194 UMAIYAD PRACTICE AS THE STARTING-POINT

Counter-tradition with a family isnād is later than the time of Sulaiman b. Yasār.

The opposite doctrine, rejecting the claim of the wife, did not disappear completely, but was projected back to Ibn 'Abbās and Shuraih;¹ it was also supported by reference to the literal meaning of Koran ii. 237 and xxxiii. 49. It was taken up, together with this argument, by Shāfi'ī who thus reverted unwittingly to the Umaiyad practice.²

Mālik and his followers were not clear whether the presumption which they recognized was rebuttable or conclusive (Mud.). In the Māliki school, their doctrine was whittled down until the difference of principle as against Shāfi'ī disappeared (Zurqānī, iii. 10). But the doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfa and Shaibānī, based on the same principle as that of Mālik, is consistent (Muw. Shaib.).

Foster-relationship as an impediment to marriage was recognized by the pre-Islamic Arabs, and endorsed by Koran iv. 23 with regard to foster-mothers and foster-sisters.³ Popular opinion in Umaiyad times incorporated relationship by marriage into the orbit of foster-relationship, so that the foster-son of the wife of a man was deemed to be the (foster-)brother of the man's daughter by another wife.⁴ Both the Iraqians and the Medinese adopted this popular opinion;⁵ it was ascribed to Zuhri and found expression in traditions from Ibn 'Abbās and, on the authority of 'Ā'isha, from the Prophet.⁶

But this doctrine did not remain unchallenged. Shāfi'ī relates a tradition according to which Hishām b. Ismā'īl, the governor of 'Abdalmalik in Medina, in view of the popular objection to a marriage between persons connected in this way, referred the case to the Caliph who decided that this connexion did not constitute foster-relationship. It would be rash to deduce from this the existence of a government regulation at variance with the popular belief. Opposition to it became vocal.