in the student’s report and is satisfied with his competence, he may rely upon it, and the ijāza is valid, just as he relies upon him when the text is read aloud. If the shaykh were to say, “Transmit on my authority whatever is in it, provided it is truly my ḥadīth and free of error,” that would be sound and commendable. Allah knows best.

The second type is the unqualified munāwala: the shaykh merely hands the student the book, saying no more than, “This is my audition.” According to the sound view held by the jurists and the scholars of legal theory, it is impermissible to narrate on the basis of such a hand-over, and they criticized the ḥadīth specialists who allowed it.

Sub-issue

Al-Zuhrī, Mālik, and others permitted the use of the formulas ḥaddathanā and akhbaranā in narrations conveyed by munāwala; this follows from the position that treats it as equivalent to direct audition. It is also related from Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī and others that these same formulas may be used for an ijāza. The correct view, however—adopted by the majority and by those most scrupulous—is to forbid this and to confine those formulas to expressions that clearly indicate the mode of transmission, such as: ḥaddathanā or akhbaranā ijāzatan (he narrated/informed us by authorization); munāwalatan wa ijāzatan (by hand-over and authorization); idhnan (with permission); fī idhnihi (within his permission); fīmā adhina lī riwāyatahu (in what he authorized me to transmit); ajāzanī awwalan (he authorized me first); nāwalanī (he handed it to me); and the like. Al-Awzāʿī restricted the formula khabbaranā to munāwala and reserved akhbaranā for reading aloud. Some later scholars agreed upon using anbaʾanā for an ijāza; the author of al-Wijāza adopted this convention, and al-Bayhaqī would say, “anbaʾanī ijāzatan” (he informed me by authorization). Al-Ḥākim said: “What I have chosen, and what I observed most of my teachers and the leading scholars of my age to practice, is that…"