54 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRADITIONS

the Prophet; but the biographical works know him only as a late Successor; a Companion of that name, known to later biographical works only, does not occur in isnads; this shows how carelessly the isnads were sometimes put together.¹

The traditionists defended themselves against the reproach of ignorance of law by quoting the words attributed to the Prophet: 'Luck to the man who hears my words, remembers them, guards them and hands them on; many a transmitter of legal knowledge is no lawyer himself, and many a one transmits legal knowledge to persons who are more learned in it than he is' (Ris. 55, 65).²

The practice, prevalent in the ancient schools, of referring to Companions and Successors is countered by numerous traditions which represent, with an obvious polemical tendency, Companions and later authorities as deferring to traditions from the Prophet. Shafi'i has collected a number of these traditions in Ris. 59 and 61 f. The following examples are typical. 'Umar changes his customary decision on hearing that the Prophet has decided differently. 'Umar inquires whether anyone knows of a decision of the Prophet on a problem; when informed of it, he gives judgment accordingly and says: 'Had we not heard this, we should have given another judgment', or: 'We should almost have given judgment according to our own opinion (ra'y).' Ibn 'Umar relates: 'We used to conclude the agricultural contract of mukhabara and thought it unexceptionable, but we stopped doing it when we heard that the Prophet had forbidden it.'

These traditions, and others, reflect the struggle of the traditionists for the mastery over law. The following two traditions take us directly into the time of this struggle.

(a) Shafi'i—anonymous—Ibn Abi Dhi'b—Sa'd b. Ibrahim gave a judgment according to the opinion of Rabi'a b. Abi 'Abdalrahman, and Ibn Abi Dhi'b informed him of a tradition from the Prophet to the contrary; when Sa'd referred his