How this inquiry works
Fair to the belief. Careful with the evidence.
Start with a question. Find the source. Make the reasoning visible.
Five habits, used consistently.
Start with a question.
Be precise about what is being claimed.
Go back to the sources.
Read the passage and its setting before the argument.
Hear the strongest competing views.
Understand a position before accepting or rejecting it.
Keep different kinds of claims distinct.
History, theology and conviction are related, but different.
Leave room for uncertainty.
Say what the evidence supports, and where it stops.
Three kinds of claim
| Kind of claim | What it asks | A useful boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Historical judgment | What probably happened, and what evidence survives? | The existence of Muhammad does not establish every biographical report. |
| Theological interpretation | What does a tradition understand a text, event or practice to mean? | Explaining a belief fairly does not require every reader to accept it. |
| Personal conviction | What does a person trust, practise or find persuasive? | A meaningful experience is not automatically public proof of its explanation. |
How we describe confidence
Established means strongly supported within the relevant kind of inquiry, with its basis stated. Widely held describes a view’s prevalence, not its guaranteed truth. Live dispute identifies a meaningful unresolved disagreement. Minority view describes support, not a verdict by itself. Speculative means the proposal goes beyond what the surviving evidence firmly supports.
These terms require a subject and a source. “Established historical existence” and “widely held theological belief” do different work. We do not use numerical confidence scores to disguise judgments as measurements.
Muslim and non-Muslim scholarship
This inquiry uses both, and identifies the author and approach where that distinction matters. Religious identity alone does not decide whether an argument is sound. We ask what the author claims, which evidence is used and what alternative explanations remain.
A Sunni, Shia, Sufi, reformist or historical-critical label is an orientation, not a complete description. Traditions overlap, and named authors disagree within them. A commentator is never made to represent every Muslim.
Sources before slogans
We prefer a primary text, a manuscript-holding institution or a named piece of research over an unattributed quotation. Where a later source preserves an earlier claim, we keep those dates separate. Quotations identify their translation. Original editorial paraphrases are labelled as such.
Review and correction
This edition has not received independent specialist review. Before public release, the intended review includes readers from at least one Sunni and one Shia background and an academic in Islamic studies. No person has agreed to act as a reviewer merely because their work is cited. Completed reviews will be described accurately, with scope and permission.
Errors should be corrected visibly. The corrections log records material changes. See content status for what is available and what still needs work.