In the mid of 7^th Century the Muslim Arabs had conquered a huge chunk of Eastern Roman Empire and annexed the Sassanid Persia completely. However, soon the crisis arrive to the gate of Caliphate and the third Caliph Uthman bin Affan was assassinated and a civil war broke out in the Caliphate known as ‘The First Fitna’. The civil war eventually ended in 661 CE, after the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the subsequent abdication of his son Hasan in favor of Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Mu’awiya then entered Kufa and became the undisputed ruler of the Caliphate.

Mu’awiya was a member of Banu Umayya a sub-clan of Quraysh and was a cousin of third Caliph Uthman bin Affan. In 630 CE, when the Muslims under the Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, the remaining members of Umayyads accepted Islam. Abu Sufyan, the father of Mu’awiya gave his daughter Umm Habiba into marriage to Prophet.

Mu’awiya became the governor of Syria under the second Caliph Umar ibn Khattab. When the third Caliph Uthman was assassinated, the members of Umayyad family demanded the heads of assassins. Ali faced an extremely difficult situation. The rebels who had participated in Uthman's overthrow remained influential within the forces supporting him, making immediate punishment of the assassins politically and militarily difficult. Instead he moved his Capital to Kufa, the fertile plain of Iraq.

The Battle of Camel

A political opposition soon emerged around Talha and Zubayr, joined by Aisha, the Prophet’s wife and daughter of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, who sought action against those responsible for Uthman’s death. The Army departed for Iraq to confront Ali.

It is difficult to judge the intentions of Ali and his political opponents in their preparation for the coming conflict. Eventually in 656 CE, the armies of Aisha and Ali met near Basra, in Southern Iraq. In this battle both Talha and Zubayr were killed and Aisha was placed under Ali's protection and Ali’s forces emerged victorious. After this Aisha eventually retired herself from politics and moved to Medina.

With his victory, Ali consolidated his position in Iraq and Arabia. But while Ali had secured Iraq and much of Arabia, Mu’awiya remained in control of Syria. Amr ibn al-As, the experienced commander and former governor of Egypt, also aligned himself with Muawiya. What Mu’awiya intended to do next would fundamentally change the political history of the Caliphate.

The Battle of Siffin

Ali raised an army and marched toward Syria. Mu’awiya gathered his troops and prepared to meet Ali in the battlefield. The two armies met in 657 CE in the Battle of Siffin. We don’t know the exact details of battle because, there are a lot of things added later to the narrative that don’t see, plausible. According to one account, Ali was winning but, Mu’awiya ordered his troops to raise the pages of Qur’an on their lances. This forced Ali’s troops to stop attacking. This is almost certainly a colorful detail meant to exaggerate the differences between the two sides.

According to Christian sources, Mu’awiya had upper hand which makes more sense because, the battle took place in Syria and Mu’awiya’s troops Syrian nomads who usually do better against settled tribes such as the one’s in Ali’s Army. Whatever the case, the battle was likely a stalemate because, there was so much bloodshed that both sides were agreed to negotiate. Again the details of negotiations vary person to person.. They certainly weren’t able to achieve anything and different sources blame either Mu’awiya or Ali for this.

But Ali’s position were weakened by this and a faction of Ali’s army rebelled against Ali and formed a third side and today known as ‘Khawarij’ or ‘Kharijites’ meaning ‘those who left’. The Kharijites maintained that as long as the Caliph was pious, a term which was defined by them, could remain Caliph. If he isn’t pious anymore, he became an infidel and thus deserved to be killed. Ali tried to negotiate with them but failed and both sides in 658 CE met in Battle of Nahrawan and Ali defeated them. Following the battle of Nahrawan, Mu’awiya saw an opportunity in ʿAlī's weakened position and send an army led by Amr ibn al-As to invaded Egypt. Amr defeated Ali's governor of Egypt, Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, and reestablished Umayyad control over the province. Muhammad was subsequently captured and killed, while many of his supporters were also killed. In the year 661 CE, Ali was also assassinated by Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam a Kharijite.

