Conflicts between Dala’il were Conflicts of Interpretation

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

As Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hakim Murad Timothy John Winter wrote, the reasons underlying cases of apparent conflict between various revealed texts were scrutinised closely by the early ‘ulama, often amid sustained debate between brilliant minds backed up with the most perfect photographic memories.  Much of the science of uswul al-fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, was developed in order to provide consistent mechanisms for resolving such conflicts in a way which ensured fidelity to the basic ethos of Islam.  The term ta’arudh al-adillah, mutual contradiction of proof-texts, is familiar to all students of Islamic jurisprudence as one of the most sensitive and complex of all Muslim legal concepts.  Early scholars such as Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah al-Marwazi (r.a.) felt obliged to devote whole books to the subject, including Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadits.  Mention should also be made of Imam Abu Ja’far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ath-Thahawi’s (r.a.) Mushkil al-Atsar, which is more widely used among the ‘ulama. 

The ‘ulama of uswul recognised, as their starting assumption, that conflicts between the Revealed texts were no more than conflicts of interpretation, and could not reflect inconsistencies in the Prophet’s (s.a.w.) Message as conveyed by the Prophet (s.a.w.).  The message of Islam had been perfectly conveyed before his demise; and the function of subsequent scholars was exclusively one of interpretation, not of amendment. 

Armed with this awareness, the Islamic scholar, when examining problematic texts, begins by attempting a series of preliminary academic tests and methods of resolution.  The system developed by the early ‘ulama was that if two Qur’anic or hadits texts appeared to contradict each other, then the scholar must first analyse the texts linguistically, to see if the contradiction arises from an error in interpreting the Arabic.  If the contradiction cannot be resolved by this method, then he must attempt to determine, on the basis of a range of textual, legal and historiographic techniques, whether one of them is subject to takhswisw, that is, concerns special circumstances only, and hence forms a specific exception to the more general principle enunciated in the other text.  Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) cited a number of well-known examples of Qur’anic texts being subject to takhswisw.  For instance, this verse: 

سُوۡرَةُ المَائدة

وَٱلسَّارِقُ وَٱلسَّارِقَةُ فَٱقۡطَعُوٓاْ أَيۡدِيَهُمَا جَزَآءَۢ بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَـٰلاً۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۬ (٣٨) 

As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deed and exemplary punishment from Allah and Allah is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom. (Surah al-Ma’idah:38) 

This verse appears to be unconditional; however, it is subject to takhswisw by the hadits which reads, “Hands should not be cut off for fruits, nor the spadix of a palm tree, and that the hand should not be cut off unless the price of the thing stolen is a quarter of a dinar or more.”  This is found in Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Malik ibn Anas’ (r.a.) al-Muwaththa’, Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ats as-Sijistani’s (r.a.) Sunan; and explained in Imam ash-Shafi’i’s (r.a.) ar-Risalah.