OF MUHAMMADAN JURISPRUDENCE 205

The Medinese, under the influence of the recent traditions, decided for unrestricted warfare,¹ and so did the main group of Iraqians, represented by Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and Shaibānī.² Some other Iraqians, however, shared the doctrine of the Syrians, and Sufyān Thawrī declared that were it not for the Abū Bakr tradition, he would have no objection to the cutting down of trees.³

The Umaiyad government controlled the distribution of booty, allotting to the rider two shares for his mount, in addition to his personal share.⁴ This was done on the basis of the records in the pay-roll (dīwān); if a person was entered in it as a foot-soldier, he did not receive the share of a rider, even if he had acquired a horse in the meantime.⁵ The Iraqians accepted this administrative practice, all the more easily as the institution of the dīwān was ascribed to ʿUmar. Auzā'ī, however, pointed out that the dīwān did not exist in the time of the Prophet and opposed to it the fictitious usage of the Prophet and of the Caliphs; for Shāfiʿī this became sunna. Both parties reacted in the same way to the practice of dividing the booty not on the spot but after the return of the army to Islamic territory.⁶ In this case, Auzā'ī positively alleged a change from the (fictitious) old to the (real) recent practice in A.H. 126, but this change is spurious.⁷ Mālik, too, referred to the fictitious practice at the beginning of Islam.⁸

The right of the killer to the spoils was recognized, but some of the ancient schools felt scruples about it.⁹

Penal Law

Byzantine and Syriac historians relate that 'Umar b. 'Abdal'azīz in A.H. 100 (A.D. 717/718) fixed the weregeld for a Christian at half of that for a Muslim.¹⁰ This does not mean that the full weregeld was paid before, which would be un-