Banned in some countries. A UK seasoned history author attempts to find archaeological evidence for the alleged Arabian Prophet of Islam outside of the Qur'an/Hadiths having access to latest findings, venturing to the lands in question seeking hard key historical evidence. Also, R. Spencer's book "Did Muhammad Exist?" review; "Essentially, Spencer maintains that the Arabian empire came first, the theology came later." He concludes: "A careful investigation makes at least one thing clear: The details of Muhammad's life that have been handed down as canonical—that he unified Arabia by the force of arms, concluded alliances, married wives, legislated for his community, and did so much else—are a creation of political ferment dating from long after the time he is supposed to have lived. Similarly, the records strongly indicate that the Qur'an did not exist until long after it was supposed to have been delivered to the prophet of Islam." "Did Muhammad exist? As a prophet of the Arabs who taught a vaguely defined monotheism, he may have existed. But beyond that, his life story is lost in the mists of legend, like those of Robin Hood & Macbeth. As the prophet of Islam, who received (or even claimed to receive) the perfect copy of the perfect eternal book from the supreme God, Muhammad almost certainly did not exist. There are too many gaps, too many silences, too many aspects of the historical record that simply do not accord, and cannot be made to accord, with the traditional account of the Arabian prophet teaching his Qur'an, energizing his followers to such an extent that they went out and conquered a good part of the world." (pp.214-215)
How will Muslims respond to this book? Some may seek to curse the author. They may respond in outrage. But that will not disprove the facts presented here. Islam is supposed to be a religion based in history. It is supposed to be a religion of reason. But if history will not support the claims of Islam, is it time for Muslims to rethink the legitimacy of Islam? Blind commitment to the teachings of the local imam will not be enough in this age of instant information and verification of facts"
Tom Holland's response to criticism of his documentary;
Note by A2T-DoJtC: In SyroAramaic which much of Arabic comes out of, the word "Muhammad" is not a proper name but an honourable title "The Praised/Anointed One”, a SyroAramaic title reference to "The Christ" of the Bible in Syria + vicinity indisputably proven by historical evidence then it would have of an Arab Prophet unable to be found outside of the Qu'ran/Hadiths minus a few spurious sources from MONKS (big hint) unable to be corroborated/verified by other contemporaneous sources satisfactorily, thus being pseudopigraphica's based in Mystery Religions, thereby being suspect as to grave error in translation understanding either by deliberate device for men’s desire to conquer the world or due to general illiteracy of such populations of these times in such areas which would have aided significantly in dispersing the erroneous translation definition. Is the circa 1306+ year old story of an "Arab Prophet" built on honest history or is it a corrupted version of various astro-polytheistic pagan & heathen nature religions of southern Mesopotamia merged w/ certain corrupted versions of Biblical stories adopted by the Arab mind thus being understood in a philosophical, mystic, heathen context w/ only touches of Abrahamic chronicles when seen through the lens of verifiable history? For the student whom diligently, rigorously seeks & studies factual ancient/classical history, digs even deeper, they'll find Islam's monotheistic position begins when Constantinople "Christianity" (OT & NT) has already been in the same areas since circa mid 3rd century A.D. seeking converts. Could modern Islam be a Roman-Greco Byzantine cult that could be called 'Arabian Arianism' intermingled consequently w/ various anti-biblical ideologies/religions of different flavours which RomanGreco "Christianity" basically is depending on where it is in the world as in the case of Islam, thus giving Islam it's start around 700AD (official evidence, not tradition) w/ eerie clues being how closely the head-dress of an Islamic women and Roman & Constantinople nun's covering is for example? Or is Islam a more nefarious strategy by Rome's Mystery Religion agents through murder & suppression of true history among other things to use as a fierce attack dog for decimating the world population, as is already occurring in order to usher in a One World Order?
In the above documentary, some either know an "Arabian Prophet" is myth into reality and are being dishonest, or they are unaware of such evidence.
Did an alleged "Arabian Prophet" with the alleged 'name' of "Muhammad" actually exist, or is this really a synagogue of satan Romano-Iudeo deception?