احادیث کے مابین رفع تعارض کے فقہی مناہج کا تقابلی و تجزیاتی مطالعہ

A Comparative and Analytical Study of Jurisprudential Methods for Resolving Conflicts between Hadiths

Abstract

This study explores various methodologies employed by scholars, hadith experts, jurists of opinion, and legal theorists to resolve conflicts in hadith. Due to differing opinions among scholars, there are several prominent methodologies, including those of the hadith scholars, Hanafi scholars, and the majority of scholars. The study first presents the arguments of these methodologies and then offers a comparative analysis. The methodologies for resolving apparent conflicts and discrepancies in hadith can be categorized into two main approaches: the methodology of the hadith scholars and that of the jurists of opinion. For the hadith scholars, the approach involves finding a way to act upon both conflicting hadiths, as adhering to both is preferable to dismissing one. This is known as reconciliation or application. If reconciliation is not possible, the earlier hadith may be considered abrogated in favor of the later one. If this approach is also not feasible, reasons for preference are sought to determine which hadith should be followed. If none of these methods work, suspension is practiced. In the Hanafi methodology, if both hadiths are of equal rank, one is considered earlier and the other later, and the method of abrogation is applied. If the historical context is unknown, reasons for preference are sought to determine which hadith is preferable. If neither historical context nor reasons for preference are available, reconciliation is pursued. If none of these methods are possible, the weaker evidence is abandoned in favor of a lesser degree of evidence.