That was a historical record, not a religious one. You're mixing apples and Volkswagens.
Ummmmm, nope. I mean real events recorded by real historians.
I agree. What does that have to do with anything I've said?
If you have a genuine interest in Islamic history, and are not a Muslim so don't have an apologetic agenda to maintain, I find it strange you are so resistant to actually understanding what modern scholars think about the period.
The problem is you don't actually realise that you are relying on the same sources that said Muhammad split the moon, and are unwilling to even entertain the possibility (and that within these traditions moon splitting and flying to Jerusalem are better attested to than most other events being
mutawatir and thus basically considered unimpeachable fact).
This is why I asked you who you think wrote down the stories you insist on as fact and in what context (and why you are unable to answer it).
Scholarship on this issue has moved on a lot from the days people used to uncritically treat Islamic theological history as being 'actual history'.
Islamicists, who once rejoiced that their subject “was born in the full light of history,” have recently been discovering just how much apparent history is religio-legal polemic in disguise, some even doubting whether the host of Arabic historical works that appear in the late eighth and early ninth centuries contain any genuine recollection of the rise and early growth of Islam.
Robert Hoyland - Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam
You can read the full book
here if you want to get an idea about what was written about Islam in the first couple of centuries (tl;dr: Muslims wrote basically nothing and non-Muslims wrote a little bit none of which supports your insistence Muhammad's near every deed was recorded by objective historians.
Another scholar, Patricia Crone:
The biggest problem facing scholars of the rise of Islam is identifying the context in which the prophet worked. What was he reacting to, and why was the rest of Arabia so responsive to his message? We stand a good chance of making headway, for we are nowhere near having exploited to the full our three main types of evidence – the traditions associated with the prophet (primarily the hadith), the Qur'an itself, and (a new source of enormous promise) archaeology... The first is the most difficult to handle; this overwhelmingly takes the form of hadith – short reports (sometimes just a line or two) recording what an early figure, such as a companion of the prophet or Mohammed himself, said or did on a particular occasion, prefixed by a chain of transmitters....
The purpose of such reports was to validate Islamic law and doctrine, not to record history in the modern sense, and since they were transmitted orally, as very short statements, they easily drifted away from their original meaning as conditions changed. (They were also easily fabricated, but this is actually less of a problem.) They testify to intense conflicts over what was or was not true Islam in the period up to the 9th century, when the material was collected and stabilised; these debates obscured the historical nature of the figures invoked as authorities, while telling us much about later perceptions.
What do we actually know about Mohammed?
Don't you think the fact that 2 of the most eminent scholars of the period are completely unaware that 'actual historians' just wrote everything down accurately and objectively might mean you are somewhat mistaken in you assumptions about the sources you are relying on?
I think you're on entirely the wrong track. We are talking at cross-purposes, and I'm feeling done. If you don't have anything to say regarding Sunni vs Shia beliefs and practices, then I think we're done.
If you were willing to entertain the idea that your 'actual history' is in fact the same theology that underpins the Sunni tradition, then you would be able to understand why this is essential to the question you are asking.
You can only lead a horse to water...