Methods of Detecting Scribal Errors in the Texts of Legal Hadiths According to Jurists: A Foundational Analytical Study with Applied Models

Abstract

This research explores the methods employed by jurists to detect scribal errors in the texts of hadiths of rulings, aiming to establish a rigorous framework that distinguishes authentic wording from manuscript distortions before deriving legal judgments. The problem arises from discrepancies between certain hadith expressions found in jurisprudential works and those verified in narration sources, which can affect the reasoning behind rulings. Adopting a selective inductive approach to trace the imams’ texts, an analytical method to construct and document pathways, and a critical lens to apply rules of textual criticism, the study is structured into an introduction, preface, five sections, and a conclusion. It demonstrates that uncovering misrepresentation requires the integration of multiple critical strategies—such as comparing juristic wording with hadith principles, collecting variants of narration, consulting the judgments of hadith critics, tracking the circulation of terms in jurisprudential writings, and employing linguistic and contextual evidence. Ultimately, the study concludes that correcting textual distortions may refine the reasoning process without necessarily overturning established rulings, thereby affirming the complementary relationship between hadith scholarship and jurisprudential deduction.