<![CDATA[Hadith is the second source of Islamic teachings after the Qur’an, and its authenticity has been examined not only by Muslim scholars but also by Western orientalists. Orientalist views on hadith are not uniform. Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht expressed critical positions on the authenticity and transmission of hadith, whereas Harald Motzki sought to reconstruct its transmission history through evidence-based analysis. This article aims to describe the forms of orientalist criticism of hadith, to explain the more objective approaches, and to analyze the differences between orientalist historical methods and the hadith criticism developed in the Islamic scholarly tradition. It employs library research with a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach. The discussion shows that historical criticism becomes problematic when limited findings are generalized, while Motzki’s isnad-cum-matn analysis demonstrates that historical inquiry does not necessarily end in doubt. The article argues that orientalist scholarship should be read critically and proportionally: its historical questions can enrich hadith studies, while its conclusions must still be tested against the methods developed by Muslim hadith scholars.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
