先知的两句圣训之间的冲突，只会在一种情况下出现，那就是废止（al-naskh）。除此之外，要么属于同等与权衡的情形，要么可以调和二者。至于废止，关于它的论述将在专门讨论废止的部分展开；关于同等与权衡的论述，则放在证据的同等与权衡这一主题中。至于调和两句相互冲突的圣训，方法是仔细考察每一句，厘清其背景与情境，冲突便会消失，因为生活中的情境彼此各不相同。因此，不能仅仅因为两种情境相似，就把它们等同对待，因为相似可能存在于某一方面，而差异却存在于诸多方面。所以，在立法与政治中必须避免一般化和抽象化。立法是通过阐明判决来调理仆人们的行为，政治则是为民众的利益而照料他们的事务，而这些利益正是行为的根基。它们每一项都与生活及其情境相关，而这些情境多种多样、各不相同、千差万别，却常常表现出彼此相似。因此，人们担心这种差异、区别与多样性未被察觉，从而导致把判决一般化，即对同类的一切事物都颁布同一个判决；也可能导致抽象化，即把每一个行为或事务从与之相关的情境中抽离出来。错误正是在这里发生的，也正因如此，人们会误以为同一行为或事务的两种处理方式之间存在冲突。 看起来这两段圣训似乎相互矛盾，由此便产生了关于先知的某些圣训之间存在冲突的说法。但是，如果避免一概而论，把每一项处理都限定在其产生的具体事件之中，并避免抽象化，即把事件从其背景中孤立出来——也就是把处理办法与其所针对的事件联系起来，把事件与其所处的情境联系起来——那么就会发现两个事件之间存在差异，并且会清楚地看到，由于每一段圣训所处的情境和状况不同，或者由于其中一段与另一段的关联不同，这两段圣训之间并不存在矛盾。它们不应被合在一起，作为某一种处理观点或某一事件观点的依据，也不应彼此割裂。学者或政治家必须把每一个事件与其他事件区分开来，以便准确地看到它们之间的差别，从而得出它们处理办法各不相同的结论，这样才能在处理事件、理解法律或政治问题时，更接近真理与正确的方向。至于立法，法律文本是针对具体事件和情况所作的裁决，因此它们本质上各不相同，由于彼此之间细微的差别，以及在这种差别之中存在的明显相似性，它们自然会显得相互冲突。 因此，学者在对立法文本作出裁决之前，必须仔细审视这些文本，因为它们并非仅仅表达含义的文学性言辞，而是针对事件的应对之方。所以，他必然要将心中所知的文本含义与所感知的事件相互对照，从而确定现实情况，以便理解立法、把握其所要应对的实际情形；然后，他才能分辨文本词义之间的细微差别，并认识到泛化与抽象化的危害。对穆罕默德ﷺ圣训的理解也应当以此为基础，如此，圣训之间的不相矛盾之处便会清晰可见。

The conflict between two of the Messenger's sayings does not occur except in one situation, that is the abrogation (al-naskh), and other than this it would be either a kind of equality and outweighing, or it is possible to conciliate between them. As for the naskh; the talk about it will come in the discussion of it, and the talk about the equality and the outweighing will be in the topic of the equality and the outweighing of the evidences. As for the reconciliation between the two conflicted sayings; it is by scrutinizing each one of them to clarify its circumstances and situations, then the non confliction becomes apparent, that is because the situations in the life differ from each other, so none of its situations should be measured to one another just for the likeness between them, because the likeness may exist in a matter while the difference exist in various matters, therefore the generalization and the abstraction must be avoided in the legislation and the politics, because the legislation is the treatment of the servants actions by clarifying their verdicts, and the politics is taking care of the peoples affairs in their benefits on which their actions are based. And every one of them is related to the life and its circumstances and situations, and they are various, different and disparate, but they often seem to be similar to each other. So there is fear that the disparity, the difference and the variety are not noticed, which leads to generalize the verdict, i.e. issuing one verdict for all those which are of its kind, and may also lead to the abstraction, i.e. by freeing every action or matter from the circumstances and situations related to it, and this is where the mistake happens, and because of that a conflict would be supposed between two treatments of one action or matter, i.e. it seems that the two sayings are in conflict, and from here the supposed conflict between some of the sayings of the Messenger came, but by avoiding the generalization, and by limiting every treatment to the incident that it came for it, and by avoiding the abstraction, i.e. freeing the incident from its circumstances, i.e. by relating the treatment to its incident and relating the incident to its circumstances; it will be noticed that there is a difference between the two incidents, and it will be cleared out that there is no conflict between the two ahaadeeth for the differences in the circumstance and the situation of each one of them, or for the relation of one of them to the other so they are made together as a basis for the treatment viewpoint, or a basis for the incident viewpoint, and none of them is isolated from the other. The scholar or the politician must isolate every incident from the other, so that he can accurately see the difference between them, and he comes to the conclusion that their treatments are different, so he can approach the nearest to the truth and the correct in treating the incidents, and in understanding the legislation or the politics. As for the legislation, the legislative texts are verdicts for the events and the incidents, so they are different from each other by their nature, and they naturally seem to be in conflict, for the little difference between them, and for the definite similarity along with this difference. So the scholar must scrutinize the legislative texts before he issues his decision about them, because they are not literary expressions which denote meanings only, but they are treatments for events, so it is inevitable that he joins their meanings that are in his mind with the events that he senses, so that he pinpoints the reality, in order that he can understand the legislation and perceive the reality he wants to treat, then he perceives the fine differences between the denotations of the texts and the danger of the generalization and the abstraction. The ahaadeeth of the Prophet should be looked at on this basis, and then the non confliction will be perceived.