The Bible often falls under careful scrutiny; almost every verse is challenged for authenticity, archaeological cross verification and contradictions (to which it has not yet fallen victim), and it extends to challenging whether Christianity's most important figure, Jesus of Nazareth, truly existed. The evidence many use to suggest the man did not exist usually includes claims that there were no contemporary eyewitnesses, the Gospel is the primary source of information concerning him, historical records are difficult to find and the figures surrounding him did not exist.

Interestingly, each of these have been proven decidedly false - although they are often disputed, much needs to be said that Matthew, Luke, and John were indeed contemporary eyewitnesses to the entire event and their motivations for writing what would later be known as the Gospel require historical analysis. After all, what kind of credibility would Matthew have if he, a former tax collector, were writing incomprehensible garbage to a people who could still recall the events he was speaking about? How would anyone take Luke, a gentile historian, seriously if his record to Theophilus were in err? It's important to consider these things in their historical context.

Meanwhile, Josephus made mention of both Jesus and Pilate, in essence offering a third party support to the claims of the Gospel. The tombs of contemporary figures key to the Gospel have been found, ranging from Pilate to Caiaphas, and historical records exist detailing the lives of those at the time.

Still the claims exist - which ushers the question. If one applies a similar standard to the second largest religion in the world, how would that bode for their figure?

According to Islam, there is but one God (Allah or any of his other 99 names) and Muhammad was his Prophet, his Messenger on Earth. Through the Angel Gabriel, the Word was given to him and it was written down into the Quran, which acts as the direct message of Allah. Alright, so we've got that, but did Muhammad really exist?

The first most important thing to point out is that there are no images of Muhammad anywhere in the world. Indeed, the vigor with which Muslims battle to prevent Muhammad imagery don't do justice to the historicity of this figure. The closest thing to images are outlines of human figures with absent faces.

Meanwhile, there is very little secular record that he actually existed as a person. One Muhammad Ibn Ishaq ibn Yashar - otherwise just known as Iban Ishaq - wrote a book known as Life, in which he detailed the Prophet Muhammad. Unfortunately, this was in 750 A.D. - over a hundred years after the Prophet's death and does little to support the notion of his existence, little more than the Gospels do for Jesus that is.

Another issue that historians struggle with is Mecca. Indeed, the city exists now, but there are very few actual records to date that prove that there was a major site of religion and international trade as the Quran and Muslims claims. Indeed, there has been no non-Muslim record of a major site of Asian trade known as Mecca existing, calling into deep question the existence of such a place as it is detailed in Muhammad's life.

Many historians suggest that maybe there was no Muhammad as we know him today - but rather a figure erected at the behest of his "Companions" who needed a Christ-like figure for their own emerging religion. This would go a long way into explaining that absence of historical record and imagery of the Prophet.

It's very interesting to consider what kinds of crazy things you find when you shine the same level of scrutiny on religions such as Islam that you do on Christianity. One must inquire why it is so rarely done.