Journal of Islamic Studies 11:2 (2000) pp121-146 OxfordCentre for Islamic Studies 2000GETTINGTHE RECORDSTRAIGHT:IBNAL-LABBAD'SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFVl2SHERMANA. JACKSONTheUniversityof MichiganIINTRODUCTIONOne of the morestrikingfeaturesof Malikibiographicalliterature isthe number of third-fourth/ninth-tenthcentury Maliki jurists it creditswithhavingauthoredworksundertheexplicittitle,lal-Radd 'aidl-Shdfi'i'.3This is in addition to other pro-Malik works gathered underthemoreblanddesignation,Fadd'ilMdhk,workswhosecontent,despite this misleading title, may also turn out, as does the work underreview, to be refutationsof al-Shafi'I.Curiously, Westernscholarshipto datehas largelyignoredthis earlyanti-Shafi'Icorpus,4 despite theobvious potential it holds for shedding light on a number of perduring1Author'sdedication: To TimothyJackson.2A shorterversion of this paperwas presented at the 207thannualmeeting of theAmericanOrientalSocietyin Miami, FL, March21-24, 1997.3See, e g.,Qadl'Iyad,Tartlbal-maddrtkwa taqribal-masdhkIt ma'nfata'ldtnmadhhabMalik,4vols(Rabat:Wizaratal-Awqafwa 1-Shu'unal-IslamTya,1966):Muhammadb.Sahnun(d. 256/869)K. ftl-radd'aid l-Shdfi'lwa'aid ahlal-'irdq,4:207; Hammadb. Ishaq(d. 267/880)K. al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'i, 4:294;Muhammadb. 'Abd Allah b. 'Abd al-Hakam (d. 268 or 69/881 or 82) K. al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'l flmdkhdlafa fthi al-Kttdb wa l-sunna, 4:160; Ibn al-Mawwaz(d. 269 or 281/882 or 894)'juz'takallamafthi'aid l-Shdfi'l wa'aid ahl al-'irdq',4.169,Ibn Talib(d. 275/888)'lahuta'lifftl-radd'aid l-mukhdlifinmin al-kuftylnwa'aid l-Shdfi'f, 4.309; Abu'UmarYusufbYahyaal-Mugham! (d. 288/900)'lahukutubhasana fthd l-radd 'aidl-Shafi'f,4:432;Yahyab.'Umar(d.289/901)K.al-Radd'aidl-Shdfi'i,4:358;Isma'Tl b. Ishaq(d. 309/921)al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'l ft mas'alat al-khums,4:291AlsoIbn Farhun, al-Dibd/ al-mudhahhab ft ma'nfata'ydn'ulamd' al-madhhab, Beirut: Daral-Kutubal-'Ilmlya,n.d.: 'Abd al-Malikb. al-'Asb. Muhammadb.Bakral-Sa'dl(d. 303/915)Kal-Radd'aid man ankara'aid Maliktarkal-'amalbimd rawdh, 157.And, al-Khusanl,Tabaqdt'ulamd'ifriqiya (Algeria:1333/1914): Ahmadb. Marwanb.Muhammadal-Mahkl al-Misr! (d. 290/902)Fadd'il Mdhkwa l-radd 'aid l-Shdfi'l,35; Abu 'UthmanSa'Tdb. al-Haddad(d. 302/914)al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'l, 150.4The notableexceptionis M. Muranyi,Bettrage zurGeschtchteDer Hadlt undRechtsgelehrsamkeitder Mdhkiyyain Nordafnkabis zum SJh. d. H.(Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz,1997). by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 122SHERMANA.JACKSONcontroversies.NormanCalder,forexample,couldattempttorevisethegenealogicalrecordoftheentirecanonofjurisprudentialfoundation-textswithoutconsideringanyof these works.5Similarly,WaelHallaqcouldmanagethemildlygargantuanclaimthatal-Shafi'I'sal-Risdla 'didnotelicitanyrefutationin the first centuryofitslife',again,apparentlyundauntedbythisassemblyofthird/ninthcenturyworksexplicitlycalled,'al-Radd'aidl-Shdfi'?.7Thepresent paper is a step away from this trend, taking as its focal point ananti-al-Shafi'Itractby a third-fourth/ninth-tenthcenturyjuristfromQayrawan, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Muhammad Ibn al-Labbad. Thiswork, coming as it does froma Malikl fromone of the moreobscureperiodsandgeographicalareasintheearlyhistoryofIslamicjurisprudence,offersvaluableinsightsintosomeofthedirectionstakenby non-Shafi'Isoutside Iraqduring thefirstcenturyor soafter5Studies in Early Muslim jurisprudence(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1993).6'Wasal-Shafi'ItheMasterArchitectofIslamicJurisprudence?',InternationaljournalofMiddleEastStudies, 25(1993), 591.7Hallaq(ibid.)doesmentiontheworkbyMuhammadb.'AbdAllahb'Abdal-Hakambut dismisses it as a possible refutationofal-Rtsdla, primarily on thebasisofitstitle,K.al-Radd'aidl-Shdfi'ffimdkhdlafafihil-Kitdbwal-sunna:'Judgingfromthe title, the workcouldbe treating only someofShafi'I'spositive legalrulingsthat,MisrI[Ibn'Abdal-Hakam]apparentlythought,foundnojustificationintheQur'anandSunna.Since bothMisrI andShafi'Iobviouslyagreeon thefundamentalrole of the two primary sources of the law and since the controversy about the textualauthontativeness(hujpya) ofmethodologicalprinciplesis ofa decidedlylaterorigin,we must take it that the treatise dealt with issues oi furii'.'Hallaq appears, however, tobuy into al-ShafiTs masterfulconflationof sunna with hadith and then to retroject thisbacktoIbn'Abdal-Hakam,wherebythelatter's'fundamentalagreement'withal-Shafi'Ionthetwoprimarysourcesleavesnogroundfordisagreementoversuchthings as the actual constitution of the sunna. But Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam was a source forthe anti-al-Shafi'I treatise by Yahya b. 'Umar (see below, pp. 7,15ff.)And there wefindthat,despitehisfundamentalagreementwithal-Shafi'Ionthetwoprimarysources,Yahyatakesal-Shafi'Itotaskforconflatingsunnawithhadlth.Similarly,Yahya'sdisagreementswithal-Shafi'Ioverquestionsoffurii'alsoentaildisagreementswiththelatteronissuesofusul.Thus,evenifweassumethatIbn'Abdal-Hakam'streatisewasprimarilyanattackonal-Shafi'I'sfurii',itdoesnotfollowthathedidnotintheprocessattackal-Shafi'T'susul.Indeed,al-Risdla isrepletewithfurii'adducedforthepurposeofexplicatingusul,anditwouldseemalmostinevitablethatopponentsofthisworkwouldattackthesefurii'forthepurposeofgettingattheseusul.For example, atonepointal-Shafi'IimpugnsMalik'sclaimsofMadmanconsensus, arguing thatdespite such claimshe finds manyscholars in Madinawhoseviews go against this alleged consensus. He then goes on to discuss a numberof furii'withtheaim ofshowing thatisolatedreportsare more probativethanthiswould-beconsensus. (See al-Risdla, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (Cairo: Dar al-Turath, 1979),533ff.)Now,itwouldseemreasonabletoassumethataMaliklpolemicistwhoattackedal-Shafi'Ionthesefurii'woulddosoaspartofanoverallefforttorefutethe latter on this point of usul, not, as Hallaq seems to think, for the exclusive purposeof attacking these furii'quafurii'. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBADSREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl ' I123al-Shafi'I'sdeath. In addition,it provides a vivid exampleof how theexperiences of individualjurists can exert their impact on the activityoflegalwritingandeducation.Finally,thistreatiseguidesustoanumberoffactsandconsiderationsagainstwhichtochecksome ofthe speculations of the late ProfessorCalder regarding the provenanceof certainearly canonicalworks on Islamiclawandjurisprudence.I begin with a brief note on Ibn al-Labbadand a formaldescriptionof the text, along with a discussion of the author's sources and motivesforwritingthiswork.Itis here,duringthecourseofthislatterdis-cussion,thatIre-examineCalder'sthesisontheprovenanceoftheShafi'Icanon.Thisisfollowedbyananalysisofthecontentofthework,includinga list ofthemainpointsofcriticismlevelledagainstal-Shafi'I,providingin eachinstanceexamplesfromthebodyofthetext.IconcludewithaninquiryintotheextenttowhichIbnal-Labbad'sapproachappearstoreflectwhatsomehavealludedtoastheperduringhegemonyof'Shafi'ism'8asrepresentedinthetrendamongMalikljuriststocede,intentionallyorotherwise,theidentificationofsunnawithhadith,incontradistinctiontowhatappears tobe thehallmarkof Malik'sapproachin al-Muwattta'andal-Mudawwana.IIIBNAL-LABBADThoughnotwell-knownamongmodernscholars,9Ibnal-Labbadoccupiedasignificantplaceinthird-fourth/ninth-tenthcenturyQayrawanidMahkism.ScholarslikeQadl'Iyad(d.544/1149),Abual-'Arabb. Tamlm(d.333/944)10andAbuBakral-Malikl(d.438/1046),nrelyuponhimfrequentlyforinformationaboutNorthAfricanMalikls.Bornin250/864,anddyingin333/944,Ibnal-LabbadlivedthroughaseriesofBerberrevoltspromptedbytheheavy-handedpoliciesoftheAghlabids,theoustingofthelatterbytheBanu'UbaydShl'Ts,followedbythelatter'shumiliatinganti-Malik!policieseffectuatedthroughtheirHanaflproxies,perhapseven witnessing the earlyrumblings of the anti-Shl'I Ibadl revolts. Heis reportedto have spent his entirelife in Qayrawan,not travelling inpursuitofreligiousknowledge,andnotevenmanagingapilgrimage8Onmyuseofthis term,seenote66,below.9See, however,Muranyi,Bettrage, 189-94.10See,e.g.,hisTabaqdt'ulamd'ifnqiyawaturns(Tunis:Daral-TunisiyahI-Nashr,1968).11See,eg.,hisRtyddal-nufiisfttabaqdt'ulamd'al-qayrawanwatfrtqiyawazuhhddihtmwanussdkihimwasiyar minakhbdnhimwa fudald'thimwaawsdfihim,2vols, edBashiral-Bakkush(Beirut.Daral-Gharbal-Islaml,1401/1981) by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 124SHERMANA.JACKSONtoMakka.Thislackoftravelwasapparentlycompensatedfor,however,byhisprodigiousmemoryandhisimpressivecollectionofbooks.12Hewasa studentof thefamedYahyab. 