is issued by one of their jurists yet contradicts a revealed text, the text is given precedence and his opinion is set aside; and if he is a jurist Companion who does not oppose any text but another Companion differs with him, we seek whichever view is better supported.

Another category of what is deemed marfūʿ by ruling is when a practice is linked to the Prophet’s era with the wording, “They used to do such-and-such during the time of the Prophet ﷺ.” This, too, is treated as marfūʿ by ruling.

There are many examples, such as the statement of Asmāʾ bint Abī Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them both): “During the Prophet’s lifetime in Medina we slaughtered a horse and ate it.”1

Here she did not explicitly say that the Prophet ﷺ was aware of the act; had she done so, the report would have been an explicit marfūʿ. Hence it is classified as marfūʿ by ruling.

The rationale is that, had the act been unlawful, Allah would not have allowed it; His tacit approval therefore renders it authoritative. As you have read earlier, some scholars contend that such a report is not technically marfūʿ by ruling, yet it is still probative. They argue that it is not marfūʿ because the Prophet ﷺ did not know of it, but it remains binding evidence because Allah knew of it and tacitly approved it.

Another instance counted as marfūʿ by ruling is when a Companion prefaces his statement with the word “narration.” For example, if the chain ends with a Companion who says, “A narration from Abū Hurayrah: Whoever does such-and-such,” or “Whoever says such-and-such,” this is regarded as marfūʿ by ruling. Although the Companion does not explicitly attribute it to the Prophet ﷺ, scholars classify it as marfūʿ by ruling because the default assumption is that the Companions narrate from the Messenger ﷺ.

Likewise, it is treated as marfūʿ by ruling when a Successor, narrating from a Companion, says, “He raises it to the Prophet ﷺ,” as when some of the Successors say, “From Abū Hurayrah—he raises it,” or