In Sharh Tanqih al-fusul fi al-usul...

In Sharh Tanqih al-fusul fi al-usul, al-Qarrafi says: On the contrary of the view of Ibn Sirin and some other traditionsts, Abu al-Husayn, Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i hold that it is permissible to report hadith by meaning provided that no addition or omission be there in translation, with its being neither more ambiguous nor more declarative, as the purpose only be to make the meanings got by the hearer, regardless of missing other than them.

Whenever any addition or omission be made to the narrator’s statement, that would mean something be added or diminished from the Islamic Law, which is unanimously haram (unlawful). And whenever the expression used in the hadith be manifest but the narrator exchanges it with an obscure one, he would expose it to doubt, entailing thus preference of another one over it due to its obscurity.

This being in accordance with the basis stating that should be contradiction among the traditions regarding one rule (hukm), the more manifest one would have preference over the obscure one. If the origin of the hadith be plain, but be substituted by an obscure one by the narrator, he would invalidate a good merit in it making it insustainable in case of clash of views.

Also when the hadith having an obscure expression and he substitutes it with a more manifest one, he would thus obligate for it the position of preference over other traditions, while God’s hukm (judgement) being to prefer other than it in case of clash of views. As a consequence of this change, God’s judgement has been changed, which is impermissible.

This being the basis of these provisions, that when they be fulfilled the controversy would be on permissibility, otherwise it is unanimously impermissible. One of the pleas introduced by those forbidding narration by meaning, being the hadith reported by al-Bara’ ibn `Azib.

125 The proof (hujjah) given by those permitting this practice, being that the used to give ears to the traditions without committing them to writing or reiterating them, embarking after elapse of long years on narrating them. In such case, man would decisively determine that it is not possible to convey the very words uttered by the Prophet, but only the meaning, since many traditions were reported with miscellaneous expressions with oneness of denotation and episode.