305

Origins of Muḥammadan jurisprudence

Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

Publisher

Oxford At The Clarendon Press

Publication Year

1950 AH

294 THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS

Abī Lailā applied the principle that a condition which cannot be ascertained is to be treated as non-existent.

The degree of systematizing achieved by Ibn Abī Lailā can be estimated by the fact that cases of remarkable systematic consistency definitely outweigh those where the inconsistency is obvious.1

B. ABŪ HANIFA

The examples with which I illustrated the development of legal reasoning in general2 show the superiority of Abū Ḥanīfa's technical legal thought over that of Ibn Abī Lailā. With respect to Ibn Abī Lailā and the Iraqian legal reasoning which Ibn Abī Lailā represents, Abū Ḥanīfa seems to have played the role of a theoretical systematizer who achieved a considerable progress in technical legal thought. Not being a judge, Abū Ḥanīfa was less restricted than Ibn Abī Lailā by considerations of practice. At the same time, he was less firmly guided by the administration of justice, and whereas Ibn Abī Lailā's doctrine is often primitive but practical, Abū Ḥanīfa's, though more highly developed, is often tentative and unsatisfactory.

In Abū Ḥanīfa's doctrine, systematic consistency has become normal. The emphasis shifts from the material aspects of legal reasoning, such as regard for the practice, Islamicizing, common-sense decisions and other material considerations which were still prevalent in Ibn Abī Lailā's doctrine, to the technical and formal qualities of legal thought. Traces of primitive reasoning and systematic inconsistencies remain but they are relatively few in number. On the other hand, there is so much explicit legal thought embodied in Abū Ḥanīfa's doctrine, that we cannot be surprised to find that an appreciable part of it was found defective and was rejected by his companions.

Regard for the practice

Kharāj, 36: Abū Ḥanīfa makes out a good case for the administrative practice (see above, p. 202).

Tr. I, 27: Abū Ḥanīfa's doctrine is more appropriate than that of Ibn Abī Lailā for somewhat more highly developed conditions of commerce (see above, p. 271).

1 See also E.I.2, s.v. Ibn Abī Laylā. 2 Above, pp. 270 ff.

294