In the isnad of ahadith, we often see narrators say “حدّثنا” or “أخبرنا” when reporting what they heard from their teachers. But is there a difference between the two?
The View of Imām Muslim and the Scholars of the East
Imām al-Nawawī explains that Imām Muslim رحمه الله held a clear distinction between the two terms:
كان من مذهب مسلم الفرق بين «حَدَّثَنَا» و«أَخْبَرَنَا»: أنَّ «حَدَّثَنَا» لا يجوز إطلاقه إلاَّ لما سمعه من لفظ الشيخ خاصة، وأَخْبَرَنَا لما قُرِئَ على الشيخ. وهذا الفرق هو مذهب الشافعي وأصحابه، وجمهور أهل العلم بالمشرق. قال محمد بن الحسن الجوهري المصري: وهو مذهب أكثر أهل الحديث الذين لا يُحَصِّيهم أحد، وروي هذا المذهب – أيضاً – عن ابن جُرَيْج والأوزاعي وابن وهب.
It was from the madhhab of Muslim that there is a distinction between ‘ḥaddathanā’ (حَدَّثَنَا) and ‘akhbaranā’ (أَخْبَرَنَا): that ‘ḥaddathanā’ should only be used for what he heard directly from the words of the shaykh specifically, and ‘akhbaranā’for what was read to the shaykh. This distinction is also the madhhab of al-Shāfiʿī and his companions, and the majority of the scholars of the East. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Jawharī al-Miṣrī said:
“This is the madhhab of most of the people of ḥadīth – so many that no one could count them.” This madhhab has also been narrated from Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzāʿī, and Ibn Wahb.[1]
In other words, a technical distinction was made:
- The word حدّثنا means the shaykh’s narrated to us.
- The word أخبرنا means we read to the shaykh (while he listened and approved)
Imām Muslim’s strict caution in using the terms taḥdīth and ikhbār is one reason why many scholars recommend memorising the wording of a ḥadīth from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim—when the ḥadīth is muttafaq ʿalayh, meaning it is narrated by both al-Bukhārī and Muslim—due to Muslim’s greater precision in transmission.
The Clarification of Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
While some scholars upheld this distinction, others pointed out that it was a matter of technical convention (اصطلاح), not language, and thus came to be used interchangeably.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in Sharḥ al-Nukhbah explains:
وتخصيصُ التحديث بما سمع من لفظ الشيخ اصطلاحاً، ولا فرق بين التحديث والإخبار من حيث اللغة، وفي ادعاء الفرق بينهما تكلُّف شديد، لكن لما تقرر أن الاصطلاح صادف ذلك حقيقةً شرعية، فُقِّدِّم على الحقيقة اللغوية، مع أن هذا الاصطلاح إنما شاع عند المشارقة ومن تبعهم، وأما غالب المغاربة فلم يستعملوا هذا الاصطلاح، بل الإخبار والتحديث عندهم بمعنى واحد.
Limiting the use of ‘taḥdīth’ to what was heard directly from the words of the shaykh is a technical convention (iṣṭilāḥan). There is no difference between taḥdīth and ikhbār from the perspective of language. And in claiming a difference between them, there is excessive overcomplication. However, once it was established that this convention corresponded with a valid Sharʿī usage, it was given precedence over the linguistic meaning.
This istilāḥ became widespread among the Easterners (mashāriqah) and those who followed them. As for most of the Maghāribah (Western scholars), they did not use this istilāḥ – rather, they considered ikhbār and taḥdīth to have the same meaning.[2]
[1] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-Sharḥ al-Nawawī, vol. 1, p. 22, Dār al-Ḥadīth
[2] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Sharḥ Nukhbat al-Fikar, p. 124.
