Medina and frequently affirmed its precedence over the school of the people of Iraq. He would direct those seeking fatwas to the schools of the scholars of hadith and the school of the people of Medina. He would refer them to Ishāq, Abū 'Ubayd, Abū Thawr, and other jurists among the scholars of hadith, and direct them to the Medinan study circle—the circle of Abū Mus'ab al-Zuhrī and others like him.

Abū Mus'ab was the last surviving transmitter of al-Muwatta' from Mālik. He died one year after Ahmad, in 242 AH. Ahmad was reluctant to refute the people of Medina as he refuted the proponents of independent juristic reasoning, saying, “They followed the transmitted reports.” Thus, the positions of the majority of the imams agree with Mālik’s position in giving preference to the views of the people of Medina.

“The Fourth Level”

This concerns the later practice of Medina. Does it constitute binding evidence in Islamic law that must be followed, or not? The leading imams hold that it does not constitute such evidence. This is the position of al-Shāfi'ī, Ahmad, Abū Hanīfa, and others. It is also the position of the discerning scholars among Mālik’s followers, as noted by the distinguished scholar 'Abd al-Wahhāb in his book Usūl al-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), and by others. He stated that this constitutes neither consensus nor authoritative evidence according to the discerning scholars among Mālik’s followers. Some of his followers in the Maghreb have sometimes treated it as authoritative evidence, but they have neither an explicit statement from the imams nor any proof to support this; rather, they merely follow others’ authority.

I say:

I have seen nothing in Mālik’s words that would require treating this as authoritative evidence. In al-Muwatta', he merely mentions the principle upon which they agree, thereby reporting their position, and at times