OF MUHAMMADAN JURISPRUDENCE 213

iv. 11. This opinion was projected back to the old Iraqian authorities 'Alī and Ibn Mas'ūd, and was held by Ibn Abī Lailā. But the majority of Iraqians in the time of Shaibānī held the same opinion as the Medinese.

D. THE ATTITUDE OF THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW

TO UMAIYAD PRACTICE

The evidence collected in this chapter makes it necessary to discard the opinion, often expressed as part of a priori ideas on the origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence, that the Medinese were stricter, more deeply inspired by the religious spirit of Islam, and more uncompromisingly opposed to the worldly Umaiyads than the Iraqians. There was no essential difference between the Medinese and the Iraqians, or the Syrians, in their general attitude both to Umaiyad popular practice and to Umaiyad administrative regulations, and their several reactions to each particular problem were purely fortuitous, whether they endorsed, modified, or rejected the practice which they found. We sometimes find the Iraqians stricter and more critical of Umaiyad practice than the Medinese, and the Medinese more dependent on the practice than the Iraqians.¹ The consistent reference to traditions from the Prophet as the decisive criterion was introduced only by Shāfi'ī, following the activity of the traditionists, and Shāfi'ī was bound by the fortuitous result of the growth of traditions up to his time.

The common attitude of the ancient schools of law to Umaiyad practice is anterior to the historical fiction of early 'Abbāsid times which made the Umaiyads convenient scapegoats. The following chapter will show that apart from this common attitude there existed at the earliest stage of Muhammadan jurisprudence a considerable body of common doctrine which was subsequently reduced by the increasing differences between the schools.