Conflict of texts and the mechanism of their treatment by jurists and legal scholars

Abstract

This research stems from a primary inquiry regarding the extent of convergence and divergence between the methodologies of Islamic jurists and legal scholars in understanding and handling both religious (Sharia) and legal texts, and whether they originate from the same foundational principles. It focuses on the established fact that jurists rely on the fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) and the objectives of Sharia (Maqasid) when interpreting any text. This raises questions about the degree to which legal scholars depend on these jurisprudential foundations when interpreting legal texts, and the reasons for their recourse to them, if it exists.The research aims to answer these questions by integrating the theoretical framework of Usul al-Fiqh with practical legal application. It seeks to identify points of intersection and common needs among constitutional and legal legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurists. The study is organized into an introduction that addresses the utilization of Usul al-Fiqh in legal studies, followed by three main sections. These sections discuss the concepts of text and conflict, the criteria for resolving conflicts (Tarjeeh) and the mechanisms of preference used by both jurists and legal scholars, and finally, present practical applied models. The research concludes by summarizing the key findings reached .