1 Calder, N., Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 223–43Google Scholar. For a list of reviews treating Calder's Studies, see Lowry, J. E., “The legal hermeneutics of al-Shāfiʿī and Ibn Qutayba: a reconsideration”, Islamic Law and Society 11/1, 2004, 2, n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Calder, Studies, 223 ff.

3 Hallaq, W., “Was al-Shafiʿi the master architect of Islamic jurisprudence?”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 25/4, 1993, 593, 597 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Hallaq, “Was al-Shafiʿi”, 592–3.

5 Hallaq, “Was al-Shafiʿi”, 594–5, 600–01.

6 Melchert, C., The Formation of the Sunni Schools of Law, 9^th–10^th Centuries C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 68Google Scholar.

7 Melchert, C., “Qur’ānic abrogation across the ninth century: Shāfiʿī, Abū ʿUbayd, Muḥāsibī and Ibn Qutaybah”, in Weiss, Bernard G. (ed.), Studies in Islamic Legal Theory (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 96Google Scholar.

8 Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”, 95–6.

9 Both Calder and Lowry elaborate on al-Shāfiʿī's dichotomy between general (khāṣṣ) and particular (ʿāmm) as a means of solving legal and exegetical ambiguities. With regard to Calder, in whose view Ibn Qutayba was not familiar with al-Shāfiʿī's application of the rubric ʿāmm/khāṣṣ, Lowry observes that Ibn Qutayba does occasionally speak of khāṣṣ. There is, however, an important difference between the use of the root kh-ṣ-ṣ in the legal hermeneutics of Ibn Qutayba and al-Shāfiʿī, which explains why the former never opposes khāṣṣ to the notion of ʿāmm. Al-Shāfiʿī seeks to harmonize contradictory rules by constructing a hierarchy of general principles (ʿāmm) and their specific implementation (khāṣṣ); for Ibn Qutayba khāṣṣ serves to define the specific circumstances of a linguistic application. It was the latter approach, which does not require any category as a complement of khāṣṣ, and not al-Shāfiʿī's “(unusual) technique”, that was adopted by the science of uṣūl al-fiqh (Lowry, “Legal hermeneutics”, 18–9).

10 Whereas the Risāla is a consummate work of legal epistemology, the Ta'wīl aims mainly at defending individual traditions from their unorthodox assailants (Lowry, “Legal hermeneutics”, 4–6, 38).

11 Lowry, “Legal hermeneutics”, 39–41.

12 Hallaq, “Was al-Shafiʿi”, 592.

13 Hallaq, “Was al-Shafiʿi”, 600.

14 “… Shāfiʿī's is not the epistemology of later uṣūl al-fiqh” (Lowry, “Legal hermeneutics”, 38; see also 18–19, 38–41).

15 Lowry, J. E., Early Islamic Legal Theory: The Risāla of Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17–18, 51–9, 359–68, especially 360CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 According to Devin Stewart, the third century ah saw the intensive development of Islamic legal theory. Pace Hallaq, Stewart points out that al-Shāfiʿī's Risāla was discussed by a number of third-century jurisprudents (Stewart, D., “Muḥammad b. Dā'ūd al-Ẓāhirī's Manual of Jurisprudence, Al-Wuṣūl ilā Maʿrifat al-Uṣūl”, in Weiss, Bernard G. (ed.), Studies in Islamic Legal Theory (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 113, 130, 136Google Scholar). Murteza Bedir has observed that Stewart's conclusions should be treated with caution because we do not know the content of these texts; the later sources make little, if any, reference to them; and (following Makdisi and Hallaq) the term uṣūl al-fiqh was used inconsistently in the third century ah (Bedir, M., “An early response to Shāfiʿī: ʿĪsā b. Abān on the prophetic report [Khabar]”, Islamic Law and Society, 9/3, 2002, 286–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Bedir's insightful analysis, however, does not convince me that ʿĪsā b. Abān's excerpts quoted by al-Jaṣṣās belong to a work which was conceived as a contemporary response to al-Shāfiʿī.

