Epistemic Validity of the Makkiyah-Madaniyah Sūrah Dating: Reassessing Orientalist Philology through Islamic Historical Traditions

The debate regarding the Meccan-Medinan chronology presents an epistemological issue: Western philological reconstruction relies on linguistic, stylistic, thematic, and historical-contextual inferences, whereas the Islamic tradition utilizes reports from the Companions (ṣaḥāba) and Successors (tābiʿīn), hadith, and asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions of revelation) through the critical analysis of chains of transmission (sanad) and textual content (matn). This study evaluates the epistemic validity of both approaches by comparing their types of evidence, verification mechanisms, patterns of correspondence, and sources of divergence in dating the sūrahs. The research employs a qualitative study utilizing a critical comparative-historical, philological, and epistemological approach. The corpus includes Western scholarship on Qur’anic chronology alongside literature on ʿulūm al-Qur’ān (Qur’anic sciences), hadith, and asbāb al-nuzūl; sources are analyzed through thematic selection, source criticism, mapping dating arguments, and triangulation between transmission narratives and textual indicators. The analysis reveals three primary patterns: reports provide explicit evidence regarding the context of revelation via transmission channels, whereas philology primarily yields inferential dating based on the text’s internal characteristics; alignment between the two reinforces the chronology when reports possess adequate transmission support and textual indicators demonstrate coherence, while divergences arise chiefly in sūrahs or verses characterized by conflicting reports, disputed contextual attributions, or ambiguous stylistic indicators. Criticism of sanad and matn enables the verification of the information’s origins, continuity, and coherence. At the same time, textual analysis tests internal consistency and detects chronological patterns not always revealed in the reports. Consequently, epistemic validity is complementary: reports serve as the primary basis when transmission can be verified, while philology functions as a control mechanism and a means to enrich the evidence—integrating the two yields a more transparent reconstruction of the chronology, without equating the standards of proof for each source type.