Harmonisasi dalam Perbedaan Studi Komparatif Pendekatan Kontemporer terhadap Mukhtalif Al-Ḥadīṡ

Abstract

This study aims to analyse comparatively contemporary approaches to mukhtalif al-hadith in responding to hadith reports that appear, at the textual level, to be mutually contradictory. The study focuses on the epistemological, methodological, and hermeneutical differences among selected modern-contemporary Muslim scholars in their treatment of isnād authority, matn criticism, historical context, maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, and methods for resolving apparent contradictions. This research employs library research with a qualitative-analytical approach. The data are examined through thematic content analysis and comparative analysis using six indicators: isnād authority, matn criticism, the function of historical context, the role of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, methods for resolving mukhtalif reports, and epistemological implications. To strengthen the analysis, this study also tests these approaches through two cases of mukhtalif al-hadith: the hadith on drinking while standing and the hadith on performing voluntary prayer before Maghrib. The findings show that contemporary approaches to mukhtalif al-hadith form a graduated epistemological spectrum, ranging from isnād-verificatory, historical-rational, and critical-integrative approaches to maqāṣidī-contextual approaches. The case analyses demonstrate that differences among hadith reports do not necessarily indicate substantive contradiction; rather, they may reflect contextual variation, differing degrees of legal normativity, and the flexibility of Islamic law. This study formulates the Graduated Harmonisation Model as an operational synthesis comprising isnād verification, matn verification, classification of ikhtilāf, historical-sociological contextualisation, consideration of maqāṣid–maṣlaḥah, and normative resolution through al-jam‘ wa al-taufīq, al-naskh, or al-tarjīḥ. Thus, mukhtalif al-hadith should not be understood merely as a problem of textual contradiction, but as an analytical field that requires historical validity, semantic justice, and normative relevance in the contemporary context.