50 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRADITIONS

back to Companions rather than on those going back to the Prophet. Their common thesis that the Companions could not be unaware of the sunna of the Prophet and would know it best, takes its place beside the other arguments put forward against traditions from the Prophet. The extreme group of anti-traditionists use the same reasoning as that used by the adherents of the ancient schools of law.¹ They point out that other Companions are more knowledgeable than a certain Abū Tha'laba, whose tradition from the Prophet is to be rejected.² And in direct opposition to the Iraqian tradition which claims for the doctrine of Ibn Mas'ud, by implication, the authority of the Prophet,³ a counter-tradition makes 'Ali say: 'The word of a bedouin from the tribe Ashja' cannot prevail over the Koran' (Comm. Muw. Shaib. 245, n. 1). Here, an originally anti-traditionist argument is used in the polemics of the ancient schools.⁴

Finally, there is the argument based on the lack of documentation of traditions from the Prophet. In its simplest form, common to all types of anti-traditionist, it says that an 'isolated' tradition, that is, a tradition transmitted by a single individual (khabar al-wahid, khabar al-infird), cannot be accepted as well authenticated. The simplest variant of the argument maintains that a tradition, to be accepted, must be transmitted by at least two reliable witnesses, as is the case with legal evidence. This conclusion is expressed in a tradition by which 'Umar is shown as not content with the information of a single individual on a decision of the Prophet, but asking for confirmation by another person.⁵ But a tradition based on the statement of one person can, as is the case with legal evidence, be accepted if it is confirmed by oath.⁶

This parallel between traditions and legal evidence is drawn explicitly by the representative of the ancient schools in the detailed discussion in Ris. 52 f., and it is indeed so obvious that