Explaining the difference between the scholars' statements "So-and-so narrated it" and "So-and-so reported it," and clarifying the appropriate context for using each.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for what the questioner mentions, he says: "Ibn al-Muhaddi narrated it." There is no narrator named Ibn al-Muhaddi. There is 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, who is one of the teachers of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), but it is not said: "Ibn Mahdi narrated it," let alone "Ibn al-Muhaddi" with the definite article: al-Muhaddi. Because 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi—if the one who wrote this note means 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi—does not have a book by Ibn Mahdi such that it can be said: "Ibn Mahdi narrated it." Here I mention the difference between the statement of one who says: "Ibn Mahdi reported it" and "Ibn Mahdi narrated it":
The difference is that everyone who narrated a hadith has reported it, but not everyone who reported a hadith has narrated it. Because this is a technical term among hadith scholars: they say "So-and-so narrated it" to mean: from the collection of his hadiths that were gathered in paper scraps or paper notebooks, he then extracted specific hadiths and placed them in a book. He narrated it from the collection he had and reported the hadith in one of his books.
As for one who is a narrator of hadith but has no compiled work or authorship, it is not permissible to say of him: "He narrated it." Let us ascend to 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud here:
It is not correct to say: "Ibn Mas'ud narrated it." Rather, we say: "Ibn Mas'ud reported it." And you descend from Ibn Mas'ud to 'Asim ibn Zur, so it is not said: "Ibn Zur narrated it," but rather: "Ibn Zur reported it," and so on as you descend until you reach 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi. Since 'Abd al-Rahman does not have a book, it is not correct to say "Ibn Mahdi narrated it." It is possible to say: "Ibn Mahdi reported it" or "So-and-so narrated it from Ibn Mahdi." This is regarding the distinction between "narrated it" and "reported it." As for this hadith, I do not recall the state of its chain of narration. If he attributed it to a book, that would be better, so that we might be able to verify it.
The difference is that everyone who narrated a hadith has reported it, but not everyone who reported a hadith has narrated it. Because this is a technical term among hadith scholars: they say "So-and-so narrated it" to mean: from the collection of his hadiths that were gathered in paper scraps or paper notebooks, he then extracted specific hadiths and placed them in a book. He narrated it from the collection he had and reported the hadith in one of his books.
As for one who is a narrator of hadith but has no compiled work or authorship, it is not permissible to say of him: "He narrated it." Let us ascend to 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud here:
It is not correct to say: "Ibn Mas'ud narrated it." Rather, we say: "Ibn Mas'ud reported it." And you descend from Ibn Mas'ud to 'Asim ibn Zur, so it is not said: "Ibn Zur narrated it," but rather: "Ibn Zur reported it," and so on as you descend until you reach 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi. Since 'Abd al-Rahman does not have a book, it is not correct to say "Ibn Mahdi narrated it." It is possible to say: "Ibn Mahdi reported it" or "So-and-so narrated it from Ibn Mahdi." This is regarding the distinction between "narrated it" and "reported it." As for this hadith, I do not recall the state of its chain of narration. If he attributed it to a book, that would be better, so that we might be able to verify it.