108 ANALOGY, SYSTEMATIC REASONING,

(Zurqānī, iii. 9): 'Ibrāhīm disapproved of a ṣadāq of less than 40, and once he said: of less than 10, dirham.'¹ This arbitrary raʾy was later modified, not for the better, by a crude analogy, according to which the use of part of the body of the wife by the husband ought not to be made lawful for an amount less than that legalizing the loss of a limb through the ḥadd punishment for theft, and the minimum amount of ṣadāq was fixed at 10 dirham (Muw. Shaib. 237).² This was expressed in a tradition from ʿAlī, through Shaʿbī (Tr. III, 54).³ The Medinese recognized originally no minimum amount of ṣadāq; only Mālik, followed by his personal disciples, adopted the Iraqian analogical reasoning, and starting from his own minimum value of stolen goods for the application of the ḥadd punishment, which was ¼ dīnār = 3 dirham, fixed the minimum ṣadāq at the same amount (Muw. iii. 9). Shāfiʿī states polemically that Mālik diverged from the earlier Medinese opinion under the influence of Abū Ḥanīfa. At the same time, the Iraqians had found this crude qiyās unsatisfactory, and fell back on the authority of traditions which had appeared in the meantime in favour of their doctrine (Tr. III, 54).

The Iraqians, as opposed to the Medinese (Muw. iii. 129), extended the prohibition against re-selling food before taking possession of it to all objects (Abū Ḥanīfa excepted only immovables); this analogical reasoning was put into the mouth of Ibn ʿAbbās (he says aḥsib, “I think”), in a tradition which Shaibānī adduces as his argument (Muw. Shaib. 331).⁴ The Iraqians likewise disallowed the sale of animals against animals on credit, bringing this contract under the general rule against uncertainty (Tr. IX, 5).

It was the administrative practice that the rider received two shares for his mount in addition to his own share of the booty (ibid., 3). Auzāʿī recognized it as the continuous practice, and found its alleged starting point in informal traditions on the