THE EVIDENCE OF ISNĀDS 167

Mālik (Muw. ii. 54) refers, without isnād, to the instructions on the zakāt tax which 'Umar gave in writing. The same instructions are projected back to the Prophet, with isnāds through 'Umar and through other Companions, in Ibn Ḥanbal and the classical collections (see Zurqānī, ad loc.). The two oldest examples are two traditions in Tr. II, 9 (b): the one Medinese, through Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, with the added remark that 'Umar instructed his agents to the same effect; the other Iraqian, quoted above, p. 73. An earlier form of traditional authority for the identical Iraqian doctrine is represented by a tradition through Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī from Ibn Mas'ūd (Āthār A.Y. 423; Āthār Shaib. 49); the tradition from 'Alī in Tr. II, 9 (b) represents an unsuccessful primitive effort to systematize.¹

Mālik's tradition on the khiyār al-majlis², with the isnād Nāfi'- Ibn 'Umar-Prophet, must be later than the doctrine to the contrary which is common to the Medinese and the Iraqians (Muw. iii. 136; Muw. Shaib. 338). The classical collections (quoted in Zurqāni, iii. 136) have additional isnāds, some of which eliminate Nāfi' and branch off directly from Ibn 'Umar, or even eliminate Ibn 'Umar and go back to the Prophet through another Companion. These are certainly later developments.

The creation of new isnāds and additional authorities in Shāfi'ī's time can be observed in the traditions in favour of the important doctrine that the evidence of one witness and confirmed by the oath of the plaintiff constitutes legal proof. The judgments of Tauba b. Nimr, judge of Egypt A.H. 115-20 (Kindī, 344 ff.), show the gradual growth of this doctrine out of the practice; no traditions are adduced in this connexion. In the middle of the second century, we find that the Medinese and the Meccans hold, and the Iraqians and the Syrians reject it.³

The Iraqians claimed correctly that the doctrine was unknown to Zuhrī, 'Aṭā', the old Medinese authorities, and the first Caliphs (Tr. III, 15; Umm, vii. 10); but this does not of course imply the existence of positive information on their attitude to a problem which did not yet exist in their time. The Medinese and Meccans projected their doctrine back to the old authorities Abū Salama b. 'Abdalrahmān and Sulaimān b. Yasār (Muw. iii. 182), to 'Aṭā' (Umm, vii. 8),⁴ and to the Umaiyad Caliphs 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz