<![CDATA[This article examines the changing orientation of Western hadith studies during the period 2010–2020. Although debates over hadith authenticity remain an important theme, the question of authenticity alone is no longer considered sufficient to explain how hadith authority is constructed, how commentary (sharḥ) traditions develop, and how reports are used in diverse intellectual contexts. This study aims to investigate the changing position of authenticity as a research problem and to analyze the relationship between source criticism and contextual reconstruction in contemporary hadith scholarship. The research employs a qualitative library-based approach using intellectual history and comparative analysis. The primary corpus consists of twenty-three purposively selected academic publications. Each work is examined through five analytical indicators: research object, research question, type of evidence, method of analysis, and scope of conclusions. The findings reveal four overlapping areas of inquiry: the evaluation of hadith dating methods, the relationship between hadith, law, and scholarly authority, manuscript and commentary studies, and reflections on the limits of historical inference. This classification is not intended to describe a universal developmental sequence for the entire field of Western hadith studies. Rather, it serves as an analytical framework for interpreting the selected corpus. The study demonstrates that authenticity has not disappeared from contemporary hadith scholarship. In some works, authenticity remains the primary objective of research, while in others it functions as a starting point for investigating the history of transmission, usage, and interpretation of hadith. Based on these findings, the article proposes a model of contextual reconstruction that connects research questions with the evidence employed and the limits of the claims that may be drawn from it. The proposed model offers a more balanced framework for assessing arguments across different methodological approaches without reducing methodological differences to conflicts of academic identity.]]>
