Study of the Hanafi Approach to Weighting in Dealing with Conflicting Evidence

Abstract

The rules of preponderance according to the Hanafi school of thought are among the issues that the science of jurisprudence is interested in examining: conflict of evidence, when does it occur, and how can one preponderate between different evidences? Knowing the strong evidence and the correct evidence in terms of its proof or significance, these are very precise issues that only the most distinguished scholars are able to explain, and the scholars of fundamentals have rules by which they weigh between these different pieces of evidence. The basic principle in this matter is that the process of weighting is one of the functions of scholars who are able to distinguish between evidence, and it is resorted to when it is assumed that there is a difference between two texts that is not of the same degree in proof or significance. The process of weighting that arose among diligent scholars was not necessarily limited to supporting one doctrine over others, but rather it sought consistency and validity. Thus, we found among the scholars those who departed from the evidence of their doctrine and adopted the doctrine of others. We would also like to point out that the general process of preference, which is not between one school of thought and another, is like the absolute preference that the fundamentalists have dealt with. The aim of this research is to know the Hanafi approach in dealing with conflicting evidence.