Thou art deceived...<quoted text>
Is it not strange that Muslims in western countries still adhere to Islam?
Who is threatening them with death?
And how about Non Muslims accepting Islam?
There is no "historical proof" that our prophet even existed!! This is great, what historical proof you are talking about?
Have you Historical proof that Moses, or Abraham or Jesus existed?
The earliest source of information for the life of Muhammad in a historical context (ca. 570/571 June 8, 632 AD) is the Qur'an, which gives very little information, and its historicity has also been questioned.Next in importance is the sīra literature and Hadith, which survive in the historical works by writers of second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 700−1000 AD). There are also a few non-Muslim sources which are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.
Attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. A major source of difficulty in the quest for the historical Muhammad is the modern lack of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabia.
At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography.
The main source on Muhammad's life are Muslim sources written in Arabic, which include the Qur'an and accounts of Muhammad's life written down by later Muslims, based on oral traditions. These sources are known as sīra and hadith.
There are also non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities. These non-Muslim written sources go back to about 636 AD and many of the interesting ones date to within some decades later.
HEARSAY is NOT 'evidence'.