236 THE IRAQIANS

the civil liability to a donatio propter nuptias or the liability to ḥadd punishment.¹ This last principle, however, was not acted upon in all its implications in the early stage of the Iraqian doctrine as expressed in a tradition from Ibn Masʿūd and his Companion ʿAlqama; it was only on the point of gaining general recognition in the generation of Abū Ḥanīfa. Ibn Abī Lailā did not yet apply it consistently, and we can observe its gradual emergence in traditions from ʿUmar.² All this information given by Ḥammād on Ibrāhīm is certainly spurious.

Barely a century after the death of the historical Ibrāhīm, we find numerous cases of conflicting statements regarding his alleged doctrines.³ At least one of the two contradictory versions must be spurious in each case. Even where there is no obvious contradiction, we are sometimes able to conclude that one of two versions—both of which claim to go back to Ibrāhīm—is not authentic.⁴ But nothing guarantees that the other statements which have passed the first scrutiny are genuine.

On the contrary, until their authenticity is proved, we must regard the alleged opinions and traditions of Ibrāhīm as being fully as fictitious as those of his contemporaries.⁵ The main transmitter from Ibrāhīm, and the only link between Ibrāhīm and Abū Ḥanīfa—with whom we enter the literary period—is Ḥammād, whom we shall discuss in the following section. Ḥammād, or someone using his name, is therefore mainly responsible for attributing later Iraqian opinions and traditions to Ibrāhīm. Occasionally, we can observe this process directly; for instance, what was originally an opinion of Ḥammād was projected back through Ḥammād to Ibrāhīm, and through Ibrāhīm to Masrūq, one of the Companions of Ibn Masʿūd, and to Ibn Masʿūd himself, then with other isnāds to other