The article examines in detail the role of the concept of al-muhalafa in making judgments from religious texts and other legal grounds. In addition, a comparative analysis of the legal and linguistic principles and features of the Hanafi and Mutakallim schools of Islamic law, as well as issues of disagreement between the two movements, will be considered. There is much debate among scholars as to whether Mafhum al-Muqhalafa is accepted as evidence. Even Abdul Aziz Bukhari said: "This issue occupies a large place in the science of jurisprudence," he said. That is, below we answer the question of how much influence the evidence from this principle has on the verdict and whether these sentences are legitimate. The principle of Mafhum al-Mukhalafa is not accepted as evidence in the Hanafi Madhhab, and the ruling resulting from it is invalid. This is because the concept of al-muhalaf is to render a verdict that contradicts the verdict in the text (Amidi), confirming a verdict that is not in the text, that is, according to Abu Hanifa, the verdict in the text and the verdict that does not appear in the text are not equal. However, in schools other than Hanafi schools, this principle fully applies. The authors used the method of comparative analysis of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, which are the basis of Islam, to prove your point Some scholars of the Hanafi Madhhab do not completely refute this principle. It is unacceptable to judge by this principle only by Sharia texts, but in everyday life, in communication with people, the concept of al-muhalaf is accepted as proof. Ibn al-Humam reports that the Hanafis do not recognize the concept of al-muhalyaf as proof only in Sharia texts. Therefore, scientists are divided into two main groups regarding the application of this principle as evidence, and each group has its own strong arguments, which are discussed in detail in the second part of the article.