Search

The issue of al-jam’ wa al-tafrīq [combining and differentiating] first became apparent early on, with the very beginning of the genre of rijāl al-hadith, being the study of hadith narrators. Within chains of hadith narrations, one finds many narrators who share the same name. More specifically, two narrators may have the same first name and father’s name, first name and family name, first name and kunya [honorific], or the like. This problem appeared so frequently that scholars who’ve tackled it over the years first dedicated specific terminology to this, al-muttafiq wa al-muftariq [the alike and the unalike], and then built a whole sub-genre dedicated to this under the broader field of hadith studies. Just as this issue appears in all books dedicated to the study of hadith narrators, it also is a frequent question in books more narrowly focused on the biographies of the Sahaba, the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. This study aims to give careful consideration to this issue of al-jam’ wa al-tafrīq in books dedicated to the Sahaba specifically. It uncovers the perceptiveness of the authors of this genre and the particular attention they paid to solving this matter, both in theory and in practice. This study further aims to identify their tendencies toward either narrowing or expanding, such as whether they tended to consider narrators with shared names as a single individual or as separate individuals, and to evaluate the efficacy of their approaches toward resolving this issue. The article begins with Ibn Manda and Abu Nu’aym, moves on to Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, and ends with Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn Hajar. Beyond tracing the history of this issue and its development through books dedicated to the Sahaba, this paper will identify the various ways these authors addressed companions with shared names and will evaluate the effectiveness of their perspectives. The article then ends by offering critical suggestions to refine the methodology currently used when approaching this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sheds a light on one of the common issues between hadith (narration) and jurisprudence (fiqh) sciences, which is the method used by scholars to prevent the conflict between the textual evidence (religious texts). The books of jurisprudence principles (Usul al-fiqh) and narration principles (Usul al-hadith) mention the existence of two approaches of scholars regarding this issue: Muhaddith's (narrator's) and majority of principalist's (Usuli's) approach and Hanafi's approach, and both can be traced back to their origins in the school of people of Ra'y (school of opinionists) and the school of people of hadith (school of narrationists). This paper assumes that the common method known to be used by Hanafis to resolve the conflict between texts by Naskh (Abrogation), Tarjih (Preponderance) and then Jam' (Combining) is not the correct method expressed by the scholars of this school or the school of Ahl Alra'y (opinionists) since it is a dubious order controversing the principles of that school and the texts of the school founders. It also assumes that the correct order cannot be known without studying their school's origins and order of evidence. Al-'Awnī addressed this issue as well, and he claimed that the Hanafis' approach is consistent with the approach of Muhaddithin (narrationists) upon discrepancies where they do the opposite by starting with Jam' (Combining), then Tarjih (Preponderance) if they could not resolve it, and finally Naskh (Abrogation) comes if any of the previous two approaches could not resolve these discrepancies. This study aims to critically analyse the study paper of al-'Awnī' and explain (the agreements and the disagreements between the two studies), before presenting a method that fits the statements of the Hanafī scholars in resolving the discrepancies between texts. The study agrees with what al-'Awnī' has stated aboutthe delaying the Naskh (Abrogation), but it disagrees with its statement that the Tarjih (Preponderance) succeed the Jam' (Combining) by Hanafis. Therefore, the proposed order is Tarjih (Preponderance), Jam' (Combining), and then Naskh (Abrogation), and this study explains the appropriate evidence to support this claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]