The Ethiopian Methodology for Resolving Contradictions Between Sharia Evidences Through Reconciliation

Abstract

This research addresses the approach of al-Ityubi in resolving conflicts between Islamic legal evidences (Adillah Shari'ah) through reconciliation (al-Jam'). The research problem lies in elucidating the Sheikh's methodological framework for resolving such conflicts via reconciliation. Consequently, the study aims to clarify the concept of reconciliation and its fundamental conditions, extrapolate the scholars' methodologies and orientations in this regard, and specifically explain Sheikh al-Ityubi's approach and methodology in resolving conflicts through reconciliation. Among the most prominent findings of this research is that the methodology adopted by Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Ali bin Adam al-Ityubi in resolving conflicts between texts aligns with the majority of legal theorists (Jumhur al-Usuliyyin). This majority prioritizes reconciliation (Jam'), followed by abrogation (Naskh), and then preponderance/preference (Tarjih). In doing so, he diverged from the Hanafi methodology, which prioritizes abrogation, followed by preponderance, and finally reconciliation. This alignment is clearly evident in both his theoretical postulations and his practical applications of this methodology. Furthermore, the multitude of jurisprudential issues wherein the Sheikh resolved conflicts through reconciliation—when compared to the number of issues where he applied preponderance or ruled by abrogation—demonstrates his strong inclination toward reconciliation whenever possible. He frequently articulated this preference explicitly in his writings. Additionally, the methods (Wujuh) of reconciliation employed by Sheikh al-Ityubi to resolve textual conflicts were diverse, amounting to eleven distinct methods within the scope of the studied material. I have presented a selection of these methods in this research, providing illustrative examples without excessive elaboration due to spatial constraints and page limitations.