Reading from the commentary and annotations on it.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
"Reading from the book Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him)"
The questioner :"His statement: 'The chapter on the words of the hadith scholar: Haddathana (he narrated to us), Akhabarana (he informed us), and Anbana (he related to us).' Ibn Rushayd indicated by this title that he based his book on the musnad narrations reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I say: His intention is whether these words have the same meaning or not. His citing the statement of Ibn Uyaynah rather than others indicates that it is his preferred view. His statement: 'And al-Humaydi said in the narration of Karimah and al-Asili: And al-Humaydi said to us.' Likewise, Abu Nu'aym mentioned it in al-Mustakhraj, so it is connected, and it dropped out of the narration of Karimah. His statement: 'And Anbana' dropped out of al-Asili's narration, and 'Akhabarana' dropped out, but all of it is present in the narration of Abu Zar. His statement: 'And Ibn Mas'ud said.' This hanging narration is a part of the famous hadith regarding the creation of the fetus, and the author connected it in the Book of Qadar, and discussion of it will come there, if Allah wills. His statement: 'And Shaqiq said.' He is Abu Wa'il, from 'Abdullah, who is Ibn Mas'ud. It will also come connected where the author mentioned it in the Book of Funerals. Also, the hadith of Hudhayfah will come in al-Riqaq. His intention from these hanging narrations is that the Companion sometimes said 'Haddathana' and sometimes said 'Sami'tu' (I heard), which indicates that they did not distinguish between the formulas. As for the hadiths of Ibn 'Abbas, Anas, and Abu Hurayrah regarding the narration of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from his Lord, he connected them in the Book of Tawhid. He intended by mentioning them here to point out the 'an'anah (indirect narration) and that its ruling is connection when the meeting is established. He said:The questioner : He referred to what Ibn Rushayd mentioned, that the narration of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is only from his Lord, whether the Companion explicitly stated it or not. The hadith of Ibn 'Abbas mentioned indicates this, for in some places it does not say 'from his Lord,' but it is an abbreviation that requires estimation. I say: It is derived from the ruling of the validity of what is of this nature, the validity of using the mursal narrations of the Companions as evidence, because the intermediary between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Lord, in matters where He did not speak to him directly, such as the Night of Ascension, is Jibril, and he is certainly accepted. The intermediary between the Companion and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is agreed upon to be accepted, and he is another Companion. This applies to hadiths of rulings and not others, for some Companions sometimes carried them from some of the Tabi'un, such as Ka'b al-Ahbar. Note: Abu al-'Aliyah mentioned here is al-Riya'hi, with a final yaa, and his name is Rafe', with a dammah on the ra. Whoever claims he is al-Barra', with a heavy ra, has erred, for the hadith mentioned is known by the narration of al-Riya'hi, not him. If it is asked: From where does the relevance of the hadith of Ibn 'Umar to the title appear? The essence of the title is the equivalence between the explicit formulas of transmission, and that is not apparent in the hadith mentioned. The answer is that this is derived from the difference in the words of the hadith mentioned, and it becomes apparent when its paths are gathered. For the wording of the narration of 'Abdullah ibn Dinar mentioned in the chapter is 'So tell me what it is,' and in the narration of Nafi' with the author in Tafsir: 'Inform me,' and in a narration with al-Isma'ili: 'Relate to me,' and in the narration of Malik with the author in the chapter of Modesty in Knowledge: 'Tell me what it is,' and in it they said: 'They informed us of it.' This indicates that telling, informing, and relating are the same with them. There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding the language. The clearest evidence for this is His saying, the Exalted:[Az-Zalzalah 99:4] and His saying, the Exalted: [Fatir 35:14] As for the technical terminology, there is disagreement. Some adhered to the original language, and this is the view of al-Zuhri, Malik, Ibn Uyaynah, Yahya al-Qattan, and most of the Hijazis and Kufis. The Maghrebis continued to act upon this, and Ibn al-Hajib preferred it in his Mukhtasar. He reported from al-Hakim that it is the madhhab of the four Imams. Some saw the general use of it when the Shaykh reads from his own text, and the restricted use when it is read to him, and this is the madhhab of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Manda, and others. Some saw the distinction between the formulas"..
