Abstract

The article examines the theoretical and methodological approaches of the Hanafi school to resolving apparent contradictions among hadith reports. It is acknowledged that the Hanafi madhhab occupies a central place in the historical and spiritual worldview of the people. The study of the methodological principles of traditional Islam within the Hanafi framework is regarded as a key priority today in ensuring religious stability and national security, as well as in preventing the spread of destructive movements. The research identifies the main causes of contradictions among hadiths and provides a systematic analysis of the four principal methods employed by Hanafi scholars of usul al-fiqh to address them: naskh, tarjih, jam‘, and tasakkut/tawaqquf. The authors argue that such contradictions arise primarily from a lack of knowledge about the time and circumstances of revelation, neglect of linguistic nuances, and variations in the transmission techniques of narrators. The views of Hanafi scholars are compared with those of other madhhab representatives and hadith specialists, with methodological differences illustrated through specific examples. Particular emphasis is placed on the Hanafi prioritization of naskh and tarjih, and their treatment of a narrator’s juristic competence as a decisive criterion, which distinguishes the school’s methodology. The findings demonstrate the systematic character of Hanafi legal reasoning in relation to hadith, its hierarchical approach to legal evidences, as well as the relevance of these principles in addressing contemporary religious and ideological challenges. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of methodological diversity in Islamic legal thought and has practical implications for resolving religious disputes within society.