<![CDATA[Contemporary hadith studies have increasingly emphasized textual criticism, particularly when reports deemed authentic in transmission raise questions at the content level. Although the role of reason is recognized in hadith criticism, existing scholarship has yet to develop a systematic framework that explains how rational considerations apply to matn evaluation. Furthermore, limited attention to distinguishing between muḥālāt al-ʿuqūl (rational impossibilities) and muḥārāt al-ʿuqūl (matters perplexing to reason) creates methodological ambiguity. Therefore, this study aims to examine the concept of al-ʿaql al-ṣarīḥ (sound rationality) and formulate an operational framework for evaluating hadith texts. Employing a qualitative design, this study utilizes textual and comparative analysis of classical and contemporary sources, focusing on the epistemological relationship between revelation and reason. The findings reveal that the proposed framework consists of three principal stages: identifying apparent contradictions, verifying interpretations, and classifying textual issues into muḥālātand muḥārāt al-ʿuqūl. These stages are operationalized through indicators such as general rational judgment, human experience, conformity with sharīʿah principles, and a balance between rational consideration and revelatory authority. Applying this framework to selected hadith reports demonstrates its effectiveness in distinguishing genuine contradictions from limitations in human understanding. This study contributes to hadith textual criticism by providing a systematic, operational model that maintains the epistemological primacy of revelation within contemporary scholarship.]]>