17 For a list of works which discuss the Islamic penalty for zinā in detail, see note 24.

18 Pavlovitch, P., “The ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit tradition at the crossroads of methodology”, Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 11, 2011, 209–18Google Scholar.

19 Pavlovitch, “The ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit”, 164–89.

20 According to Abū Yūsuf, “if [the witnesses] testify against a muḥsan and a muḥṣana and declare that they committed an abomination (afṣaḥū bi-'l-fāḥisha), the imam should order their stoning” (Yūsuf, Abū, Kitāb al-Kharāj (Bayrūt: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1399/1979), 162Google Scholar). Al-Shaybānī states: “[if] four [witnesses] testify against a man that he committed adultery, but he denies [his being in a state of] iḥsān, while he has a wife who has an offspring from him (waladat min-hu), he is stoned” (Al-Shaybānī, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr (Karātshī: Idārat al-Qur’ān wa-'l-ʿUlūm al-Islāmiyya, 1411/1990), 279Google Scholar).

21 Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, eds. Muḥammad Zahrī al-Najjār, Muḥammad Sayyid Jād al-Ḥaqq, 4 vols. (1^st ed., Bayrūt: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1414/1994), 3, 138–41Google Scholar.

22 Saḥnūn, al-Mudawwana al-Kubrā, 4 vols. (1^st ed., Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya), 4:504Google Scholar.

23 Al-Shāfiʿī, Risāla, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, n.d.), 128–32; 245–8Google Scholar; Al-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-Umm, ed. Rifʿat Fawzī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, 11 vols. (1^st ed., al-Qāhira: Dār al-Wafā' li-'l-Ṭibāʿa wa-'l-Nashr wa-'l-Tawzīʿ, 1422/2001), 7: 336–7, 8: 189–90Google Scholar; Al-Shāfiʿī, Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth, at al-Umm, 10: 203–06.

24 For a more detailed discussion of al-Shāfiʿī's theory of abrogation in relation to the penalty for zinā see Burton, J., The Sources of Islamic Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 122–64Google Scholar; Burton, J., “The penalty for adultery in Islam”, in Hawting, G. R. and Shareef, Abdul-Kader A. (eds), Approaches to the Qur'ān (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), 269–84Google Scholar; Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”; Lowry, The Risāla, 93–104.

25 Al-Umm, 7:336; Ikhtilāf, at al-Umm, 10:203–4. In the latter case al-Shāfiʿī's intention is unclear. The reference to the “stoning verse” seems to be an attempt to justify the stoning penalty per se, and not to endorse the SPA.

26 Al-Muzanī may have been too young to have had reliable audition from al-Shāfiʿī (Melchert, C., “The meaning of Qāla 'l-Shāfiʿī in ninth century sources”, in Montgomery, James E. (ed.), Abbasid Studies (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 296–7Google Scholar).

27 This is indicated in al-Sunan al-Ma'thūra, a collection of al-Muzanī's traditions on the authority of al-Shāfiʿī compiled by al-Ṭaḥāwī. There, al-Muzanī twice quotes the woman's-servant tradition and once the tradition about the Prophet's punishment of two Jews taken in adultery (Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Sunan al-Ma'thūra, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī (Bayrūt: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1986), 394, no. 551; 397, no. 554; 398, no. 555Google Scholar). In each case al-Muzanī seems preoccupied with the scriptural provenance of the stoning penalty.

28 Al-Muzanī, al-Mukhtaṣar fī Furūʿⁱ 'l-Shāfiʿiyya (1^st ed., Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1419/1998), 342Google Scholar.

29 As a rule, al-Shāfiʿī cites the story about the two Jews while considering the possibility of a Muslim judge's adjudication between dhimmīs (al-Umm, 5:447–8, 503; 7:354; 8:80). Once, in the Risāla, al-Shāfiʿī mentions the same story in the context of his SPA advocacy, but as a secondary argument that is only tangentially related to his primary evidence derived from the traditions about Māʿiz and the woman's servant (Risāla, 250).