'Umar(d. 289/901)13andateacheroftheevenmorefamousIbnAbiZaydal-Qayrawanl(d.386/996),whopraisedhimprofuselyuponhisdeath.Hewasnostrangertocontroversy,hisdifficultieswiththeHanafl qadl, Ibn Abi al-Minhal, even landing him in prison for a time,followingwhichhis righttoissuefatwaswas interdictedandhe wasforcedtoteachinsecret.Onthepersonalside,heissaidtohavebeenvirtuousbuteasilyannoyed,especiallyduringdisputation.InRiydd al-nufus, Abu Bakr al-Mahkl gives what might pass as a partialexplanationforthistrait.ThereitisreportedthatIbnal-Labbad'swife used to nag and verbally abuse him so badly that even his studentswouldurgehimtodivorceher,offeringtopaythebride-pricethatwouldthenbedue(apparentlyinaccordancewithNorthAfricancustom). Ibn al-Labbad's response was that to do so would only trans-ferthiscrucibletosomeotherMuslim.Moreover,hiswife'sfatherhad acceptedhis proposalwheneveryone else had turnedhimdown;divorcing her would not be the way to pay his debt of gratitude.16IllKITABAL-RADD'ALAL-SHAFI'ITheworkunderconsiderationis amanuscripteditedandpublishedin1986bylAbdal-MajldIbnHamdahunderthetitle,K.al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'i. The explicit colophon to the manusript(provided by IbnHamdah) carries the title: Kitdb fthi radd[u] Abi Bakr ibnMuhammad'aidMuhammadibnIdrisal-Shdfi'iftmundqadatiqawlihiwaftmdqdlabihiminal-tahdidftmasa'ilqalahdkhdlafafthdal-Kitdbwal-sunna ('AtreatisecontainingAbuBakrMuhammad'srefutationofMuhammadIbnIdrTs al-Shafi'Tforthelatter'sself-contradictonnessandhisarbitrarinessinsettinglegallimitsinmattersregardingwhichhisdoctrineviolatedtheBookandtheSunna).Thereisnoformalintroductiontothework,notevenahamdalaorsalutationsforthe Prophet, clearly indicatingthatportionsaremissing fromthebeginning.Theworkcloseswithprayersandsalutationsuponthe12Tarttbal-maddrikwataqribal-masdhkild ma'nfata'ldmmadhbabMdhk,ed.MuhammadSalimHashim(Beirut:Daral-Kutubal-'Ilmiyah,1418/1998),2,21;Diba/, 249.13Tart*(Beirut), 2, 21.14Ibid2, 25,Dibai, 249.15Tartib,2, 2416Riyddal-nufus,2, 285. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBADSREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl'I125Prophet,but heretoo its anti-climacticendingsuggeststhatsome-thing is missing.Therearealso a numberof obviouslacunaein thebody of thetext.All in all,however,thebasicthrustandall of theimportantdetailscomethroughclearly,and withfew exceptionstheeditorsucceedsin producingaveryreadabletext.Altogether,Kitabal-Raddspanssome61 pages(includinggenerouseditorialfootnotes)and treatssome36 questionsor masd'ilon which Ibnal-Labbadtakesal-Shafl'Itotask.Theseinclude thefollowing:1Theprayer of onewhoreturns to consciousness.2Maritalrelationshipspre-emptedbywet-nursing.3Wttrprayers.4PrayinginsidetheKa'ba5What a pilgrimcanandcannotkill.6Soldiersdespoiling a fallenenemy.7Dogs drinkingfromvessels.8Gifts of perpetualusus(al-'umrd).9Alms ondatesandwheat.10Buyers' andsellers' optionto rescind sales 'malamyatafarraqa'.11Perfumingbeforeentering a stateof consecrationforpilgrimage(ihrdm).12Combiningprayers.13Wet-nursingpre-empting(marital)relationships.14Impermissibility of pilgrimscoveringtheirheads.15Impermissibilityofmaleconvertsmaintainingmaritalbondswithnon-Muslimwives.16Confusingthenames of narrators of hadlth.17Theoath(yamln) joinedby thetestimony of thelonewitness.18A Qur'anicverseas a bride-price.19Placingsteelplatesonthebodies of deceasedpersons.20Jumu'aprayerrunningintothetime of 'asrprayer.21Doestouchingfemalerelativesnullifyablution?22Touching a child'sphallus.23Is ablutionrequiredaftertouching a deadperson?24Twomendifferingonthedirection of prayer.25Twobodies of water,onerituallypure,theotherimpure.26A youthreachespubertywhile in theact of prayer.27Repeatingthe prayerdueto mistakesin recitingthe OpeningChapter (al-Fdtiha).28Requiringtherecitationof theOpeningChapter in eachunit ofprayer.29Prayer in sheep-stables.30Purifyingplaces of worship of urine. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 126SHERMANA.JACKSON31Tanningrendersallskinsrituallypureexceptthoseofdogsandpigs.32Humanhairis rituallypure.33Settingbrokenbones.34Eating the meat of animals slaughtered from the back of the neck.35Thetimeofthecalltoprayer.36Prayer-leader and followers entering prayer with the intentiontoperformdifferentprayers.Sources andmotivesAnumberofobservationsemergefromaperusalofthislist.First,itisclearthatIbnal-LabbadwasnotrespondingtowhatSchachthadidentifiedas'.. themaintext...inwhichShafi'Tputsforwardhistheoryoftraditions',i.e.,IkhtilafMalikwal-Shdfi'i (TR.///).17Of the eight questions of positive law dealt with directly in thatworkonlyoneappearsinthiscritique.Infact,Ibnal-Labbad'smannerofproceedingrevealsthatheisonlycoincidentallyconcernedwithal-ShafiTsmainthesisinIkhtilaf,i.e.,theformalautonomyofProphetichadithvis-a-viswould-bepracticalconfirmationbyCompanionsorSuccessors.Wherehedoessoatall,itisonlyinpassingthatIbnal-LabbadattemptstodefendMalik'stendencytoset sunna offfromhadithbased on what the Companions, SuccessorsorthelatercommunityatMadinaputintopractice.Hisconcernisratherto defendMalikas a faithfulfollowerofhadith.Second, neither does it appear that al-Shafi'I'sal-Rtsala is the maintargetofIbnal-Labbad'sattack.19As I indicatedabove,20 al-Risdla17OriginsofMuhammadanjurisprudence(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1950),12.All ofthe treatises Schacht cites andrelies uponcomefromvolume seven oftheBulaqeditionofal-Umm.Ibnal-Labbadrefers,however,toothersectionsofal-Ummas,' Yourwork[s] in refutationof Malik(kitdb(or kutub)raddika'aidMalik)',a referencetoal-Umm,3,285(bdbal-'umrdmmkitdbikhtilafMalikwal-Shdfi'iradiyal-ldhu'anhumd).SeeRadd,57.18Thisis theissueofcombining prayersAl-Shafl'Ialso mentions theissue ofdogslappingfromvessels, butthisis doneonlyinpassing, notasaquestioninwhichheisdirectlyinterested.Seeal-Umm,8vols,edMuhammadZuhrial-Najjar(Cairo:Makt abatal-Kulllyatal-Azhariya,1391/1961), 7,192.19This shouldnotbeunderstood to constitute a contradiction ofnora retreatfrommyearlier criticismofthe claimofHallaq(see note7 above). Formypointtherewasnott hat Ibn al-Labbad (or any of the other MalikT aut hors cited) took al-Risdlaas theirtarget,butrathert hatthiscouldonlybeknownafteronehadreadtheseworks.Toignoretheseworkswhilemakingbroadjudgements onthebasisoftheirtitlesratherthantheircontentscannotbeacceptablescholarlypractice.BoththeworkofIbnal-Labbadandthe fragmentby Yahyab. ' Umarhadbeenpublished at the timeHallaqmadehisclaim.Neitherwascitedinhis article.20Seen.6above. