Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-Qasim - Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani - (139)

Nuzhat al-Nazar fi Tawdih Nukhbat al-Fikar - Tahqiq al-QasimIbn Hajar Al-Asqalani

As for ijmaʿ (consensus), it is not an abrogating agent; rather, it merely points to the fact of abrogation ⦗1⦘.

Levels of analysis when texts appear to conflict

If the chronology is unknown, the matter is limited to two possibilities: either one can give precedence to one of the two reports over the other by means of a recognised criterion of preponderance ⦗2⦘—whether that criterion relates to the wording (matn) or to the chain of transmission (isnād) ⦗3⦘—or one cannot.

If preponderance is attainable, adopting it becomes obligatory ⦗4⦘; if it is not, no preference is adopted.

Accordingly, situations of apparent contradiction are addressed in the following order:
– reconciliation ⦗5⦘, whenever possible;
– then consideration of abrogation, identifying the abrogating and the abrogated texts ⦗6⦘;
– then preponderance, when that becomes necessary;
– and finally suspension: refraining from acting on either of the two ḥadiths ⦗7⦘.

The term “suspension” (tawqif) is preferable to “mutual nullification” (tasāquṭ), because the inability to discern the stronger of the two reports is relative to the scholar examining the matter at the present moment ⦗8⦘; what is hidden from him may later become clear to someone else. Allah knows best ⦗9⦘.

(1) The clause “wa amma al-ijmaʿ fa laysa bi-nāsikh; bal yadullu ʿalā dhālik” (“As for consensus, it does not abrogate; rather, it merely points to that”) is missing from MS T. (2) A marginal note to MS D adds the word “al-tarjīḥāt” (“the preferred rulings”). (3) Al-Hazimi listed fifty criteria of preference; see: al-Iʿtibār fī l-nāsikh wa l-mansūkh min al-āthār, p. 9. (4) MS Y reads lahu (“for him”). (5) MS B reads fa-l-jamʿ (“so reconciliation”). (6) MS A has fa-l-iʿtibār (“so consideration”), whereas MS Z has ka-iʿtibār (“such as consideration”). (7) MSS J and M read bi-iḥdā (“with one”). (8) MS Z reads bi-l-muʿtabar (“with what is deemed valid”). (9) The phrase wa-llāhu aʿlam (“Allah knows best”) is not found in MS T. In the margin of MS A, in the author’s own hand, is written: “thumma balagha kadhalika qirāʾatan wa baḥthan” (“Later it likewise reached [me] by reading and investigation”); and in the margin of MS W, also in his handwriting: “thumma balagha samāʿan bi-qirāʾatihi fī l-Nukhba; katabahu: Ibn Ḥajar” (“Later it was obtained by audition through his recitation of al-Nukhba; written by: Ibn Ḥajar”).

وَأَمَّا الإِجْمَاعُ: فَلَيْسَ بِنَاسِخٍ؛ بَلْ يَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ (١). [مراتب النظر فيما ظاهره التعارض] وَإِنْ لَمْ يُعْرَفِ التَّارِيخُ؛ فَلَا يَخْلُو: إِمَّا أَنْ يُمْكِنَ تَرْجِيحُ أَحَدِهِمَا عَلَى الآخَرِ بِوَجْهٍ مِنْ وُجُوهِ التَّرْجِيحِ (٢) المُتَعَلِّقَةِ بِالمَتْنِ أَوْ بِالإِسْنَادِ (٣)، أَوْ لَا: فَإِنْ أَمْكَنَ التَّرْجِيحُ؛ تَعَيَّنَ المَصِيرُ إِلَيْهِ (٤)، (وَإِلَّا)؛ فَلَا. فَصَارَ مَا ظَاهِرُهُ التَّعَارُضُ وَاقِعاً عَلَى هَذَا التَّرْتِيبِ: - الجَمْعُ (٥) إِنْ أَمْكَنَ. - فَاعْتِبَارُ (٦) النَّاسِخِ وَالمَنْسُوخِ. - (فَالتَّرْجِيحُ) إِنْ تَعَيَّنَ. - (ثُمَّ التَّوَقُّفُ) عَنِ العَمَلِ بِأَحَدِ (٧) الحَدِيثَيْنِ. وَالتَّعْبِيرُ بِالتَّوَقُّفِ أَوْلَى مِنَ التَّعْبِيرِ بِالتَّسَاقُطِ؛ لِأَنَّ خَفَاءَ تَرْجِيحِ أَحَدِهِمَا عَلَى الآخَرِ إِنَّمَا هُوَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ لِلْمُعْتَبِرِ (٨) فِي الحَالَةِ الرَّاهِنَةِ، مَعَ احْتِمَالِ أَنْ يَظْهَرَ لِغَيْرِهِ مَا خَفِيَ عَلَيْهِ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ (٩).

(١) «وَأَمَّا الإِجْمَاعُ فَلَيْسَ بِنَاسِخٍ؛ بَلْ يَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ» سقطت من ط. (٢) في نسخة على حاشية د: «الترجيحات». (٣) ذكر الحازميُّ خمسين وجهاً من وجوه التَّرجيح. انظر: الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار (ص ٩). (٤) في ي: «له». (٥) في ب: «فالجمع». (٦) في أ: «فالاعتبار»، وفي ز: «كاعتبار». (٧) في ج، م: «بإحدى». (٨) في ز: «بالمعتبر». (٩) «وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ» ليست في ط. وفي حاشية أ - بخطِّ المُصنِّف -: «ثم بلغ كذلك قراءة وبحثاً»، وفي حاشية و - بخطِّه أيضاً -: «ثم بلغ سماعاً بقراءته في النخبة، كتبه: ابن حجر».