and the Baghdadi scholar Ibrāhīm al-Harbī.

Yet none of them raised an objection against him; they simply kept silent. Qāsim ibn Aṣbagh relates: “I once discussed the matter with al-Ṭabarī—meaning Muḥammad ibn Jarīr—and with Ibn Surayj. I asked them, ‘What do you two think of Ibn Qutaybah’s book on fiqh—how do you rate it?’ They replied, ‘It is of no consequence—nor is the book of Abū ʿUbayd. If you want fiqh, turn to the works of al-Shāfiʿī, Dāwūd, and their peers.’ (1)

After Dāwūd there arose his son Abū Bakr, Ibn al-Mughalis, and a number of Dāwūd’s disciples; alongside them stood such luminaries as Ibn Surayj, the leading Shāfiʿī; Abū Bakr al-Khallāl, the head of the Ḥanbalīs; Abū ʾl-Ḥasan al-Karkhī, the chief of the Ḥanafīs; while Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī was in Egypt.

They would sit together, debate one another, and each would present his proofs; no one informed against the Ẓāhirīs (the followers of Dāwūd) to the ruler. Indeed, more than that: they set out their disagreements with the Ẓāhirīs in their writings, both early and late. In every case the Ẓāhirīs had points in which they excelled, and issues that were found objectionable and for which they were censured. To this Imām Abū ʿAmr ibn al-Ṣalāḥ alludes when he says: “The view preferred by al-Ustāḏh Abū Manṣūr—and which he declared to be the sound position—is that the dissent of Dāwūd is to be taken into consideration.”

Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ then added: “This is what the matter ultimately settled upon, as is most commonly recognized among the foremost of the later Imāms who cited Dāwūd’s school in their renowned works—such as Shaykh Abū Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī, al-Māwardī, and Qāḍī Abū Ṭayyib. Had they not deemed his school worthy of consideration, they would not have mentioned it in their celebrated compilations.”

He continued: “I hold that his opinion should be counted—except where it clashes with an explicit qiyās, or with what the proponents of analogy have unanimously agreed upon in its various forms, or where he builds it on his own principles that conclusive evidence has shown to be invalid. In such cases the agreement of everyone besides him amounts to a binding consensus—such as his ruling on relieving oneself in water…”