The past few decades have witnessed a proliferation of theories on the origins of Islam which have called into question long-held scholarly axioms. One such axiom is the traditional date of 632 CE for the death of the prophet Muḥammad, which some scholars have now sought to redate to after the beginning of the Muslim conquests on the basis of the evidence of non-Muslim sources. The present contribution aims to demonstrate that the prima facie disharmony between these sources and Muslim accounts of Muḥammad’s life and the conquests is a product of the reading imposed on both sets of data, which primarily has to do with the fact that, more often than not, modern scholarship unsuspectingly operates within the rigid framework of the classical periodisation of early Islamic history. Therefore, a revision of either the traditional date of Muḥammad’s death or the starting date of the conquests based on this evidence is uncalled for.

中文翻译：

---

Periodisation 和 futūḥ：理解穆罕默德在非穆斯林资料中对征服的领导

在过去的几十年里，关于伊斯兰教起源的理论激增，这些理论对长期存在的学术公理提出了质疑。一个这样的公理是 632 的传统日期CE认证先知穆罕默德之死，一些学者现在根据非穆斯林来源的证据，试图将其追溯至穆斯林征服开始之后。目前的贡献旨在证明表面上看这些来源与穆斯林对穆罕默德生平和征服的描述之间的不一致是对两组数据强加阅读的产物，这主要与这样一个事实有关，即现代学术往往毫无戒心地在严格的框架内运作早期伊斯兰历史的经典分期。因此，不需要根据这一证据修改穆罕默德的传统死亡日期或征服开始日期。