in the handwriting of so-and-so, or in his own book penned by him, “So-and-so narrated to us,” after which he gives the full chain and wording; or, “I read, in the handwriting of so-and-so, from so-and-so.” This wording has been the accepted practice from early times until today. It belongs to the category of munqaṭiʿ (an interrupted chain), though it still contains a trace of connectedness. Some overreached and used the unrestricted formulas ḥaddathanā and akhbaranā here, and they were censured for it.

If one finds a ḥadith in a person’s authored work, he should say, “So-and-so mentioned,” or, “He said: So-and-so informed us….” Such a report is munqaṭiʿ with no admixture of connectedness at all.

All of this applies only when he is confident that the handwriting and the book genuinely belong to that transmitter. If he is unsure, he must say: “It reached me from so-and-so,” or, “I found from him,” or similar wording; or, “I read in a book: So-and-so informed me that it was in the handwriting of so-and-so,” or, “I supposed it to be the hand of so-and-so,” or, “His book ascribes it to so-and-so,” or, “a compilation by so-and-so,” or, “it was said to be in the handwriting or compilation of so-and-so.”

When citing from a compilation, he must not say, “So-and-so said,” unless he is certain of the accuracy of the copy—either by collating it himself or by relying on a trustworthy exemplar. If neither of these conditions is met, he should instead say, “It reached me from so-and-so,” or, “I found in a copy of his book,” and the like.

In our own times most people have been lax, asserting such attributions categorically without verification, but the correct procedure is what we have just explained. If, however, the researcher is highly skilled and seldom overlooks omissions or alterations, we may hope that categorical attribution is permissible for him; otherwise, many compilers have taken unwarranted liberties in their transmissions.

As for acting on information obtained through wajāda, the majority of ḥadith scholars and Mālikī jurists—and others—have deemed it impermissible. From al-Shāfiʿī and the leading theoreticians among his followers it has been related that it is permissible, and some meticulous Shāfiʿī scholars went so far as to rule that acting upon it is obligatory once confidence is attained. That is the sound position; in our age no other view is tenable. Allah knows best.