Contradiction and preference of evidence in the hanafi school of law (periyod ottoman)

In Islamic legal procedure, the question of which evidence to prioritize when the plaintiff's and defendant's proofs conflict is a major topic of debate. These matters are typically scattered under various headings in jurisprudence (fiqh) books, which makes it difficult for judges (kadis) to find the relevant school of thought when issuing a verdict. For this reason, starting from the late 16th century, special and independent works on this subject began to be written in the Hanafi school of thought. Not all of these works were written using the same method. While some focused on the analysis of a specific issue, others compiled issues related to the conflict and preference of evidence from fiqh books. The first section of this study, which consists of three main sections, deals with the basic terms and definitions that form the conceptual basis of the subject. The second section attempts to provide a general overview of the literature on the subject, particularly that which developed during the Ottoman period. The third section examines the issues that arise when there is a conflict between beyyinah in this literature, based on the work of the Ottoman scholar İzmîrî. The relevant issues are evaluated within a classification of three possibilities that may arise in cases of conflicting evidence: preference for one over the other, acceptance of both as valid and application of both together, and invalidation of both.