenaries as the plague and war meant they were financially struggling. These tribes had likely consolidated power and learned organisational skills from fighting with the Roman Army (see what happened prior to the fall of the Western Roman Empire for a parallel). They recognised Romans were vulnerable and isolated raids turned into larger military actions. The proto-Muslims were likely one of several groups doing such things rather than the primary instigators. So it is more likely they were the aggressors (or were part of a group of aggressors).
It's strange you are so resistant to learning the actual history of the region so you can see how it meshes with the religious narrative that you put so much faith in.
).
