This study critically examines the methods and theoretical foundations employed by Western orientalists in dating the Meccan and Medinan verses and chapters of the Qur'an, comparing them with the traditional Islamic historiographical approach. In Islamic tradition, Qur'anic chronology relies on three main pillars: reports from the Companions and their followers that indicate the context of revelation, stylistic evidence such as verse length and linguistic structure, and historical accounts from sīrah and tafsīr sources. This system, developed through centuries with rigorous hadith criticism and biographical evaluation, offers a coherent and reliable framework. In contrast, orientalists such as Theodor Nöldeke, Richard Bell, and John Wansbrough, often working from secular or reductionist assumptions, prioritized stylistic and content analysis while dismissing the reliability of Islamic reports. Their methods face challenges including internal inconsistencies, lack of unified criteria, and neglect of contemporary sources from the time of revelation. Some scholars, driven by ideological biases, portrayed the Qur'an as a product of pre-Islamic culture and denied its divine origin, thereby imposing Western frameworks onto the text. Islamic tradition, by contrast, integrates credible reports, linguistic analysis, and the gradual development of Qur’anic concepts—such as evolving legal and theological content—into a historically grounded narrative. The study concludes by emphasizing the need to combine traditional Islamic sources with modern interdisciplinary methods—such as historical linguistics, textual archaeology, and comparative studies—to overcome methodological weaknesses and foster constructive dialogue between the two intellectual traditions.