156 THE CONFLICT OF DOCTRINES AS REFLECTED

borrowed by the traditionists in their polemics against reasoning in law.¹

The circumstantial details in many traditions, which are meant to provide an authentic touch, often reveal their fictitious character and must not be taken as an indication of authenticity.

An Iraqian tradition from 'Umar in Muw. ii. 296 and Tr. III, 88, contains a Persian expression and is disconcertingly vague in its accumulation of pretended details. A Medinese tradition from the Prophet in Muw. iv. 13 and Ris. 21 is transmitted by Zuhrī; Zuhrī expresses his uncertainty on a minor point of wording, and adds the explanation of a word; whilst the pretended scrupulousness regarding a minor point is meant to show that the transmission was correct, the explanation indicates that the text was novel in the generation preceding Mālik.²

The circumstantial details of one tradition are often repeated in its successors; traditions are modelled on one another, whether they be counter-traditions or not.

The same story, in different settings, is ascribed to Ibn Mas'ud (Āthār A. Y. 644; Āthār Shaib. 76) and to 'Umar (Muw. iii. 74); both versions represent a later development of doctrine, common to the Iraqians and the Medinese.

Another story is related with a Medinese isnād from 'Abdalraḥmān b. 'Auf (Muw. iii. 99; Muw. Shaib. 343), and with an Iraqian isnād from 'Alī (Āthār Shaib. 69); closely modelled on the Iraqian version and with the mention of Basra in the text, but with a Medinese isnād, is a third version which relates the same from 'Uthmān (Muw. and Muw. Shaib., loc. cit.).³

In the course of polemical discussion, doctrines are frequently projected back to higher authorities: traditions from Successors become traditions from Companions, and traditions from Companions become traditions from the Prophet.⁴ Whenever we find, as frequently happens, alleged opinions of Successors, alleged decisions of the Companions, and alleged traditions from the Prophet side by side, we must, as a rule and until