Now, the supporters of Ali choose his son Hasan as Caliph. But he surrendered to Mu’awiya after few months. In the year 661 CE, Mu’awiya entered Kufa, he was now the sole Ruler of the Islamic Caliphate. His rule would go for next twenty years and in those years he would define what it means to rule in Islamic World.

The Reign of Mu’awiya Bin Abi Sufyan

The reign of Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan was an interesting one. Hasan eventually reached an agreement with Muʿāwiya, transferring political authority to him. The first step Mu’awiya took as a Caliph was to move the Capital of Caliphate to Damascus which was also his powerbase for almost twenty years. He also appointed a new governor for Kufa. The governor, al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba al-Thaqafi was a Companion of Prophet Muhammad, and had previously governed this region under the second Rashidun Caliph Umar ibn Khattab. He was known as one of the four 'shrewds of the Arabs' (duhat al-Arab). Mu’awiya also gave Iraqi tribe some autonomy as long as they promised to not cause trouble. Mu’awiya also ordered al-Mughira to eliminate or at least keeping the Kharijites at bay.

The Kharijites themselves had claimed Caliphate for their leader al-Mustawrid but, due to their rigid ‘our way or death’ approach, they couldn’t win many supporters. At their peak in 663 CE, they had around 300 people. in 664, Mu’awiya’s army was able to defeat them and their leader al-Mutawrid was killed. Another problem was Basra, during the civil war it hadn’t sided with anyone and had just fallen into anarchy. Mu’awiya appointed Ziyad ibn Sumayya as the governor of Basra. Ziyad was born to Sumayya, but his biological father was not publicly acknowledged. He was therefore commonly known as Ziyad ibn Abihi—‘Ziyad, son of his father.’ He was also known as one of the four ‘shrewds of the Arabs’ (duhat al-Arab). He had supported Ali during the civil war. Ziyad is considered a Great administrator and a Great speaker. He was given the province of Kufa after the death of al-Mughira in 670/671 CE. Muʿawiya eventually placed Ziyad in charge of the eastern provinces, effectively making him the viceroy over Iraq and the territories to its east. Mu’awiya later publicly recognized Ziyad as his brother, a controversial decision that strengthened his position within the Umayyad administration. He was to Mu’awiya what Mu’awiya was to Uthman.

When Mu’awiya came to power nearly thirty years had passed since the death of Prophet Muhammad. From those thirty years, five had been of open civil war. The first three caliphs had governed during a period dominated by rapid expansion. Their administrations had conquered vast territories, but the institutions required to govern such a diverse empire were still developing. The empire contained numerous religious communities, traditions, and languages. And the Arab Muslim elite itself remained a small minority among the populations they ruled. Governing such an enormous and diverse empire was an extraordinary political challenge.

Mu’awiya didn’t built palaces. There was a palace in Damascus which was so humble that a later account even claims that a Byzantine envoy found the palace so unimpressive and commented that, ‘The ceiling will do for the birds and the walls will do for rats’. There were also some forts built in the Syrian desert where he met tribal leaders from time to time. He also built some dams like Al-Samlaqi Dam in Wadi Thumalah and Saysad Dam near town of Taif. These Dams are considered the first generation of Umayyad public work. While Mu’awiya didn't built many monuments, he did build an Empire. The entity he inherited was a Caliphate. According to Muslim tradition and popular imagination this was a Golden state. It was the time of justice under the Great Companions of Prophet. The Caliphs followed Islam and the law of God was everywhere. Yet this idealized image tells us as much about later Muslim memory as it does about the political realities of the seventh century.

Mu’awiya didn't try to impose anything on them because he didn't wanna stir the pot too much. He ruled indirectly by delegating to governors from his Capital Damascus. To some, Mu’awiya was an overlord who respected his clients and to others, he was a brutal tyrant. Here too, he used his political ability more than the fear of the military. Where persuasion failed, he sought to prevent his opponents from becoming powerful enough to threaten his rule. This included the people who supported Ali as well as the Meccans who was the Umayyads as being the old rivals of Prophet. The empire also expanded westward, particularly in North Africa, where it almost reached the Atlantic Ocean under the command of Uqba bin Nafy. But the region wasn’t consolidated till a few decades after Mu’awiya’s death. In terms of Empire’s Economy Mu’awiya again didn't interfere much. Provinces were free to do what they had been doing for centuries this meant the Greek systems in Egypt and Persians over in Iran. This include coinage. He minted coins and he even tried to create and standardize his own Islamic style but, those coins were rejected by the people so he went back to using coins from Roman and Sassanian Empires.

