on that basis and to declare things unlawful on that basis, just as He has bound him to judge on the testimony of two witnesses and, on their testimony, to declare things lawful or unlawful. If someone who rules that something concerning property or sexual relations is lawful or unlawful on the testimony of two upright witnesses cannot be said to have erred in Allah’s sight on the grounds that he has not acted in obedience to what he was commanded, then neither may someone who declares something lawful or unlawful through independent judgment, in a matter admitting such judgment, be described as mistaken in Allah’s sight.

There is no explicit statement transmitted from Mālik, may Allah be pleased with him, on this question. His school’s teachings, however, indicate that every jurist exercising independent judgment is correct. One indication is that al-Mahdī asked him to compile his legal positions in a book and require people to follow it. Mālik replied, “The Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, dispersed throughout the lands, and people adopted their opinions. So leave people to the positions they have chosen.” Had he not considered every jurist exercising independent judgment to be correct, he could not have allowed people to persist in what he regarded as error.

Another indication is his statement in al-Mudawwana concerning someone who recognizes his own handwriting but does not remember the testimony recorded in it. Mālik considers such testimony inadmissible and invalid, and holds that no judgment may be based upon it. Nevertheless, the witness should submit it and testify to what he knows. Had Mālik not considered every jurist exercising independent judgment to be correct, he would not have instructed him to give testimony upon which no valid judgment could be based. The judge to whom it was submitted might rule on its basis, in which case Mālik would have exposed him to ruling erroneously. This cannot be right. This is also the position of al-Shāfi‘ī and a group of his followers. Conflicting positions on the question have been transmitted from Abū Hanīfa.

Some have interpreted Mālik, may Allah be pleased with him, as holding that the truth lies with only one side, on the basis of his response when asked about the disagreements among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said, “Some are mistaken and some are correct.” This interpretation is not sound, for he did not say, “Mistaken in Allah’s sight.” Rather, he meant that someone was mistaken in his own estimation, so he himself could not follow that person or judge according to his position. Since Mālik’s words admit this interpretation, they cannot serve as proof for that claim.

Some have also sought support for that claim in Mālik’s ruling concerning people who cannot determine the direction of prayer: they must exercise independent judgment to ascertain it, and none may pray behind another whose judgment differs from his own. The argument is that, if each were correct in his judgment, each could validly pray behind another.

This does not follow. Whoever follows an imam praying in a particular direction is himself praying in that direction, because his prayer is linked to his imam’s prayer. Yet he is bound to act upon his own independent judgment and may not abandon it for someone else’s. It is for this reason that Mālik said none of them may pray behind another whose judgment differs from his own, not for the reason advanced in that argument. And Allah knows best.