TA’ARUD Al-ADILLAH DAN METODE PENYELESAIANNYA MENURUT ULAMA HANAFIAH DAN ULAMA SYAFI’IYYAH

Abstract

This study examines the issue of ta'arudh al-adillah (conflicts between arguments) and the methods for resolving them according to scholars of the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools. The issue of ta'arudh is important because it frequently arises in the process of establishing Islamic law due to differences in meaning, historical context, or the validity of arguments. The purpose of this study is to comparatively analyze the methods for resolving ta'arudh al-adillah used by these two major schools of thought, and their relevance to addressing contemporary legal dynamics. This study uses a normative juridical method with a qualitative approach. Data were obtained through a literature review of relevant primary and secondary literature, such as works on classical and modern ushul fiqh. The analysis was conducted descriptively and qualitatively to illustrate the approaches used by each school of thought. The results show that Hanafi scholars arrange the order of ta'arudh resolution using the methods of nasakh, tarjih, jam' wa tawfīq, and tasāquṭ. Meanwhile, Shafi'i scholars prioritize jam' wa tawfīq (contractual agreement), followed by tarjīḥ (reconciliation), and then, if this is not possible, using tatsāquṭ al-dalilain (conciliation). This difference in order reflects the rationalist tendencies of the Hanafis and the textualism of the Shafi'is. This study concludes that understanding the method of resolving ta'arudh al-adillah (conciliation) is crucial for maintaining the coherence of Islamic law and addressing the challenges of the times with a robust methodological approach.