Search

This research aims to shed light on a hidden aspect of the personality of Imam Ibn Al-Qattan, after becoming famous in the field of Hadith sciences. The aspect that I want to show in this paper is the aspect of Usul, as the research revealed Ibn al-Qattan's good knowledge of Usul al-Fiqh. The historians mentioned that he has many books in this science, perhaps the most important of which is the book: "Masayil Min 'Usul Alfiqh Lam Yadhkurha Al'usuliuwn Fi Kutubihim". This indicates that Ibn al-Qattan was not only concerned with what the scholars of Usul al-Fiqh said, but he was one of the renovators in this science. Among what we explained in this research: what is related to the total evidence considered by him in the construction of rulings, which are the Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus, measurement, accompaniment, reclamation, and the principle of precaution... It was also clear that he did not see the authenticity of some evidence as Shariah from us, and blocking the pretext in opposition to text and more. This research has mentioned some of Ibn al-Qattan's choices in the Fundamentals of jurisprudence sub issues. [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]