Well, Muslim historians says things that confirms truthfulness of Islam and non-muslim historians says things which oppose truthfulness of Islam. So how to decide how is correct?
If you listen closely the archaeologists both Muslim and Christian and Atheist are saying the same thing. The evidence is the same doesnt matter which religion you belong to.
All the books we have found except for Quran was produced after second fitna, so it seems entire history of Islam is false.
Makkah is not even mentioned in Quran, its not mentioned on any map until 800 AD at the earliest. Saudis build big towers there digging big foundation but found no archaeological findings.
The description of Muhammad's home town in Quran do not fit Makkah at all. They all match description of Northern Arabia Near Jordan. Even the base of Ali was not in Hejaz, it was in Jordan/Iraq. 3 of the early Caliphs were born in Jordan.
There is one history of Islam which has been told for last 1100 - 1200 years. There is no written history from 1300-1400 years ago. But the story that archeology is telling is us completely different from what the Umayyads and Abbasids wrote down.
Now lingusts are also pitching in and saying that Quran was not written in Arabic but rather in Syriac, thats why 20% of it can only be understood if you read it in context of Araimic. But Muslims wont do that because of their faith that said Quran is only in Arabic.
Today we need tafsirs to understand Quran from Tabari or Jalalyn or Shia scholars. But all those tafsirs are from 300 years after Muhammad. So why is there no Tafsirs by Muhammad himself? Even Ibn Abbas who was the most knowledgable person in Islam said 20% of the Quran only Allah knows the meaning of.