26 TRADITIONS IN THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW

The references in Shāfi'ī to 'Umar and Ibn 'Umar as the main authorities of the Medinese are invariably accompanied by the charge of inconsistency which he levels against them, because they often disagree with their own authorities. We shall have to draw the conclusions from this in Chapter 7, and are concerned for the moment only with establishing the fact that the Medinese at the time of Mālik thought themselves free to reject traditions from Companions.¹ Shāfi'ī declares that they do so for no good reason: 'You contradict Ibn 'Umar and 'Urwa [a Successor]'. Rabī' replies: 'But you also hold this opinion'. Shāfi'ī explains: 'Yes, because the Prophet did it, and then Abū Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmān'. Rabī' concludes: 'So we agree with you'. Shāfi'ī retorts: 'Yes, but without knowing why' (Tr. III, 119). This passage, incidentally, confirms that reference to the practice of the first Caliphs is not an argument of the Medinese but peculiar to Shāfi'ī.

In Shāfi'ī's time the Medinese had not yet gained the reputation for a particular interest in traditions with which they were credited later. In Tr. III, 146, Shāfi'ī charges them with neglecting much of the little that they transmit, and in § 85 he says: 'If you abandon the tradition from the Prophet on . . . [here Shāfi'ī mentions a particular case] for the doctrine of 'Umar, and the doctrine of 'Umar on . . . [here Shāfi'ī mentions another case] for that of Ibn 'Umar, and Ibn 'Umar's doctrine in countless cases for your own opinion, your alleged traditional knowledge is only what you think yourselves.'

Traditions from Successors play a considerable part in the doctrine of the Medinese (see the statistics at the beginning of this chapter). They are carefully transmitted as relevant and often supersede traditions from Companions, for instance in Tr. III, 121, where Shāfi'ī says: 'If it is permissible to disagree with Ibn 'Umar on the strength of the opinion of some Successor, may then others also disagree with him for the same reason, or do you forbid others what you allow yourselves? Then you would not be acting fairly, for you may not disregard Ibn 'Umar on account of some Successor and on account of the opinion of your master [Mālik], and in another case consider the opinion of Ibn 'Umar as an argument against the sunna