What is the evidence for the establishment of the concept of contrariety? What is the stronger position, its establishment or its negation? And what are the conditions for its application?

The Shaykh : The questioner asks here: What is the evidence for the establishment of the concept of contrariety? What is the stronger position, its establishment or its negation? And what are the conditions for its application?
This is, in reality, one of the principles of jurisprudence issues in which the Hanafis disagreed with the majority of scholars. The majority held that the default ruling regarding the concept is that it is to be used as evidence. I say: the default ruling; because every rule has exceptions, and that does not remove it from its default status. So, the default ruling regarding the concept of contrariety is that it is to be used as evidence according to the majority, contrary to the Hanafis. We see that the stronger position is that of the majority, not because we are majoritarians, but because we follow the stronger of the opinions, whether it is with the majority or with the minority. However, the reality here is that the correct view is with the majority who say that the concept of contrariety is to be used as evidence, due to the validity of the evidence for that from the authentic Sunnah.
Imam Muslim narrated in his Sahih, from the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), that he asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): , This is a condition. Its concept is that if you do not fear the polytheists, then do not shorten, and you are sinful. If you fear, then there is no sin on you. Its concept is that you are sinful if you shorten and do not fear the polytheists.
So when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) found that Allah had helped them against their enemy and had established their Islam in their land, and there remained no fear for their lives from their enemies; what was their action before that, and they were specifically in the Meccan period? They became at ease after Allah (Mighty and Majestic) had established Islam in the Blessed City of Madinah and elsewhere. This question came to 'Umar, and he said: O Messenger of Allah, why do we shorten when we are safe? Our Lord says: , we are not afraid now; so why do we continue to shorten? He (peace and blessings be upon him) answered this question, which was based on relying on the concept of contrariety, "Why do we shorten when we are safe?" He (peace be upon him) said: .
The point of this hadith is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, as is well known, is one of the great Companions, and one of the pure Arabs. So we see that he relied on the concept of contrariety, and if he had not, he would not have directed that question. I say, by way of clarification and directing advice: If 'Umar ibn al-Khattab had been of the Hanafi school in this issue, he would not have directed this question to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); because they say: The concepts of books and texts are considered, but the concepts of the Book and the Sunnah are not considered. If 'Umar ibn al-Khattab had held this opinion, he would not have directed such a question. And if he had asked and erred, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have objected to him and said to him, as he said in other places to him or to others, "You erred," because he asked based on the concept of contrariety, and the concept of contrariety is not evidence. But none of that happened at all. 'Umar, based on his pure Arabness, directed this question to himself, and he presented it before his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to remove the difficulty from him. He said: Why do we shorten when we are safe? He (peace and blessings be upon him) answered the question first, and affirmed it second, as we mentioned earlier. If the question had been wrong, he would have rejected it. Since the Messenger (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) affirmed 'Umar ibn al-Khattab on such a question, this question was based on relying on the concept of contrariety. In this question, and its affirmation, and the answer to it, there is proof and support for the majority who say: The concept of contrariety is evidence. This is the default ruling.
I do not want to enter now into what the hadith indicated, and whether the shortening of prayer in travel is a dispensation as the Shafi'is say, or the default ruling as the Hanafis say? We are here with the Hanafis; the shortening in travel is the default ruling, and the one who does not shorten in travel is a sinner. I do not want to enter into this, but I wanted to give you an example that we are not people of desires, and we are not people of sectarian fanaticism. I am a Hanafi, a Hanafi by a hundred percent. That one is a Shafi'i, so he is a Shafi'i; no, we are followers of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), so what is authentic from him we follow, whether it is Hanafi... the Hanafis, or Maliki, or Shafi'i, or Hanbali, in the manner that Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) established for us when he indicated, among other things, his excellence and knowledge by saying to Imam al-Sunnah, Imam Ahmad: "O Ahmad, you know more about hadith than I do, so if a hadith is authentic with you, tell me about it, whether it is Hijazi, or Shami, or Egyptian, or Basri," or something like that. This is the detachment and the excess in following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) without any fanaticism for any of the imams of the Muslims, for they are all our imams, and every one of them must benefit from the knowledge that Allah has distinguished him with. Sectarian fanaticism forbids the fanatics to benefit from the other imams, and it is not hidden from every observer what is in that, first of all, of... with knowledge, and what is in that of moving away from following the texts of the Book and the Sunnah which command us to follow them wherever they are.
