Ruling Out of Conflict at Hanafi School

Abstract

Abstract Objectives :This study aimed to investigate the Hanafi approach to ruling out conflicts between scriptural evidences, explain the methods of equilibrating proofs, explore ways of ruling out contradictions between affirming and negating reports, and highlight the impact of this on Hanafi jurisprudential rulings. Methodology: The study used two methods: 1 . Descriptive method – by presenting definitions of conflict (taʿāruḍ), affirmation (muthbit), and negation (nāfī) according to the Hanafis, and by outlining the pillars and conditions of conflict. 2 . Analytical method – by detailing the Hanafi approaches to ruling out conflicts and examining their effects on jurisprudential branches. The study was divided into three sections: The first explains the reality of conflict according to the Hanafis. The second sets out the Hanafi method of ruling out when evidences conflict. The third addresses ruling out contradictions between affirming and negating reports. Findings: The study concluded with several results including: Scriptural evidences do not in reality conflict; rather, the apparent contradictions are only conceptual, occurring in the mind of the jurist. Furthermore, the study revealed that the affirming report (muthbit) is not always automatically preferred over the negating report (nāfī); rather, they may conflict, and preference is then established through other methods detailed in the study. Conclusion: The study concluded that true, objective conflict does not occur in Islamic law, since its source is one and unified. It also highlighted the diligence of jurists in applying texts and not neglecting them, by ruling out them through the various methods of ruling out. Keywords: Conflict (taʿāruḍ), Apparent (ẓāhir), Ruling out (makhlaṣ), Affirmation (muthbit), Negation (nāfī), Hanafis