THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW 7

book 'which they prefer to all others and which they are accustomed to follow'; they are the 'followers' of Mālik and he is their 'master'; they regard his opinion as if it were the consensus, and there is no consensus for them besides Mālik in Medina. But they are only a fraction of the Medinese, just as the followers of Abū Hanīfa are only part of the Iraqians.

The real distinguishing feature between the ancient schools of law is neither the personal allegiance to a master nor, as we shall see later, any essential difference of doctrine, but simply their geographical distribution. Shāfi'ī is explicit about it: 'Every capital of the Muslims is a seat of learning whose people follow the opinion of one of their countrymen in most of his teachings.'¹ Shāfi'ī goes on to mention the local authorities of the people of Mecca, Basra, Kufa, Syria; elsewhere, he refers to the Iraqians and Medinese, the Basrians and Kufians, the scholars of each place where knowledge of traditions is to be found, the people of the different countries, and he gives detailed lists of these local authorities.

One of these lists shows the variety of doctrines within the great geographical divisions: 'In Mecca there were some who hardly differed from 'Atā', and others who preferred a different opinion to his; then came Zanjī b. Khālid and gave legal opinions, and some preferred his doctrine, whereas others inclined towards the doctrine of Sa'īd b. Sālim, and the adherents of both exaggerated. In Medina people preferred Sa'īd b. Musaiyib, then they abandoned some of his opinions, then in our own time Mālik came forward and many preferred him, whereas others attacked his opinions extravagantly. I saw Ibn Abīl-Zinād exaggerate his opposition to him, and Mughīra, Ibn Hāzim and Darāwardī follow some of his opinions, whereas others attacked them [for it]. In Kufa I saw people incline towards Ibn Abī Lailā and attack the doctrines of Abū Yūsuf, whereas others followed Abū Yūsuf and disagreed with Ibn Abī Lailā and with his divergences from Abū Yūsuf, and others again inclined towards the doctrine of Sufyān Thaurī and that of Hasan b. Sālih. I have also heard of other instances of this kind, similar to those which I have observed and described. Some Meccans even think of 'Atā' more highly than of the Successors, and some of their opponents place Ibrāhīm Nakha'ī.