50

Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

ناشر

Oxford At The Clarendon Press

سال انتشار

۱۹۵۰ ه.ق

ژانرها

اصول فقه

BY SHĀFI'I AND HIS PREDECESSORS 39

last in particular use mursal traditions from the Prophet and from Companions freely in favour of their own doctrine, but are inclined to reject reference to them on the part of their opponents as inconclusive. It is obvious that the actual reasoning represents the older and the emerging theoretical doctrine the later stage, and also that mursal traditions are, generally speaking, older than traditions with full isnāds. The mursal, which forms the most important group of munqați', reflects the interval between the real origins of Muhammadan law and the much earlier period in which its fictitious authorities were being sought.

Shafi'i disregards the mursal in theory and in his actual reasoning.1 On the other hand, he does not hesitate to use the mursal from the Prophet and from Companions as a subsidiary argument, or when he has forgotten the relevant traditions with full isnads, or even by itself. He states explicitly in Ris. 63 f. that the munqați', that is, the mursal, of the prominent Successors is to be accepted under safeguards, although it has not the same authority as traditions with full isnads (muttașil); this is followed by a denunciation of the mursal of others.

The use of mursal traditions from the Prophet and from Companions by Malik is well known. On the other hand, Malik disregards mursal traditions which disagree with his doctrine, even if he relates them himself (Tr. III, 34), and the Medinese suspect those traditions which do not agree with their doctrine (Tr. VIII, 14).

The Iraqians show the same inconsistency with regard to the mursal. They use mursal traditions as arguments, and even consider a tradition with a full isnad as repealed by a mursal (Muw. Shaib. 113), but at the same time do not consider the mursal as well authenticated.2 In particular, they recognize the mursal traditions of Ibrahim Nakha'i from Ibn Mas'ud, and justify this even theoretically by making Ibrahim say: 'Whenever I say: "Ibn Mas'ūd has said so-and-so", this has been related to me by more than one of his companions.'3

On 'isolated' traditions (khabar al-wahid) see below, pp. 50 ff.

1 Tr. VIII, 1, 13; Ikh. 195, 360. 2 Ikh. 360, 375, 390.
3 Tr. II, 11 (b); Tirmidhi, at the end; with more details in Tahawi, i. 133; this last version emphasizes that Ibrahim's mursal from Ibn Mas'ud, implying the existence of several parallel reports, is even more reliable than his traditions from him through one individually named intermediary.

39