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD' SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFI' I1Z7containsaplethoraofquestionsonfuru'couchedinabroaderdiscussionof legal methodologyor whatlaterbecameknownas usiilal-fiqh.Thefact,therefore,thatallofthequestionsforwhichIbnal-Labbadtakesal-Shafi'Itotaskareintheareaoffuru'doesnotaloneruleoutal-Risdla asapossibletarget.Butevenonquestionsof furu'that are common to K. al-Radd and al-Rtsdla, there is none ofthekindofcommondetailthatwefindwhenthesequestionsarecross-referencedinal-Ummoral-Muzanl'sal-Mukhtasar.Similarly,where Ibn al-Labbaddoes touchupon questions of usiil al-fiqh, this isdoneindirectlyandinevitablythroughthe prismofpositive law. Forexample, at one point he defendsMalik's positionon the swornoathjoinedbythetestimonyofthelonewitnessbypointingoutthatal-Shafi'I and everyone else accepts nukul(a litigant's refusalto take aswornoath)asa validformofcourtroomevidence, thoughnone ofthe parties adduce any Qur'anic verses or Prophetic reports in supportofthis.21Theimplicationis,ofcourse,thatbyacceptingnukulal-Shafi'Iandeveryoneelsemustcede atleastlimitedrecognitiontopractice(e.g., Madman'amal),since, in the absence of anyscripturalindicants,practicecouldbetheonlybasisforthisinstitution.Onanotheroccasion,Ibnal-Labbadremindsal-Shafi'Ithataparticularhadlthonwhichhereliesin criticizingMalikis mursal,'thelikes ofwhichyoudonotholdtobereliable(Id tuthbitantamithlah)',22Clearly,however,inalltheseinstancesIbnal-Labbad'saimistopointupal-Shafi'I'sperceivedcontradictonnessandhisadherenceto a double standard,not to defendMadman'amal or mursal reportsinandofthemselves.Insum,Ibnal-Labbad'sprimarytargetisal-Shafi'i'swritingsonfuru',evenifhiscriticismsinthisregardinevitablyentailcriticismsofthelatter'susiil.Third,inmountingthisattackonal-Shafi'I,Ibnal-Labbaddrawson materialfromnotonebutfromthree differentsources:al-Rabi"srescensionofal-Umm,al-Muzani'sal-Mukhtasarandal-Bulqlnl's'notes'.Al-MuzanIappearstobethemostheavilyreliedupon.Buttherearealsodirectquotesnotfoundinal-Muzanlbutavailableeitherinal-Rabl"srescensionorinal-Bulqlnl's'notes'.23Forexample,inhistreatmentofthecontroversyovergiftsofperpetual21Al-Radd, 78-9.22Ibid.50. Thetextreadserroneousl y,Id athbitantamithlah.Seealsoal-Radd,74-' Yousimplyrelatedtheviewregardingthewai t i ngperiodfor a womanwhoembracesIslambeforeherhusbandont heaut hori t yoftheProphet ,God' sblessingsandsal ut at i onsbe uponhim,via areportt he likesof whi chyou do not holdto bereliable(bikhabannId yathbit'tndakamithluh).'23See al-Radd,55-6;al-Umm,3,385 (foral-Shafl'T);al-Umm,3,120- 21(foral -Muzanl ). by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IZ8SHERMANA.JACKSONusus('umrd),Ibnal-Labbadquotesahadithwhichal-Shafi'Iclaimsthat Malikrelatedbut then violated, andhe refersto al-Shafi'I'slongandinvolvedargumentindefenceofthelatter'sposition,includingtheattempttoanalogizedonatorswhoplaceinvalidconditionsonactsof'umrdtomasterswhostipulatetopotentialbuyersofslavesthat they free the latter.24 None of this appears in al-Muzanl's sectiononal-'umrd; norisitavailableinal-Bulqlnl's'notes'.25Inanotherplace,Ibnal-Labbadsaysthatal-Shafi'Iheldthatwatercontainedinavesselfromwhichdogshaddrunkwasmorentuallyimpurethanthevesselitself.Nosuchstatementbyal-Shafi'1appearsinal-Muzanl'sal-Mukhtasar,norin themainbodyofal-Umm.Itdoesappear,however,inal-Bulqlnl's'notes'.26Calder's'organic growth'thesisWhileIbnal-Labbadclearlydrawsonallthreeoftheabove-mentionedsources,hemakesnodistinctionbetweenanyofthem.Rather, he cites materialfromallthreevia the phrase'qdla l-Shdfi'f.Thisraisesquestionsabouttheforminwhichthesesourcescamedowntohim.Itis clearfromthelistofthequestionshetreatsthatIbnal-Labbadwas notaimingata systematicdissectionofal-Umm,al-Muzanl's al-Mukhtasaror al-Bulqlnl's 'notes'. Indeed, the issues hesingles outdo notfollowthesequencein which they appearin theseworks. Rather,Ibnal-Labbaddartsbackandforth,treatingsome ofthe same topics of fiqh in several differentplaces. For example, prayer(saldh) is spread out over several questions, including numbers 1, 3, 4,12,20,24, 26,27,28,29,30,35and36.DidIbnal-Labbadhaveaccess to these works in anything like the neat compilations that havecome down to us; or was his access limited to chapters andfragmentscirculatedpiecemealovertime?Ifhehadaccessonlytofragments,whatdoesthissayaboutthepossibilitythattheseworkswerestillintheprocessofwhatCalderreferredtoas'organicgrowth'?Inotherwords, whatdo Ibnal-Labbad'saccess to anduse of hisShafi'Isources say about the constitutionand provenance of the earlyShafi'Tcanon?AccordingtoCalder,a\-Ummwasnotthefinishedproductofal-Shafi'1himself(d.204/820),butofsuccessivegenerationsofredactorswho reachedtheheightoftheirartin thelatterhalfofthe24Al-Radd,56.25See al-Umm,3,120-21(margin).26See Ibid1, 17(bottomof the page). by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBADSREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFIIIZ9third/ninthcentury,possiblyreachingintothefourth/tenth.27Muchofthematerialitcontainspost-datesthedeathofitsputativenar-rator, al-Rabr,who died in 270/883. In Calder's view, 'preciselythatmaterialintheUtnmwhichisthoughttobemostrepresentativeofal-Shafi'Ithejurist,namelythesophisticatedexegeticalargumentbasedonexplicitlyadducedProphetichadith,maybeamongstthelastlayersofmaterialtoenterthetext'.28Asforal-Muzanl'sal-Mukhtasar,ittoo,accordingtoCalder,'showssignsoforganicgrowth'.29Inhisview,thebulkofmaterialcontainedinthisworkmustbeattributedtothegenerationsafteral-Muzanl,whodiedin264/877.30WhileIbnal-Labbad'sworkprovidesnoconcreteinformationregardingtheformalconstitutionofhisShafi'Isources,K.al-RaddturnsouttoraisesomeratherseriousdifficultiesforCalder'sthesis.These, however, canbe fullyappreciatedonly in light of certainfactsaboutthepedigreeofIbnal-Labbad'swork.Itisthustoabriefdiscussionofthis topicthatI shallnowturn.Ibeginwithmy conclusionthatK.al-RaddwastheproductofapedagogicaltraditionwithinacertainlineofNorthAfricanMaliklscholars extendingback to the first quarterof the third/ninthcenturyandthecareerandactivitiesoftheEgyptianjurist,Muhammadb.'AbdAllahIbn'Abdal-Hakam(d.268or69/881or82).ThoughMuhammadIbn'Abdal-HakambelongedtoaprominentMaliklfamily,hisfather,'AbdAllah,hadbecomeapersonalfriendofal-Shafi'I,evensupportingthelatterfinanciallyuponhisarrivalinEgypt.Seeingthenamethatal-Shafi'ihadmadeforhimself,'AbdAllahinstructedhissontojoinal-Shafi'I'scircle,anticipatingthatsomeofthelatter'sreputationandprestigewouldruboffonMuhammad.Muhammadcompliedandwentontobecomeoneofal-ShafiTsleadingdisciples.31Fromthiscloserelationshipwithal-Shafi'I,Muhammaddevelopedthehopeandexpectationthathe2 7SeeN.Calder,StudiesinEarlyMuslimJurisprudence(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1993),83.28Ibid.75.2 9Ibid.94.30Ibid.104.Al-Bulqlnlfallsoutsidethisdiscussion,sincehediedin805/ 1402.WhileCalderiscomfortablewiththeassumptionthatal-Bulqln!addedmaterialfromhisownmindorfromsourcespost-datingtheclassicalperiod{Studies,83),Ibnal-Labbad' s citationofmaterialfromal-Bulqlnl suggests t hatwere-examine thisissueandcontentourselvesintheinterimwithfarlesssweepingjudgmentsabouttheprovenanceofal-Bulqlni' s' not es' .31For this andotherinformationontherelationship between al-Shafi'I andtheIbn' Abdal -Hakamfamily,see J.Brockopp,' EarlyIslamic JurisprudenceinEgypt:TwoScholarsandTheirMukhtasars',IJMES30(1998),175- 6 by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from I3OSHERMANA.JACKSONwouldsucceedthe latteras headmasterof his study-circle. But whenal-Shafi'Iwas consultedon his death-bedabout who shouldsucceedhimas headmaster,he gave the nod to an oldercontemporary, AbuYa'qubYusufb. Yahyaal-Buwaytl,(d. 231/845).Muhammadwasdeeplyoffended.32Notonlywasthisaslighttohisesteemas ascholarbut also to the friendshipthathad existedbetweenal-Shafi'Iandthe Ibn 'Abd al-Hakamfamily.Indeed,so firmhad thisfriend-shipbeenthatal-Shafi'Iis reportedto havediedin 'Abd Allah Ibn'Abd al-Hakam's house and to have been buried in the familyvault.33Onbeing passedover in favourof al-Buwayti, Ibn 'Abd al-Hakamissaidtohavereturnedtotheschoolofhisfather.34Itisduringthisperiodthatwe can assumehe wroteapolemicalworkagainstal-Shafi'I(nowlost),thetitleofwhichQadl'Iyad(andlaterIbnFarhun35)givesas'K.al-Radd'aid l-Shdfi'iffmdkhdlafafthtal-Kitdbwa l-sunna.36It turnsout, however,thatthisworkformedthefirstlinkinachainofsuchtreatisesleadingup tothatof Ibnal-Labbad.For,whileneitherAbuBakral-Malikl,QadlIyadnorIbnFarhunappeartobeawareofit,Ibn'Abdal-Hakamwas ateacherof Yahyab. 