A Comparative Analysis of Juristic Methodology: The Disagreement between Abū Ḥanīfah and His Companions as Methodological Diversity

The research evaluates juristic disagreements (ikhtilāf) between Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and his two prominent companions, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, by analyzing their methodological approaches to legal reasoning according to the Hanafi school. This study examines the extent to which these disagreements reflect methodological diversity rather than doctrinal conflict. It also explores the relationship between legal reasoning and the Qur’an and Sunnah, the role of solitary reports in hadith evaluation, and the function of qiyās and istiḥsān in Hanafi legal theory. The study adopts an inductive and analytical methodology based on classical Hanafi legal texts and contemporary academic studies. A doctrinal and comparative approach is employed to identify points of convergence and divergence in the juristic methodologies of Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions. The findings demonstrate that the disagreements among these jurists were not rooted in opposition to foundational legal sources or principles, but rather in differences related to methodological application, evidentiary evaluation and contextual reasoning. Despite variations in specific legal rulings, all three jurists operated within a shared uṣūl al-fiqh framework and agreed on the fundamental objectives of Islamic law. The study concludes that disagreement within the Hanafi school reflects legitimate methodological diversity that contributed to the adaptability, continuity and intellectual development of Hanafi jurisprudence.