16 SHĀFI'I AND LEGAL TRADITIONS

the sunna of the Prophet points, and the best way of interpreting traditions is not to make them contradictory, because we must accept the information of trustworthy persons as much as possible' (Ikh. 296). Shafi'i repeats and elaborates these statements in other passages.¹ He speaks contemptuously of those who dare to criticize traditions because they seem to contradict the Koran: 'If it were permissible to abandon a sunna for the opinions of those who are ignorant of the place which is assigned to it in the Koran itself, one might as well regard a number of fundamental doctrines, all of which are based on enactments of the Prophet, as repealed by the Koran. Whoever holds this, spirits away the majority of the sunnas of the Prophet, and that is ignorance' (Ris. 33 f.).

Shafi'i bases his unquestioning acceptance of traditions from the Prophet on the Koranic passages which make it a duty to obey the Prophet.² He interprets the term hikma 'wisdom', which is used in the Koran together with 'book' as a name for the divine revelation, as referring to the sunna of the Prophet expressed in traditions (Tr. IV, 251). On the question whether the sunna of the Prophet is to be regarded, like the Koran, as divinely inspired (wahy), Shafi'i shows himself non-committal.³ But, in any case, 'the enactments of the Prophet are accepted as coming from Allah in the same way as the explicit orders of the Koran, because Allah has made obedience to the Prophet obligatory' (Tr. VII, 271), and 'everything legally relevant that the Prophet has allowed or forbidden, has in fact been allowed or forbidden by Allah, because Allah has ordered the Prophet to allow or forbid it' (Tr. IX, 5).

All this applies to traditions from the Prophet only. Shafi'i distinguishes sharply between them and traditions from Companions and others; even in his terminology he generally reserves the term athar for the latter. Traditions from Companions carry no authority when they conflict with information from the Prophet; they are not of the same standing, and are irrelevant beside them. One of the most detailed statements to this effect occurs in Ikh. 138 ff.: