I watched the interview twice, and I think it’s a mischaracterization to say that the interviewee was “prodded about why a Muslim would write a historical book about Jesus.” While the interviewer does raise that question (a legitimate question, by the way), she mostly asks the interviewee to respond to criticisms of his conclusions, as raised by other scholars. And these criticisms may have merit. For example, his assessment that Jesus was crucified because he was a political threat is deserving of serious critique; it ignores biblical accounts which document that powerful religious leaders pushed for Jesus’ death, and that Pilate wanted to release Jesus but caved in to pressure from those leaders and the crowds. This, more than his religious persuasion, raises serious concerns about his work, despite his repeated and seemingly defensive references to his PhD and years of scholarship. Maybe those scholars quoted by the interviewer have a point.