146 THE GROWTH OF LEGAL TRADITIONS

to quote them as a necessary part of his argument in Tr. VIII, I, had he known them; they must therefore be later.¹

Traditions originating between Shāfi'ī and Ibn Ḥanbal

Tr. III, 31: Compared with Muw. ii. 9 and Shāfi'ī's text, the traditions known to Ibn Ḥanbal are more numerous, and still more are known to Ibn 'Abdalbarr (see Zurqānī, ii. 9).

§ 143: Neither Shāfi'ī nor the Medinese (see also Muw. iii. 124, 126) know a tradition from the Prophet, forbidding the sale of animals with anticipated payment and deferred delivery; it occurs in Ibn Ḥanbal and the classical collections (see Zurqānī, iii. 126). Shaibānī (Muw. Shaib. 344) knows this only as a tradition from 'Ali, and adds that he heard that the Prophet prohibited it; also Abū Yūsuf (Tr. IX, 5) refers to the prohibition given by the Prophet, but without an isnād.

Ikh. 59: Shāfi'ī gives as his own opinion a harmonizing interpretation of traditions, and so does Shaibānī for himself and for Abū Hanifa in Muw. Shaib. 47; the same doctrine is expressed in traditions from the Prophet in Ibn Ḥanbal and later collections (see Comm. Muw. Shaib. 47).

Ibid. 149: Neither Shāfi'ī nor Mālik (Muw. iv. 204) nor Shaibānī (Muw. Shaib. 280) know the traditions according to which the Prophet prohibited eating lizards because they might be a lost tribe changed into animals; they occur in Ibn Ḥanbal, the classical collections and others (see Comm. Muw. Shaib. 280; also Tahawi, ii. 314). This kind of tradition, beloved by Ibn Qutaiba, seems to become prominent early in the third century A.H. (see also the following remark).

Ibid. 162: The tradition declaring that a black dog is a devil is still unknown to Shāfi'ī, as well as to Mālik (Muw. i. 277) and to Shaibani (Muw. Shaib. 148). But Ibn Ḥanbal knows it (see Zurqānī, i. 277), and so does Jāḥiẓ (Ḥayawān, i. 141 ff.).

Ibid. 310: Shāfi'ī knows no explicit tradition from the Prophet, to the effect that the triple divorce, pronounced in one session, counts as a single divorce, apart from the implication of a tradition from Ibn 'Abbās which he is at pains to explain away.² Neither does Mālik (Muw. iii. 36). But Ibn Ḥanbal (see Zurqānī, iii. 36) has a tradition through Ibn 'Abbās from the Prophet, who declares that the triple divorce, pronounced in one session, counts as a single divorce and is revocable. Shāfi'ī also states explicitly (p. 315) that