REVISIONIST APPROACH TO PROPHET’S HISTORY: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE

Abstract

In recent decades, revisionist scholars have questioned the
authenticity and historical reliability of traditional Islamic accounts
concerning the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).This study
critically examines the revisionist challenge by evaluating both their
core assertions and methodological approaches concerning the origins
and reliability of Islamic sources. Scholars such as John Wansbrough,
Patricia Crone, and Michael Cook argue that foundational texts such
as the Sīrah, Ḥadīth, and even the Qurʾān were compiled long after
the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) lifetime and were shaped by later
theological and political agendas. In response, this article draws on
the counter-critiques of re-evaluationist scholars, including Harald
Motzki, Mustafa al-Azami, Fuat Sezgin, and Jonathan A.C. Brown. It
examines both the central claims of revisionist scholars and their
methodologies, including textual analysis and source criticism. Sociopolitical and comparative analysis, as well as archaeological and
epigraphic readings, and identifies their frequent reliance on
speculative reconstructions, selective skepticism, and externalist
assumptions. The article argues that revisionist scholars often
overlook the sophistication of Islamic verification systems such as
isnād analysis, jarḥ wa taʿdīl, and mutawātir classification. By
favouring non-Islamic sources over continuous Muslim tradition, they
undermine the historical coherence of Islamic historiography. This
study re-evaluates their critiques through classical methodologies,
affirming the reliability of traditional sources and advocating a more
integrated approach to the Prophet’s (PBUH) life.