The Shaykh : regarding this narrator, saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, meaning they restrict it. So the first opinion is that there is no difference, no difference between these words, and this is the requirement of the language. The second opinion: There is no harm in saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, even though the Shaykh did not narrate to them, but rather he is listening to the student's reading, so the narrator says 'Haddathana' when it was read to him. These are two opinions. The third opinion
The reader: "Some saw the distinction between the formulas according to the difference in the mode of acquisition, restricting 'takhbir' (informing) to what the Shaykh utters, and 'ikhabar' (informing) to what is read to him. This is the madhhab of Ibn Jurayj, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Wahb, and the majority of the people of the East. Then their followers introduced a further detail"..
The Shaykh : The Shaykh
And if he says Akhabarana or Anbana, it is the student, and the Shaykh is listening. Yes.
The Shaykh : And if he says 'Akhabarana' or 'Anbana,' it is the student and the Shaykh is listening. Yes.
The reader: "Then their followers introduced another detail. So whoever heard alone from the Shaykh's utterance used the singular and said 'Haddathani' (he narrated to me). Whoever heard with others used the plural. And whoever read by himself to the Shaykh used the singular and said 'Akhabarani' (he informed me). Whoever heard by the reading of others used the plural. Likewise, they restricted 'inba' (relating) to the ijazah (permission) that the Shaykh gives orally to the one he permits. All of this is considered good and not obligatory with them; they only intended to distinguish between the states of acquisition. Some thought that this was on the path of obligation, so they strained to provide evidence for it and upon it with what has no benefit. Yes, the later scholars need to observe the mentioned terminology so that it does not become mixed, because it has become a customary reality with them. So whoever deviates from it needs to bring a sign indicating his intention, otherwise the heard is not safe from being mixed with the permitted after the establishment of the terminology. So what comes from the words of the predecessors is taken in one sense, unlike" So it is taken, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, or it is taken
The reader: "unlike the later scholars"
The Shaykh : In short, the reality is that this requires knowing the men, whether they are from the East or from the Maghreb, or from such and such, so that we know what? Their terminology. So we take their words according to their terminology. But in the general case, especially when we hear from the Tabi'un and those before them, there is no difference between these mentioned words: Haddathana, Akhabarana, and Anbana. But it is good what some went to, which is the restriction by saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, or 'Akhabarana' when it was read to him, or the like. As for the hadiths, he says..
The questioner :"His statement: 'The chapter on the words of the hadith scholar: Haddathana (he narrated to us), Akhabarana (he informed us), and Anbana (he related to us).' Ibn Rushayd indicated by this title that he based his book on the musnad narrations reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). I say: His intention is whether these words have the same meaning or not. His citing the statement of Ibn Uyaynah rather than others indicates that it is his preferred view. His statement: 'And al-Humaydi said in the narration of Karimah and al-Asili: And al-Humaydi said to us.' Likewise, Abu Nu'aym mentioned it in al-Mustakhraj, so it is connected, and it dropped out of the narration of Karimah. His statement: 'And Anbana' dropped out of al-Asili's narration, and 'Akhabarana' dropped out, but all of it is present in the narration of Abu Zar. His statement: 'And Ibn Mas'ud said.' This hanging narration is a part of the famous hadith regarding the creation of the fetus, and the author connected it in the Book of Qadar, and discussion of it will come there, if Allah wills. His statement: 'And Shaqiq said.' He is Abu Wa'il, from 'Abdullah, who is Ibn Mas'ud. It will also come connected where the author mentioned it in the Book of Funerals. Also, the hadith of Hudhayfah will come in al-Riqaq. His intention from these hanging narrations is that the Companion sometimes said 'Haddathana' and sometimes said 'Sami'tu' (I heard), which indicates that they did not distinguish between the formulas. As for the hadiths of Ibn 'Abbas, Anas, and Abu Hurayrah regarding the narration of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from his Lord, he connected them in the Book of Tawhid. He intended by mentioning them here to point out the 'an'anah (indirect narration) and that its ruling is connection when the meeting is established. He said:The questioner : He referred to what Ibn Rushayd mentioned, that the narration of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is only from his Lord, whether the Companion explicitly stated it or not. The hadith of Ibn 'Abbas mentioned indicates this, for