274 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL REASONING

§§ 95, 228: In the case of divergencies in the evidence of two witnesses, Ibn Abī Lailā gives a seemingly practical and common‑sense solution; Abū Ḥanīfa’s decision is rigidly formal and in one detail even hair‑splitting; Abū Yūsuf reverts to Ibn Abī Lailā; Shāfiʿī introduces a new consideration and develops a method which does justice to both points of view.

§ 96: In admitting the evidence of witnesses on the testimony of other witnesses, Ibn Abī Lailā gives a lenient and seemingly common‑sense decision;¹ Abū Ḥanīfa is strict and consistent; Shāfiʿī goes one step farther and exaggerates the demand for strictness; Rabīʿ supplies the far‑fetched argument for this doctrine.

§ 106: Ibn Abī Lailā, being a judge, endorses a severe and inconsistent decision, obviously on grounds of public policy;² Abū Ḥanīfa and Abū Yūsuf apply the general rules consistently; Shāfiʿī introduces an important distinction.

§ 108: Ibn Abī Lailā gives a seemingly obvious and formally consistent decision; Abū Ḥanīfa disagrees, on account of an important material consideration; Shāfiʿī makes a distinction, gives a straightforward and convincing argument, and proposes a well‑balanced solution which does justice to both considerations.

§ 126: Ibn Abī Lailā gives a practicable interim solution; Abū Ḥanīfa, strictly systematic, does not acknowledge it; Abū Yūsuf reverts to Ibn Abī Lailā, and Shaibānī, according to Sarakhsī, xvii. 47, returns to Abū Ḥanīfa; Shāfiʿī agrees with Abū Ḥanīfa in the essentials, but shows himself still more systematic on the basis of a distinction which he introduces.

§ 141 f.: Ibn Abī Lailā pursues to its farthest consequences a formal principle which embodies crude and primitive reasoning; Abū Ḥanīfa, followed by Abū Yūsuf, gives a sound juridical decision, based on wider systematic thought; Shāfiʿī cannot but agree with Abū Ḥanīfa on principle, but on account of his different premises he arrives in one case at the same material decision as Ibn Abī Lailā, though on different grounds.

§ 150: Ibn Abī Lailā gave a seemingly just and practicable decision, obviously inspired by material considerations; Abū Ḥanīfa’s decision was more strictly formal, but not quite consistent; Abū Yūsuf followed first the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfa; later, perhaps under the necessities of the administration of justice, he came nearer to the doctrine of Ibn Abī Lailā, but remained very inconsistent; only Shāfiʿī’s doctrine became fully consistent, on the basis of excellent systematic reasoning.