Origins of Muḥammadan jurisprudence
Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence
Publisher
Oxford At The Clarendon Press
Publication Year
1950 AH
SHĀFI'Ī'S REASONING 321
to realize the full implications of his principles1 and to work out all consequences of his doctrine,2 and there remain imperfections where he falls short of his own theoretical requirements.3
More serious are the faults in Shāfi'ī's reasoning which come from his polemical attitude towards the ancient schools of law, an attitude which in the case of the Medinese is mitigated by his sentimental attachment to them, but in the case of the Iraqians is allowed full scope.4 Shāfi'ī's eagerness to prove his new legal theory and the new legal doctrine based on it as the only legitimate interpretation of Muhammadan religious law, causes him to make unjustified assumptions, to argue arbitrarily and illogically, and to misrepresent and exaggerate the opinions of his opponents.5 A relatively harmless manifestation of this tendency is Shāfi'ī's debating device of representing his theoretical innovations as implicitly shared by his opponents, and then blaming them for not applying their own alleged principles. But beyond this, there are numerous cases in which Shāfi'ī's lack of objectivity vitiates his arguments, and of which the following list contains only a few typical examples.
Tr. I, 109: Shāfi'ī's systematic reasoning is consistent and ingenious enough, but he fails to appreciate the point of the argument of the Iraqians.
Tr. II, passim: Shāfi'ī tries artificially to find contradictions between the Iraqian doctrine and the Iraqian traditional authorities 'Alī and Ibn Mas'ūd; he often misrepresents the Iraqian doctrine, for instance in § 9 (f), cf. Āthār Shaib. 105; in § 11 (k), cf. Muw. Shaib. 385; in § 19 (k), cf. Āthār Shaib. 28 ff.; in § 19 (l), cf. Āthār Shaib. 33.
Tr. III: Shāfi'ī often misrepresents the Medinese doctrine, for instance in § 35, cf. Muw. ii. 185; in § 40, cf. Muw. ii. 154; in § 52, cf. Muw. ii. 68; in § 56, cf. Muw. iii. 89; in § 82, cf. Muw. iii. 56; in § 86, cf. Muw. ii. 212; in § 103, cf. Muw. ii. 243; in § 113, cf. Muw. i. 75; in § 117, cf. Mud. i. 172; in § 118, cf. Muw. i. 269; in § 125, cf. Muw. i. 126, 197; in § 127, cf. Mud. i. 74; in § 131, cf. Muw. ii. 230; in § 134, cf. Muw. ii. 171.
cussed in Tr. IX, 15, where Shāfi'ī makes a concession to the practice in the style of Auzā'ī, though he is sounder than his predecessor.
1 See above, pp. 20 f., 79 f., 88 ff., 120 ff.
2 See above, pp. 125 f., 281 f. 3 See above, pp. 11 f., 15, 18, 38.
4 See above, p. 9 f.
5 But Shāfi'ī himself says disarmingly in Tr. IV, 256: 'There is no one in the world who judges objectively.' 6 See above, pp. 11, 52, 87.
321