30 Al-Muzanī, Mukhtaṣar, 342.

31 Brunschvig, Robert, “‘Le Livre de l'Ordre et de la Défense’ d'al-Muzani”, Bulletin d'Études Orientales, 11, 1945–46, 154Google Scholar.

32 Al-Marwazī, al-Sunna, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Buṣayrī (al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-ʿĀṣima li-'l-Nashr wa-'l-Tawzīʿ, 1422/2001), 244–5Google Scholar.

33 Melchert, “The meaning of Qāla 'l-Shāfiʿī”, 290.

34 Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arna'ūṭ, 29 vols. (2^nd ed., Bayrūt: Mu'assasat al-Risāla, 1402/1982), 14:491Google Scholar.

35 al-Mundhir, Ibn, al-Awsaṭ, ed. Khālid al-Sayyid and Ayman ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ (2^nd ed., al-Fayūm: Dār al-Falāḥ, 1431/2010), 12:430–2Google Scholar.

36 On the issue of taqlīd in the early Shāfiʿī teaching, see Shamsy, Ahmed El, “Rethinking Taqlīd in the early Shāfiʿī school”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 128/1, 2008, 1–23Google Scholar.

37 Brockopp, J. E., “Early Islamic jurisprudence in Egypt: two scholars and their Mukhtaṣars”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30/2, 1998, 168Google Scholar; Melchert, Formation, 68–86, 87.

38 Melchert, “The meaning of Qāla 'l-Shāfiʿī”, 290.

39 Melchert, Formation, 76; Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”, 78.

40 Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”, 79. Al-Muḥāsibī is sometimes counted among the Shāfiʿīyya, although this association is difficult to prove (Melchert, Formation, 75).

41 Pavlovitch, “The ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit tradition”, 152–5, 158.

42 ʿUbayd, Abū, Kitāb al-Īmān, ed. Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (1^st ed., al-Riyāḍ: Maktabat al-Maʿārif li-'l-Nashr wa-'l-Tawzīʿ, 1421/2000), 99Google Scholar.

43 ʿUbayd, Abū, Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Sharaf, 5 vols. (al-Qāhira: al-Hay'a al-ʿĀmma li-Shu'ūn al-Maṭābiʿ al-Amīriyya, 1404/1984), 1:438–9; 4:83–5; 5:77Google Scholar.

44 Melchert, Formation, 74–5, 76–7; Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”, 78–9; Picken, Gavin, “Ibn Ḥanbal and al-Muḥāsibī: a study of early conflicting scholarly methodologies”, Arabica 55/3–4, 2008, 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Melchert, “Qur'ānic abrogation”, 80, quoting Le traité des divergences du ḥadīṯ d'Ibn Qutayba, trans. Lecomte, Gérard (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1962), viiiGoogle Scholar.

46 Qutayba, Ibn, Ta'wīl Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥīm (Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr, 1995/1415), 88–90Google Scholar.

47 Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wīl Mukhtalif, 175–7.

48 Al-Dārimī, Sunan, ed. Zamarlī, Fawwāz Aḥmad and ʿ Al-ʿAlamī, Khālid al-Sab, 2 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1987), 2:236, nos. 2327–8Google Scholar. There is a scent of arbitrariness in the link between the Quran and the Sunna, which is imposed by the chapter heading alone (Bāb ^unfī tafsīr ⁱqawl ⁱ-hi taʿālā ʿAw yajʿala 'l-lāh ^ula-hunna sabīl ^an).

49 al-Mundhir, Ibn, Tafsīr, ed. Saʿd b. Muḥammad al-Saʿd, 2 vols. (al-Madīna: Dār al-Ma'āthir, 1422/2002), 2:601–2Google Scholar.

50 Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, 6:494–6.

51 Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, 6:496–8.

52 Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, 6:498.

53 Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 17 vols. (1^st ed., Bayrūt: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1422/2001), 9:346Google Scholar.

