—a single unvowelled word whose form escapes him, he may consult the scholars who specialize in it and then transmit the report in accord with what they tell him. Allah knows best.

Seventh. When a ḥadith reaches him through two or more transmitters who agree in meaning but not in wording, he may combine their names in the chain and then recite the report in the wording of only one of them. He might say, for example: “So-and-so and so-and-so informed us, and the wording is that of So-and-so,” or, “This is the wording related by So-and-so,” or, “They both said, ‘So-and-so narrated to us,’” and similar expressions. Muslim, in his Ṣaḥīḥ, employs a graceful turn of phrase when he writes: “Abū Bakr and Abū Saʿīd narrated to us, both from Abū Khālid; Abū Bakr said, ‘Abū Khālid narrated to us from al-Aʿmash.’” The wording is clearly credited to Abū Bakr.

If he does not single anyone out but merely says, “So-and-so and so-and-so informed us,” and their versions are close in wording, then adding, “They said, ‘So-and-so narrated to us,’” is allowed, since narration by meaning is permissible. Even without mentioning that the wording is close, the practice remains unobjectionable on the same grounds, though it has been criticized by al-Bukhārī and others.

Likewise, if he studies a written compilation with several teachers, collates his copy against the autograph of one of them, and then transmits the work on their joint authority while stating, “The exact wording is that of So-and-so,” some regard this as permissible, others as impermissible.

Eighth. He may not enlarge upon anyone’s lineage or description beyond what his own shaykh has provided unless needed for identification, in which case he may say, for instance, “He is the son of so-and-so, al-Fulānī,” or, “that is, the son of so-and-so,” and the like. If his shaykh gives his own shaykh’s full lineage in the opening ḥadith and thereafter cites only his name or part of his lineage, al-Khaṭīb reports that most scholars allow the student to narrate those later ḥadiths independently of the first while supplying the complete lineage of the shaykh’s shaykh. Others hold that it is preferable for him to add, “that is, the son of so-and-so.” ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and others recommend saying, “My shaykh related to me that so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, related to him.” Yet others say: “So-and-so—namely, the son of so-and-so—reported to us,” a wording that al-Khaṭīb himself considered preferable, along with all the similar formulations.