[quadrant]

There is a difference between additional research and historical revisionism.

Additonal research adds to our body of knowledge. Historical revisionism merely changes our interpretation of what is known already. There is nothing wrong with a reinterpretation of history or emphasis on fact hitherto ommited or ignored. However, if the reinterpretation is designed to serve a political purpose, then it descends into propaganda. And it should be remembered that propaganda was used first in a religious context.

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam.
Islamic bleiefs and claims have never been subjected to the sort of rigorous analysis and scholarship to which Christianity and Judaism are the frequent subjects.
Its seems from what I've read here and in other places that there has been an attempt to obscure certain parts of Mohammed's life.
This attempt to conceal should be contrasted with the search by Christians and Jews to learn all they can about the lives of their leaders and prophets.

[Petronski]

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam.

But we can know him by his fruits.

[Radix]

Very little is known about the life of Mohammed, beyond what is put forward by Islamic scholars and clerics, two groups with an obvious interest in the propagation of Islam...

As a student of Eschatology, I am of the mind set that the Mosque of Omar, (or Dome of the rock) is all that I need to know about Mohammed, and his adherents.

They are doomed, but it might not seem that way with just a cursory glance. You might want to take a few notes, and do some research.