The vast majority population of Syria was Christian. Mu’awiya employed many of them without much bias based on faith. This include the grandfather of John of Damascus, Mansur ibn Sarjun. Several contemporary and near-contemporary Christian sources portray Mu’awiya relatively favorably, particularly when compared with their depictions of other rulers. Some evidence also suggests that Mu’awiya sought to present himself as a protector of Christian communities, perhaps positioning his rule as an alternative to the religious and political authority of the Byzantine emperor. Mu’awiya also didn’t aggressively pursue a policy of expansion. However, he did sent regular campaigns into Anatolia but they were mostly raids rather than permanent conquest. Still he was able to harass the Byzantine so much that a lot of central Anatolia was no man’s land. Archeological Evidence suggests that many cities or the Aegean coast of Anatolia were abandoned due to the campaigns of Arabs. Whatever the intentions of these campaigns, they did serve Mu’awiya when he decided to attack the Constantinople. With the interior in ruins the Caliph could send a fleet for Constantinople without fear of reinforcements. The Umayyad sieged the Constantinople under the command of Mu’awiya’s son and successor Yazid. The chronology is debated, with sources differing over the campaigns traditionally dated to 669 and 674–678 CE. But, the Byzantines were able to defeat the Arabs using Greek fire with the help of flamethrowers build by a Syrian engineer.

A lot of things about Mu’awiya and most other people from the first century of Islam are tough to tell without relying on anecdotes from tradition.

The Amir al-Muminun Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan passed away in April of 680 CE.
He was succeeded by his son Yazid. Within months, the Caliphate would once again descend into civil war one that would last for almost a decade and fundamentally transform the political and religious history of the Islamic world.

In the end, we must remember that Muʿāwiya was a human being, and like other human beings, he made mistakes. We should neither idealize him through a purely religious lens nor demonize him through a later political one; instead, we should try to understand him for what he was. He was the ruler who brought an end to a period of prolonged civil war and maintained the unity of the Caliphate for nearly twenty years. He was a capable administrator, a pragmatic politician, and a skilled statesman. Yet beneath all the religious titles and later interpretations, Muʿāwiya was ultimately something much more familiar: a traditional monarch, ruling an empire through political calculation, personal alliances, military power, and administrative pragmatism.

According to Islamic tradition, Islam began in Hejaz ‘The Western Arabia’ when Prophet Muhammad in 610 CE, began preaching the message of Islam after receiving the revelation from God through Angel Gabriel. In 622, he migrated to Medina and there he established the first ‘Islamic State’. And Within a few years, by sending missionaries and through military campaigns and diplomacy across Arabia almost the whole peninsula was united under his leadership. In 632 CE after his death his successors invaded the territories of the Eastern Roman (often called Byzantine) Empire and of Sassanid Persia.

These events were recorded in detail in Early Islamic sources and have traditionally been regarded as the standard account of Islam's origins. But, as I mentioned this notion was questioned by many scholars in the 1970s when a new school ‘revisionist school of Islamic studies’ emerged and many scholars from this school proposed different theories and hypotheses regarding the origin of Islam. And in this part of this series we'll discuss some of these theories and try to find out how much truth they represent according to the available evidence we have. So, let’s find out.

