As for those who repeat the chain of transmission once more at the end of the book, that practice does not settle the foregoing dispute unless it functions as an additional precaution and as an ijāzah of the very highest grade. Allah knows best.

Eleventh. When the narrator places the wording of the ḥadith ahead of the chain—such as saying, “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said …”—or he cites part of the wording together with a fragment of the chain, for example: “Nāfiʿ narrated from Ibn ʿUmar from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that …,” and then adds, “So-and-so informed us from So-and-so,” until the chain is fully linked, the narration is sound and connected. If someone who heard it in that order wishes to bring the entire chain to the front, some scholars have allowed it; nonetheless, grounds for disagreement remain, similar to the debate over rearranging portions of the text itself and tied to the view that forbids narrating by meaning. Likewise, if a ḥadith is first reported with one chain and is immediately followed by a second chain with the remark “its wording is the same,” and the listener wants to transmit the text with the second chain, the stronger opinion is that this is not allowed. This was the stance of Shuʿbah, whereas al-Thawrī and Ibn Maʿīn permitted it, provided the narrator is exact and can discriminate between different expressions. A number of scholars, when faced with such a case, would mention the second chain and then say, “Its wording is identical to the previous ḥadith; it runs as follows,” and this was the view preferred by al-Khaṭīb. If, however, the narrator says “its like (nahwuh),” al-Thawrī deemed it permissible, while Shuʿbah and Ibn Maʿīn forbade it. Al-Khaṭīb reported that Ibn Maʿīn distinguished between mithluh (“the same”) and nahwuh (“its like”): that distinction makes sense if narrating by meaning is disallowed, but if it is deemed permissible there is no difference. Al-Ḥākim held that true precision requires the hadith scholar to differentiate between the two: one must not say mithluh unless the two texts are identical in wording, whereas one may say nahwuh when they agree only in meaning.

Twelfth. If the narrator mentions the chain together with part of the text and then says, “and he mentioned the rest of the ḥadith,” and a listener wishes to transmit the ḥadith in full, this is even more deserving of prohibition than the previous cases of mithluh and nahwuh. Al-Ustadh Abū Isḥāq indeed forbade it, while al-Ismāʿīlī allowed it provided both the narrator and the listener already know that particular ḥadith. The safer course is to confine oneself to what was actually heard and then add: “He said, ‘and he mentioned the ḥadith, which runs as follows,’” after which one may quote it in its entirety. Should the broader formulation nevertheless be allowed, the correct analysis is that whatever the shaykh did not utter is being conveyed by way of a robust ijāzah, and no separate, itemized authorization is required.

Thirteenth. The Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—said: On the face of it, it is impermissible to change the phrase “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said …” into “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said …,” or the reverse, even though narrating by meaning is normally accepted, because the wording would differ. The sounder opinion—Allah knows best—is that such a change is permissible, for the meaning in this context does not change. This was the position of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and al-Khaṭīb.