ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRADITIONS 57

mission, and whether a prohibition may convey not a total but only a partial interdiction.

Shāfi‘ī does not go as far as some extreme followers of traditions of whom he says: ‘Another party is simply ignorant, clings to its ignorance and refuses to learn, and therefore becomes embarrassed. These are the people who say: “You reject one tradition and accept another” ’ (Ikh. 367 f.). Shāfi‘ī answers them with the same reasoning he uses in his reply to the parallel thesis of their direct adversaries, the extreme anti-traditionists.¹ This is the only important case in which Shāfi‘ī does not identify himself with the traditionists.

D. CONCLUSIONS

Most arguments against traditions transmitted from the Prophet are common to the ancient schools of law; the Medinese are in no way more enthusiastic about them than the Iraqians. The arguments in favour of traditions from the Prophet are often derived from, or secondary to, arguments against them; the unwillingness to accept them came first. It is not the case, as has often been supposed a priori, that it was the most natural thing, from the first generation after the Prophet onwards, to refer to his real or alleged rulings in all doubtful cases. Traditions from the Prophet had to overcome a strong opposition on the part of the ancient schools of law, let alone the ahl al-kalām, before they gained general acceptance. Shāfi‘ī still had to fight hard to secure the recognition of their overriding authority. At the same time it is obvious that once this thesis had been consciously formulated, it was certain of success, and the ancient schools had no real defence against the rising tide of traditions from the Prophet. But this relatively late development, which we may call natural, must not blind us to the essentially different situation in the early period.