Muhammad was a Roman Client

I believe Muhammad did exist and the basic bullet points of his life were mostly what the traditional narrative says.  My controversial disagreement is simply on where the events took place, but even that isn't really relevant to my main point here, all of the Arabian Peninsula was wrapped up in the congoing conflicts between Rome and Persia for over a Century already.

I believe the 602-628 Byzantine-Sassanid War and the Jewish Revolt against Heraclius are way more important to understanding the historical context of Islam’s Origins than is generally understood.  However others researching this topic along those lines do so trying to argue the Proto-Muslims were always Anti-Roman even though Surah 30 titled Ar-Rum "The Romans" clearly establishes Muhammad and his community as people who wanted Rome to win.

That's why I don't think it's a coincidence that 622 is the year of both Heraclius beginning his Campaign agaisnt Persia and Muhammad taking over Medina.  The Second of Pledge at Al-Aqabah that same year was specifically Muhammad making an alliance with the Gentile Arab Tribes of Medina, which then quickly led to conflict with the Jews of Medina and later Khaybar who I am certain were allied with the Sassanids like the Jewish Rebels in Judea were.

In the Fourth Century the chief Arab Foederati "Confederates" of the Roman Empire were the Tanukhids, then it was the Salihids in the Fifth Century and Ghassanids in the Sixth Century. None of these were the only Tribe in said Confederation, they were just the one Rome placed at the head of it. The Ghassanids lost this status with the demise of Al-Nu'man VI ibn al-Mundhir in 583.  Surah 33 is titled Al-Ahzad "The Confederates".  I think Mahammad became the new Phylarch of Rome's Arab Foederati and that we've simply lost the Primary sources on the Roman side that document that.

Also there is the tradition of Muhammad's letters to world leader sent out in 628.  Heraclius is usually presented as not converting but responding very amicably.  So another witness that they were on good terms. 

The story of Farwa ibn Amr al-Judami being Crucified for Converting to Islam is not historical, plenty of scholars consider it a a later made up legend.  Christian Rome actually banned Crucifixion as a form Execution, so it's absurd on it's face.

The proposed near conflict between Muhammad and Rome at Tabuk in 629 didn’t happen, no Byzantine source mentions it.  If this is indeed the context of Sura 9, the aggressors it refers to could just as easily be the Persians or their vassals.  In fact most translations make it sound like they are Polytheists/Pagans not People of The Book.

The Battle of Mutah meanwhile was really just with the Gassanids who had ceased being Roman allies for over 20 years  earlier and if anything I think they were more sympathetic to Persia at this time. Baqla was also territory that was in practice actually Ghassanid.  The claim Rome was involved is entirely because of events Sebeos chapter 30 clearly places in 634 being conflated with it.  Sebeos is clearly mistakenly using the name Muhammad for Umar.  And no Arabic source for the Battle of Mutha presented it as a Arab-Jewish alliance.

We see during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr that the Arabs' first expansions beyond Arabia was against the Persians in 633.  So the tradition that one of Muhammad's last acts was ordering an Invasion of Roman Territory doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  Every other campaign Abu Bakr launched in 632 was against other Arabs, there is no good reason to believe Baqla was any different.

Engagement at Tabuk, Mutah and Balqa are considered invasions of Roman territory because they were nominally with Roman Provinces.  But this part of the Empire the Romans been letting their Arab Foederati rather then regular Roman troops manage for centuries already. 

They certainly doesn't contradict my belief that Muhammad never intended his Arab movement to expand West of the Jordan.

Conflict between Rome under Heraclius and the Muhammad following Arabs did not begin till 634, when Muhammad had been dead for two years even in the official timeline and within The Roman Empire who did and didn't support Heraclius was changing because of the Monoenergist/Monothelite controversies. 

I realize some may confuse this with Alberto Rivera's conspiracy theory, so let me clarify.  Rivera was a fraud exposed as having never been a Jesuit like he claimed.  In the 7th Century The Bishops of Rome were struggling to even keep Italy under their control thanks to the Lombards they had no time to interfere in the east, even their contributing to empire wide religious disputes were just expressing their opinions in letters. Muhammad was in my view a political ally of Rome during this war but the doctrine he was teaching was still not compatible with Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, and to whatever extent it was it was almost certainly closer to Eastern Orthodoxy then Catholicism.

I am considering one disagreement with the traditional timeline of Muhammad, I think he may have died in 628 or the first half of 629 but then the later Muslim chroniclers wanted to weaken his death's connection to when he was poisoned by Zaynab bint Al-Harith. Certainly early Chronicles older then any written Arab source say he only reigned 7 years from establishing himself in Medina.  But that's a big maybe right now.