THE IRAQIANS 235

Much more numerous, however, are the cases in which the information about Ibrahim can be positively shown to be spurious, because the opinions attributed to him express secondary stages in the development of the Iraqian doctrines,¹ or because the reasoning ascribed to him presupposes the discussions of a later period,² or because the legal thought with which he is credited is too highly developed for it to be possible in the first century.

The technical legal thought, for instance, which underlies the doctrine attributed to Ibrāhīm in Tr. I, 140, and which is explicitly ascribed to him in the parallel passages in Āthār A.Y. and in Āthār Shaib.,³ is so incisive and abstract that the historical Ibrāhīm cannot possibly be credited with it. It must belong either to Ḥammād himself, who comes in the isnād between Abū Hanifa and Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī, or to his period. Further, Ibrahim's alleged statement on the three degrees of intention in unlawful homicide⁴ is technically so well reasoned that it is not feasible in the time of Ibrahim, and again it must belong either to Ḥammād himself or to the period of Hammad.

The reasoning ascribed to Ibrāhīm by Ḥammād in Tr. II, 10 (r), is directed against, and therefore presupposes, the rhyming legal maxim 'there is no divorce and no manumission under duress'.⁵ Two other legal maxims are attributed to Ibrāhīm by Ḥammād in Tr. IX, 15. One, 'restrict ḥadd punishments as much as possible', is given as a saying of 'Umar reported by Ibrāhīm, and this is one of the later forms in which this maxim appears.⁶ The other maxim declares that 'ḥadd punishment and donatio propter nuptias cannot go together', that is to say that an act of intercourse which creates a civil obligation of the man in favour of the woman is not punishable by ḥadd, and conversely that every act of intercourse either creates