161

Origins of Muḥammadan jurisprudence

Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

Publisher

Oxford At The Clarendon Press

Publication Year

1950 AH

150 THE GROWTH OF LEGAL TRADITIONS

So far we have discussed the growth of legal traditions from the Prophet only. The following examples will show that traditions from Companions, too, were put into circulation during the whole of the literary period, including the time after Shāfi'ī. This does not contradict our previous conclusion that traditions from Companions precede, generally speaking, traditions from the Prophet,1 but shows that the insistence of Shāfi'ī and the traditionists on the overriding authority of the traditions from the Prophet did not prevail at once. Traditions from Companions are as little genuine as traditions from the Prophet, and must be subjected to the same scrutiny in order to ascertain their place in the development of legal doctrine.2

Traditions from Companions originating:

Between "Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī" and Abū Ḥanīfa:

See above, p. 60, n. 3.

Between "Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī" and Mālik:

See Āthār Shaib. 80, compared with Muw. iii. 41: a tradition from 'Alī.
See also above, p. 142.

Between "Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī" and Shaibānī:

See above, p. 105.

Between Zuhrī and Mālik:

See above, p. 102.

Between Auzā'ī and Shāfi'ī:

See Tr. IX, 15: a tradition from 'Umar.

Between Mālik and Ibn Wahb:

Muw. i. 247: Mālik reasons in favour of the Medinese 'practice', as against a tradition from Nāfi'—Ibn 'Umar. Shaibānī (Muw. Shaib. 133) makes a pointed remark against the Medinese doctrine. This and Shāfi'ī's polemics against it (Tr. III, 27) make it certain that there existed no foundation for it in the form of traditions. But Ibn Wahb (Mud. i. 88) gives a tradition through Mālik from Nāfi'—Ibn 'Umar, in favour of that doctrine. This and similar mentions of Mālik in the isnāds of Ibn Wahb are obviously not authentic.3

1 See above, pp. 39, 33, &c.
2 See below, p. 169 f.
3 For a parallel case in Shāfi'ī, see below, p. 151.

150