CONSENSUS AND DISAGREEMENT  85

In ascertaining consensus, the Medinese take no account of the (generally spurious) information on the alleged opinions of their authorities which had been put into circulation by the time of Mālik and Shāfi'ī.¹ But the particular followers of Mālik amongst the Medinese regard their master's doctrine, as expressed in the Muwaṭṭa', as the only authoritative statement of the consensus in Medina.²

The systematic collection of alleged ancient authorities in favour of the common Medinese doctrine starts only with Ibn Wahb. Typical examples are the lists found in Mud. v. 87, 90; viii. 78 f., and elsewhere. We are not justified in considering them more authentic than the lists of fictitious old Medinese authorities to which Shāfi'ī appeals from the actual Medinese doctrine. We shall discuss the old Medinese authorities in detail below, pp. 243 ff.

The consensus in Medina supersedes, of course, 'isolated' traditions from the Prophet and from Companions.

C. THE IRAQIANS AND CONSENSUS

In contrast to the Medinese concept, the Iraqian idea of consensus is not provincial, but extends in theory to all countries. Ris. 73 opposes it to that of the Medinese, and Shāfi'ī's Iraqian opponents argue with the 'consensus of [all] people' (Ikh. 71), and the 'consensus of the scholars in all countries' (Tr. IV, 256). Abū Yūsuf admits an exception from a rule established by systematic reasoning 'because the Muslims have allowed it' (Tr. IX, 5), and Shaibānī refers to 'all Muslims without a contradicting voice, that is, all Hijazis and Iraqians' (Tr. VIII, 1).

This is the Iraqian theory. But in practice the consensus of the Iraqians shows the same local character as that of the Medinese. This is implied by Shāfi'ī in Tr. III, 148 (p. 246, at the beginning) and in Ris. 73; and it underlies Abū Yūsuf's reference to 'the consensus of all our scholars' (Tr. IX, 42), and Shaibānī's standing reference to 'the opinion of Abū Hanīfa and of our scholars in general' in Muw. Shaib. This last expression means the same as Mālik's repeated references to 'our agreed practice' in Muw.

The words of Shāfi'ī's Basrian opponent in Tr. III, 148 (p. 245), show the conclusions which were drawn from the