I've recently come across some information in one of my audiobooks that described the work of Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, and in the evidence provided in my audiobook and further research I have been convinced that the revisionist take on Islamic history appears to be justified.
Aside from historians that may have an ideological bias towards preserving what is a core part of their heritage (Resa Aslan perhaps), what are some strong criticisms of the Revisionist view? Have I been reading biased descriptions that are ignoring blatant evidence that offers support for at least some of the historical claims for the first 70 years of Islamic history?
As someone who has recently spent a good amount of time researching the historical pieces of Judaism and Christianity, I would like to learn more about historical Islam, and as of now, the Revisionist version appears to be the most plausible.
Thanks for any help.
Edit: Here is a link that helps explain the position a bit
http://research-islam.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-revisionist-history-of-islams.html
I wrote a detailed response about Tom Holland's documentary here, using primary source to argue that something very similar to modern Islam did exist quite early on. Also worth noting that Crone and Cook's Hagarism thesis is not taken seriously anymore (or even at the time) - it literally used only three sources to argue its case. The book did change historians' approach to early Islamic history, but right now the consensus is fairly stable and even Fred Donner and Stephen Shoemaker, both proponents of interesting theories about early Islam, only argue that certain aspects of the traditional account are inaccurate, not creating a completely new narrative.