2 Mālikī ViewImām Mālik and his fol

2 Mālikī View
Imām Mālik and his followers do not attach any importance to
akhbār-i āḥād against the consensical practice of the people of Madīnah. They consider the practice of the people of Madīnah as the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) because, according to them, Madīnah was the city of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions
(rta). A practice adopted by the habitants of Madīnah with
consensus becomes the Sunnah and, as such, it has to be preferred over akhbār-i āḥād.
The view that a practice collectively adopted by the people of
Madīnah is the Sunnah and is preferable is understandable. However, the Mālikīs are not justified in saying that a practice
adopted and adhered to by the Muslims living in other centres is
not the Sunnah. This I say because once the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) settled in other cities, the Sunnah reached there
too. It was disseminated among the population in those cities.
People living in those centres were well acquainted with the practices. How can then we hold that practices adopted and adhered to by people living in other centres is not the Sunnah?
To hold that the Sunnah in a single issue cannot be different is not tenable. I have already explained, under the discussion in the
introduction, that the Prophet (sws) has been reported to have offered a single practice differently. This difference in forms and
observances of the practices was communicated to different cities through the Companions (rta). Thus, people living in one centre adopted one form or method while those of other centres adopted
a different yet acceptable way. There is nothing strange with observing a single practice differently. Such minor differences
can easily spread and be adopted in different centres.
In cases where a practice was offered differently by people in different cities and centres, the majority of fuqahā did not seek
conclusiveness. They always accepted the possibility that the other ways might also be equally normal. I believe that this is the
only correct and rational view. Flesh of many animals, for example, is allowable in the Islamic sharī‘ah. But there are innumerable kinds of animals. It is not possible to conclusively
declare and label status of all of them. Some water animals are considered eatable by people of one locality while the same
animals are detested as food by people of other geographical regions while there is no express legal ruling. Keeping in mind the above mentioned principle of the jurists we cannot validly
declare such animals ḥarām. It would rather be better to hold that they are not ḥarām but we do not like to eat them.