Whoever adopted the method of reconciliation held that the ḥadīth of Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī concerns the open wilderness, where no screen exists, and that the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar applies when a barrier is present; this is the position of Imām Mālik.

Those who follow the method of giving preference give precedence to the ḥadīth of Abū Ayyūb. Their reasoning is that when two ḥadīths appear to conflict—one of them establishing a specific legal ruling while the other merely accords with the original presumption of non-liability—and we do not know which of the two was narrated earlier, we are obliged to act upon the report that institutes a ruling. This is because its transmission by upright narrators binds us to implement it, whereas disregarding it—also on the authority of upright narrators—could have occurred before that ruling was legislated or after it. Hence it is impermissible to abandon a ruling whose observance is obligatory on the basis of a conjecture; we are not authorized to declare abrogation unless it is reported that one text definitely post-dates the other.

The conjectures upon which legal judgments rely are themselves circumscribed by the Sacred Law: only those conjectures that can validly impose or lift a ruling are recognized, and not every supposition that may arise. For this reason scholars say that acting in such matters is not mandated by conjecture itself but by a definitive principle—that is, by the conclusive revelation that obliges us to follow that particular kind of conjecture. This is the approach of Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm of al-Andalus; it is a sound method, grounded in the principles of the dialectical jurists, and it rests on the maxim that what is established by a Sharʿī proof is not overturned by doubt.

As for the school that reverts to the original presumption when two texts conflict, it is based on the notion that doubt annuls and removes the ruling so that, in effect, no ruling remains. This is the view of Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī, though Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm disagreed with him on this foundational point despite counting among his followers.

The Judge said: This is what we have deemed fit to record in this book of those issues we regard as approximating foundational principles—namely, matters that are addressed most explicitly in the Law, most of them being tied to its explicit texts, whether directly or very nearly so. Should we later recall anything else of this kind, we shall include it in this chapter. In assigning these views to their respective proponents I have relied chiefly on the work al-Istidhkār, and I permit anyone who discovers an error in what I have transmitted to correct it. Allah is the One who grants help and success.