SHAFI'I'S ATTITUDE TO THEM 9

Information on Medina is incomparably more detailed. The Syrian school is mentioned rarely,¹ but we have some authentic documentation on its main representative Auzā'ī.

Egypt did not develop a school of law of its own, but fell under the influence of the other schools. There were followers of the Iraqian doctrine in Egypt, but most of the scholars there belonged to the Medinese school of which they formed a branch. Shafi'i refers to them in the writings of his later, Egyptian, period as 'Egyptians' or as 'some of the people of our country'.²

Shafi'i considers himself a member of the Medinese school, and references to the Medinese or Hijazis as 'our companions', and to Malik as 'our master' or 'our and your master' occur over the whole range of his writings, from his early to his late period. Also his Iraqian opponents regard him as one of the Medinese, or a follower of Malik, or one of the Hijazis in general. But Shafi'i does not identify himself with the particular adherents of Malik within the school of Medina, although he is eager to defend Malik against an undeserved attack. In other contexts, Shafi'i keeps his distance from the Medinese in general and denies responsibility for those of their opinions which he does not share.

No compromise was possible between Shafi'i and the Medinese, nor indeed any other ancient school of law, on their essential point of difference in legal theory, concerning the overriding authority of traditions from the Prophet, as opposed to the 'living tradition' of the school. When he comes to this subject Shafi'i attacks the Medinese with the strongest possible words. The whole of Tr. III is a sustained attack on the Medinese for their failure to follow the traditions from the Prophet which they relate themselves (and, failing that, their own traditions from Companions and Successors), and an effort to convert them to his own point of view. In this connexion Shafi'i even uses arguments which do less than justice to the Medinese.³