nor, indeed, did Mālik cite from ‘Ikrima (1) in his books more than one or two reports, and he never mentioned ‘Ikrima by name in his books at all. This was because he had heard that Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn al-Musayyib had spoken critically of him, so he left him aside for that reason.

Likewise, Muslim included no narration from him. Rather, Rabī‘a learned from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib and other jurists of Medina like him. Sa‘īd traced his knowledge back to ‘Umar. He had learned from Zayd ibn Thābit and Abū Hurayra, and diligently collected ‘Umar’s judicial rulings from ‘Umar’s companions; Ibn ‘Umar would ask him about those rulings.

For this reason, it is said that the foundations (2) of Mālik’s Muwattaʾ were taken from Rabī‘a, from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib, from ‘Umar.

Al-Rashīd said to Mālik, “In your Muwattaʾ, you have narrated extensively from Ibn ‘Umar, but only sparingly from Ibn ‘Abbās.”

Mālik replied, “He was the more scrupulous of the two, O Commander of the Faithful.”

Thus, Mālik’s Muwattaʾ itself shows that what he claimed about Mālik is among the most manifest of lies.

His statement, “Ibn ‘Abbās was a student of ‘Alī,” is false. Ibn ‘Abbās narrated little from ‘Alī; most of what he learned came from ‘Umar, Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Hurayra, and other Companions. He also issued rulings in accordance with the views of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, and disagreed with ‘Alī on a number of issues. One such instance is the report included by al-Bukhārī in his Sahīh:

“A group of heretics was brought before ‘Alī, and he burned them. When Ibn ‘Abbās learned of this, he said, ‘Had it been I, I would not have burned them, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade punishing anyone with Allah’s punishment. I would, however, have killed them, in accordance with the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (3).’ When this reached ‘Alī, he said, ‘Ah, Ibn ‘Abbās—how quick he is to seize upon slips!’”