In 1977, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook published a book titled ‘Hagarism: The Making of Islamic World.’ The book proposed a radical alternative reconstruction of the origins of Islam based primarily on contemporary non-Muslim sources. In this book the authors argue that Islam began as a Jewish Messianic Movement of Arab warriors and Palestinian Jews led by Muhammad in the North Western Arabia. After, conquering the Levant they created a separate identity for themselves and broke their alliance with the Jews. Among the sources they cite is the Greek text ‘Doctrina Jacobi’ which was written around 634 CE. This document talks about a ‘False Prophet’ appearing among the Saracens (Arabs) with sword and chariot. This source tells a story of a Roman Commander being killed by the Saracens and how Jews ‘were overjoyed’ by this. The Greek writer refers to this movement as the ‘Hagarenes’, descendants of Hagar, Abraham’s Wife and ‘Magaritai’ or emigrants, a term similar to Arabic term ‘Muhajirun’ which refers to the earliest Muslim Community. (Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)).

The Problem with this claim is that Jews getting happy after the killing of Roman Commander doesn't mean that they were allies. Perhaps, this commander was a common enemy. Perhaps, like many other Christian commanders in history he oppressed Jews and they were pleased to see him killed. And another argument to refute this theory could be made through examining the early Qur’anic Manuscripts.

Two other revisionists scholars Yehuda and Judith Koren came to a similar conclusion regarding the Geography of emergence of Islam after examining the non-Muslim sources (according to them). They argue that when the Arabs conquered the Levant, they were still pagans and became monotheistic after solidifying their rule and coming in contact with Christians and Jews and borrowing many ideas and stories from other scriptures to codify their religious doctrine. And only during the reign of Abd al-Malik Islam emerged as we know it today. They argue that the early important figures of Islamic History like the Rashidun Caliphs are not mentioned in any other sources outside of Islamic textual sources. (Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren, Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003).

Other scholars have refuted this ultra-revisionist position and dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. The Rashidun Caliphs are mentioned in some Egyptian, Arabian and Chinese sources despite their claim.

The ‘Old Book of Tang’ ‘Tang Shu’ mentioned the 3rd Rashidun Caliph Uthman bin Affan. This book records that the third Caliph dispatched a diplomatic delegation to China in 651 CE.

There are also several inscriptions found in Arabia mentioning Islamic Caliphs and early Islamic Events.

An inscription from 644 CE was found in Qa’al al-Mutadil says ‘In the name of Allah, I Zubayr wrote this at the time when Umar died in the year twenty four.’ (A. I. Ghabban, “Naqsh Zuhayr: Aqdam Naqsh Islāmī,” 2003.)

The year mentioned is of Islamic Hijri Calendar as we know from traditional sources that Umar died in the end of year twenty four of Islamic Calendar.

Another inscription from Wadi Khushayba dated to 650 CE begins with ‘May ALLAH have Mercy.’ (M. Kawatoko, R. Tokunaga, and M. Iizuka, Ancient and Islamic Rock Inscriptions of Southwest Saudi Arabia I: Wadi Khushayba (Tokyo, 2005).)

This inscription mentions ALLAH alone not with any other pre-Islamic deities like al-Lat or al-Uzza suggests that they were not pagans.

There are also other inscriptions like ‘Tombstone of Abd al-Rahman ibn Kair al-Hajri dated to 652 CE and another inscription from Mecca dated to 644 CE also mentions the reign of Uthman ibn Affan. (H. M. El-Hawary, “The Most Ancient Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 31 (AD 652) from the Time of the Third Caliph ʿUthmān,” 1930.)

Another theory proposed by the Inarah School also states that Islam was actually, founded by Nestorian Christians who after the first Council of Ephesus in 431, seceded from the Church. Some of them were Arab Christians and at some point in 7th Century they gave up their Christian identity for some reasons not specified by the authors, created another Abrahamic religion, which evolved into Islam by the end of 7th Century. They also argue that Muhammad was just another title for Jesus.

So, let’s check what the Early Christian sources think about Muslims.

The Chronicle of Thomas the Presbyter from 640 CE mentions Prophet by name by calling the Arab Conquerors ‘The Arabs of Muhammad’. (Seeing Islam as others saw it by Robert Hoyland -Chapter 4 A Maronite Chronicle-Thomas the Presbyter, Chron. Maronite, 69-74.)

A Syriac manuscript in the British Library, Add. 14461 dated to 637 CE also mentions the Prophet by name.

