48 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRADITIONS

tion, considers their destructive criticism of traditions as a 'perversion of straightforward interpretation' and a 'screen in front of those who are not perspicacious enough' (p. 331 f.). The Iraqians go so far as to suppose that two contradictory traditions cancel each other out, thus leaving the way free for the use of analogy (Ris. 81). Ṭaḥāwī often reasons in the same way; as do the Mālikīs, except that they substitute practice ('amal) for analogy (e.g. Zurqānī, iii. 36).

An easy method of explaining away traditions from the Prophet was the gratuitous assumption of repeal. We find this assumption made by the Iraqians (e.g. Muw. Shaib. 142), by the Medinese, who refer to the different practice of Medina (e.g. Ikh. 217 f.), and by Auzā'ī, who refers to the different practice of Abū Bakr (Tr. IX, 29). Shāfi'ī refused to recognize this method, since its use would enable all traditions to be whittled away (Ris. 17).

Another easy method of disposing of traditions from the Prophet by interpretation was to represent them as particular commands, applicable only to the occasion on which they were given. This argument is exemplified by a tradition on the artificial creation of foster-parentship between adults (Muw. iii. 89). According to it, 'Ā'isha made a habit of this practice, but the other wives of the Prophet regarded his ruling as a special one for the benefit of the individual in question. The argument is meant to invalidate the tradition related from 'Ā'isha in favour of the practice. The anti-traditionist argument in its turn was met by two counter-arguments. According to one 'Ā'isha referred, against her fellow wife Umm Salama, to the example of the Prophet (Muslim, quoted in Zurqānī, ad loc.). According to the second the other wives of the Prophet were engaged in the same practice.¹ In Shāfi'ī's time, the ancient schools had systematized the anti-traditionist argument by regarding particular commands of the Prophet as based on the exercise of his discretion (ijtihād), and concluding that the imam, the head of the state, was authorized to do the same.² The examples adduced here are Medinese, but Iraqians also used this argument.