'Umarduring the time the latterspent in Egypt.Yahyab.'Umar,meanwhile,likeIbn'Abdal-Hakam,endedupwritingapolemicaltractagainstal-Shafi'I,the titleofwhichQadl'Iyad(and laterIbn Farhun37)givesas 'K. al-Radd'aidl-Shdfi'?.i8In1985,fragmentsofthisworkbyYahyawerepublishedbyMuhammadAbual-Ajfanunderthetitle,'al-Hujjaftl-radd 'aidl-Shdfi'f.39Fromthesefragmentswe learnofYahya'srelationshipwithIbn 'Abd al-Hakam.In the very first section(actually,volumetwelveofawhole)Yahyawrites:'Muhammadb.'AbdAllahIbn'Abdal-Hakamrelatedto me (haddathant) on the authorityof {'an)Muhammadb. Idrlsal-Shafi'Tthatthelattersaid... .'40As Yahyawasbornin213/820,heneverhadapersonalencounterwithal-Shafi'I(who diedin204/820).AtseveralpointsinK.al-Hujja,however, he addresses al-Shafi'T in the second person. This, of course,32Tartib,4,160.33Brockopp,'EarlyJurisprudence' , 175.34Tartib,4,160.35Dibd/,23236Tartib,4,159- 60.37Dibd,,352.38Tartib,4,358.39MuhammadAbu 1-Ajfan,'Yahyab. ' Umarmin khilalkitabihial-Hu,/aftl-radd'aidl-tmdmal-Shdfi'i',Ma,allatma'hadal-makhtutdtal-'arabiya,29 (2)(Jul-Dec.1985):713- 44.40Ai-Huj/a,734, whereAbu 1-A)fanalsonotesthatYahyasometimesdraws hiscitationsof al-Shafi'Ifromal-MuzanT. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from couldbenomorethanarhetoricaldevicecommonlyemployedbypolemicistsinhisday.Itcouldalsoreflect,however,somethingofYahya'srelationshipwithMuhammadIbn'Abdal-Hakamandthefactthathe hadbeendrawnpsychologicallyintothelatter'scause.Now,asmentionedearlier,Yahyab.'UmarwasateacherofIbnal-Labbad.Infact,thetextofK.al-Raddsuggeststhathewaspossiblythelatter'smainteacher.OfthefortyorsohadithIbnal-LabbadnarratesdirectlyinK.al-Radd,thirty-sevenareontheauthorityof Yahya(i.e., haddathani,Yahya b.'Umar).41ThepicturethatemergesfromacarefulcomparisonbetweenthetwoworksisthatIbnal-Labbad'sK.al-Raddwasaveritable'honoursthesis'writtenatthebehestandunderthesupervisionofYahya,withtheaimofshowingtheextenttowhichhehadmasteredwhathehadlearnedfromhisteacherandcouldnowfashionfromthisnewandconvincingargumentsagainstal-Shafi'I.Again,however,Ibnal-LabbadisreportedtohavenevertravelledoutsideQayrawan,wherethechiefSunn!rivalsoftheMaliklswerenottheShafi'IsbutrathertheHanafls.Itseems,inotherwords,thatthegermofanti-Shafi'ismwasbroughtfromoutsideQayrawan,namelyfromEgyptbyYahyab.'Umar(andpossiblyothers)whopickeditupfromMuhammadb.'AbdAllahIbncAbdal-Hakamandintegrateditintotheeducationalcurriculumasanexercisethroughwhichtotestupcominghopefulslookingtoprovethemselves.42AnumberoffeaturesinIbnal-Labbad'streatiselendsupporttothisinterpretation.MentionhasbeenmadeofthemanynarrationsofhadithonthedirectauthorityofYahya.Evereagertoimpresshisteacher,however,Ibnal-Labbadintimatesthatheisnarratingthismaterialfrommemory,ratherthanfromsomewrittentext.43Similarly, while heshowshis partialrelianceuponYahyabyrepeat-inganumberofphrasesverbatimfromthelatter'swork,thesearekepttoaminimum.Moreparticularlyrevealing,however,isIbnal-Labbad'stakingoverfromYahyathe designation,'tahdid',whichYahyausesassomethingofaneologism,butwhichIbnal-Labbadturnsintoa veritabletechnicalterm.44Atthesametime,ofthe five41The majorityoftheseappearbetweenpages75 and107.42Thereare,incidentally,t woplaces at K. al-Radd,79, whereMuhammadb.' AbdAllahIbn ' Abd al-Hakamis citeddirectly,onceon the explicitauthorityofanotherteacherofIbnal-Labbad,' AbdAllahb.AhmadIbnTalib(d.275/888),whoalsowrotearefutationofal-Shafl'I.43Al-Radd,91: 'IshallmentioninthisregardwhatI amabletorecall(anddhdkirunmtnhdmahadarant).44Seeal-Hu/fa,738- 9,whereYahyaintroducesthiswordasanapparentneologism.InboththetitletoIbnal-Labbad' sK.al-Radd,aswellasinthebodyofthe text,however,the wordappearsas afull-blowntechnicalterm. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 132SHERMANA.JACKSONissues listedby Abual-Ajfanas havingbeentreatedby Yahyaunderthisrubric,onlyoneappearsinIbnal-Labbad'swork.45Inotherwords,itseemsthatIbnal-LabbadwantstoshowhisindependencefromYahyaby demonstratinganabilitytocomeup withargumentsonthistopic.AnotherpossiblereflectionofIbnal-Labbad'syouthatthetimeheauthoredthiswork(whichsupportsthenotionthatitwasan'honoursthesis')ishisdefenceofMalik'spositiontotheeffectthatthenon-Muslimwifeofaconvertisrenderedunlawfuluponhisconversion,unlessshefollowssuitwithindays.46ThisappearstohavebeenapositionIbnal-Labbadboughtintowhilestilla youthonlytogrowoutofitlateron.Inhisfamousal-Risdla,hisstudent,IbnAbiZaydal-Qayrawanl(d.386/996), quiteuncere-moniouslycontradictsthatposition,upholdingthecouple'smar-riage,evenifthewifeshouldneverconvert.4Finally,thereisthelanguageofK.al-Radd.TheirreverenttoneIbnal-Labbadoftentakesagainstal-Shafi'Ibespeaksacertaincockinessbornofyouth.Similarly,theawkwardandconvolutedtitleonthemanuscript'sexplicitcolophon(quotedearlier)suggestsaless thanfullymaturedcommandofArabicletters.48Insum,K.al-Raddappearstohavebeentheresultofanearly'assignment'given to Ibn al-Labbadby his teacher,Yahyab.'Umar,whoindoingsowassimplycontinuingatraditionpickedupfromhis teacher,MuhammadIbn'Abdal-Hakam,duringhisstayattheMalikl capitalin Egypt. Whatbegan as an act informed(if notdeter-mined)byIbn'Abdal-Hakam'spersonalexperiencewithal-Shafi'Iappearstohavemetamorphosedintoanestablishedpedagogicaltradition.Thereisevenevidencesuggestingthepossibilitythatthistraditiondid not end with Ibn al-Labbad. Ibn Farhun reports that thelatter'sstudent,IbnAbi Zayd,alsoauthoreda workwhosetitlehegives as 'In Defence of Malik's Jurisprudence'(al-Dhabb 'anmadhhabMalik).49Itisconceivablethatthiswork,likeIbnal-Labbad's'Fadd'ilMalik'(thetitleunderwhichIbnFarhunapparentlyreferstoK.al-Radd)wasalso, atleastinpart,arefutationofal-Shafi'I.4 5Thiswastheissueofdespoilingfallenenemiesonthebattlefield.Seeal-Huj/a,734- 5.46Al-Radd,73- 5.ThisincludedJewishandChristian(kttdbiya)wives,not|ustpagan(mushrik)wives.Seeal-Mudawwanaal-kubrd,4vols(Beirut,1406/1986),2,211.4 7SeeSahh' Abdal-Saml'al-Abl,al-Thamaral-ddnifttaqribal-ma'dntsharknsalatIbnAbiZaydal-Qayrawdni(Beirut:Daral - Ma' nfa,n.d.),458(topsection).4 8ThisisperfectlygoodArabic,grammaticallyspeaking.Mypoint,however,isthatstylistically speaking itfallsbeneathwhatonewoul dexpectofamaturemanofArabicletters.4 9Dibd),137. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD' SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl ' l133WemaynowreturntoCalder's'organicgrowth'thesis.ThedifficultyK.al-RaddraisesforCalder'sthesisissimplythis:Ibnal-Labbadwas eitherunawareoforunconcernedaboutanyorganicgrowthintheShafi'Icanon.Theidea,however,thathe wasuncon-cernedissimplyuntenable.For,whygothroughallthetroubleofmarshallingallofhiscomplicatedarguments,whenexposingthefraudoftheseredactorswouldhavebeenenoughtodiscreditthemandal-Shafi'T?Moreover,whylettheseredactorsoffthehookforplagiarizingal-Shafi'Iwhilepummellingthemanhimselfsorelent-lessly?Andwhyruntheriskofalienatinghisaudiencebyattackingsuchanesteemedauthorityasal-Shafi'Iwhenhecouldattackthelesser figures with virtualimpunity?In sum, Ibn al-Labbadhad everyincentivetoexposeanywould-beredactors.Ifhedidnotexposethem,thiswasalmostcertainlybecauseheknewofnosuchactivityontheirpart.If,on theotherhand,we assume thatIbnal-Labbadwasignorantofanyredactiveactivity,thisignorancecouldonlybe duetoone oftworeasons:(1)eithertheseredactorssucceededin concealingtheiractivity fromhim; or (2) there simply was no redaction. Now, the firstofthesepossibilitiesactuallyraisesmoreproblemsthanitsolves.Foritwouldimplythattheseredactorssucceededthroughthree(perhapsfour)generationsofMaliklpolemicists,allofwhomhadeveryincentivetosearchoutandexposeanyinstancesofsuspectedplagiarism,yetnoneofwhomseemtoknowanythingaboutit.Ibnal-LabbadlearnsnothingaboutitfromYahyab.'Umar,andYahyab.'UmarlearnsnothingaboutitfromIbn'Abdal-Hakam.But if Ibn al-Labbad, Yahyab. 