We also have another source from 687 CE from John Bar Penkaye also mentions that “Muhammad was the instructor whose tradition these Muslims follow.” (John Bar Penkaye-Book 14: Ktâbâ d-rêš mellê.)

John of Damascus around 743 writes that Prophet Muhammad ‘after reading Old and New Testaments devised his own heresy’. ( St. John of Damascus: Critique of Islam.)

The following evidence suggests that the Christians don’t see Muslims as followers of Jesus as claimed by some these revisionist positions.

The question of where Islam emerged has generated decades of scholarly debate. Revisionist historians challenged the traditional narrative by drawing attention to archaeological discoveries, inscriptions, coins, manuscripts, and contemporary non-Muslim sources. In doing so, they encouraged historians to re-examine assumptions that had long gone unquestioned. Many of these theories raised important questions and advanced the study of early Islamic history by broadening the range of evidence considered.

However, as we have seen throughout this series, proposing an alternative hypothesis is not the same as demonstrating it. Most revisionist reconstructions rely on fragmentary evidence that can often support multiple interpretations, and several of the earliest revisionist theories have since been modified or abandoned by their own proponents in light of new discoveries. At the same time, the traditional Islamic narrative cannot simply be accepted uncritically; like any historical tradition, it must be evaluated alongside independent contemporary evidence.

According to the Islamic Tradition, Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in the year 570 A.D. He received Revelation in the year 610 C.E. and migrated to Medina in 622 C.E. which marked the beginning of Islam’s Hijri Calendar. He died in 632 C.E.

The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad is attributed to Ibn Ishaq, who wrote in the mid-eighth century CE, more than a century after Prophet's death. His work survived through recension of Ibn Hisham, while later historians such as al-Tabari incorporated additional reports into their own histories. For centuries, these works formed the foundation of the traditional narrative of Muhammad's life and continue to be important sources for both Muslims and historians, although modern scholarship evaluates them critically rather than accepting every report at face value.

However, from 1970s onwards some Revisionists Scholars started to question the authenticity of Islamic sources. While most revisionists did not deny Muhammad's existence outright, some proposed far more radical hypotheses, ranging from the claim that "Muhammad" was originally an honorific title rather than a personal name to suggestions that the figure was later reshaped or even created as part of the ideological propaganda of the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik.

So, in this part of series I’ll discuss these theories and examine evidences however, it is necessary to talk about ‘What Criteria is used to prove or deny the historicity of a Person?’ before directly diving into these discussions. As I mentioned in the first part of this series, to prove the historicity of a person the Historians often rely on:

• Contemporary or Near Contemporary Accounts: Has this person been mentioned in the sources from around the time he supposed to existed?

• Archaeological Evidence: Are there any physical remains of this person? i.e. coins, rock inscriptions etc.

• Multiple Independent Sources: Is this person mentioned in multiple sources disconnected to each other?

• Consistency Across Accounts: Do the accounts present similar stories and attributes of the person?

So, let's see what evidences we have which mention or talk about Prophet.

A Greek document ‘Doctrina Jacobi’ from Palestine composed around 634 CE, mentions a ‘False Prophet’ appearing ‘among the Saracens (Arabs) with sword and chariot’ and who have claimed to have ‘keys to Paradise’. This is considered the earliest non-Muslim reference to Prophet.

The Chronicle of Thomas the Presbyter from 640 CE also mentions Prophet by name by calling the Arab Conquerors ‘The Arabs of Muhammad’.

Another Manuscript called the ‘BL Add MS 14461’ dated to 637 CE also mentions the Prophet by name.

And also we have another Chronicle from 660 CE called the ‘Khuzistan Chronicle’ which mention Prophet by name as being the Leader of sons of Ishmael.

Another Chronicle from 665 CE called the ‘Maronite Chronicle’ also mentions that ‘Mu’awiya refused to go to the seat of Muhammad.’

Taken together, these sources satisfy two important criteria historians use when assessing historicity: near-contemporary attestation and multiple independent attestation. While each source has its own limitations, collectively they demonstrate that within a few decades of Muhammad's traditional lifetime, non-Muslim writers were already aware of an Arab leader or prophet associated with the early conquests.
Now, lets talk about archaeological evidence.

