The inquiry on al-ta'adul wa-l-tarjih or al-ta‘arud wa-l-tarjih in Islamic theoretical jurispru­dence addresses, in general terms, what jurists should do when they encounter in their legal research what appear to be conflicting arguments of equal strength.

Juxtaposed with this, both within the same school of law (madhhab) and for an independent jurist (mujtahid), one finds in Islamic juristic practice many scenarios where a jurist faces what appear to be equal and conflicting arguments or ‘reasons’ for deciding a case or a doctrinal question one way or another.

This is a problem both Sunni and Shi ‘i law systems take seriously. In modern national laws, judges also apply rules to decide which indicators of the law trump others. This is what is usually meant by the term ‘the conflict of laws’ and in some cases ‘jurisdic­tion’ enquiries. This is relevant to applications of Islamic law in Muslim nations today, and in some interesting cases, the relevance of Islamic law to a modern case under consideration is decided via ‘conflict of laws’ mechanisms. Finally, a conflict of arguments can be adjudged within the court hierarchy, where a higher court applies a standard by which to cancel the argument of a lower court by means of a superior argument. This article attempts to cover these points in a broad way.

1

More on the topic The inquiry on al-ta'adul wa-l-tarjih or al-ta‘arud wa-l-tarjih in Islamic theoretical jurispru­dence addresses, in general terms, what jurists should do when they encounter in their legal research what appear to be conflicting arguments of equal strength.:

1. The inquiry on al-ta'adul wa-l-tarjih or al-ta‘arud wa-l-tarjih in Islamic theoretical jurispru­dence addresses, in general terms, what jurists should do when they encounter in their legal research what appear to be conflicting arguments of equal strength.
2. Using Islamic Legal Principles and Terms of Alternative Dispute Resolution
3. Conflicting Concepts of Empire