in some places it does not say 'from his Lord,' but it is an abbreviation that requires estimation. I say: It is derived from the ruling of the validity of what is of this nature, the validity of using the mursal narrations of the Companions as evidence, because the intermediary between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Lord, in matters where He did not speak to him directly, such as the Night of Ascension, is Jibril, and he is certainly accepted. The intermediary between the Companion and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is agreed upon to be accepted, and he is another Companion. This applies to hadiths of rulings and not others, for some Companions sometimes carried them from some of the Tabi'un, such as Ka'b al-Ahbar. Note: Abu al-'Aliyah mentioned here is al-Riya'hi, with a final yaa, and his name is Rafe', with a dammah on the ra. Whoever claims he is al-Barra', with a heavy ra, has erred, for the hadith mentioned is known by the narration of al-Riya'hi, not him. If it is asked: From where does the relevance of the hadith of Ibn 'Umar to the title appear? The essence of the title is the equivalence between the explicit formulas of transmission, and that is not apparent in the hadith mentioned. The answer is that this is derived from the difference in the words of the hadith mentioned, and it becomes apparent when its paths are gathered. For the wording of the narration of 'Abdullah ibn Dinar mentioned in the chapter is 'So tell me what it is,' and in the narration of Nafi' with the author in Tafsir: 'Inform me,' and in a narration with al-Isma'ili: 'Relate to me,' and in the narration of Malik with the author in the chapter of Modesty in Knowledge: 'Tell me what it is,' and in it they said: 'They informed us of it.' This indicates that telling, informing, and relating are the same with them. There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding the language. The clearest evidence for this is His saying, the Exalted:
That Day, it will report its news
يومئذٍ تحدث إخبارهاAnd none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters].
ولا ينبئك مثل خبيرThe Shaykh : regarding this narrator, saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, meaning they restrict it. So the first opinion is that there is no difference, no difference between these words, and this is the requirement of the language. The second opinion: There is no harm in saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, even though the Shaykh did not narrate to them, but rather he is listening to the student's reading, so the narrator says 'Haddathana' when it was read to him. These are two opinions. The third opinion
The reader: "Some saw the distinction between the formulas according to the difference in the mode of acquisition, restricting 'takhbir' (informing) to what the Shaykh utters, and 'ikhabar' (informing) to what is read to him. This is the madhhab of Ibn Jurayj, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Wahb, and the majority of the people of the East. Then their followers introduced a further detail"..
The Shaykh : The Shaykh
And if he says Akhabarana or Anbana, it is the student, and the Shaykh is listening. Yes.
The Shaykh : And if he says 'Akhabarana' or 'Anbana,' it is the student and the Shaykh is listening. Yes.
The reader: "Then their followers introduced another detail. So whoever heard alone from the Shaykh's utterance used the singular and said 'Haddathani' (he narrated to me). Whoever heard with others used the plural. And whoever read by himself to the Shaykh used the singular and said 'Akhabarani' (he informed me). Whoever heard by the reading of others used the plural. Likewise, they restricted 'inba' (relating) to the ijazah (permission) that the Shaykh gives orally to the one he permits. All of this is considered good and not obligatory with them; they only intended to distinguish between the states of acquisition. Some thought that this was on the path of obligation, so they strained to provide evidence for it and upon it with what has no benefit. Yes, the later scholars need to observe the mentioned terminology so that it does not become mixed, because it has become a customary reality with them. So whoever deviates from it needs to bring a sign indicating his intention, otherwise the heard is not safe from being mixed with the permitted after the establishment of the terminology. So what comes from the words of the predecessors is taken in one sense, unlike" So it is taken, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, or it is taken
The reader: "unlike the later scholars"
The Shaykh : In short, the reality is that this requires knowing the men, whether they are from the East or from the Maghreb, or from such and such, so that we know what? Their terminology. So we take their words according to their terminology. But in the general case, especially when we hear from the Tabi'un and those before them, there is no difference between these mentioned words: Haddathana, Akhabarana, and Anbana. But it is good what some went to, which is the restriction by saying 'Haddathana' when it was read to him, or 'Akhabarana' when it was read to him, or the like. As for the hadiths, he says..