SUNNA, 'PRACTICE' AND 'LIVING TRADITION' 65

nese agree on something, know that it is the truth." But others say that this claim of a Medinese consensus is not substantiated, because the decision¹ to act upon the tradition is related explicitly from Ibn Musaiyib and Zuhrī who are among the most prominent scholars of Medina; further because nothing against acting upon the tradition is explicitly related from the other Medinese, excepting Mālik and Rabī'a b. Abī 'Abdalrahman, and not even uniformly from the latter; and finally because Ibn Abī Dhi'b who is a Medinese scholar of the time of Mālik, objected to Mālik's decision not to act upon the tradition, and in his anger used against him hard and unbecoming words. In other words: by the time of Ibn 'Abdalbarr, spurious information regarding old Medinese authorities had been put into circulation, so as to bring their doctrine into line with the tradition, and we find more of the same kind, regarding the 'seven scholars of Medina' and others, in 'Iyāḍ (quoted in Zurqānī, ibid.). The tradition is certainly later than the ancient doctrine common to the Medinese and Iraqians. Ibn Abī Dhi'b is not a member of the Medinese school of law but a traditionist and disseminator of traditions.²

Mālik in Muw. iii. 219 ff. prefers the practice, 'what people used to do', as expressed in a statement ascribed to Qāsim b. Muhammad and a concurring action reported from Ibn 'Umar, to a tradition related from the Prophet. Shāfi'i comments on this (Tr. III, 41): 'Qāsim's statement cannot prevail over a tradition from the Prophet. . . . If it is suggested that Qāsim's reference to the practice of men can refer only to a group of Companions or of scholars who could not possibly be ignorant of the sunna of the Prophet, and who did not arrive at their common doctrine because of their personal opinion (ra'y) but only on account of the sunna, it can be objected that in another case you do not share the opinion of Qāsim and say: "We do not know who the 'people' are to whom Qāsim refers." If Qasim's statement does not prevail there over your personal opinion, it is surely even less qualified to prevail here over a tradition from the Prophet.' This shows that the 'practice' of the Medinese is not necessarily identical with the authentic or alleged opinions of the old authorities of their school. Shāfi'i goes on to quote a tradition through Ibn 'Uyaina-'Amr b. Dīnār-Sulaimān b. Yasār, to the effect that Ṭāriq gave judgment in Medina in accordance with³ the decision related from the Prophet. We must regard this as a spurious statement on an old Medinese, of the same kind as, but older than, those we have met with in the preceding paragraph. As