For scholars who argue Islam may have originated farther north than the traditional Hijaz narrative, what do they think explains Islam’s later emphasis on Mecca and the Arabian Peninsula?
I’ve been reading a little about revisionist scholarship on early Islam, and I’m trying to understand the strongest version of the argument rather than just dismissals or polemics.
Some scholars argue that Islam’s genesis may have been farther north than traditional Islamic accounts hold — closer to Syria, Jordan, or Iraq — citing things like claims about Quranic Arabic having northern linguistic features, the heavy concentration of early Islamic political/intellectual activity around Iraq and Syria, and the fact that much of the earliest Islamic literature and historiography emerged in those regions.
From what I understand, the argument is not necessarily “Islam was invented later” in a simplistic sense, but that the traditional narrative centering Mecca/Medina in the Hijaz may have been shaped or standardized after the fact.
My question is: what do serious proponents of these theories think explains Islam’s strong emphasis on the Arabian Peninsula, especially the Hijaz, if the movement’s origins were supposedly farther north?
One steelman I can think of is that emphasizing a comparatively remote and less cosmopolitan region like western Arabia strengthens the theological message that Allah can elevate even a seemingly marginal and insignificant people into the founders of a massive world empire. Another possibility I thought of is a more practical/utilitarian explanation — that locating the holiest sites in comparatively remote Arabia made them easier to preserve from the constant imperial turnover that affected Syria and Iraq under Byzantine/Persian and later competing dynastic control.
Are these ideas anywhere close to what revisionist scholars actually argue, or do they have different explanations entirely? I’m especially interested in academically serious answers rather than apologetics or anti-religious gotchas.