IN THE GROWTH OF TRADITIONS 161

Hijazis by judging from the isnāds of the traditions, and more of this kind of spurious information on the ancient Medinese authorities is collected by Ibn 'Abdalbarr.¹ But Shāfi'ī's reference to the traditionists is correct.

We conclude that the idea of the khiyār al-majlis started from Mecca, was taken up by the traditionists and finally acknowledged, on the strength of the traditions from the Prophet, by Shāfi'ī. It did not exist in the common doctrine of the Iraqians and Medinese, and may well have been based on some local custom in Mecca.

Walā', the relationship of patron and client, is created by law between the manumitter and his manumitted slave; it is important for purposes of inheritance, ius talionis, weregeld and giving in marriage of women. A similar relationship is presumed between persons who have no Muslim next of kin and the state as representing the community of Muslims. History shows that conversion to Islam of non-Arabs during the Umaiyad period necessitated the creation of walā' between the convert and a Muslim member of one of the Arab tribes, usually the individual before whom he adopted Islam. This procedure is called muwālāt, and it was particularly frequent in the recently conquered countries. The Iraqians recognize the legal effects of muwālāt,² and Abū Ḥanifa quotes traditions in which this doctrine is projected back to the Prophet, 'Umar and Ibn Mas'ūd. But in the time of Abū Ḥanifa, muwālāt had already fallen into desuetude, and his contemporary Ibn Abī Lailā, who was a judge, did not recognize its legal effects (Tr. I, 128).³ Neither did the Medinese (Mud. viii. 73), and this doctrine was projected back on the Iraqian side to Sha'bī, and on the Medinese to 'Umar and 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz, whose name is intended to lend it an Umaiyad flavour. The Medinese have in fact preserved no trace of the state of affairs under the Umaiyads. Shāfi'ī did not regard the tradition from the Prophet as reliable (Umm, vi. 186 f.), and therefore rejected muwālāt.

With the foundling, the problem arises whether his walā' belongs to the person who finds him, or to the state. Mālik states the consensus of the Medinese in favour of the second doctrine (Tr. III, 71). This has the corollary that the expenses of his maintenance are a charge on the treasury, and this is projected back to 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz (Mud. vii. 76). There exists, however, a tradition (Muw. iii. 196) according to which the Caliph 'Umar assigned the walā' of a foundling to the person who had picked him up but, illogically,