On this:
What is meant here is naskh ijtihādī (abrogation reached by independent reasoning), not naskh ṣarīḥī (abrogation explicitly stated in a text). See: Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ʿalā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyya, p. 570. ↩
Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ʿalā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyya, p. 575; Uṣūl al-Jaṣṣāṣ, 2/41–46. ↩
Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ʿalā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyya, pp. 567–574. Translator's note: Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm al-Balyāwī observes that this ordering is not always tenable; reconciliation is sometimes simply not possible, so it cannot stand as a uniform principle. ↩
Positions on what to do when the teacher (aṣl) denies a narration that the student (farʿ) attributes to him.
Al-mursal in its broad sense was not rejected by anyone until Imām al-Shāfiʿī; the Ḥanafīs differ over the mursal of the first three generations.
Four positions on whether jarḥ and taʿdīl follow the rules of khabar or of testimony, with the additional requirement that the evaluator be ʿadl and unbiased.
If the narrators of a ḥadīth agree in their wording of transmission, in any verbal feature, in an action, or in some shared quality, this is al-musalsal (literally, a chained or serial ḥadīth).
