OF MUHAMMADAN JURISPRUDENCE 209

a punishment for theft.¹ The tradition from Ibn 'Umar, which advocates the opposite doctrine, cannot therefore be the basis of the Medinese doctrine.

Banishment as part of the punishment for fornication is known to the ancient Iraqians as a current practice,² but rejected by them as likely to lead to further temptation.³ This opinion was ascribed to Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī and projected back to ʿAlī, and the opinion in favour of banishment was put under the authority of Ibn Masʿūd; all this is reported with the isnād Ḥammād—Ibrāhīm.⁴ The Iraqian opposition put into circulation counter-traditions from ʿAlī advocating banishment. Although this opinion did not prevail in Iraq, it prevailed in Medina where it found expression in traditions, among others, from Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, ʿUmar b. ʿAbdalʿazīz, and the Prophet himself.⁵ For Shāfiʿī, the administrative practice had become the sunna of the Prophet.

It was the practice under the Umaiyads not to apply ḥadd punishments in the army in enemy country, for fear of desertion.⁶ The information on Auzā'ī is contradictory on details; it shows, however, that he endorsed the practice whilst idealizing it. In Iraq, Abū Ḥanīfa introduced a systematic theory of the applicability of religious punishments and their territorial limits;⁷ it has its basis in the old practice but goes farther in restricting ḥadd punishments. Abū Yūsuf and Shaibānī relate traditions from Companions, and finally from the Prophet, in favour of the practice; their isnāds are significantly Syrian and Iraqian.⁸ The Medinese did not recognize the practice, but Mālik made at least the concession that the commander might postpone the ḥadd punishment if he was otherwise engaged in enemy country.

Auzā'ī considers it natural that ḥadd punishments in the