Conflict and preference between Scholars of Hadith and Fundamentalists

Abstract

This study discusses the scholars’ disagreement over the concept of clash, and showing the relationship between it and weighting, and the methods of resolving it among the majority of hadith scholars and usuli scholars, with examples mentioned and discussed in each method. The study concluded that the scholars’ disagreement was not over the reality of the clash, and that the hadith scholars and usuli scholars agree on the count of methods of resolving the clash, and differ in their order, and that this disagreement is due to a difference in the origin of the viewpoint, as the hadith scholar looks into proving the authenticity of the narration or not, the usuli scholar looks into proving the provision derived from the narration or not, and this confirms their agreement to give precedence to the method of combining and reconciling over the rest of the methods, acting on the origin on the one hand, since the origin of the prophetic texts is that they came to be acted upon, unlike weighting and abrogation, in which some texts are acted upon and others are left, and that there are rules considered by the hadith scholars and usuli scholars on the other hand, which is that applying both evidences is better than neglecting one of them