'Umar andIbn'Abdal-Hakamare allunawareofany'organicgrowth'intheShafi'Icanon,wouldn'titmakesensetoaccepttheplainimplicationsofthisfact?Wouldn'titmakesense tosay thattheydidnotknowofany'organicgrowth'becausetheresimplywasnone?Itmightbeobjected,however,givenmyspeculationsaboutIbnal-Labbad'syouthatthetimeheauthoredK.al-Radd,thatIhavemissedthepoint,thatmyeffortsinfactmoveinthewrongchro-nologicaldirection.AssumingthatK.al-RaddwaswrittenbeforethedeathofYahyab.'Umarin289/901,Calder'sthesismightbeseenas flying abovemy criticisms, sincehispointwaspreciselythattheShafi'Iredactorsreachedtheheightoftheiractivityinthelatterpartofthethird/ninthcentury,possiblyreachingintothefourth/tenth.Inotherwords,Ibnal-Labbadknewofnoredactionnot50Calderactuallyspokeofthelatterhalf of the third/ninthcentury,notthelatterpart(Studies,83).Thus,takenliterally,histhesiswouldappeartobealreadydisproved. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 134SHERMANA.JACKSONbecauseitneveroccurred,butbecauseithadnotyetoccurredbythetimehe cametowriteK.al-Radd. Thissuggestion,however,is,again,problematic.For,accordingtoCalder,theeffortsoftheseredactorswastohaveproduced'preciselythatmaterial...whichisthoughttobemostrepresentativeofal-Shafi'Ithejurist,namelythesophisticatedexegeticalargumentbasedonexplicitlyadducedProphetichadith....'51Yet,K.al-Raddindicates,withstrikingandundeniableclarity,thatitwaspreciselythismaterial,andnothingelse,thatformedthetargetofIbnal-Labbad'sattack.IfIbnal-LabbadisbelievedtohaveauthoredthisworkbeforeYahyab.'Umar'sdeathin289/901,Caldermusttelluswhere,atthisearlydate,allofthisfull-blownShafi'Imaterial(explicitlyadducedProphetichadithandall)camefrom.52If,ontheotherhand,weassumethathewroteitlaterinlife(say,sometimeduringthefirstquarterofthefourth/tenthcentury),CaldershouldhavetoexplainwhyIbnal-Labbadappearstobeso completelyunawareofanyShafi'Tredactorsandwhy,furthermore,inthisparticularcaseweshouldsuddenlyabandonalogicthathasdominatedIslamiclegalstudieseversinceSchacht'sOrigins.53IVIBNAL-LABBAD'SATTACKIbnal-Labbad'scriticismsofal-Shafi'Icanbedividedintofiveinterrelatedcategories:(1)al-Shafi'I'scontradictorylegalreasoning;(2)hisconflatedreadingofhadithintheprocessofwhichheactu-allyunderminestheirmeaning;(3)hisoutandoutviolationorabandonmentofhadith; and(4) his arbitrariness in defining the outerlimits(tahdid) ofpermissibleorimpermissibleacts;(5)hislessthanintimaterelationshipwithMalik,whichwouldexplainwhyhewasnotalwaysaccurateinrelayingknowledgeonMalik'sauthority.Underlying all of this is, again,the contentionthatit is Malikwho isactually more committedto the faithfulapplicationof hadith. To thisend, questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and14 open with variants of the rhetoricalquery:'Whichofyouis morecommittedtofollowingtheProphetic51Studies,75.52Thi swoul dappl yalsot ot hewor kofYahya,andevent hatofMuha mma dIbn' Abdal - Hakam,givent hatYahya' sfragmentclearlysuggestst hatt helatterrelatedfromal-Shafi' I' sophisticatedexegeticalargument sbasedonexplicitlyadducedProphet i chadi t h' .i.e.thear gumentt ot heeffectt hatifanearlyjuristappearsunawar eofaProphet i chadith(as evidencedby his failuret oadduceit in suppor tofhis posi t i on),itprovest hatnosuchhadithexistedatthet i meofthisjurist' swri t i ng. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-IABBADSREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFII135hadithherelates;youorMalik?'(ayyukumdatba'Ithamlihihaditharasuhl-ldh,sallal-ldhu'alayhiwasallam,antaawMalikibnAnas,radiyal-ldhu'anhu...)54Questions8,9,10,11and12beginwithvariantsoftheinterrogative:'WhichofyouholdsthehadithoftheProphetinthehighestesteemandistooGod-fearingtoargueonthebasisofthingsnotcontainedtherein,ortoclaimthatthehadithcontainsthingswhichitdoesnot,ortoviolatethatwhichhefindsexplicitlystatedinthehadith}'(ayyukumdashaddut'zdmanhhadithrasuhl-ldh,sallal-ldhu'alayhiwasallama,watawarru'an'an an yahtajja bimd laysa fihi aw yadda'ihiawyukhdhfumawajadamansusanfih....)55Thisverbalpummellingsetsthetonefortheentirework,andIbnal-LabbadisrelentlessinhiscampaigntoshowthatMalikisnotonlyinnocentofthechargesmadeagainsthimbutintheendamuchbetterjuristandamoredevotedadherenttohadiththanhisattacker.1.ContradictoryreasoningTurning now to some concrete examples of Ibn al-Labbad's approach,Ibeginwiththechargethatal-Shafi'Iengagesincontradictoryreasoning, as reflectedin question #10, on the buyer and seller's optionto rescinda sale. Theissueherewas themeaningandapplicationofthe hadith,'The buyer and seller retain the option of rescinding a salemdlamyatafarraqd'.Thishadithwasrelatedby MalikthroughIbn'Umaron the authorityof the Prophet.Conflictarose, however,overthemeaningofthephrase,imdlamyatafarraqd'.Accordingtoal-Shafi'I,thisphrasereferredtophysicalseparationfromtheplaceofsale,upuntilwhichtimetheoptiontorescindthesaleremainedintact. Part of his supportforthis interpretationwas the factthat Ibn'Umar,whonarratedthehadith,isreportedtohaveadoptedthepracticeof walkinga fewsteps awayfromtheplaceofsale as a ges-tureof finalizing theexchange.Malik,meanwhile,accordingtoIbnal-Labbad,heldthishadithtobeofindeterminablemeaning,sincetafarruq couldapplytobothphysicalseparationas wellas apartingofviews,asithadbeenused,forexample,inseveralplacesintheQur'an.56Meanwhile, Ibn'Umarhadrelatedotherhadithsin whichtheProphetexplicitlygrantedbuyersownershipofthecommoditiestheypurchasedalongwiththerighttosellthemimmediatelyupon54Al-Radd,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59,71.55Ibid.55,63,65.56For example, 3.105: 'waId takiinu ka l-ladhina tafarraqu wa 'khtalafummba'dimd id'ahumul-bayytndt.' by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 136SHERMANA.JACKSONtakingpossession.Thiscouldnotbe,arguedIbnal-Labbad,iftheoptiontorescindsuchsalesremainedineffectupuntilthetimeofphysicalseparation,whichcouldtakedays.Andsincethehadithsgrantingimmediateownershipwerebothexplicitandunivocal{mansus) in meaning, it made sense to interpretimdlamyatafarraqd',inlightofthesereports.Malik,inotherwords,wasmorethanjustifiedintaking'malamyatafarraqd'torefernottophysicalseparationbuttomutualagreement(i.e.'aslongastheydonotdisagree'torescindthesale)insteadofimposingonthehadith,asIbnal-Labbadclaimsal-Shafi'Thaddone,aninterpretationthatwas notonly conflatedbut in direct conflictwithmany otherexplicitrulingsoftheProphet,suchastherighttosellaproducttoathirdpartyupontakingpossessionofit.AsforIbn'Umar'scustomofwalkingawayafewsteps,adducedinsupportofal-Shafi'T'sinterpretation,Ibnal-Labbadnotes,firstofall,thatthiswasnotapartofthehadith.Assuch,therewasnonecessaryconnectionbetweenthetwo,andal-Shafi'Twasunjustifiedintakingitasabasisforclaimingthatphysicalseparationwasa partofthehadith.Second,Ibn'UmardidnotrelatehisactionontheauthorityoftheProphet.ItwasthusdisingenuoustoimplythatingoingagainstthisactionMalikhadsomehowviolatedhisownnarrationsofProphetichadith.Third, al-Shafi'Tdid not relate the reportaboutIbn'Umar'swalkingawayontheauthorityofMalikbutratherontheauthorityofSufyanb.'Uyayna.Itwasthuswrong,arguedIbnal-Labbad,toholdMaliktothedictatesofareportthatmightnothavereachedhimorthathemighthavedeemedunreliable.ItwascertainlyunfairtouseitasapretextforclaimingthatMalikhadknowinglyviolatedthehadith.Beneaththisline ofargumentrana ratherinterestingsubtext.Ibnal-Labbadappearstobe portrayingal-Shafi'Tas a poorimitatorof amethodforwhichhehimselfhadsofiercelyattackedMalik,e.g.,inIkhtildfMalikwal-Shdfi'l, whereal-Shafi'ThadchidedMalikforusingreportsfromCompanionstodeterminetheauthenticityorapplicationofPropheticreports.Againstthispracticeal-Shafi'Thadinsisted:'Wecontentourselveswithwhatis relatedontheauthorityof the Prophet, andthat is in no way dilutedby whetheror notthosewhocameafterhimputthisintopractice;norisitinanywaystrengthenedby the fact