We found the coins of Sassanian style from Iraq dated to 687 CE issued by the Zubayrids contains the name ‘Muhammad’ on it.

Some other coins issued by Abd al-Malik during the 685-687 CE also contains the name Muhammad. One Coin has Arabic inscriptions on it while, the other iconic Standing Caliph coin also contains the name ‘Muhammad’.

A tombstone of a woman name ‘Abassa Bint Juraij’ also mentions ‘Muhammad’ as a ‘Prophet’ dated to 692 CE.

And also the famous Dome of the Rock also contains an Arabic inscription which mentions Prophet Muhammad also dated to 692 CE.

There are also certain items often claimed to belong to Prophet Muhammad, such as his sword, letters to kings, and hairs from his beard, but there is no way to prove their authenticity.

And his story (according to Islamic Traditions) also takes place in a real place and in a very real setting. We find it to be consistent with what we know about his surroundings such as Arabia in Late antiquity from other sources. He was mentioned as a Warrior Prophet in Doctrina Jacobi which is consistence with his description in Islamic Sources.

At this point we could conclude that Muhammad indeed was a historical figure not a Legendary or Mythical figure. As mentioned the coins of both Zubayrids and Umayyads contains the name Muhammad it means that he was indeed a central figure in their history and also Dome of the Rock also has name Muhammad on it.

Now, let’s talk about the other claim that Muhammad was a title of Jesus. This Theory was proposed by Inarah School and that theory was actually about the Origin of Islam and states that the Early Muslims were Nestorian Christians and they used the title Muhammad for Jesus (We will talk about this and other Theories regarding the Origin of Islam in detail in the next Part of this series). Muhammad means ‘The Praised One’ and Jesus could also be called ‘The Praised One’. But, problem with this claim is that if it was a title it would be accompanied by an article ‘AL’ in Arabic, but that is not used in any of earliest sources. The part of this theory states that Muhammad as a distinct person was made by Abd al-Malik to spread ideological propaganda. But, we saw that this was not clearly the case, Zubayrids were rivals of Umayyads and their coins also contains the name ‘Muhammad’ not ‘AL-Muhammad’. If they were also referring to Jesus they should have used ‘Al-Muhammad’. Let’s say, if Muhammad was invented by Abd al-Malik we should see a different description of Muhammad similar to Jesus but, according to Non-Muslim sources he was clearly a different person. They don't follow similar archetype at all. Prophet Muhammad was clearly as described by the sources from 634 CE and others that he was clearly a Warrior Prophet but, Jesus was not a warrior. Similarly, the Khuzistan Chronicle clearly mentions him as ‘Leader of Ishmaelites’ and Jesus was not an Ishmaelite. There are no mentions of Resurrection or sacrifice in the story of Muhammad from these sources.

We also have another source from 687 CE from John Bar Penkaye also mentions that “Muhammad was the instructor whose tradition these Muslims follow.”

Thomas the Presbyter's phrase "the Arabs of Muhammad".

Clearly, the Christians at the time didn’t think that Muslims are just followers of Jesus. Some did believe them to be a heretical belief which was an offshoot of Christianity. But, they blame Prophet Muhammad instead of blaming Muslims for distorting Jesus into Muhammad.

At this point, after examining all the evidence available we could clearly conclude that Prophet Muhammad was indeed a distinct figure rather than a tile for Jesus.

While revisionist scholarship has raised important questions about the origins of Islam and the reliability of the later Islamic literary tradition, the more radical claim that Muhammad never existed or that "Muhammad" originally referred to Jesus does not satisfactorily account for the available evidence. Contemporary and near contemporary non-Muslim texts, together with early inscriptions and coinage, attest to Muhammad as a historical figure within decades of his traditional lifetime. Although historians continue to debate many aspects of his biography, evidences strongly supports his historicity.

