TRADITIONS IN THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW 33

very Ibrāhīm Nakha'i. Out of the 549 traditions from Successors in the Kitāb al-Athār of Abū Yūsuf, and the 550 in the Kitāb al-Athār of Shaibānī, not less than 443 and 472 respectively are those of Ibrāhīm himself, and a further 15 and 11 respectively are related through Ibrāhīm from other Successors. Ibrāhīm is also the transmitter of a considerable proportion of traditions from the Prophet and from Companions in these two works, namely 53 out of 189 from the Prophet and 147 out of 372 from Companions in Athār A.Y., and 26 out of 131 from the Prophet and 104 out of 284 from Companions in Athār Shaib. The passage Ikh. 215 f. which we have summarized before,¹ shows how the name of Ibrāhīm was used in order to involve higher authorities. The two Kitāb al-Athār and Tr. II show that Ibrāhīm is the main transmitter from Ibn Mas'ūd and nevertheless diverges from him frequently, and that Ibrāhīm's doctrine almost invariably prevails with the Kūfians.

This relationship between traditions from a Successor and a Companion corresponds to that between traditions from Companions and from the Prophet, and a parallel conclusion imposes itself: the reference to the Successor preceded the reference to the Companion, and it was only as a consequence of theoretical considerations that the authority was transferred backwards from the Successor to the Companion, just as it was later, and for a similar reason, transferred backwards from the Companions to the Prophet. The Medinese doctrine is not concentrated in one Successor as the Kūfian is, but the attitude of the Medinese to Successors and Companions is the same as that of the Iraqians, and the same conclusion must be drawn.

As to individual Iraqians, we find Abū Hanīfa already technically interested in traditions. He collects identical traditions with different isnāds, and Medinese traditions in addition to Iraqian ones. Abū Yūsuf continues the systematic collection of traditions and shows himself interested and knowledgeable in traditions (Tr. IX, 2). Being later, he is subject to a stronger influence from traditions going back to the Prophet and Companions than Abū Hanīfa, and compared with the few cases in which Abū Hanīfa introduces a tradition into the discussion for the first time or changes the doctrine on account of it, the cases in which Abū Yūsuf does so are more numerous.² Shaibānī's