The sources speak of Muhammad as an actual military leader, not some ghost. Whether he was considered alive or not is irrelevant. They sources still portray him as a historical figure.
We have already discussed, at length, about this topic, dear Mahgraye. It is granted, and you know what are my arguments, that for me, the Muslim narrative is false (even if Muslim believe in it). There's no Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem, etc., before Islam as described by the 8 and 9th sources. It is
scientifically false. I told also that it was improbable that the "story" has taken place elsewhere because, in late Antiquity people "talk of extraordinary event" and there is nothing. From those point, there is not "prophet" responsible of the Quran.
Not only this, but contrary to what the first Muslims historiographers affirm (Al Azdi, end of 8th c.) it is not the Quran and the "prophet" and his friends (of the narrative) the responsibles of the conquest as he believes (and as believes all the planet since all the planet believes in the narrative...) it is all we have discussed in detail with Marc from 2 pages.
There is no need of the Muslim narrative to explain the conquest. It is perfectly explainable without it. Sources are there, suffice to read it. Why scholars did not did it since two centuries? Because they believed, in good faith, to the Muslims narratives. They had no reason to doubt. Now with our knowledge of the time, it is more and more difficult to continue to "believe" like the Muslims. It is, in fact, impossible. And all scholars of Early Islam (of good faith...) know that as well.
I'm sorry for you dear Mahgraye. I know that you are a man of good faith. But the truth (for me...) comes first.
Where does the book come from, then? It is the real question. Of course I have a response (mine of course...) : clear, logic, historically grounded. This is not the place to say it here, as you can understand it.
So I won't discuss again about points I have already, at length, discussed. Doctrina Jacobi "prophet" is not the prophet described by the Quran and the 8 and 9th c. Sebeos "prophet" is narrative already elaborated about him, narrative taken from the only possible source. And you know what it is.
As I know what you are , ( a Muslim) I considered important to say this before closing theses topic as far as I am concerned.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today