that they put it into practice.'57 Yet, here wasal-Shafi'Thimselfattemptingtoestablishthecorrectapplicationofahadithon thebasis of anaction of a Companion,a classic case, tohearIbnal-Labbadtellit,ofthepotcallingthekettlemetal.But57Al-Umm, 7,193 (11.19-20). by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD'SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl'I137even this would not prove to be al-Shafi'I'smost damaging contradic-tion. While he had used Ibn 'Umar's practice as a basis for interpretingthishadith,Ibn al-Labbadcitesseveralotherhadithsthatal-Shafi'IhadrelatedbutinwhoseapplicationevenhewouldignoreIbn'Umar'saction.Forexample,theProphetisreportedtohavefor-bidden unequal exchanges of gold and silver, i.e., as constitutingnbd.Butno oneincludingal-Shafi'Iholdsthisprohibitiontobe con-tingent upon physical separation. The same applies to many other pre-Islamictransactionsthathadbeenforbiddenby theProphet,e.g.,bay'hablal-hdbila, bay' al-husdh,and so on. If Ibn'Umar'sactionfailedtofunctionas amaster-principlein whoselightthesereportswereto be interpreted,Ibn al-Labbadwouldliketo knowwhereitacquired this proud pre-eminence in the case of lma lamyatafarraqd\2.Conflating the meaningsofHadithTurningto the chargethatal-Shafi'Iconflatedhis interpretationofhadith,I citeas anexamplequestion#7, involvingthecontroversyoverdogsdrinkingfromvessels{wulughal-kalbftl-ind').Malikhad related the hadith,'If a dog drinks fromthe vessel of any of you,lethimwashitseventimes'.Al-Shafi'Irelatedthishadithon theauthorityofMalik,alongwithseveralotherversionsfromothersources, someof whichaddedthe stipulationthatearthbe usedforthefirstorlastcleansing.58Now, bothMalikandal-Shafi'Iagreedthatvessels fromwhichdogs had drunk had to be washed.Al-Shafi'Iadded,however,thatboththevesselsandtheircontentswererenderedrituallyimpure.ThisextrapolationdrewheavycriticismfromIbnal-Labbad,who arguedthatwhilethe Prophetruledthatvesselsfromwhichdogshaddrunkhad tobe washedseventimes,he neverstatedthateitherthe vessels or theircontentswererituallyimpure.Thiswassimplyal-Shafi'I'sinvention,accordingtoIbnal-Labbad,whichheconcoctedonthebasisofhisownra'y andtheninjectedinto the hadith.Thatal-Shafi'I'spositionwas defectivecouldbeeasilyprovedbyreferencetotheQur'an,wherethereareversespermittingthe eatingof gameseizedby huntingdogs. Tomakemattersworse,Ibnal-Labbadcitesal-Shafi'I'sargumenttotheeffectthatneitherthevesselsnortheircontentswererenderedrituallyimpureifsuchcontentsexceededtwoqullasinvolume,since, according to al-Shafi'I,anything more than two qullas was notsubjecttoritualimpurity.59Onthisview,heendsup,according58Ibid. 1, 5.59Al-Umm, 1,4-5. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 138SHERMANA.JACKSONtoIbnal-Labbad,completelyunderminingtheProphet'srule.Ontheonehand,heholdsvesselsfromwhichdogshavedrunkbutwhichcontainmorethantwoqullasnottorequireritualwashing,whiletheProphetstatedexplicitlythatwheneveradoglapsfromavesselit is to be washedseventimes.On the otherhand,he holdsthecontentsofvesselscontainingless thantwoqullas to be rituallyimpure,whiletheProphethimselfneverdesignatedthemassuch.Atfirstblush,itmightappearthatIbnal-LabbadisdonningtheShafi'I-inspiredrobeofZahirlsminordertoslamthedoortologicalinferenceinal-Shafi'I'sface.Butthisturnsoutnottobealtogethertrue.Ibn al-Labbadis notsayingthatal-Shafi'Iis wrongforattemptingtounderstandtheunderlyingimplicationsoftheProphet'scommandbutmerelythattheresultsofthisattemptwereflawed.For while it may be reasonableto assumea connectionbetween the command to wash vessels and the status of their contents,theProphetmadeitclear,accordingtoIbnal-Labbad,thatdogsdrinkingfromvesselsconstitutedasuigeneriscategory.Asproof,hecitessuchinstancesas thebedouinwhourinatedin themosqueandthe infantwho relievedhimselfon the Prophet'slap. In neithercasedid the Prophetordera seven-foldwashing.This,accordingtoIbnal-Labbad,clearlyindicatedthaturine and otherrituallyimpuresubstancesconstitutedone category,whilevesselsfromwhichdogshavelappedconstituteanother. The two issues, in other words, weresimplyunrelated,andal-Shafi'Iwasmisguidedinextendingthelogicofritualimpuritytovesselsfromwhichdogshadlappedandtheircontents.Onceagain,however,Ibnal-Labbad'scasewouldnotend there.Al-Shafi'Ihad extendedthe rulingondogsdrinkingfromvessels topigs who did so, arguing that'if pigs were not worse thandogs, theywerecertainlynobetterthanthem'.60This,arguedIbnal-Labbad,waspurera'y,forthevalidityofwhichal-Shafi'Ihadprovidedno textualproof.Similarly,regardingthe use of earthfor the first orlast cleansing of vessels, al-Shafi'Iheldthatif one was unable to findearth(turdb),onecouldusesomethingthatfunctionslikeearth,e.g.,potashorthelike.Yet, whenitcametotayammun,al-Shafi'Iflatlydisallowedthesethings,insistinginsteadontheuseofpureearth(turdb).All of this wentto show,accordingto Ibnal-Labbad,justhowinconsistentandarbitraryal-Shafi'Icouldbe. Inthe end,noneofthis,hegloats,wasbasedoninformationrelatedontheauthority of the Prophet.Al-Umm,1, 5. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD'SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl ' I1393.IgnoringHadithTurning to the charge thatal-Shafi'IignoredorabandonedProphetichadith, there is the controversy over whether touching female relativesnullifiesone's ablution. Here al-Shafi'Ihadtakenthe Qur'anic verse,'oryoucomeintophysicalcontactwithwomen'{awlamastumul-nisd'),as abasis forholdingthatthemeretouchingofanyfemale,besheone'smother,sisterorpre-teenagedaughter,nullifiedone'sablution.Againstthisview,Ibnal-Labbadcitesseveralwell-knowninstancesoftheProphet'stouchinghisfemalerelativeswhileintheactofprayer.Therewerethereports,forexample,ofhiscarryinghis grand-daughter,Umama, while praying in the mosque, andof hispinching'A'ishaasshelaysprawledinfrontofhiminorderforhertomakeroomforhimtoprostrate.Uponcitingthesereports,Ibnal-Labbadmakestheexplicitclaimthat:'Thesereportsreachedal-Shafi'I,andhehimselfeventransmittedthem.Butthenheaban-donedtheminfavourofhisownpersonalpreference(ra'y).'61Itshouldbestatedperhapsinal-Shafi'I'sdefencethatwhileal-Shafi'Ialmost certainlyhad access to the reports citedby Ibn al-Labbad,thecharge that al-Shafi'Iextended the rule on touching females tofemalechildrenwhichisalargepartofwhatIbnal-Labbad'sargumentturnsoncannotbesubstantiatedonthebasisofwhatwefindinal-Umm,theMukhtasaroral-Bulqlnl's'notes'.Thisraisesthequestion,ofcourse,ofwhetherIbnal-Labbadhadaccesstosomeothermaterialorwhetherhewassimplyreadingintoal-Shafi'Inotionsoutofwhichhe couldfashionstrawmen.4.TahdidWecomenowtothematterofwhatIbnal-Labbadreferstoastahdid.Heretheissuewasal-Shafi'T'sallegedtendencytoimposespecificlimitsonmattersthatwereactuallymuchmoreopen-ended.Forexample,question#22,onhowonewhodoesnotknowtheOpeningChapteroftheQur'anshouldpray:aftercitingseveralhadithswhereintheProphet'sinstructionsweresimplyto'praiseandextolGod(fa-l-yahmadil-ldhawal-yukabbir),'al-Shafi'IinsiststhatifsuchapersonknowssomepartoftheQur'anotherthantheOpeningChapterhisprayerwillnotbevalidunlessherecitesatleastsevenverses.62Inbitingirreverence,61Al-Radd,8262Al-Umm,1, 88. (No al-Muzanl). by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 140SHERMANA.JACKSONIbnal-Labbadobjects:Doyouseeanyonewhowilllistentothistypeofarbitrarylimit-setting(tahdid),fortheproprietyofwhichonemustproducescripturalevidence?Orhasherelatedthisontheauthorityofanyofthepeopleofknowledgewhocamebeforehim?Indeed,hadanyoneelsesaidanythinglikethis,orhad they arbitrarilyimposedlimitsin this fashion(haddada hddhdl-tahdid),you(al-Shafi'i)wouldhavecondemnedhimmercilessly.Butithasbecomeyourhabittocriticizeothersfordoingthatwhichyouallowyourself.Andthisis duetoalackoffair-mindednessindisputation.63This line of criticism is repeated on severalissues: al-ShafiTsrelatingthehadtthallowingprayerin sheep-stablesbut thenstipulatingthatthisapplies'onlyto