Historical Examples of Muʿanʿan Transmission and the Conclusion of Muslim’s Introduction

1. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd: The First Historical Example

فَمِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ يَزِيدَ الْأَنْصَارِيَّ، وَقَدْ رَأَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَدْ رَوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ، وَعَنْ أَبِي مَسْعُودٍ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ، وَعَنْ كُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا حَدِيثًا يُسْنِدُهُ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَلَيْسَ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ عَنْهُمَا ذِكْرُ السَّمَاعِ مِنْهُمَا، وَلَا حَفِظْنَا فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ يَزِيدَ شَافَهَ حُذَيْفَةَ وَأَبَا مَسْعُودٍ بِحَدِيثٍ قَطُّ، وَلَا وَجَدْنَا ذِكْرَ رُؤْيَتِهِ إِيَّاهُمَا فِي رِوَايَةٍ بِعَيْنِهَا.
Translation: For example, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Anṣārī, who had seen the Prophet, transmits a Prophetic report from each of Ḥudhayfah and Abū Masʿūd. Muslim knows of no explicit statement of hearing, conversation, or recorded sighting of either Companion in these specific chains.

The crucial negative is lack of a surviving explicit meeting report, not proof that no meeting happened. The opponent’s universal rule would suspend these familiar chains despite the possibility of contact.

The original witnesses retain the wāw in «وَعَنْ كُلِّ وَاحِدٍ». Al-Nawawī observes that omitting it would make the syntax clearer: “from each of the two” then specifies the previously named Ḥudhayfah and Abū Masʿūd, one report from each. This is a grammatical criticism of the wording, not permission to alter Muslim’s printed text.

Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī is ʿUqbah ibn ʿAmr. Despite his association with Badr, whether he actually participated in the battle is disputed. The majority held that he did not, whereas al-Zuhrī, al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq and al-Bukhārī are named for the affirmative position. The epithet alone does not resolve the historical disagreement.

2. Evidence from Critical Practice

وَلَمْ نَسْمَعْ عَنْ أَحَدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِمَّنْ مَضَى، وَلَا مِمَّنْ أَدْرَكْنَا، أَنَّهُ طَعَنَ فِي هَذَيْنِ الْخَبَرَيْنِ اللَّذَيْنِ رَوَاهُمَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ وَأَبِي مَسْعُودٍ بِضَعْفٍ فِيهِمَا؛ بَلْ هُمَا وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُمَا عِنْدَ مَنْ لَاقَيْنَا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْحَدِيثِ مِنْ صِحَاحِ الْأَسَانِيدِ وَقَوِيِّهَا، يَرَوْنَ اسْتِعْمَالَ مَا نُقِلَ بِهَا، وَالِاحْتِجَاجَ بِمَا أَتَتْ مِنْ سُنَنٍ وَآثَارٍ.
Translation: Neither earlier nor contemporary specialists known to Muslim criticized these two reports on that ground. The critics whom he met regarded these and comparable chains as sound and strong and used their transmitted reports as evidence.

This is an appeal to established critical practice, not an assertion that every report from such a pair is automatically authentic under all other criteria. The issue is the additional demand for documented contact.

Al-Nawawī also identifies the two actual hadith topics. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd’s report from Abū Masʿūd concerns the reward of spending on one’s family; his report from Ḥudhayfah concerns the Prophet’s disclosure of things to come. These identifications come from the commentary; Muslim’s argumentative sentence does not quote their complete matns. The examples matter because the critics did not reject these routes merely for lacking a separate documentary account of meeting.

3. The Broad Consequence of the Opposing Rule

وَهِيَ فِي زَعْمِ مَنْ حَكَيْنَا قَوْلَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ حَتَّى يُصِيبَ سَمَاعَ الرَّاوِي عَمَّنْ رَوَى، وَلَوْ ذَهَبْنَا نُعَدِّدُ الْأَخْبَارَ الصِّحَاحَ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِمَّنْ يَهِنُ بِزَعْمِ هَذَا الْقَائِلِ وَنُحْصِيهَا، لَعَجَزْنَا عَنْ تَقَصِّي ذِكْرِهَا وَإِحْصَائِهَا كُلِّهَا، وَلَكِنَّا أَحْبَبْنَا أَنْ نَنْصِبَ مِنْهَا عَدَدًا يَكُونُ سِمَةً لِمَا سَكَتْنَا عَنْهُ مِنْهَا.
Translation: Yet under the opposing criterion these reports would remain weak and unusable until hearing is independently found. Muslim says that many chains accepted by specialists would suffer the same fate, so he gives representative cases rather than attempting an exhaustive list.

