What do scholars do when two authentic hadith appear to contradict each other?

Genuine contradiction between two authentic reports is impossible, since both trace back to revelation and Allah says that had it been from other than Him they would have found in it much discrepancy; so an apparent clash comes either from our limited understanding or from one of the two reports not actually being authentic. The scholars of usul handle it by a settled method, and the majority proceed in this order: first al-jam' (reconciling both, for example by treating one as general and the other as a specification, or one as a permission and the other as what is better), then naskh (one abrogated the other, where the later text is known), then tarjih (giving preference to the stronger chain or the clearer wording), and only then tawaqquf (withholding judgement) — some of the Hanafis put naskh and tarjih before reconciliation. A clear example of abrogation is the Prophet's statement that he had forbidden them to visit graves but that they should now visit them. This is an established science with its own literature, beginning with Imam al-Shafi'i's Ikhtilaf al-Hadith and Ibn Qutaybah's Ta'wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, and it is not something a layman should attempt on his own.

Ask your own question → All questions