چکیده:
The discussion of balance and preponderance, or the discussion of conflicting evidences, is one of the important foundational topics that has shifted its position from the concluding and marginal discussions of Usul al-Fiqh to the level of basic discussions of Usul and Fiqh al-Hadith, to the extent that some consider it one of the most important issues in Usul and Fiqh al-Hadith. The conflict between two evidences is sometimes non-established and sometimes established. Non-established conflict between two evidences is resolved through customary reconciliation (jam' urfi) and falls outside the scope of discussion, such as the conflict between general and specific, or absolute and qualified; however, the conflict between two established evidences—where they are equal and balanced in every respect (chain of narration, implication, and direction of issuance)—leads to two options: the dismissal of both (tasaqut) or choosing between them (takhyir), which have been studied by jurists and scholars of Fiqh al-Hadith, or one of the two evidences having a preference over the other. This preference is either mentioned in the reports of 'ilajiyya or not mentioned in the aforementioned narrations. In such cases, the two options of takhyir and the preference of the superior evidence are considered, and selecting each provides a special path for the mujtahid in deriving legal rulings from conflicting evidences. In this article, we aimed to first examine the definition of conflict, the cause of its existence, the methods of resolving conflict, and also the preponderant factors that assist us in this path, and by providing examples of conflicting hadiths, we express the methods of resolving conflict.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The conflict between two unstable evidences is resolved through customary reconciliation (jam' urfi) and falls outside the scope of discussion, such as two evidences of general and specific, or absolute and qualified; however, the conflict between two stable evidences is either they are equal and balanced from every aspect (chain of narration, indication, and direction of issuance), in which case the two options of both being discarded (tasaqut) or choosing between them (takhyir) have been considered by Usuli scholars and Fiqh al-Hadith scholars, or one of the two evidences possesses an advantage over the other.
Causes and factors of contradiction in hadiths from the perspective of researchers in the science of Usul and Hadith Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (died 204 AH) in al-Risala refers to several factors of contradiction, including: abrogation (naskh), fragmentation of reports, the loss of contextual (hal) and textual (maqali) clues, especially the reason for the issuance of the report, differences in the states of the mukallafan (obligated individuals), differences among narrators in receiving the report, and incorrect interpretation by narrators.
As was mentioned, sometimes some hadiths, despite being in contradiction, possess certain advantages and preponderants: whether they are "issuance" (suduri) preponderants, such as conformity with the famous (mashhur) and the qualities of the narrator – whether they are "aspectual" (jihti) preponderants, such as conformity with the general public (ammah) and taqiyyah, or whether they are "content-based" (madmuni) preponderants, such as conformity with the Book and the Sunnah; in these cases, too, different opinions have been expressed regarding their solution.
(
, 
, 
)