The Arabic phrase «وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ» describes their status *under the opponent’s rule*, not Muslim’s own assessment of these chains.

Al-Nawawī specifically objects to «وَاهِيَةٌ» (“extremely feeble”) and says «ضَعِيفَةٌ» (“weak”) would have been preferable. The opponent’s additional condition could make a report insufficient as proof under that approach without implying that the opponent judged its chain to be at the very extreme of weakness. Muslim is drawing out the consequence of the rule; Nawawī is criticizing the strength of the term used to express it.

4. Abū ʿUthmān al-Nahdī and Abū Rāfiʿ al-Ṣāʾigh

وَهَذَا أَبُو عُثْمَانَ النَّهْدِيُّ وَأَبُو رَافِعٍ الصَّائِغُ، وَهُمَا مِمَّنْ أَدْرَكَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةَ وَصَحِبَا أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنَ الْبَدْرِيِّينَ هَلُمَّ جَرًّا، وَنَقَلَا عَنْهُمُ الْأَخْبَارَ حَتَّى نَزَلَا إِلَى مِثْلِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ وَابْنِ عُمَرَ وَذَوِيهِمَا، قَدْ أَسْنَدَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا، وَلَمْ نَسْمَعْ فِي رِوَايَةٍ بِعَيْنِهَا أَنَّهُمَا عَايَنَا أُبَيًّا أَوْ سَمِعَا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا.
Translation: Abū ʿUthmān and Abū Rāfiʿ lived through the pre-Islamic era and received reports from many Companions, including veterans of Badr and later Companions. Each transmits a Prophetic report from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, but Muslim knows of no particular report explicitly documenting their seeing or hearing from Ubayy.

Living during the Jāhiliyyah does not by itself prove Companion status: the sentence says they accompanied *the Prophet’s Companions*. Their dates and transmission activity support the plausibility of meeting without supplying the disputed explicit formula.

Narrator identification: Abū ʿUthmān al-Nahdī is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mull; Abū Rāfiʿ al-Ṣāʾigh is Nufayʿ al-Madanī. The commentary also cites Abū Rāfiʿ’s remark about two rewards on being emancipated. These identifications prevent confusion with other persons bearing similar kunyahs.

«هَلُمَّ جَرًّا» is an idiom of proceeding onward or continuing in sequence. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ objects to its application here because it commonly implies a course continuing down to the speaker’s time, whereas Muslim is tracing generations of Companions. Ibn al-Anbārī supplies a linguistic sense of advancing or persisting in a course of action; on that explanation it can describe successive transmission from earlier to later Companions. This resolves a question of idiom, not a question of additional isnāds.

5. Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī and Abū Maʿmar

وَأَسْنَدَ أَبُو عَمْرٍو الشَّيْبَانِيُّ، وَهُوَ مِمَّنْ أَدْرَكَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةَ وَكَانَ فِي زَمَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَجُلًا، وَأَبُو مَعْمَرٍ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَخْبَرَةَ، كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَنْ أَبِي مَسْعُودٍ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَبَرَيْنِ.
Translation: Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī, an adult during the Prophet’s lifetime, and Abū Maʿmar ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sakhbarah each transmit two Prophetic reports from Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī.

The dual “khabarayn” applies to each transmitter: two reports per person. The argument remains evidentiary, not a blanket authentication of all their transmissions.

The names are Saʿd ibn Iyās for Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sakhbarah for Abū Maʿmar, with the spelling and vocalization of “Sakhbarah” noted by Nawawī. He identifies Abū ʿAmr’s two reports as a traveller’s complaint of lacking transport and a reward promised for giving a bridled camel; Abū Maʿmar’s concern the Prophet’s adjustment of shoulders in prayer rows and properly straightening the back in bowing. These are concrete hadith topics, not new unquoted matns imported into Muslim’s prose.

6. ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr and Umm Salamah

وَأَسْنَدَ عُبَيْدُ بْنُ عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا، وَعُبَيْدُ بْنُ عُمَيْرٍ وُلِدَ فِي زَمَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
Translation: ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr narrates one Prophetic hadith through Umm Salamah; he was born during the Prophet’s lifetime.

His birth date establishes a chronological possibility, not an assertion that he saw the Prophet or explicitly heard this specific narration from Umm Salamah.

7. Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim’s Three Reports

وَأَسْنَدَ قَيْسُ بْنُ أَبِي حَازِمٍ، وَقَدْ أَدْرَكَ زَمَنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، عَنْ أَبِي مَسْعُودٍ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثَةَ أَخْبَارٍ.
Translation: Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim, who lived in the Prophet’s era, transmits three Prophetic reports through Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī.

The number of reports is not itself proof of continuity; rather, this is another familiar early route that critics did not reject merely for lack of a separate encounter certificate.

Al-Nawawī identifies Qays’s three reports by subject: the statement «إِنَّ الْإِيمَانَ هَاهُنَا», the teaching that eclipses do not happen because someone dies, and a complaint about a prayer leader prolonging the prayer. These concrete cases show that Muslim is invoking distinct recognized transmissions, not merely repeating a hypothetical chain.

8. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā’s Example

وَأَسْنَدَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ أَبِي لَيْلَى، وَقَدْ حَفِظَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ وَصَحِبَ عَلِيًّا، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا.
Translation: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā preserved reports from ʿUmar and accompanied ʿAlī; he also transmits a Prophetic report through Anas ibn Mālik.

His established hearing from ʿUmar and company with ʿAlī demonstrate historical transmission activity, but do not by themselves certify this particular hearing from Anas. Muslim’s criterion does not equate the two issues.

Al-Nawawī identifies the report through Anas as the occasion when Abū Ṭalḥah asked Umm Sulaym to prepare food for the Prophet. This identification belongs to the commentary, not to a full narration reproduced in Muslim’s sentence. Established biographical relations and explicit hearing in this particular chain remain distinct questions.

9. Ribʿī ibn Ḥirāsh: Two Routes and Known Hearing

وَأَسْنَدَ رِبْعِيُّ بْنُ حِرَاشٍ عَنْ عِمْرَانَ بْنِ حُصَيْنٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثَيْنِ، وَعَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا، وَقَدْ سَمِعَ رِبْعِيٌّ مِنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَرَوَى عَنْهُ.
Translation: Ribʿī ibn Ḥirāsh transmits two Prophetic reports from ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn and one from Abū Bakrah, and his hearing and reporting from ʿAlī are established.

Abū Bakrah is not Abū Bakr. Ribʿī’s hearing from ʿAlī does not automatically prove the exact reception of each report from ʿImrān or Abū Bakrah, but it situates his practice in a well-attested generation.

The commentary identifies Ribʿī’s two reports from ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn with the conversion of Ḥuṣayn (ʿImrān’s father) and a report about the Prophet’s awarding of a banner. The report through Abū Bakrah concerns the grave warning when two Muslims confront each other with weapons. Naming those subjects clarifies the three different routes without inserting full hadith wording into Muslim’s abbreviated argument.

10. Nāfiʿ ibn Jubayr and Abū Shurayḥ al-Khuzāʿī

وَأَسْنَدَ نَافِعُ بْنُ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ مُطْعِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي شُرَيْحٍ الْخُزَاعِيِّ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا.
Translation: Nāfiʿ ibn Jubayr ibn Muṭʿim transmitted one Prophetic report through Abū Shurayḥ al-Khuzāʿī.

A well-recognized chain and an independently surviving record of every meeting are distinct categories of evidence. Muslim uses such cases to challenge their conflation.

Al-Nawawī identifies the report through Abū Shurayḥ al-Khuzāʿī with the hadith beginning «مَنْ كَانَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ» concerning good treatment of one’s neighbor. Abū Shurayḥ is commonly identified as Khuwaylid ibn ʿAmr, with further naming variants recorded. Recognizing the kunya and the report’s topic grounds the example in an actual transmission.