During the twentieth century particularly from the 1970s onward this assumption was challenged. Historians began to question the reliability, dating, and transmission of the traditional sources, giving rise to a broad range of revisionist interpretations. Some scholars argued for modest revisions to the traditional narrative, while others advanced far more radical hypotheses, including questioning the historical existence of the Prophet Muhammad or proposing alternative settings for the emergence of Islam.

This series, The Origins of Islam: Sources, Evidence, and Debate, examines these competing interpretations through the lens of modern historical methodology. Rather than defending either the traditionalist or revisionist position, the aim is to evaluate the evidence on which each rests. Throughout the series, I will examine literary sources, archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, manuscript evidence, and contemporary non-Muslim accounts, while also assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used by different scholars.

The objective is to ask a historical question: What conclusions about the origins of Islam are justified by the available evidence?

Welcome to Part One of The Origins of Islam: Sources, Evidence, and Debate.

Part I: Reconstructing the Past: Methods and Evidence

Before examining the major debates surrounding the origins of Islam, it is essential to understand how historians reconstruct the past. What is historiography, and how does it work? What kinds of evidence are considered historically reliable? What criteria do historians use to construct narratives about the past?

This part examines the methodological approaches of both traditionalist and revisionist scholarship in Islamic studies, highlighting their assumptions, methods, and limitations. Finally, I will outline the historical framework that will guide this series and explain the principles by which I will assess the available evidence and draw my own conclusions.

With that foundation established, let us begin.

Historiography

Historiography examines the writing of history, the reliability of sources, and the perspectives shaping historical accounts. It asks how events are interpreted and what cultural, political or religious influences shapes the narrative. It recognizes that history is not simply a collection of facts but a discipline in which evidence must be critically evaluated and interpreted. Consequently historiography is not only concerned with what happened but, also with how and why historians have interpreted the past in particular ways. Because of this two historians could come to different conclusions of the same event on the basis of their selection of evidence.
Historical sources do not present the past in a completely transparent manner; rather, they reflect an author’s perspective, purpose, and historical context. For this reason, historians critically evaluate every source before using it to reconstruct past events.. You cannot observe an event in the past, you have to observe its remains archaeological or textual etc. Then you have to make guesses to what the remains mean.

Historicity

Historicity refers to actual historical existence or authenticity of an event, person or narrative

For example, historians may ask, “Did King David exist?” or “Did Muhammad exist?” These are questions of historicity. Since absolute proof is rarely possible in ancient history, historians instead evaluate the available evidence and determine what conclusion is most probable.

To assess historicity, historians generally consider several factors, including:

• Contemporary Sources are there sources written during or close to the lifetime of the person or event?

• Archaeological Evidence does material evidence support the historical claim?

• Multiple Independent Attestation is the claim reported by independent sources rather than a single tradition?

• Consistency and Corroboration do different sources and different types of evidence support one another?

No single criterion is decisive on its own. Rather, historians weigh all the available evidence before reaching the most plausible historical conclusion.

Stephen J. Shoemaker in his book ‘Creating the Qur’an’ wrote
“Prove is of course a very loaded term. Historians are rarely able to prove absolutely that something did or did not happen, particularly for matters of great antiquity or when dealing with the formative history of a particular community, which is often a very active site of shifting memories. Instead, historians seek to identify reconstructions of the past that seem to be more or less probable, using various critical methods of analysis and logical reasoning. Proof of something almost always escapes us.”

Historical Evidence

Historical evidence refers to the traces of the past that historians critically examine to reconstruct events, and it can take many forms: primary sources such as chronicles, letters, treaties, inscriptions, coins, and papyri that originate from the time being studied; material culture like artifacts, architecture, manuscripts, and tools uncovered through archaeology; oral traditions and poetry, though often recorded later; and secondary sources that reflect how later generations interpreted or reshaped the past. To be considered valid evidence, these materials must meet criteria of authenticity, provenance, corroboration, and contextual fit.

The Analytical Framework of This Series

Throughout this series, I will critically examine both revisionist and traditionalist interpretations of the origins of Islam. I will evaluate the evidence put forward by each side, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, and compare them with the available literary, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic, manuscript, and contemporary non-Muslim evidence.