IN THE GROWTH OF TRADITIONS 157

the contrary is proved, consider the opinions of the Successors as the starting-point, and the traditions from the Companions and from the Prophet as secondary developments, intended to provide a higher authority for the doctrine in question. When the opinion of a Successor coincides with a tradition, it would be unwarrantable to conclude, in the absence of an explicit reference or some other positive indication, that he knew and followed it.¹ In other words: we must follow the ancient schools of law in that historically legitimate procedure for which the systematic innovator Shāfi'ī blames them, and 'take our knowledge from the lowest source'.² We have met numerous examples of this backward projection of doctrines in the preceding and in the present chapter, and shall meet others in what follows.

A frequent device for enlisting some higher authority in favour of a doctrine is to make him confirm it after it has been formulated by someone of lower rank. Here are a few examples. Zaid b. Thābit orders Hajjaj b. 'Amr b. Ghāziya to give a decision, and confirms it (Muw. Shaib. 248). 'Alī puts a problem to Shuraiḥ and approves of his decision, using the Greek word καλόν (Tr. II, 10 (o)). The Prophet approves of Mu'ādh's proposed principles of legal reasoning (above, p. 105 f.). An independent witness confirms that the doctrine of Ibn Mas'ūd coincides with the decision of the Prophet (above, p. 29). Ibn Mas'ūd confirms as correct a decision given by others (Muw. iii. 35).³

Traditions are improved in various ways in order to obviate possible objections, as will be seen from the following examples.

Mālik in Muw. ii. 111, and Shāfi'ī in Tr. III, 129, know only a tradition which relates how 'Umar acted when he broke the fast inadvertently. Ibn Wahb in Mud. i. 193 gives the tradition in a modified form which avoids implicating 'Umar himself. Bukhārī (quoted in Zurqānī, ii. 111) gives a tradition, with an isnād through Hishām b. 'Urwa and with the same circumstantial details, to the effect that this mistake happened frequently in the time of the Prophet; but two different opinions are related from Hishām. The problem of inadvertent breaking of the fast was discussed in the generation preceding Mālik, Hishām was quoted as an authority for two differing opinions, and one of these found expression in three successive forms of traditions.