that chain. Abū Hanīfah, al-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Laylā and other jurists of Kufa learned their manner of prayer from these men. Is it therefore permissible, on the strength of this chain, to identify the precise manner in which these jurists prayed with the prayer of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, even in disputed matters? If that were permissible, these jurists did not recite the basmalah aloud, raised their hands only for the opening takbīr, performed the dawn prayer when daylight had grown bright, and observed other such practices followed by the Kufans.

A similar argument is advanced by some in support of reciting the basmalah aloud: the Meccans among the students of Ibn Jurayj used to recite it aloud, having learned their manner of prayer from Ibn Jurayj, who learned it from ʿAtāʾ, who learned it from Ibn al-Zubayr, who learned it from Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, who learned it from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. There is no doubt that al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah be pleased with him, first learned jurisprudence concerning this and other matters from the students of Ibn Jurayj, such as Saʿīd ibn Sālim al-Qaddāh and Muslim ibn Khālid al-Zinjī. Yet such broadly stated chains of transmission cannot establish detailed rulings over which people have disagreed.

Were that admissible, Mālik’s position would certainly carry greater weight than theirs. No reasonable person doubts that the Companions, the Successors and their followers who lived in Medina were more eminent, more knowledgeable about the Sunnah and more faithful in following it than those who lived in Kufa, Mecca and Basra.

Mālik’s followers have argued against reciting the basmalah aloud on the basis of the uninterrupted practice in Medina, saying:

“This is