and the authorization has not acquainted him with the hadith or imparted knowledge of it to him as hearing it directly from him or presenting it to him would have done. Hence, nothing comparable to this exists in testimony.

As for practices corresponding to correspondence and handing over a written text, the jurists have differed over their permissibility in testimony. However, I have explained elsewhere that narration serves two purposes: knowledge and the chain of transmission. Knowledge is not acquired through authorization, whereas a chain of transmission is established through it. Someone who recites the Quran to a shaykh today is, in terms of knowledge, on the same footing as someone who recited it five hundred years ago. In terms of the chain of transmission, however, reciting to a teacher whose chain is closer to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, affords a higher chain.

The same applies to hadiths mass-transmitted from Mālik, al-Thawrī, and Ibn ʿUlayyah, as with the mass transmission of al-Muwatta’ from Mālik, Sunan Abī Dāwūd from its author, and Sahīh al-Bukhārī from its author. In terms of knowledge and understanding, it makes no difference whether there is one intermediary between a person and al-Bukhārī or two, because the book is mass-transmitted from him. As for the chain of transmission, a higher chain is more distinguished than a lower one. The benefit of unrestricted authorization is therefore akin to the benefit of a higher chain over a lower one when it adds nothing to one’s knowledge.

Is pursuing this aim a recommended religious practice? This must be determined from scriptural evidence. Ahmad said:

“Seeking a higher chain of transmission is a practice handed down from our predecessors. The companions of ʿAbd Allāh would travel from Kufa to Medina to speak directly with the Companions.”

We therefore say: the shorter the chain, the less burdensome and demanding it is, and the easier narration becomes. If a hadith is known to be authentic, and it is known that