AND CROSS - INFLUENCES 221

The tradition, and appears as part of the words of the Prophet in the texts given by Mālik and Shāfi'ī. The Iraqian doctrine, therefore, in the form of a tradition from the Prophet, penetrated into Medina but did not succeed in changing the opinion of the Medinese school. The resistance of this school to the Iraqian doctrine is attested by Mālik, and the conflict of both opinions produced counter-traditions which were collected by Ṭaḥāwī.¹ Shāfi'ī states that all cities excepting Medina shared the doctrine of the Iraqians; this, together with the near-success of this opinion in Medina itself, shows the wide diffusion of early Iraqian legal thought.

Another example occurs in the question of damages due for wounds inflicted on a slave.² The original Medinese opinion was that his loss in value was to be made good; this was projected back to Marwān b. Ḥakam and other authorities. The ancient Iraqian doctrine represented a systematic refinement: the value of the slave was regarded as his weregeld, and the same fraction of his value was due as would have been due of the weregeld had the wound been inflicted on a free man; this was projected back to Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī. The Iraqian doctrine gained a partial foothold in Medina for practical reasons; this is shown by the obviously authentic passage of Mālik's older contemporary 'Abdal'azīz b. Abī Salama, known as Mājashūn, quoted in the Mudauwana:

'If a slave is wounded, his value before and after the wounding is assessed, and the person responsible has to make good the difference. We know nothing more just than this, because if a slave loses his hand or foot, his value decreases by more than a half,³ and he becomes almost valueless; but if he loses his ear his value decreases by less than a half if he is a weaver or another kind of artisan who commands a high price. If the damage is assessed in this way, neither the owner nor the culprit is treated too harshly; if the damage is little, little has to be paid, and if much, much—always excepting the special kinds of wounds known as mūḍiḥa, munaqqila, ma'mūma, and jā'ifa which must be assessed at something. If one considers the value here, the damage is non-existent because they cause no disability or fault or decrease in value worth speaking of; but they take place in the head and the brain, and death may result from a penetrating bone [as a consequence of these wounds]; therefore it is the doctrine (ra'y) to fix the damages at the fraction of the value of the slave in proportion to the weregeld of a free man.'