SHĀFI'I'S REASONING 325

against a somewhat confused distinction of Mālik (Zurqānī, iii. 256, 265).

Ikh. 73:

A clear and vigorous argument, decidedly superior to Tahāwī's far-fetched counter-argument (i. 241) and to Zurqānī's scholastic reasoning (i. 264).

Ikh. 278 ff.:

A masterly discussion with an Iraqian opponent; Shāfi'ī makes the best of a difficult case; he tries, in a rather forced manner, to impose on his opponents unacceptable consequences which they do not really endorse.

Ikh. 292:

Excellent systematic reasoning against a Medinese opponent.

Ikh. 327 ff.:

Penetrating reasoning; Shāfi'ī discusses the problem of how the contract of salam¹ comes to be permitted, a problem not yet envisaged by Mālik in Muw. iii. 117.

Ikh. 353 ff.:

Shāfi'ī gives excellent systematic reasoning against the Iraqians from his own, new point of view.

Ikh. 389 ff.:

Masterly and superior reasoning, more comprehensive and better than the discussion in the earlier parallel passage Tr. VIII, 13 (see above).

I shall now leave the last word to Shāfi'ī.

Tr. I, 6:

'If a man buys a slave girl and she has a defect which the seller has concealed from him, the case is the same in law, whether the seller did it wittingly or unwittingly, and the seller commits a sin if he does it wittingly. If, while in the buyer's possession, she acquires another defect and he discovers, too, the existence of the defect originally concealed from him, he is no longer entitled to return her [on account of the concealed defect], even though the defect which she acquired whilst in his possession be the smallest possible defect in a slave. The smallest possible defect, if it existed before the sale and was concealed, would have given him the right to return her to the seller because the existence of such a defect makes the sale binding only if the buyer so wills. So, similarly, the buyer has an equal obligation towards the seller and is not entitled to return her to the seller after the defect which developed whilst she was in his possession, just as the seller was not entitled to hold him bound by the sale of an object which had a defect whilst in the seller's possession. This is the meaning of the saying of the Prophet [which is expressed in a tradition] to the effect that he decided