foods, they are extremely restrictive, even prohibiting horses and spiny-tailed lizards. It is said that Abū Hanīfa regards spiny-tailed lizards, hyenas, and similar animals as disliked.

Regarding drinks, the scholars of hadith adopted the position of the scholars of Medina and the other cities, in accordance with the widely transmitted Sunnah of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his Companions concerning their prohibition. They went even further in adhering to the Sunnah. Imam Ahmad compiled a large work on drinks—I know of no one who compiled a larger one—and another, shorter work.

He was the first to publicly uphold this Sunnah in Iraq. Indeed, someone once entered Baghdad and asked, “Is there anyone here who prohibits nabīdh (fruit infusions)?” They replied, “No one except Ahmad ibn Hanbal, alone among the imams.”

In this matter, he followed the Sunnah in its full breadth, even prohibiting fruit juice and nabīdh after three days, though no intoxicating strength had appeared in them. This was in adherence to the Sunnah transmitted on the subject, because three days is generally the point at which intoxicating strength is likely to appear. Since the underlying rationale here can be difficult to ascertain, its probable indicator was treated as standing in its place.

He even regarded infusions combining two ingredients as either disliked but not forbidden, or prohibited, according to the two differing reports from him. His position also varied concerning the preparation of infusions in vessels: was it permissible, prohibited, or disliked? This was because the hadiths prohibiting it are very numerous, whereas those indicating that the prohibition was abrogated are few.

His legal assessment thus varied: could those widely transmitted reports be abrogated by reports such as these, which remain solitary reports and none of which al-Bukhārī included in his collection?