THE REASONING OF INDIVIDUAL IRAQIANS 309

[as a ḥadd punishment] and the minor would go scot-free. Another consequence would be that if two men together steal 1,000 dirham in which one of them has a share, the latter would go scot-free and the other would be liable to ḥadd punishment. If a major and a minor hold a sword and together inflict a blow from which a man dies, is this blow partly intentional, involving retaliation, and partly khaṭaʾ [that is accidental],¹ and if so, what part of it is ʿamd and what khaṭa? If two men lift a sword and, acting together, inflict on one of them intentionally a blow from which he dies, does this involve retaliation? There is no retaliation here if the blood-guilt is associated with another agent not liable to retaliation; the [taking of] life cannot be split up. If someone inflicts a mūdiṇa wound accidentally and then inflicts another intentionally and the victim dies from these injuries, the consequence of that opinion would be that the ʿāqila has to pay half the weregeld for the accidental wound and [the culprit] is killed [by retaliation] for the intentional wounding, so that one man would become liable, [directly or through his ʿāqila,] for taking one life to a fine of half the weregeld and to the death penalty. A further consequence would be that if one has the right to retaliation for a mūdiṇa wound and in carrying it out transgresses intentionally and the other dies in consequence of this, he will have to be killed for his transgression. ʿAbbād b. ʿAwwām — Hishām b. Ḥassān–Ḥasan Baṣrī: if several people, among them an idiot, kill a man intentionally, this is a case for weregeld. ʿAbbād b. ʿAwwām–ʿUmar b. ʿĀmir — Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī: if an element of khaṭaʾ enters the ʿamd, it is a case for weregeld. It is true that Shāfiʿī succeeds in disposing of most of Shaibānī’s systematic arguments.

Tr. VIII, 6: Shaibānī gives a respectable amount of systematic reasoning which he calls qiyās and maʿqūl;² he tries, as Shāfiʿī was to do after him, to rationalize a traditional ruling which defies rationalizing, and gets involved in difficulties.

Tr. VIII, 8: Shaibānī gives good systematic argument, besides literal interpretation of traditions from the Prophet; he fully anticipates the reasoning of Shāfiʿī who agrees.

Tr. VIII, 11: Shaibānī gives excellent systematic reasoning, fully as good as that of Shāfiʿī; he continues Abū Yūsuf’s somewhat acrimonious polemics against the Medinese and says: 'One ought to be consistent and not arbitrary, expecting people to agree with whatever one says.'