thosestableswherethereis no urineorexcre-ment';4 or his requiringthat a fullbucket of waterbe used for eachinstancewhereinanindividualorgroupurinatesin aplacewheretheyintendto pray.65In all of theseinstances, Ibn al-Labbadinsistsnotonlythatal-Shafi'Iactsarbitrarilyby artificiallycircumscribingmatters withoutscripturalsupport, but that he is guilty in this regardofapplyingadouble-standard;foritispreciselythistahdidthathe so harshlycriticizeswhenpracticedby others.5.Al-Shafi'i'srelationshipwithMalikWecomenow finallyto the matterofal-Shafi'I'srelationshipwithMalik.In question#16, Ibn al-Labbadcataloguesa series ofhadtthtransmitterswhosenamesal-Shafi'Ihad erroneouslyrelatedon theauthorityofMalik.Thiswasadducedinanattempttocounteral-ShafiTschargethatMalikhad confusedthe namesof anumberoftransmittersinreportsherendered.Ibnal-LabbadinsiststhatthemistakesinquestiondidnotreverttoMalikbuttosomeofMalik'sdiscipleswhotransmittedthesereportsonhisauthority.Hadal-Shafi'Ibeenas closea discipleofMalikas otherprominentMalikls,hetoowouldhaveknownwheretoplacetheblame.Al-Shafi'lwas not, in other words, a real followerof Malik,certainlynotthemostfamiliarwiththelatter'stradition.One isleftwiththesensethatIbnal-Labbadisintimatingherethatinasmuchasal-Shafi'Ihadshownhimselftobelessthanperfectinhisknow-ledgeof the variouschannelsofreportsrelatedon the authority ofMalik,perhapshis transmissionsofMalik'slegaldeductionswereequallysuspect.Andwhereal-Shafi'IclaimedthatMalikignored,63Al-Radd,90.64Ibid.90 - 1 .65Ibid. 94-5 by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD' SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl ' I141underminedormisappropriatedProphetichadith,thisperhapsshouldbetakenwithagrainofsalt.VTHEPERDURINGHEGEMONYOF'SHAFI'ISM'?Ibn al-Labbad's invective is forcefuland in most instances convincing.One wonders, however, about the extent to whichK. al-Raddreflectsacaseofthehuntergettingcapturedbythegame.ForinhisveryattempttoraiseMalikaboveal-Shafi'Iasamorefaithfuladherenttohadith,Ibnal-Labbadendsup acceptingtoanappreciableextental-Shafi'I'sframeofreferenceand,insodoing,playingdowntheproto-Malikldistinctionbetweensunnaandhadith.Inotherwords,K.al-Raddappearstoproceedonthedictumthatthebestwaytorespondto'Shafi'Ismis todefendMalikby showing theextenttowhich his doctrine comportswith the dictates ofhadith.Beneaththisnotionthererested,however,anevenmoresignificantconcession,namelythatMalikcouldonlybe defendedby showingthe extenttowhichhisdoctrinecomportswiththedictatesofhadith.Intheend,whateversuccessesmighthavebeenrealizedinthearenaofanti-al-Shafi'Ipolemics,thesewouldallcomeattheexpenseofhavingcapitulatedtoclassicalShafi'Ism.ElsewhereI havealludedtothegrowinghegemonyof'Shafi'Ism'byvirtueofwhichlaterMahklapologiststendedtoignoreorplay66By 'Shafi'Ism'I mean the tendency to conflatesunna withhadith,as opposedtoseeing any distinctionbetween the two. To my mind, al-ShaflTsreal achievement wasthat he so masterfullyand effectivelywelded these terms and concepts together that itbecame almost impossible to separate them subsequently. Thus, scholars now speak ofsunna without the slightest indicationthat while al-Shafl'Iidentifiedthis withhadith,other scholars, particularly early Malikis, saw sunna and hadith as potentially separateentities.ThisShafT'I-centncviewhasoftenresultedinamisleadingjuxtapositionbetween sunna andnon-sunna, as opposed to 'Prophetic sunna based solely on hadith'and 'Prophetic sunna based on sources in additionto hadith' Some of the implicationsofthiscompressionhavebeennotedaboveinmydiscussionofHallaq.Notealso,however, JBrockopp, 'Early Jurisprudence',177. 'al-Shafil'T'sRisdla must be seenas aninnovativedocument,whichaddresseda commonconcernforauthorityinthelaw, but whereas Ibn'Abdal-Hakamwantedto solve the problemby reducingGod'slawtoitsmostabstractformulations,al-Shafi'iwantedtosolveitwithincreaseddependenceon Prophetic sunna'.It seems thatRBrunschvig's suggestionalmost halfacenturyagoisnolessvaluabletodaythanwhenfirstoffered:'SiTonsedelivraitdePempnsed'al-Safi'I,dontlasynthesegenialeafaussepourlongtempsbiendesperspectives, on arreterait sans aucundoute son attention, comme y incitent les textesmalikiteset I'onverraitpeut-etreles commencements du fiqh avec des yeux neufs.''PolemiquesMedievalesAutourDuRiteDe Malik',Andalus,15(2)(1950): 413. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 142.SHERMANA.JACKSONdownsuchsources as Madmanpractice{'amal) andexplainMalik'sdoctrinepurelyin termsofhadith.67In a moredirectfashion,YasinDuttonhas also drawnattentiontothis phenomenon,givinga well-documentedexampleofitinthecaseoftheMaliklpositiononsadl(holdingone'shandsatone'ssidesduringprayer).68Dutton'sexampleactuallygoesbeyondtheissueofmerelyjustifyingMalik'sfiqhandshowsthe extentto whichlaterMalikl jurists wereactuallywillingtoabandonaMaliklpositionthathadbeenbasedontheearlyMaliklconceptofsunnainfavourofhadiththatcontradictedthisposition.69WhatwefindinIbnal-Labbadisthusperhapstheembryonicstages of a tendencywhose denouementis reflectedin theactivityoftheselaterMaliklsreferredtobyDutton.Ibnal-Labbad'sparticipationinthistendencyisperhapsmostclearlyrevealedthrougha comparisonbetweenhislineofargumentandthatofYahyab. 'Umaron theoneissue commontoK. al-RaddandYahya'sK.al-Hujja.InthisparticularcasewefindthatwhileYahyab.'Umarisstillinthehabitofinvokingtheproto-Mahkiapproachbylookingoutsidethefourcornersofahadith-textforcluestoassisthimin determiningitslevelofnormativenessandtheintended scope of its application, i.e., the extent to which it reflects orconstitutes a sunna, Ibn al-Labbad all but ignores these considerationsandarguesstrictlyon thebasisofthecontentofthehadtth.InK.al-Hujja,Yahyacitesthepositionofal-Shafi'ItotheeffectthataMuslimsoldierhasaunilateral,independentrighttodespoilafallenenemyinanyface-to-faceconfrontation.YahyathenasksiftheImamwouldbeconsideredunjustifherefusestoallowthisMuslimsoldiertoundertakesuchdespoiling.Hisinterlocutoranswersintheaffirmative,andYahyaaskswhy.TheinterlocutoradducesahadithinwhichtheProphetisreportedtohavesaidontheDayofHunayn,'Whoeverkills anenemyandhasproofofthis,maydespoilthelatter'.70Thishadith,insistshisinterlocutor,estab-lishes the independent,unilateralright of a Muslimsoldierto despoilafallenenemy.Yahya'sresponseclearlyshowshiscommitmenttotheproto-Mahklapproach.I quoteitinfull.6 7SeemyIslamicLawandtheState:TheConstitutionaljurisprudenceofShihdbal-Dtnal-Qardfi(Leiden:E. J.Brill,1996),58, whereIrefert othist endencyinIbnRushd' sBidayatal-mujtahid.68YasinDut t on,"Amalv.hadithinIslamicLaw:t heCaseofSadlal-Yadayn(Hol di ngOne' sHandsbyOne' sSides)WhenDoi ngt hePrayer' ,IslamicLawandSociety,3(1)(Feb.1996):13- 40,esp.27ff.69Ibid.16,n.5.70AI-HUI,a,735. