<![CDATA[This article examines the influence of ʿilal al-ḥadīth on the formation of juristic disagreement regarding hadiths on women’s consent in marriage. Previous studies have generally separated ʿilal al-ḥadīth studies from juristic discussions concerning the guardian’s right of ijbār, leaving the methodological relationship between the two insufficiently explored. This study aims to explain how the assessment of ʿillah khafiyyah (hidden defects) within the sanad affects hadith acceptance and contributes to differing legal constructions among the madhhabs. The research employs a qualitative library-based method through takhrīj, sanad criticism, and comparative matn analysis. The findings show that the hadiths on women’s consent in marriage exist in both muttasil and mursal forms of transmission. The strongest narration, however, is the mursal report transmitted by Ḥammād bin Zayd from Ayyūb. Differences among jurists regarding the authority of mursal hadith subsequently produced divergent legal rulings on the guardian’s right of ijbār. The Syāfiʿī school rejects mursal hadith as an independent legal proof and therefore maintains ijbār over virgin women, whereas the Ḥanafī school accepts it when supported by shawāhid and consequently rejects ijbār for adult women. Meanwhile, the Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools demonstrate different patterns of acceptance through taʾwīl and corroborative narrations. This study demonstrates that ʿillah khafiyyah functions not only within hadith criticism but also directly influences the formation of juristic disagreement. Keywords : ʿilal al-ḥadīth, juristic disagreement, ijbār, marriage guardianship, women’s consent.]]>
