—this, according to the sound position adopted by the vast majority of scholars in every discipline—whereas some Shāfiʿīs and Ẓāhirīs stipulated that the shaykh must utter a verbal acknowledgement. Ibn al-Ṣabbāgh al-Shāfiʿī added: the disciple may not say, “He related to me (ḥaddathanī),” but he may act upon the report and transmit it, saying instead, “It was read to him while he listened.”

Third. Al-Ḥākim said: The practice I have chosen—and that I found most of my own teachers and the leading authorities of my era to follow—is that, when one hears the shaykh’s words alone, he should say ḥaddathanī (“he related to me”); when he hears along with others, ḥaddathanā (“he related to us”); for what is read to the shaykh, akhbaranī (“he informed me”); and for what is read in the shaykh’s presence, akhbaranā (“he informed us”). A similar view is related from Ibn Wahb, and it is sound. If a disciple is uncertain which formula applies, the preferable course is to say ḥaddathanī or akhbaranī, not ḥaddathanā or akhbaranā. All of this is recommended (mustaḥabb) by consensus of the scholars. It is impermissible to substitute ḥaddathanā for akhbaranā, or the reverse, in authored works. As for wording that one actually heard from the transmitter himself, it falls under the broader debate on conveying a report by meaning: if the transmitter allows both expressions, one may use either; otherwise, substitution is not allowed.

Fourth. If the listener—or the reciter—begins copying the text while the reading is in progress, Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī, Ibn ʿAdī, and the Ashʿarī theologian Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāʾīnī (the Shāfiʿī) ruled that the audition is invalid. The ḥadith master Mūsā ibn Hārūn al-Jammāl and others deemed it valid, while Abū Bakr al-Ḍubʿī al-Shāfiʿī said: in such a case one should say, “I was present,” and not “He informed us.” The correct view is to differentiate: if he still comprehends what is being read, the audition is valid; if not, it is invalid.