THE IRAQIANS 237

Companions of the Prophet, partly in the form of anecdotes with circumstantial details, and finally to the Prophet himself.¹

This necessary scepticism of opinions ascribed to Ibrāhīm, as long as they are not positively shown to be genuine, causes me to regard as insufficiently proven a number of statements which attribute to Ibrāhīm raʾy or systematic reasoning in general and which are not in themselves ruled out by other considerations. We have had occasion to refer to two cases of this kind, one of them concerning donatio propter nuptias.² On another question of marriage, Athar Shaib. 61 ascribes to Ibrāhīm a systematic distinction introduced by araʾaita,³ and simple systematic reasoning which is certainly older than Abū Ḥanīfa. On a problem of divorce, Athar Shaib. 78 attributes to Ibrāhīm a rather formal and rigid interpretation of declarations.⁴ Finally, on a question of zakāt tax, the opinion historically attested for Ibn Abī Lailā and also ascribed together with straightforward reasoning to Ibrāhīm, represents the earliest stage of doctrine.⁵

It is safe to conclude that the historical Ibrāhīm gave opinions on questions of ritual (and perhaps on kindred problems of directly religious interest) but not on law proper. This is all that we can expect of a specialist in religious law towards the end of the first century A.H.

F. ḤAMMĀD

The isnād affixed most frequently to the legal doctrines of the ancient school of Kūfa is: Abū Ḥanīfa — Ḥammād — Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī.⁶ This direct evidence confirms the consensus of other sources that Ḥammād b. Abī Sulaymān was the foremost representative of the Kufian Iraqian school in the generation preceding Abū Ḥanīfa.⁷ Wakīʿ b. Jarāḥ, a traditionist of the second century A.H., is reported to have remarked, disparaging the Kufians: 'Were it not for Ḥammād, there would be no jurisprudence in Kūfa';⁸ and in some verses in praise of Abū