THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS 295

Islamicizing

Muw. Shaib. 249: Abū Ḥanīfa distinguishes between the legal and the moral aspect.

Tr. I, 167: Abū Ḥanīfa applies a religious consideration, as against Ibn Abī Lailā’s recognition of the commercial practice (see above, p. 284 f.).

Tr. I, 246: Abū Ḥanīfa stands alone in introducing a religious scruple into a technically legal problem.

Common‑sense decisions and material considerations

Tr. I, 7: Abū Ḥanīfa diverges from Ibn Abī Lailā, obviously for practical reasons, but is not followed by Abū Yūsuf, Shaibānī (Sarakhsī, xiii. 50), and Shāfiʿī.

Tr. I, 48: A reasonable and defensible opinion (see above, p. 271).

Tr. I, 52: Abū Ḥanīfa shows more common sense and is more practical than Ibn Abī Lailā (see above, p. 272).

Tr. I, 108: A very relevant material consideration, as opposed to Ibn Abī Lailā’s formalism (see above, p. 274).

Tr. I, 134: Abū Ḥanīfa diverges from strict consistency in favour of the mukātab slave, but less so than Ibn Abī Lailā (see above, p. 280).

Tr. I, 178: An istiḥsān, directed against cruelty to animals (see above, p. 112).

Tr. IX, 2: An istiḥsān, based on common sense (see ibid.).

Tr. IX, 19: A practical consideration, but inconclusive.

If we compare these examples with the far greater number of comparable cases which we could collect from a more restricted range of sources for Ibn Abī Lailā,¹ the regression of the material element in Abū Ḥanīfa’s legal reasoning becomes obvious. The following examples show the same with regard to primitive reasoning in Abū Ḥanīfa’s doctrine.

Primitive reasoning

Tr. I, 72: Elementary legal reasoning (see above, p. 272).

Tr. I, 184: Primitive analogical reasoning, leading to a systematic inconsistency.

Tr. I, 187: Abū Ḥanīfa applies an old Arab tribal idea with rigid formalism, although in Tr. I, 189, he is the first to discard another old Arab idea (see above, p. 292).

Tr. I, 190: Here also Abū Ḥanīfa follows the same tribal idea out to its last consequences; compared with his doctrine, Ibn Abī Lailā’s decision is practically expedient but inconsistent.