308 THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS

bānī’s technical legal thought, and the following examples are intended to show its extent and character.

Muw. Shaib. 202, 236: Shaibānī gives no argument, but his statement of doctrine is more consistent and competent than that of Shāfiʿī who argues, somewhat unfairly, from a false premiss (Tr. III, 35).

Muw. Shaib. 244: Shaibānī anticipates Shāfiʿī in achieving full systematic consistency (Tr. III, 53).¹

Muw. Shaib. 330: Shaibānī shows himself more consistent than Mālik who is bound by the ‘living tradition’ (Muw. iii. 104), and anticipates Shāfiʿī who gives the explicit systematic argument (Tr. III, 102).

Muw. Shaib. 331: Shaibānī gives strict systematic reasoning, anticipating Shāfiʿī (Tr. III, 95); but Abū Ḥanīfa’s doctrine had been legally sound (above, p. 296).

Muw. Shaib. 357: Shaibānī anticipates Shāfiʿī’s reasoning, based on the strict interpretation of traditions, in all details (Tr. III, 58).

Siyar, i. 35 f.: Shaibānī to a great extent anticipates Shāfiʿī (7). IX, 29).

Tr. VIII, 4: Shaibānī gives impressive systematic reasoning against the Medinese: “Abū Ḥanīfa says: ‘If a minor and a major kill together with ʿamd [that is, intentionally],² the major has to pay half the weregeld from his own property, and the minor, that is to say his ʿāqila,³ the other half.’ The Medinese say: ‘The major is killed [in retaliation], and the minor has to pay half the weregeld.’ Shaibānī says: How can he be killed when he has an associate in blood-guilt who is not liable to retaliation? If a man kills himself with the help of another, does the other undergo retaliation? Those who hold that opinion must draw this consequence. If someone cuts off the hand of another and his own hand is cut off in retaliation, and then a third party cuts off his foot and he dies from both wounds, is this third party to be killed, having associated himself in blood-guilt with Allah’s [penal] law? If someone is mauled by a wild beast, and another inflicts a wound upon him intentionally, and he dies in consequence of both injuries, is this other to be killed, having associated himself with an agent who is not liable to retaliation or to the payment of a fraction of the weregeld? A further consequence would be that if a major and a minor commit a theft together, the major would have his hand cut off