as well as Ibn Bukayr (1), ʿAbd Allāh b. Maslama, ʿAbd Allāh b. Nāfiʿ (2), Abū Muṣʿab, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, they pay no heed to the versions they transmit; they brand them anomalous and declare: “Those others are better informed about Mālik, kept closer company with him, and know his school more thoroughly than anyone else.”
Indeed, they do not even regard the isolated report of any one of those latter men as constituting a real disagreement. They cite it only as a matter of record or to note an unusual opinion. Thus they do not accept from Mālik everything narrated by every transmitter—even if he is an authoritative, trustworthy imam on a par with Ibn al-Qāsim, or even superior to him. Whenever both Ibn al-Qāsim and someone else relate something from Mālik, they give precedence to Ibn al-Qāsim’s version, deem it weightier, act upon it, and set the rest aside.
• In the same way, the companions of Abū Ḥanīfa: if Abū Yūsuf the judge, Muḥammad [b. al-Ḥasan], and the circle of the Imlāʾ transmit a report from him, and then men such as (4) al-Qāsim b. Maʿn, Bishr b. Ziyād, Fiṭr b. Ḥammād b. Abī Sulaymān, ʿĀfiyah b. Yazīd, Nūḥ al-Jāmiʿ, ʿAbd Allāh b. Ziyād—or scholars of even higher standing who also narrate from Abū Ḥanīfa, like al-Ḥasan b. Ziyād al-Luʾluʾī, Dāwūd b. Naṣīr, Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar, and others—report something that conflicts with theirs, they ignore it and say: “This is an anomalous narration that clashes with the transmissions of his own disciples, who are better acquainted with his school.” Never do they place the narration of al-Ḥasan b. Ziyād on the same footing as that of Abū Yūsuf.
• Likewise, the followers of al-Shāfiʿī accept from him only what comes through the narrations of