THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS 297

equal amount, because his [first] statement destroyed [what he later acknowledged to have received in deposit from the other]. The same applies to the first problem: it was the depositary who destroyed the deposit through his ignorance. We [Abū Yūsuf] follow this. Ibn Abī Lailā used to decide in the first case that the depositary is not responsible for anything and that the deposit . . . belongs to both claimants in equal shares.¹

Tr. I, 77: The reasoning of Abū Ḥanīfa is more penetrating than that of Ibn Abī Lailā (above, p. 273).

Tr. I, 81: Abū Ḥanīfa introduces a sound distinction, maintained by Shāfiʿī.

Tr. I, 103: Abū Ḥanīfa, by systematic reasoning, subsumes a special case under a general decision; this, it is true, leads him into a different systematic inconsistency, as Shāfiʿī points out; Sarakhsī (xvi. 129 f.), however, gives a satisfactory and probably authentic answer to this objection and, everything considered, Abū Ḥanīfa’s doctrine is more consistent than that of Shāfiʿī; it is followed by Shaibānī, but not by Abū Yūsuf and Zufar (Sarakhsī, loc. cit.).

Tr. I, 117: Abū Ḥanīfa introduces a relevant distinction.

Tr. I, 120: Abū Ḥanīfa’s argument, short and to the point, shows a considerable advance on Ibn Abī Lailā.

Tr. I, 123: Abū Ḥanīfa introduces technical legal reasoning, articulate and consistent in itself, but incompatible with broader systematic consistency, as Shāfiʿī points out.

Tr. I, 126: Abū Ḥanīfa is more methodical than Ibn Abī Lailā (above, p. 274).

Tr. I, 139: Abū Ḥanīfa is more logical and consistent than Ibn Abī Lailā (above, p. 112).

Tr. I, 140: Abū Ḥanīfa shows a high degree of technical reasoning, is sharp‑sighted and systematic, and anticipates Shāfiʿī’s doctrine; the essential argument was, it is true, attributed to Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī, but this can hardly be authentic.¹

Tr. I, 141 f.: A sound decision, based on extensive systematic reasoning, much better than that of Ibn Abī Lailā (above, p. 274).

Tr. I, 188: Abū Ḥanīfa is more concerned than Ibn Abī Lailā with the legally relevant features of a problem.

Tr. I, 196: Abū Ḥanīfa applies shrewd technical reasoning. An early Iraqian qiyās demanded a two‑fold confession of the culprit for the ḥadd punishment for theft to be applicable.² Some Iraqians, however, held that a single confession only was required, and Abū Ḥanīfa argued in favour of this opinion which he shared, that if a two‑fold confession were necessary for the ḥadd to be applied, a