Journal of Islamic Studies > Volume 26, No. 3, 2014

Conflicting Generalizations: Fundamentalist Views / Iraak Jabr Shallaal

This research studies the issue of conflicting or opposing generalizations as viewed by fundamentalists. It surveys the definitions of "opposition/conflict" and "generalization". It identifies types of conflicting generalizations, highlights the fundamentalists' approaches to dealing with the identified types, giving practical examples, and examines related contextual evidences. The research aims to explain the fundamentalists' methodology in that regard. It adopts an inductive methodology. The following are among the important findings of the research: the opposition between two rival generalizations can be settled by combining them if possible; if combination is not possible, trajeeh / outweighing can be conducted to decide which one is stronger in terms of advantages; if not, abrogation operations can be applied in case chronological order is known, with due consideration to related required procedures; and if not, it can be settled by resorting to mere choosing either generalization or to dismissing both in pursuit of a potential alternative. The research recommends that the conflicting propositions or generalizations be approached in accordance with the methodological procedures in the research findings.