54 Al-Ṭabarī, Tahdhīb al-Āthār, Musnad ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 2:878.

55 Melchert, Formation, 191.

56 Gilliot, C., “Le traitement du Ḥadīṯ dans le Tahḏīb al-Āṯār de Tabari”, Arabica, 41/3, 1994, 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Al-Ṭayālisī, Musnad, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, 4 vols. (1^st ed., al-Qāhira: Hajar li-'l-Ṭibā'a wa-'l-Nashr wa-'l-Tawzīʿ wa-'l-Iʿlān, 1999/1420), 2:128, no. 805Google Scholar; Shayba, Ibn Abī, Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥamad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Jumʿa, Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Laḥīdān, 16 vols. (1st ed., al-Riyāḍ: Maktabat al-Rushd Nāshirūn, 2004), 9:421, no. 29269Google Scholar.

58 ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, 12 vols. (2^nd ed., al-Majlis al-ʿIlmī; Bayrūt: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1403/1983), 7:328–9, no. 13358Google Scholar.

59 EI ², s.v. al-Shāfiʿī (E. Chaumont).

60 ʿAsākir, Ibn, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, ed. Muḥibb al-Dīn Abī Saʿīd ʿUmar b. Gharāma al-ʿAmrawī, 80 vols. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr, 1415/1995), 36:169, 180Google Scholar.

61 Towards its end, where two SPA traditions are recorded, ʿAbd al-Razzāq's Bāb al-rajm wa-'l-iḥṣān (7:315–32, nos. 13329–69) is erratic. The bāb opens with the justification of rajm (nos. 13329–33), then treats extensively the voluntary confession of adultery by a male (13334–44) and a female (13345–9), then moves to ʿAlī's stoning and flogging of an adulteress (13350, 13353–6) and some related issues (13351–2). This sequence of issues, which reflects second-century exegetical and legal priorities concerning zinā, is followed by a cluster of five polemical traditions: the first two (13357–8) endorse DPA, the next two (13359–60) insist on SPA, while the fifth (13361) seeks to harmonize DPA with SPA. These traditions clearly refer to a post-Shāfiʿī polemic that could not have been witnessed by ʿAbd al-Razzāq for chronological reasons. There follows another series of traditions that justify the rajm penalty (13363–4) which, again, is inconsistent with ʿAbd al-Razzāq's sequence of arguments.

62 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 9:421, no. 29266.

63 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 9:419–21, nos. 29258–70.

64 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 9:419, no. 29258.

65 Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. Riwāyat ^uIbn ⁱ-hi Abī 'l-Faḍl Ṣāliḥ, ed. Ṭāriq b. ʿAwḍ Allāh b. Muḥammad (1st ed., al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Waṭan li-'l-Nashr, 1420/1999), 310, no. 1163.

66 Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal wa-Isḥāq b. Rāhwayh. Riwāyat ^uIsḥāq b. Manṣūr al-Kawsaj, ed. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn Khālid b. Maḥmūd al-Rabāṭ, Wi'ām al-Ḥawshī and Jumʿat Fatḥī, 2 vols. (1^st ed., al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Hijra li-'l-Nashr wa-'l-Tawzīʿ, 1425/2004), 2:250.

67 Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. Riwāyat ^uIsḥāq b. Ibrāhīm b. Hāhi' al-Naysābūrī, ed. Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh, 2 vols. (Bayrūt: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1300/1980), 2:90, no. 1566.

68 Spectorsky, S. A., “Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal's Fiqh”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102/3, 1982, 463 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Melchert, Formation, 14; Melchert, “Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the framing of Islamic law”, Islamic Law and Society 8/3, 2001, 389Google Scholar; Melchert, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), 72Google Scholar.

