THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS 301

This brings him to a systematic inconsistency which is pointed out by Shāfiʿī. In § 170, Abū Ḥanīfa applies meticulously logical reasoning which is abandoned by Abū Yūsuf. The rigid formalism of § 177 seems to be older than Abū Ḥanīfa; for it is attributed to Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī. In § 233, Abū Ḥanīfa applies a general principle blindly, but is systematically less consistent than Ibn Abī Lailā.

Tr. I, 210: Abū Ḥanīfa's argument is irrelevant; this is shown by his own statement in § 211.

Tr. I, 246: See above, p. 295.

A rather highly developed but often somewhat ruthless and unbalanced reasoning, with little regard for the practice, such as we have found in numerous examples, is typical of Abū Ḥanīfa's legal thought.¹

C. ABŪ YŪSUF

We saw in the preceding section² that the doctrine of Abū Yūsuf often represents a reaction against Abū Ḥanīfa's somewhat unrestrained reasoning and reverts to, or maintains, an earlier stage as exemplified by Ibn Abī Lailā. On the whole, however, Abū Yūsuf presupposes the doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfa whom he regards as his master, and the points on which Abū Yūsuf diverges from him are more relevant for appreciating Abū Yūsuf's own legal thought than those on which both are in agreement.

In the details of his doctrine, Abū Yūsuf is more dependent on traditions than his master, because there were more authoritative traditions in existence in his time.³

Tr. I, 51: Abū Yūsuf, deciding against Abū Ḥanīfa and reverting to Ibn Abī Lailā, finds that qiyās, that is to say the systematic parallel, and traditions agree.

Tr. I, 171 (a): Abū Yūsuf, whilst agreeing with Abū Ḥanīfa on principle, introduces a refinement of his own with explicit reference to a tradition; he is followed by Shaibānī (Sarakhsī, ii. 193).

Tr. I, 234: Abū Yūsuf, having first followed Ibn Abī Lailā, later adopted the doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfa, influenced by a tradition from the Prophet which Abū Yūsuf for the first time applied to the problem in question.

Tr. IX, 1: Abū Yūsuf draws unwarranted and unconvincing conclusions in favour of the common Iraqian doctrine from historical traditions which as often as not imply the contrary.