As for jurisprudence and juristic opinion, it is well known that none of the people of Medina introduced an innovation into the fundamentals of religion. When discussion of juristic opinion arose in the early Abbasid period, Rabīʿa ibn Hurmuz formulated detailed rulings for them, just as ʿUthmān al-Battī and his peers did in Basra, and Abū Hanīfa and his peers in Kufa. Some people accepted this, while others rejected it. Among those who rejected it were Hishām ibn ʿUrwa, Abū al-Zinād, al-Zuhrī, Ibn ʿUyayna, and their peers. If they rejected those newly introduced opinions in Medina, they rejected the newly introduced opinions in Iraq all the more strongly. Thus, the people of Medina were no more involved than the people of Iraq in what was blameworthy, while surpassing them in the very things they praised. This demonstrates their superiority.

As for Hishām ibn ʿUrwa’s statement:

“The affairs of the Children of Israel remained sound until those of mixed descent—the sons of women taken captive from other nations—became widespread among them. They then spoke among them on the basis of opinion, going astray themselves and leading others astray.”

Ibn ʿUyayna said:

“We examined this and found that the newly introduced opinions came only from those of mixed descent, the sons of women taken captive from other nations.”

He mentioned some of those who were in Medina, Basra, and Kufa. In this regard, those in Medina were more praiseworthy than the Medinans who were in Iraq.

When Mālik—may Allah be pleased with him—said of one of the two dynasties that its rulers adhered more closely to the Sunnah than those of the other dynasty, he said this because of the innovations that appeared around the latter’s time, for those men had a stronger claim to the caliphate by virtue of their lineage and generation.