Thus, here is his own judge declining to follow his opinion on this issue (1), even though most people prohibited the sale of such women merely by following ‘Umar; there is no explicit, authentic scriptural text on the matter. If they did not turn to him on this issue, how could they have turned to him on other issues for which the scriptural texts provide sufficient and conclusive answers?

He would pass judgment without consulting ‘Alī, and sometimes issued a ruling that ‘Alī rejected because it contradicted the position of the majority of the Companions. One example concerned two paternal cousins (2) and two brothers (3), one of whom was a maternal half-brother: he awarded that heir the entire estate. ‘Alī rejected this, saying:

“Rather, he should receive one-sixth, and the two should share (4) the remainder.”

This was the position of the other Companions, including Zayd and others. Thus, people were not merely following any one person in this matter.

No scholar adopted ‘Alī’s position concerning the grandfather’s inheritance except Ibn Abī Laylā. Ibn Mas‘ūd’s position, however, was adopted by his followers, the scholars of Kufa. Zayd’s position was adopted by a great many people, while the position of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq was adopted by the majority of the Companions.

Al-Shāfi‘ī and Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazī compiled a substantial book on those opinions of ‘Alī that the Muslims did not adopt, because the opinions of other Companions accorded more closely with the Quran and Sunnah. More of his opinions were less well-supported than those of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthmān, while their well-supported opinions were more numerous. How, then, could they have turned to him for most legal rulings?