Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said, “That is the sounder of the two reports, and it is likewise the view of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib and the majority of scholars; Ibn al-Mawwāz also adopted it.” (1)

They add: According to Abū Ḥanīfah’s school, when a Successor lived alongside the Companions, vied with them in issuing legal verdicts, and was acknowledged by them, his opinion counts as authoritative proof. (2)

They further say: This is also the position of the leading scholar of greater Syria, al-Awzāʿī, the leading scholar of Khurāsān, Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh, and it is the view of al-Zuhrī as well.

Thus the jurists of the various regions, the jurists of transmitted tradition, and the jurists of opinion and analogy are all agreed on this doctrine, and you have already heard the supporting evidence.

They continue: As for the proofs you cite, they fall into two categories, textual and rational.

Regarding the textual proofs, the authentic ones are:
– either general, whereas our evidences are specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general;
– or they are concise, whereas our evidences are detailed;
– or they are earlier texts that have been abrogated by the proofs we have mentioned—such as the Prophet’s ﷺ wrestling match and Abū Bakr’s wager, for both occurred in the earliest days of Islam.