>Strangely enough - there is no primary evidence for a Muhammad - no writings of him for the first 150 years after he allegedly died.
Raymond Ibrahim stated that in 650, the Egyptian Copt, John of Niklu said that “Muslims”, were not only “enemies of God” but followers of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.” Also, in 634, just two years after Mohammad’s death, the oldest known parchment mentioning a militant prophet has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe his knowledge of “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The old man, “with much groaning,” replied: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.”
“When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying “the candidatus has been killed,” and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”Note:
=====================
Next, for John of Nikiou - the chronicle is dated to 690 AD, not 650. And the earliest primary dates from 1602 in an Ethiopic translation from ARABIC -- meaning that the primary document is a translation from (potentially) a transation.
Yet in other documents from the 690s to 750 we don't see ANYONE writing about "Muslims". John may well have used the term "Saracen" as other contemporary writers did and the that is, Mohammed" is highly likely to have been added in