Conflict and preference between hadiths and its jurisprudential applications

according to al-Allamah al-Hilli in his book Mukhtalif al-Hadith

Abstract

Submission date: 26 / 02 / 2026

Acceptance date: 08 / 04 / 2026

Publication date: 30 / 03 / 2026

This research is a fundamental and jurisprudential study addressing the problem of conflict and preference among hadiths, focusing on the applied methodology of Allamah al-Hilli in his book *Mukhtalif al-Shi'a*. The study's significance lies in its attempt to bridge the gap between theoretical principles and the practical application of the jurist when faced with seemingly contradictory texts. This necessitates the use of cognitive tools to resolve these conflicts and derive legal rulings.

The research examines the concept of conflict, clarifies the conditions for its establishment, and excludes certain customary reconciliations, such as those involving the ruler and the ruled. It also reviews the principles adopted by jurists—including Allamah al-Hilli—in resolving conflicts, highlighting the principle that "reconciliation is preferable to rejection whenever possible." In cases where reconciliation is impossible, the research resorts to preference using established criteria, which it categorizes into substantive, chain-of-narrator, and contextual criteria.

On the practical side, the research presented jurisprudential models from the book *Mukhtalif al-Shi'a* illustrating how to address contradictions, such as interpreting the unrestricted in light of the restricted, and the general in light of the specific. The research also demonstrated how Allamah al-Hilli prioritized certain narrations based on their prevalence among his companions, their contradiction of other schools of thought (interpreting them as instances of taqiyya), or the reliability and attributes of the narrators.