is deemed constructively marfūʿ, with one proviso: the Companion must not be known for frequently transmitting Israelite reports. If he is indeed known for that, his statement is no longer treated as marfūʿ, for it may have come from those Israelite sources. Many Companions fall into this category, such as ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (may Allah be pleased with them both), who, after the Battle of Yarmuk, acquired a large collection from the scriptures of the People of the Book that the Romans and others had left behind—something the law allowed. Accordingly, once a Companion is recognized as someone who cites Israelite material, his statement is not given constructive marfūʿ status.
This leads to another question: if a report is attributed to a Companion yet is not granted the standing of marfūʿ, is it still authoritative?
The scholars have differed:
• Some say it is authoritative, provided it does not contradict a revealed text or the statement of another Companion. If it conflicts with a text, the text prevails; if it conflicts with another Companion, the weightier view is adopted.
• Others argue that the Companion’s statement is not binding proof, for a Companion is a human being who exercises ijtihād and may be right or wrong.
• A third view holds that the only Companion statements that constitute proof are those of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them both), citing the Prophet’s words, “Follow the two who will come after me: Abu Bakr and ʿUmar,” 1 and, “If they obey Abu Bakr and ʿUmar they will be rightly guided.” 2 All other Companions’ statements, on this view, are not proof.
The position that seems strongest to me is that the Companion’s statement is proof when he is among the people of jurisprudence