69 The harmonizing tradition seems anomalous in the collections of al-Kawsaj and Ibn Hāni'. Al-Khiraqī (d. 334/945–6) points out that according to one tradition from Ibn Ḥanbal, the adulterers are flogged and stoned, but according to another they are stoned but not flogged (Al-Khiraqī, Mukhtaṣar, ed. Muḥammad Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh (Dimashq: Mu'assasat Dār al-Salām, 1378), 190). Al-Khiraqī is unaware of Aḥmad's alleged support for the harmonizing doctrine and the attendant tradition via Masrūq b. al-Ajdaʿ; its presence in some of the Masā'il collections may, therefore, signal a later interpolation.

70 Al-Bukhārī, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Muḥammad Zuhayr b. Nāṣir al-Nāṣir, 9 vols. (Jidda: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāt, 1422), 8:164–5Google Scholar. The section opens with the opinion of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī that whoever z-n-y with his sister incurs the penalty for zinā. Then al-Bukhārī cites only the second part of the tradition in which ʿAlī says that: 1) he had flogged an adulteress according to the Book of Allāh and; 2) stoned her according to the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah. It is strange, though, that al-Bukhārī, had he known al-Shāfiʿī's SPA doctrine, would have chosen to endorse it by tampering with a widely-known DPA tradition while, at the same time, ignoring al-Shāfiʿī's more persuasive evidence. By citing only the second part of the ʿAlī tradition, al-Bukhārī clearly emphasizes the sunnaic provenance of the rajm penalty. Thus he addresses an important second-century exegetical problem, which is, nevertheless, irrelevant to the DVSP dispute. The issue of abrogation between scripture and the Sunna is addressed in the following tradition, which asks whether Q. 24:2 (which prescribes flogging of the zunāt) was revealed before or after the Prophet had stoned. The last tradition in the chapter deals with the number of voluntary confessions needed for the imposition of rajm. Topically untidy as it is, this bāb may have been the work of a later redactor: admittedly, the earliest version of the Ṣaḥīḥ, which was in the possession of al-Firabrī, included topic headings with nothing after them and ḥadīth without topic headings (Melchert, “Bukhārī and his Ṣaḥīḥ”, 445; Brown, J., The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 385–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

71 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Muḥammad Fu'ād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 5 vols. (1^st ed., al-Qāhira, Bayrūt: Dār Iḥyā' al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1412/1991), 3:1316–7, no. 1690.

72 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 3:1317, no. 1691.

73 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, ed. ʿIzzat ʿUbayd al-Daʿʿās, ʿĀdil al-Sayyid, 5 vols. (1^st ed., Bayrūt: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1418/1998), 4:370, nos. 4413–4.

74 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, 4:370–2, nos. 4415–7.

75 Nothing suggests that Abū Dāwūd means to uphold SPA when he cites numerous variants of the Māʿiz tradition (Sunan, 4:373–81) and the woman's-servant tradition (ibid., 4:383–4).

76 Melchert, “Life and works”, 40.

77 Melchert, C., “The Musnad of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal: how it was composed and what distinguishes it from the six books”, Der Islam, 82/1, 2005, 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Melchert, “The life and works of Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī”, al-Qanṭara, 29/1, 2008, 38–9Google Scholar.

78 Abū Dāwūd prefers the prophetic traditions; almost 90 per cent of the traditions in the Sunan go back to the Prophet (Melchert, “Life and works”, 31).

79 Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. Muḥammad Fu’ād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 2 vols. (al-Qāhira: Dār Iḥyā' al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, 1952–53), 2:852, nos. 2549–50.

80 In the chapter devoted to rajm (Bāb al-rajm) Ibn Māja is concerned with the existence of a stoning verse in the Quran, the number of voluntary confessions that incur rajm and the imam's prayer over the adulterer who was stoned (Sunan, 2:853–4, nos. 2553–5).

81 Al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākīr, 5 vols. (2^nd ed., al-Qāhira: Sharikat Maktabat wa-Maṭbaʿat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī wa-Awlādⁱ-hi, 1398/1978), 4:39–42, nos. 1433–4Google Scholar.

82 Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmiʿ, 4:41–2.

