and forbade what is wrong—it is not known that people needed any of his knowledge or travelled to him to acquire it.

Whenever he intended to undertake something, he would consult Mālik and seek his ruling. It is reported, for example, that he consulted him after receiving a letter from Iraq urging him to assume the caliphate. He said, “Not until I consult Mālik.” When he consulted him, Mālik advised him not to become involved, explaining that the descendants of al-'Abbās would not relinquish it until much blood had been shed over it. He also related to him what 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Azīz had said when urged, “Appoint al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad”: that the Umayyads would not relinquish power until much blood had been shed over it.

As for Quranic exegesis, hadith, the issuing of fatwas and the other disciplines, people are not known to have acquired any noteworthy knowledge of them from al-'Umarī the ascetic. How, then, can he be compared with Mālik in learning or in the journeys people undertook to study with him?

Then consider the collections of authentic hadith, foremost among which is al-Bukhārī’s book. He opens a chapter with a hadith narrated by Mālik; whenever a chapter contains a hadith narrated by Mālik, he places no other hadith before it. We know that people drove their camels hard in pursuit of knowledge, yet found no scholar more learned than Mālik in his time.

Everyone either agrees or disagrees with Mālik and the scholars of Medina. Those who agree with them support and assist them, while those who disagree with them hold them in high esteem and show them great reverence