316 SHĀFI'Ī'S REASONING

Tr. I, 123: Shāfiʿī shows judicious appreciation of broader systematic consistency; he returns to the doctrine of Ibn Abī Lailā, but with better reasons, and gives two good parallels.

Tr. II, 11 (b): Shāfiʿī reproduces almost literally Shaibānī's argument from Āthār Shaib. 69.

Tr. III, 53: Shāfiʿī's doctrine, but not his argument, is anticipated by Shaibānī in Muw. Shaib. 244.

Tr. III, 57: Shāfiʿī's reasoning is anticipated in all its details by Shaibānī in Muw. Shaib. 357.

Tr. IIĪ, 74: See above, p. 306.

Tr. III, 102: Shāfiʿī is anticipated by Shaibānī in Muw. Shaib. 330 (above, p. 308).

Tr. VIII, 4: It is evident from Shaibānī's and Shāfiʿī's arguments that both the Kufians and the Medinese hold that the minor and the idiot are incapable of criminal intent (ʿamd), and their voluntary unlawful acts are therefore technically accidental (khaṭāʾ); Mālik (Mud. xvi. 199) states in fact that the ʿamd and the khaṭāʾ, the [seemingly] intentional and unintentional acts, of the minor and the idiot are [technically] all khaṭāʾ. Compared with this sound common ancient doctrine, Shāfiʿī's distinction of real ʿamd and khaṭāʾ in the acts of the minor cannot, from the premises of Muḥammadan law, be considered an improvement; that this distinction is in fact arbitrary appears from Mud. xvi. 203 where Ibn Qāsim, presumably in order to escape from Shaibānī's systematic arguments, postulates a khaṭāʾ proper in the minor, but calls this doctrine his raʾy and istiḥsān.

Tr. VIII, 11: Shāfiʿī expresses his thought clumsily; Shaibānī is much clearer.

Tr. VIII, 12: Shāfiʿī's systematic reasoning is more thorough than Shaibānī's, but Shāfiʿī expresses it clumsily.

Tr. VIII, 14, 16: Shāfiʿī adopts and elaborates part of Shaibānī's systematic arguments against the Medinese, although in each case he diverges from both ancient schools.

Tr. VIII, 18: Shāfiʿī has nothing new to add to the Iraqian doctrine as ascribed to Ibrāhīm Nakhaʿī and modified by Shaibānī (Āthār Shaib. 84), apart from a charge of inconsistency in the use of traditions, directed against Shaibānī.

Tr. VIII, 19: Shāfiʿī gives the same kind of reasoning as Shaibānī, but improves it considerably by good additional arguments; on another issue he reduces Shaibānī, and by implication Mālik, ad absurdum.