160 THE CONFLICT OF DOCTRINES AS REFLECTED

as long as they have not separated. This right is not recognized by the ancient schools of law, as is shown by Muw. Shaib. 338 for the Iraqians, by Muw. iii. 136 for the Medinese. But a tradition from the Meccan scholar 'Aṭā' in Umm, iii. 3 contains a detailed statement in its favour; it shows as yet no trace of the legal maxim embodied in the tradition from the Prophet (see what follows), and must therefore be considered genuine. On the other hand, the ascription of a similar doctrine to Shuraiḥ (ibid.) is obviously spurious and an effort to project it back on to an ancient Iraqian authority.

The khiyār al-majlis is enjoined in a tradition expressing a legal maxim: Mālik—Nāfi'—Ibn 'Umar—the Prophet said: 'The two parties to a sale have the right of option as long as they have not separated' (Muw. and Muw. Shaib., loc. cit.; Tr. III, 47). This is certainly later than 'Aṭā' and must have been put into circulation by Nāfi' or someone who used his name.¹ Mālik states that there is no such practice, Rabī' confirms this for the Egyptian Medinese, and Shaibānī, who pays lip-service to the tradition, explains it away by a far-fetched interpretation.² Shāfi'ī's discussion shows that the Medinese used the same explanation, and Shaibānī ascribes it to Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī. This cannot be an authentic opinion of Ibrahim, but is the reaction of the Iraqians to the relatively late tradition, projected back on to their ancient authority. Both arguments, the reference to the different practice and the far-fetched interpretation, were countered by an addition which purports to describe Ibn 'Umar's own practice, added to the text of the tradition from the Prophet, with the isnād Ibn 'Uyaina—Ibn Juraij—Nāfi'—Ibn 'Umar. This presupposes the tradition from the Prophet and is therefore later. It does not appear in Mālik but is quoted by Shāfi'ī (Umm, iii. 3), and seems to have been put into circulation by Ibn 'Uyaina. On the other hand, the tradition from the Prophet was made agreeable to the common Iraqian and Medinese opinion by an addition which appears in the classical collections (see Zurqānī, iii. 138).

Shāfi'ī (Umm, iii. 3) is also the first to quote two further traditions from the Prophet in favour of the khiyar al-majlis; these are later elaborations with exhortations and circumstantial detail added. Their isnāds had been recently composed, and Shāfi'ī's immediate authority is in both cases anonymous. Shāfi'ī claims that the majority of the Hijazis and of the traditionists in all countries are in favour of the khiyār al-majlis. He arrives at his statement on the