14- Ta`arudh al-Adillah

Summary

In this lecture, the speaker discusses the concept of *ta'arudh al-adillah* (conflicting evidence) in Islamic jurisprudence, explaining how different legal rulings may contradict each other based on varying sources, such as the Quran and Hadith. Using the example of different rulings regarding the waiting period of a divorced woman, the speaker explores how scholars resolve such conflicts through methods like *al-jam'u* (reconciliation), *tarjih* (preference), *nasakh* (abrogation), and *itar* (abandonment). The session concludes with a call for further consultation and understanding of the material, along with a prayer for guidance and forgiveness.

Takeaways

• 😀 **Religious Invocation**: The speaker begins the session with prayers and blessings, invoking Allah's guidance and mentioning the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
• 😀 **Introduction to 'Ta'arudh al-Adillah'**: The core topic of the session is the concept of 'ta'arudh al-adillah,' which refers to the contradiction or conflict between two legal rulings (dalil) in Islamic jurisprudence.
• 😀 **Legal Conflict in Islamic Jurisprudence**: The speaker explains that conflicts may arise when different legal texts provide conflicting rulings for the same issue.
• 😀 **Example of Conflict**: The speaker provides an example of three conflicting rulings in the Qur'an regarding the waiting period (iddah) of a divorced woman.
• 😀 **Methods of Resolving Conflict**: The speaker outlines four primary methods for resolving such conflicts: al-jam'u (reconciliation), tarjih (preference), nasikh (abrogation), and atrk (abandonment).
• 😀 **Al-Jam'u (Reconciliation)**: This method involves trying to reconcile or harmonize the conflicting legal texts or rulings.
• 😀 **Tarjih (Preference)**: If reconciliation fails, the next step is to give preference to the stronger or more authoritative text among the conflicting rulings.
• 😀 **Nasikh (Abrogation)**: In cases where one text clearly overrides another, the later text (nasikh) abrogates the earlier one (mansukh).
• 😀 **Atrk (Abandonment)**: When no resolution can be found, the conflicting rulings may be abandoned, and the legal matter may be referred to another source.
• 😀 **Legal Reconciliation in Practice**: The speaker discusses how different Islamic scholars, particularly from the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools of thought, approach conflict resolution in legal rulings.
• 😀 **Final Prayer and Invitation**: The lecture ends with a prayer for forgiveness and a reminder for students to consult the instructor or academic resources if they have any questions or need clarification.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the lecture?

The main topic of the lecture is 'ta'arudh al-adillah,' which refers to the conflict between two legal rulings in Islamic jurisprudence that are based on different evidences or texts (dalils).

What does the term 'ta'arudh al-adillah' mean?

'Ta'arudh al-adillah' means the contradiction or conflict between two legal rulings derived from different sources or texts (dalils). This situation requires a solution to resolve the apparent inconsistency.

How does the lecture define 'dalil'?

In the lecture, 'dalil' refers to the evidence or proof used in Islamic jurisprudence, such as verses from the Quran or authentic Hadiths, to establish legal rulings.

What is an example of 'ta'arudh al-adillah' given in the lecture?

An example given is the case of a woman who is divorced by her husband. Three different rulings are presented regarding her waiting period (iddah) after divorce, depending on whether she is widowed, pregnant, or divorced without pregnancy.

What are the three different rulings regarding a woman's iddah after divorce, as mentioned in the lecture?

The three rulings for a woman’s iddah are: 1) One year if the woman is divorced and not pregnant. 2) Four months and ten days if the woman is widowed. 3) Until childbirth if the woman is pregnant.

How do Islamic scholars approach the resolution of conflicting legal rulings?

Islamic scholars approach the resolution of conflicting rulings by applying several methods, such as 'al-jam'u' (reconciliation), 'tarjih' (preference), 'nasikh wa mansukh' (abrogation), and 'itaruk' (abandoning both rulings).

What is the method of 'al-jam'u' mentioned in the lecture?

'Al-jam'u' involves attempting to reconcile or combine two conflicting rulings, finding a way to harmonize them when possible.

What does the term 'tarjih' mean in resolving conflicts between dalils?

'Tarjih' means giving preference to the stronger of two conflicting dalils. If one is more authentic or clearer than the other, the stronger dalil is followed.

What is 'nasikh wa mansukh' (abrogation) in Islamic jurisprudence?

'Nasikh wa mansukh' refers to the concept of abrogation, where a later ruling (nasikh) replaces or nullifies an earlier one (mansukh) if there is a conflict between the two.

How is 'itaruk' applied when there is a conflict between two dalils?

'Itaruk' is applied when neither of the conflicting dalils can be harmonized or preferred, leading to the abandonment of both rulings and seeking alternative legal guidance from other sources.

What are the two approaches mentioned in the lecture for resolving conflicts in legal rulings according to different schools of thought?

The two approaches are: 1) The approach of the majority scholars (e.g., Shafi'i, Hanbali) which prioritizes 'al-jam'u' (reconciliation) and 'tarjih' (preference). 2) The approach of the Hanafi school, which prioritizes 'nasikh wa mansukh' (abrogation) and then uses 'tarjih' and 'al-jam'u'.