I say: This hadith was a valid and explicit evidence that the stronger school regarding the concept of contrariety is that it is to be used as evidence. Those who go against what this hadith indicated have, of course, their argument, and I do not want to say to them: their doubt; because the scholars who differ on the same issue with several opinions must each have their evidence in their own view. But after scientific research detached from fanaticism and inclination for this or that, it becomes clear that the valid evidence is with one person, and the other evidences are not among the evidences that stand in any way. But as for the jurist, he must have evidence; so what is the evidence of the Hanafis who go to the view that the texts of contrariety are not evidence?
They have evidences, but these evidences do not match the previous evidence, but... because we said: The default ruling in this rule is that it is to be taken, and every rule has exceptions, as we said earlier, so they took the exceptions; for example:
Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: , its concept: that the one who calls upon another god besides Allah has a proof against him, so that punishment mentioned in the entirety of the verse is not upon him; we say: The default ruling in relying on the concept is unless there is evidence for not relying on the concept. And like this is His prohibition (Blessed and Exalted is He) in His saying: , its concept: that if it is not multiplied folds, then there is no harm in eating it.
These concepts were not taken by a scholar of the Muslim scholars, and that is the truth, but this does not invalidate what the previous hadith indicated, but rather it indicates that what the previous hadith indicated does not indicate that taking the concept is a consistent rule always and forever from which nothing deviates; no, but the hadith indicates that the Arabs understand from the concept of contrariety what was intended by it, but sometimes evidence may stand for not taking it, and this has many examples in the principles of jurisprudence, for example:
Is the general text evidence for all its particulars and parts or not? The answer: Yes, the general text is evidence that includes all its parts, but is this always and forever? The answer: No, a text may come to specify this general text, and it becomes a general text with a specification, and the examples of this are also many, and I do not want to lengthen them.
And it is sufficient for us now that you remember this hadith, which some fair-minded scholars among the later followers of the Hanafi school could not do but explicitly state is evidence for those who argue by the implication of the opposite (mafhum al-mukhalafah). I mean the noble man Abu al-Hasan al-Sindi, the author of the marginal notes (hashiyah) on the six famous books, and in particular his notes on Sahih al-Bukhari, his notes on Sahih Muslim, his notes on Sunan al-Nasa'i, and his notes on Sunan Ibn Majah. This man explicitly stated in his notes on Sahih Muslim that this hadith is evidence for the position of the majority (jumhur) in arguing by the implication of the opposite. And you know that it is evidence, except when there is something that contradicts it.
And perhaps the last part of the question is: What are the conditions for its application?
You have already known the answer, which is that there must be no contradiction to this implication from the explicit text (manut). If the explicit text and the implication contradict each other, the evidence of the explicit text is prioritized over the evidence of the implication, because it is more explicit in its indication. For example: , its implication is: there is no harm in eating it if it is less than that. But if we look at something like His saying, the Exalted: ; so this verse indicates that Allah permitted only the principal to the usurer, and did not permit him anything above that, not even one dirham. And the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) confirmed that in many hadiths, including his threat (peace be upon him) that whoever eats usury, even one dirham, is more severe than thirty-six acts of zina or a similar number, as was reported in it.
So these are texts that explicitly speak to the prohibition of usury, whether little or much. So that implication is not evidence. That is the condition for applying the rule of the implication of the opposite, and that it is evidence.