83 Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmiʿ, 242.

84 Al-Ṭabarī, Tahdhīb al-Āthār, Musnad ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 2:877, no. 1233.

85 Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, 3:138–41.

86 The group in parentheses is according to al-Ṭaḥāwī, Mukhtaṣar Ikhtilāf al-ʿUlamā', ed. ʿAbd Allāh Nadhīr Aḥmad, 5 vols. (1^st ed., Bayrūt: Dār al-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyya, 1416/1995), 3:277Google Scholar.

87 al-Farrā', Ibn, al-ʿUdda, ed. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Sayr al-Mubārakī, 5 vols. (2^nd ed., al-Riyāḍ, 1990), 3:886, 1044Google Scholar.

88 Ḥazm, Ibn, al-Muḥallā, ed. Shākir, Aḥmad Muḥammad, 11 vols. (al-Qāhira: Idārat al-Ṭibāʿa al-Munīriyya, 1347–52/1928–33), 11:234–5Google Scholar.

89 Al-Khaṭṭābī, Maʿālim al-Sunan, ed. Muḥammad Rāghib al-Ṭabbākh, 4 vols. (1^st ed., Ḥalab: al-Maṭbaʿat al-ʿIlmiyya, 1351/1932), 3:316–7Google Scholar.

90 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, ed. Muṣṭafā b. Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī et al., 26 vols. (al-Ribāṭ: Mudīriyyat al-Shu’ūn al-Islāmiyya, 1387–1412/1967–1992), 9:78–9Google Scholar.

91 Al-Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, ed. al-Sayyid ʿAlī al-Khurāsānī, al-Sayyid Jawād al-Shahristānī and al-Shaykh Mahdī Najaf, 6 vols. (2^nd ed., Qumm: Mu'assasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī al-Tābiʿa li-Jamāʿat al-Mudarrisīn bi-Qumm al-Musharrafa, 1420/1999), 5:367Google Scholar.

92 Al-Baghawī, Sharḥ al-Sunna, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arna’ūṭ and Muḥammad Zuhayr Shāwīsh, 16 vols. (2^nd ed., Bayrūt: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1403/1983), 10:276–7Google Scholar.

93 Al-Ḥāzimī, al-Iʿtibār fī Bayān al-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh min al-Āthār (2^nd ed., Ḥaydarābād: Dā'irat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 1359), 201Google Scholar.

94 Rushd, Ibn, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 2 vols. (6^th ed., Bayrūt: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1982/1402), 2:435Google Scholar.

95 Qudāma, Ibn, al-Mughnī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥulw, 15 vols. (3^rd ed., al-Riyāḍ: Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1417/1997), 12:313Google Scholar.

96 Ḥajar, Ibn, Fatḥ al-Bārī, ed. Abū Qutayba Naẓar Muḥammad al-Fāryābī, 17 vols. (Dār Ṭayba, n.d.) 15:605Google Scholar.

97 Just as the doctrine that rejected banishment as part of the punishment for fornication, on which see Schacht, J., Origins (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), 209Google Scholar.

98 Pavlovitch, “The ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit tradition”, 209–18.

99 Al-Kawsaj, Masā'il, 2:250.

100 Al-Kawsaj, Masā'il, 2:250.

101 Spectorsky, “Ḥadīth in the responses of Isḥāq b. Rāhwayh”, 409.

102 Al-Khaṭṭābī, Maʿālim, 3:316.

103 IE ², s.v. Ẓāhiriyya (Abdel-Magid Turki); Goldziher, I., Die Ẓâhiriten (Leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1884), 30 ff.Google Scholar; Melchert, Formation, 179.

104 Melchert, Formation, 180.

105 Melchert, Formation, 72–3, 147.

106 Melchert, Formation, 24–5.

107 Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 12:313. According to Ibn Qudāma, Abū Isḥāq al-Jūzajānī (d. 256/870) was of a similar opinion.

108 Melchert, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 80–1.

109 Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 12:314.