الترجيح الأصولي وتطبيقاته بين الفقهاء والمحدثين في الآثار المتعارضة

Tarjīḥ in Juristic and Hadith Methodologies: Comparative Applications in Resolving Conflicting Textual Evidence

Abstract

This study examines tarjīḥ, the principles of preference and their applications in the methodologies of jurists and hadith scholars by exploring their concept, nature, and practical implementation. It highlights the similarities and differences between the two disciplines in resolving conflicts between textual evidence. The study emphasizes the importance of legal preference as a fundamental interpretive method upon which many rulings concerning speculative evidence are based. This approach has played a central role in the legal reasoning of early Muslim jurists and those who followed them. The introductory section discusses the nature of legal preference from the perspectives of jurists and hadith scholars, presenting its principal definitions and methodological foundations while addressing whether apparent conflicts exist within the revealed texts themselves or arise from the jurist’s interpretation and understanding. The first section examines the rules governing preference between conflicting reports, whereas the second presents selected applications employed by both jurists and hadith scholars. It also analyzes the evidential indicators used in the process of preference, whether generally accepted or disputed, in light of the speculative nature of textual authenticity and textual meaning, demonstrating that legal preference is essentially an exercise of independent legal reasoning. The study aims to identify the methodological differences between jurists and hadith scholars in applying legal preference, clarify the evidential criteria adopted by each group, and determine the scope and basis of preference within their respective methodologies. To achieve these objectives, the research employs the inductive, analytical, and comparative methods. The findings reveal substantial differences between the two approaches, particularly regarding the evidential indicators employed, the objectives of preference, the determination of the locus of conflict, and the grounds for preferring one report over another. The study also highlights the true nature of legal preference, its scholarly significance, and the importance of specialized expertise in its proper application.