that followed—neither the consensus of the people of Mecca, nor that of Syria, Iraq, or any other Muslim city. Whoever attributes to Abū Hanīfah or any of his followers the view that the consensus of the people of Kufa constitutes binding proof that every Muslim must follow has misrepresented Abū Hanīfah and his followers.

As for Medina, scholars have discussed the consensus of its inhabitants. Mālik and his followers are well known for holding that their consensus constitutes binding proof, although the other imams dispute this with them. This discussion concerns only their consensus during those favored generations. As for subsequent times, scholars have agreed that the consensus of Medina’s inhabitants does not constitute binding proof, since by then there were scholars elsewhere who were not to be found there. This was especially so after Rāfidism appeared in Medina.

Its inhabitants had remained attached to their longstanding religious way, identifying with the school of Mālik, until the beginning of the sixth century AH, or before or after that. Then some of the Rāfidīs of the East, from Qāshān and elsewhere, came to them and corrupted the beliefs of many of them, particularly those among them who traced their descent to the Prophet’s family. They brought books by adherents of religious innovation that contradicted the Quran and Sunnah, and lavished considerable sums of money upon them. From that time onward, religious innovation became widespread there.

During the three favored generations, however, no religious innovation was openly manifest in the Prophet’s city whatsoever. Nor did any innovation concerning the foundations of religion originate there, as happened in the other cities. For the major cities inhabited by the Companions of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless