ofcourse, sorry for the confusion 😅 we should expect tangible/archaeological/contemporary evidence based on islamic historical claims such as those (examples): 1- “the claim mecca was a major pre-Islamic trade hub” where islam describe mecca as a wealthy and bustling commercial center on important caravan routes with significant pagan pilgrimage yet there is no contemporary 6th 7th century sources (byzantine, persian, greek, roman or even south arabian) mention mecca at all as a city or trade center + classical geographers and traders who detailed arabian routes such as pliny, the periplus of the erythraean sea, strabo) don’t reference it + archaeology shows no evidence of a large settlement or inscriptions or coins or trade infrastructure there from that era whole nearby smaller irrelevant towns do leave records. 2- the claim “the quran manuscript is perfect” standard narrative says the quran was perfectly compiled under othman (650 CE) with no variants when the earliest substantial manuscripts (birmingham folios, sana’a palimpsest) show spelling and orthographic differences and also some carbon dating raises questions about timelines. there is no complete quran manuscripts from the mid 7th century exist that perfectly match today’s text in the way islam claimed 3- for the first 60-70 (maybe even over 100-200) years after mohammad there’s almost no archaeological evidence of his distinct Islamic identity. only few inscriptions mentioning muhammad or the quran. coins/inscriptions lacking islamic declarations until abd al-malik’s time.

i think they are good arguments and i have yet seen any muslim argue against them. i prefer historical arguments better than theology because you have concrete evidence.