Islamicists have long been interested in the historiography of thesīraandmaghāzīliterature. Ibn Ishaq'sSīrahas been fruitfully compared with al-Waqidi'sMaghāzī, and both have been compared with sections in al-Bukhari'sṢaḥīḥor with other collections of hadith. It has often been observed that the materials constituting theSīraof Ibn Ishaq or theMaghāzīof al-Waqidi—works which may for convenience, but only with reservations, be designated “historical”—are often the same as those preserved in collections of hadith such as al-Bukhari's. It has also been observed that what distinguish these materials from one another are essentially the former's narrative and chronological structures and the motives and methods governing these structures. John Wansbrough, who has compared these texts, postulates as well a “development from loosely structured narrative to conciseexemplum& [which] illustrates perfectly the stylistic difference betweenSīraandsunna, between the mythic and normative preoccupations (Geistesbeschäftigungen) of early Muslim literature.”
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.