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBAD'SREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFl'I143Werespond:Werethisanobligatoryrulingintendedtobeofgeneralapplication,the Prophet,God'sblessings be uponhim, wouldhave saidthisonallofhiscampaigns,andthiswouldhavebeenhandeddownonhisauthorityin the case ofeach ofthese campaigns. But it has notbeenrelatedon his authoritythat he said this on all of his campaigns. Rather,he said thisonsome(orone)ofhis campaigns.Similarly,werethematterasyouhavestatedit,itwouldhavebeenincumbentuponhisCompanionsafterhimtosendinstructionstothiseffecttoalloftheMuslimarmieswhoconqueredthe various lands. But no such thing has beenhandeddownon theirauthor-ity. Indeed,the Prophet,God'sblessingandsalutationsbe uponhim,madediscretionarydistributionsofbooty(naffala) onsome ofhis campaignsbutnot on others. And for this reason, it has been related on the authorityof hisCompanionsthattheymadediscretionarydistributionsofbootyonsomecampaigns,butinmostinstancestheydidnot.Thus the properapplicationofthisprinciple(ofdespoilingafallenenemy)isasMalikhasstated. ,i.e., thatitis up tothediscretionoftheImaminaccordancewithwhathedeems to be in the interestofthe Muslims. It is not, as youclaim, abindingobligationonthe Imam(toallowthis)whetherhe wantstoornot. .71Clearly,forYahya,thereisafundamentaldistinctionbetweenastatementoranactionbytheProphet,ontheonehand,andaProphetic sunna, on the other. Even assuming, as he clearly does, thatthehadithin questionis sound,thisaloneis notenoughtoestablishit as a normative practiceof generalscope. Rather, this is determinedby referencetohowthecontentsofthehadithwereunderstoodandacteduponbytheCompanionsandthenhandeddownonthisunderstandingtoposterity.Thus,Yahyadoesnottreatthehadithasanisolated,independentlyauthoritativesourceandthenseektoprove thatMalikhasadheredtoit.Rather,he sets outtoshowthatboth the level and scope of the hadith'sauthorityare dependentuponsourcesandconsiderationsextraneoustothehadith.Malik,inturn,is correct,accordingtoYahya,preciselybecausetheseothersourcesandconsiderationsinformhisconclusion.Thisstandsin sharpcontrastwithwhatwe find in Ibnal-Labbad.For Ibn al-Labbad,there are no extraneoussources orconsiderationstobeentertained,andthedifferencebetweenMalikandal-Shafi'TresidespurelyinMalik'smorefaithfulcommitmenttothehadithinquestion,alongwithhissuperiorunderstandingofitscontents.Onthis criterionhebegins hisresponsewiththerhetoricalquestion:Whichofyouis morefaithfultowhathe relatesontheauthorityoftheMessenger of God, God's blessings and salutations be upon him; Malik, mayGod be pleased with him, when he places the right to despoil a fallen enemyunder the discretionof the Imam, being more faithfulthereinto thehadith71Ibid. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 144SHERMANA.JACKSONinhis possessiononthe authorityofthe MessengerofGod,God'sblessingsandsalutationsbe uponhim, oryou, whenyoudivideddespoilingintotwotypes, accordingtoyourownopinion(ra'y)..?72Ibnal-Labbadgoesonineffecttocedetoai-Shafi'Ttheidentifica-tionofhadlthwithsunna,followingwhichconcessionthereremainslittlemoretodiscussthanthatwhichfallswithinthefourcornersofthehadlth.ThisemergesclearlyinthatpartofhisresponsedealingwithwhetheraMuslimsoldier'srighttodespoilafallenenemyiscontingentuponreceivingpermissionfromtheImam:YouclaimthattheProphet,God'sblessingsandsalutationsbeuponhim,ruledinfavourofMuslimsoldiers[despoilingafallenenemy].Andyoudenouncedtheview ofMalikto the effectthatthis wasup to thediscretionof the former\al-awwal, i.e., the Prophet?l. But there are many indications inthe hadlth itself (wa ft l-hadfthi dala'du kathlra) to the effect that this is up tothe discretion of the Imam, as Malik held, may God be pleased with him.73Clearly, forIbn al-Labbad, the way to vindicate Malik's position isto show that the latter's was the proper and superiorinterpretation ofthe hadlth.Beyond the hadtth itself, there are no otherconsiderationsto be insisted upon, suggested or even acknowledged. On the contrary,atleastinthisparticularcase,Ibnal-Labbadappearstobesatisfiedwith his perceived success at turning the approach of al-Shafi'Iagainstthelatter.Insodoing,however,hehasclearlyabandonedthe'primitive'proto-MahklapproachofYahyab.'Umarandhis likes.Havingsaidthismuch,weshouldbecarefulnottooverstatematters.ThereareatleastfourplacesinK.al-RaddwhereIbnal-Labbadinvokestheproto-MaliklapproachandlookstosuchsourcesasthepracticeoftheCompanionsor'thepracticeofthepeopledowntoourownday'.74Inaddition,thereareinstances,asAl-Radd, 52.727 3Ibid.53.74Ibid.66.' Mal i k,mayGodbepleasedwithhi m,reliedontheactionofIbn' Umar ,i.e,t hathewoul dcombi nehisprayersal ongwiththeMusl i mcommander swheneverthelatterdidsoAndot hersbesidesIbn' Umarwoul d]oinhimindoi ngthisatMadi na,thehomeoftheProphet ,God' sblessingsandsalutationsbeuponhim,and theplaceofhis migrationand themi grat i onofhis Compani ons,may Godbepleasedwitht hem.ThisconstitutesineffectaconsensusatMadi naSohefollowedwhatherelatedontheiraut hori t y,sincehefoundthisexplicitlystatedinthehadlthontheiraut hori t yregardingthesunsetandnightprayersandhesawt hattheircont i nuouspractice(al-'amal)wasconsistentwi t hthis..'(fa-dhahabamdhkradiyal-ldhu'anhuildfi'h'bm'umarannahukdnatdhdjam'al-umard'ujama'ama'ahumwaghayru'bm'umartna'a'bm'umarya/ma'uma'ahumbil-madlnattwahiyaddrrasiihl-ldhisallal-ldhu'alayhtwasallamawamawdi'uht/ratihiwaht/ratiashdbihiradiyal-ldhu'anhumyaqumumaqdmal-t/md'tbt-l-madinatifa-ttaba'amdrawdhu'anhumidhwajadahumansusanftl-hadithi'anhumftl-maghrtbiwal-'ishd'iwaadrakal-'amala'alayhiqd'iman..)' by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from IBNAL-LABBADSREFUTATIONOFAL-SHAFII145evenadherentstoproto-Mahkismwouldthemselvesinsist,wheretheabsenceofanyextraneousconsiderationsrenderhadithineffectindependentrepositoriesofsunna(atleastinthesenseoftheirpossessingbindingauthority).Thus,noteveryinstancewhereIbnal-Labbadrestrictshimselftothecontentofhadithisnecessarilyacapitulationto'Shafi'Ism'.Thereare,however,instances,asthepresent comparison with Yahya b. 'Umar clearly demonstrates, whereIbnal-Labbadcouldhaveinvokedtheproto-Mahklapproachbutdidnot.Whatallthissuggests,then,isthatwhileIbnal-Labbadwasnotcompletelydisabusedoftheproto-Maliklapproach,hedidseeittobesomethingofaliabilityinanti-Shafi'Ipolemics.Inthisrespect,K.al-RaddmayrepresentanearlymanifestationoftheaforementionedtendencyamonglaterMaliklsastheymovedfurtherawayfromthepullandprestigeofearlyMadmanpractice,andaspressurefromnon-Maliklopponentscontinuedtomount,76especiallyfollowingtheeffortsofsuchthird/ninthcenturyfiguresasal-Bukharl,Muslim,AbuDawudandotherstointernalizetheviewthatthebestwaytodealwiththenemesisof'Shafi'Ism'wasin effecttobecome'aShafi'T'.InK. al-Radd, Ibnal-Labbaduses theterm'sunna'some37times.Inthemajorityoftheseinstancesthetermisbarelydistinguishablefromthetermhadith.AndinatleastIbid.81: 'andhe violatedthe sunna of theMessengerof God, God'sblessings andsalutationsbe uponhim, andthatwhichthe people continue to practice down to ourownday(wa khdlafa sunnatarasuh l-ldhi salla l-ldhu 'alayhiwa sallama wama lamyazal'alayhil-ndsu ild yawmindhddhd)'.Ibid. 91: 'I shall mention of these[hadiths] what I am able to recall, God willing, alongwithwhathasbeenrelatedinthisregardontheauthorityofhisCompanions,theSuccessorsandothersinoppositiontowhatyouhavestated(waanddbdkirunmmhdtnd hadarani in shd'alldh ma'amd /a'fthddhd'an ashdbthi wal-tdbi'lna waghaynhimhikhildfimdqulta.)'.Ibid. 100-01: 'The sunna of the Prophet, God's blessings and salutations be upon him,andhisCompanionswouldhavebeenmoreappropriateforal-Shafl'Itofollow(fasunnaturasuh l-ldhi salla l-ldhu 'alayhi wa sallama wa ashdbihi kdnat awld bi-l-Shdfi'lanyattabi'abd)'.75 See, e.g.,QadT 'Iyad,Tartib,1, 52: 'As forsituations where there is no[Madman]practiceopposinganisolatedreportandnosuchpracticesupportingit,thiswholecontroversyisrenderedmootandoneisobligatedtoproceedonthebasisoftheisolated report, be it a report fromthe people of Madinaor elsewhere, assuming that itis soundandis notcontradictedbyanotherreport[fromelsewhere].'76Inspeaking ofMadmanconsensus, forexample, Qadl'Iyadstates franklythat,'alloftheleadingfiguresoftheschoolsoflaw,thespeculativetheologians,thetraditionistsand the proponents ofrationaljudgementin law are unanimouslyunitedagainstus onthis issue, declaringus tobe in errorandarguingagainstus witheveryavailableargument,tothepointthatsomeofthemevengobeyondtheboundsofpartisanshipanddefamationtocastingaspersionsonMadinaandenumeratingitsflaws'SeeTartib,1, 47. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from 146SHERMANA.JACKSONone instance there is a clear (as opposed to apparent) conflationof thetwo.77 It is perhaps telling that while he uses the term sunna in the titleofhiswork(ontheexplicitcolophonto themanuscript),hismainargumentthroughoutthebody of this text centres almostexclusivelyaroundMalik'scommitment to hadith.7 7Al-Radd, 72. by guest on August 11, 2015http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from