10. THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW

Shāfi'ī attacks the Iraqians just as vigorously as he does the Medinese. Even where he has to agree with the Iraqians and to disagree with the Medinese, he is inclined to dissociate himself from the former and identify himself with the latter. Often he shows himself one-sided by sparing or excusing the Medinese and directing his full attack against the Iraqians. He shows the same sympathy for Awzā'ī as against the Iraqians. He attacks the Iraqians repeatedly with unjustified arguments and distorts their doctrine.¹ A strong personal prejudice against Shaibānī appears in several places, most clearly in Tr. VIII, 3, where Shāfi'ī calls Mālik 'a greater than he'.

Only in Ikh., a treatise of late composition, we find several very polite references to the Iraqians; Shāfi'ī hopes that the argument which he is going to give will enable his Kūfian interlocutor to convince all his companions who, after all, know the several doctrines and logical reasoning (p. 38); Shāfi'ī acknowledges that his interlocutor has shown himself objective throughout, and now, knowing where the truth lies, he has to draw the consequences (p. 53); Shāfi'ī refers to 'a prominent scholar belonging to those who disagree with us most persistently', that is, the Iraqians (p. 328).

Apart from his sentimental attachment to the Medinese, and notwithstanding his vigorous polemics, Shāfi'ī shows himself on the whole remarkably free from school bias. He started as a follower of the school of Medina. Having developed his legal theory and put the whole of the law on a new basis, he turned against his erstwhile companions and tried to convert them to his doctrine. Finally he also tried to convince the Iraqians, whom in his earlier period he had treated with scorn.

Soon after the time of Shāfi'ī the geographical character of the ancient schools of law disappeared more and more, and the personal allegiance to a master became preponderant.