IN THE LITERARY PERIOD 151

Muw. i. 263: Mālik opposes his own opinion (ra'y) to a tradition from the Prophet, and quotes a tradition from Ibn 'Umar in support. But Ibn Wahb gives (a) a tradition with a formal isnād to the effect that 'the sunna corresponds to what they do in Medina; Abū Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman did it, and they still do it in Medina'; (b) a statement without isnād to the effect that Ibn 'Umar, Ibn Musaiyib, Qasim, Salim, 'Urwa, 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz, Yaḥyā b. Sa'īd, Rabī'a, and Abul-Aswad did the same (Mud. i. 115).

See Muw. ii. 51 (and Tr. III, 105), compared with Mud. ii. 41: a tradition (through Rabī'a) from 'Umar.

See Tr. III, 72, compared with Mud. xv. 141: traditions from 'Umar (through Zuhrī) and from 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz.

The same can be shown for numerous other traditions adduced by Ibn Wahb in Mud.

Between Malik and Shāfi'ī:

See Muw. iv. 39, compared with Tr. III, 148 (p. 249): a tradition from 'Umar and 'Uthman. The roundabout isnāds from Shāfi'ī to Mālik are spurious, and Shāfi'ī's reference to 'a reliable man' is worthless.¹

Between Abū Yūsuf and Shaibānī:

See Tr. IX, 18, compared with Siyar, iii. 107 (together with Mud. iii. 13): a tradition from 'Umar.

Between Shaibānī and Tahāwī:

See Muw. Shaib. 193 ff. (together with Tr. III, 39), compared with Țahawi, i. 374 ff: traditions from 'Umar.

See Muw. Shaib. 266, compared with Ṭaḥāwī, ii. 149: a tradition from Ibn 'Umar.

Traditions from Successors, containing their alleged opinions, underwent the same process of growth during the literary period, and there are many cases of spurious information concerning them in our earliest literary sources.² The 'living tradition' of the school of law in question enables us to recognize doctrines for which the authority of its ancient representatives was claimed illegitimately, by their irregular character, with due regard to the possibility of individual divergences and the development of doctrine within the school.