Imam Muhammad's methodology in ikhtilāf al-hadīth in his recension of al-muwaṭṭa

As one of the transmitters of al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, Muḥammad al‑Shaybānī not only conveyed the narrations contained in the work but also offered his own evaluations of these ḥadīths, frequently indicating whether he and the Kūfan school of law acted upon them. When he stated that a particular ḥadīth was not practiced, he often followed it with another ḥadīth that served as supporting evidence on the same issue. Owing to these explanations and the additional reports he incorporated, al‑Shaybānī's recension differs significantly from other recensions. This divergence has been seen as providing grounds for evaluating his recension within the framework of ikhtilāf al-ḥadīth and the present thesis seeks to identify and analyze al‑Shaybānī's methodological approach to conflicting ḥadīths in his recension of al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. This thesis addresses the questions of which methods Imām Muḥammad employed to resolve contradictory ḥadīths and in what order he applied them. In this regard, it is crucial to determine where al‑Shaybānī stands in relation to two theoretical frameworks: the Ḥanafī school's sequence of abrogation (naskh), preference (tarjīḥ), and reconciliation (jamʿ), and the ḥadīth scholars' sequence of reconciliation, abrogation, and preference. The inquiry is especially pertinent because Imām Muḥammad, while a founding jurist of the Ḥanafī madhhab, also trained under leading ḥadīth scholars and was thus conversant with both traditions. This study also focuses on the elements that play a central role in the process of tarjīḥ. When two or more ḥadīths appear to conflict, choosing one over the other raises the question of why a certain narration is seen as more suitable for practice. Accordingly, the study examines, through specific examples, the criteria prioritized by Imam Muḥammad when selecting ḥadīths for legal implementation.