Western Hadith Studies: A Comparative Analysis of the Foundations and Methods of Skepticism and Traditionalism

The methodology of Hadith studies in the West has evolved around an epistemological debate between two principal currents: the historically oriented skeptical approach and the traditionalist approach, which defends the authenticity of the texts. The skeptical approach, informed by the hypothesis of "Backward Projection" and the works of Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht, attributes much of the Hadith corpus to later periods and interprets the tradition as a product of social and juristic developments after the first century AH. In contrast, the traditionalist approach, supported by archaeological evidence, papyri, inscriptions, and early Islamic sources, emphasizes the existence of recording systems and reliable transmission in the early Islamic period. This study is necessary to trace the epistemological development of these two currents and to evaluate the impact of new evidence on the current status of Hadith studies in the West. Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, the study critically examines the theoretical foundations, argumentative logic, and epistemological assumptions of both currents. The findings indicate that the paradigm of radical skepticism is limited by circular reasoning, analytical weaknesses, and its inability to account for newly available documentary evidence. Recent evidence has prompted Western Hadith scholarship to move toward more moderate and revisionist approaches that, while maintaining historical criticism, affirm the authenticity of a significant portion of traditions attributed to the first century AH. This shift reveals the gradual decline of the classical skeptical tradition. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that new documentary evidence has weakened the foundations of the skeptical current and, through moderate approaches, has strengthened the historical credibility of traditions from the formative period of Islam.