I’m inclined to Tom Holland’s analysis that a character called Mohammad never existed.
Robert Spencer agrees with that
1. Mohammad is a title meaning the praiseworthy one. Nobody before the 8th century had that name.
2. The words Muhammad is used only 5 times in the Quran and only as a title
3. The Arabs conquered highly literate Persian Sassanid and Roman areas but there is no mention of a Muhammad in the first 100 years of the arab empire
4. They don’t even mention it themselves, not in their texts or inscriptions.
I think Muhammad was an amalgamation of many people like Robin hood
But your theory fails a little with the schism between Sunni and Shia. Mohammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali caused the Shia to split from the Sunni Moslems. That sort of implies that there was a Mohammad. How do Holland and Spencer explain that?
Correct. “Mohammed” was invented to attract 9th Century businessmen to Saudi Arabia. The koran is a lousy cut-and-paste job from the Bible and islam became a religion made by men for men. Children and Women need not apply. And just as one American judge slammed Alex Jones for saying the Sandy Hook was a hoax, so, too, some people will slam others for saying that mohammed was a hoax or even drawing a cartoon. Increasing dog ownership in Cairo is good news.