304 THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS

Tr. I, 80: Abū Yūsuf abandons a distinction made by Abū Ḥanīfa, and makes his doctrine consistent. A parallel case occurs in § 81: Abū Yūsuf abandons a distinction made by Abū Ḥanīfa, and applies one of the elements of his doctrine to the whole problem.

Tr. I, 94: See above, p. 273.

Tr. I, 99: In his earlier and in his later opinion, Abū Yūsuf gradually (but not completely) reduces Abū Ḥanīfa's inconsistency.

Tr. I, 135: If the additional details given in Sarakhsī, xxx. 157, are authentic, as they seem to be, Abū Yūsuf would be more consistent than Abū Ḥanīfa, and would obviate Shāfiʿī's objection against the doctrine of his master.

Tr. I, 137: See above, p. 300.

Tr. I, 171 (a): See above, p. 301.

Tr. I, 181: Abū Yūsuf holds an intermediate opinion between Ibn Abī Lailā and Abū Ḥanīfa; Abū Yūsuf mentions that this opinion was also related from ʿAṭāʾ, but this is presumably spurious (above, p. 250).

Tr. IX, 1: Abū Yūsuf introduces a distinction which he attributes to Abū Ḥanīfa, and gives sound arguments; in the result, he takes an intermediate position between Auzāʿī and Abū Ḥanīfa.

Tr. IX, 2: Abū Yūsuf seems to introduce a slight modification and distinction into Abū Ḥanīfa's general doctrine, and gives sound reasoning.

Tr. IX, 19: Abū Yūsuf gives technical legal reasoning in favour of the Iraqian doctrine; this is an advance on Abū Ḥanīfa's purely practical argument which is inconclusive.

Tr. IX, 27: See below, p. 305.

Tr. IX, 40: Abū Yūsuf is more consistent than Abū Ḥanīfa.

Tr. IX, 41: Abū Yūsuf elaborates Abū Ḥanīfa's short reasoning competently and systematically.

Tr. IX, 42: Abū Yūsuf gives the same decision as Abū Ḥanīfa, but shifts the emphasis of the problem, so as to achieve a systematic progress.

Kharāj, 11: Abū Yūsuf refutes Abū Ḥanīfa's crude analogical reasoning.

Kharāj, 108: Abū Yūsuf anticipates in essentials Shāfiʿī's relevant distinction, as against Abū Ḥanīfa.

So far we have met with a number of cases in which Abū Yūsuf shows sound and competent reasoning, and other examples could be added, such as Tr. IX, 50, where Abū Yūsuf argues well on a point which Shāfiʿī recognizes as controversial. These are, however, partly offset by cases where Abū Yūsuf's legal thought appears weak and superficial.