11. Al-Nuʿmān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh: Three Reports

وَأَسْنَدَ النُّعْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي عَيَّاشٍ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ ثَلَاثَةَ أَحَادِيثَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
Translation: Al-Nuʿmān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh transmitted three Prophetic reports through Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī.

The case reinforces that plausible reception and accepted critical practice are relevant evidence, while lack of a surviving encounter statement does not itself establish a break.

Nawawī identifies the three report topics: (1) the reward of fasting a day in God’s cause and being distanced from the Fire; (2) the immense shade of a tree in Paradise; and (3) the condition of the person in the lowest rank among Paradise’s inhabitants. Muslim’s original sentence only counts “three hadiths”; these subject identifications are supplied by the commentary, not complete matns quoted by Muslim.

12. ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yazīd and Tamīm al-Dārī

وَأَسْنَدَ عَطَاءُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ اللَّيْثِيُّ عَنْ تَمِيمٍ الدَّارِيِّ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا.
Translation: ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yazīd al-Laythī transmitted one Prophetic report through Tamīm al-Dārī.

Al-Nawawī identifies this transmission with “al-dīn al-naṣīḥah.” That identification belongs to the commentary: Muslim’s own argumentative sentence names the chain but does not reproduce the full matn.

Several explanations of the nisbah «al-Dārī» are recorded. Nawawī discusses an affiliation to the tribe Dār, a reported connection with the coastal place Dārīn, and the form “al-Dayrī” (with yāʾ) connected to a monastery and Tamīm’s pre-Islamic Christian background. Some affiliations can coexist; that does not make every historical attribution equally certain. The identification of the hadith “al-dīn al-naṣīḥah” remains unaffected.

13. Sulaymān ibn Yasār and Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj

وَأَسْنَدَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ يَسَارٍ عَنْ رَافِعِ بْنِ خَدِيجٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثًا.
Translation: Sulaymān ibn Yasār transmitted one Prophetic report through Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj.

Al-Nawawī connects this route with a report on muḥāqalah. Muslim’s use of the case is methodological: accepted chains challenge a rigid universal contact-documentation rule, not an invitation to introduce unrelated agricultural-law discussions.

14. Distinguishing al-Ḥimyarī from al-Zuhrī

وَأَسْنَدَ حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الْحِمْيَرِيُّ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَحَادِيثَ.
Translation: Ḥumayd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥimyarī transmitted multiple Prophetic reports through Abū Hurayrah.

Identification matters here: Ḥumayd al-Ḥimyarī and Ḥumayd al-Zuhrī are distinct narrators. Al-Nawawī warns against conflating them; similarity of names and the shared teacher Abū Hurayrah do not justify reattribution.

The full identifications are Ḥumayd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥimyarī and Ḥumayd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf al-Zuhrī: distinct Successors who both narrate from Abū Hurayrah. In *al-Jamʿ bayn al-Ṣaḥīḥayn*, al-Ḥumaydī states, within his count of the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections, that Muslim has only this report through al-Ḥimyarī from Abū Hurayrah, and al-Bukhārī has none through that route. Al-Nawawī confirms that restricted statement.

Al-Zuhrī, by contrast, has many narrations from Abū Hurayrah in the two collections. Treating those as al-Ḥimyarī’s in order to reject al-Ḥumaydī’s claim simply confuses two different narrators. The limitation concerns the specified books and route, not a universal denial of any other transmissions by al-Ḥimyarī.

15. The Common Feature of the Examples

فَكُلُّ هَؤُلَاءِ التَّابِعِينَ الَّذِينَ نَصَبْنَا رِوَايَتَهُمْ عَنِ الصَّحَابَةِ الَّذِينَ سَمَّيْنَاهُمْ لَمْ يُحْفَظْ عَنْهُمْ سَمَاعٌ عَلِمْنَاهُ مِنْهُمْ فِي رِوَايَةٍ بِعَيْنِهَا، وَلَا أَنَّهُمْ لَقُوهُمْ فِي نَفْسِ خَبَرٍ بِعَيْنِهِ.
Translation: For all these Successors and the named Companion sources, Muslim knows of no explicit report of hearing or of meeting within the very specific transmissions under discussion.

The absence of preserved documentation is distinct from a finding that reception never occurred. The cumulative force of the examples is their challenge to a universal added prerequisite.

16. The Central Methodological Conclusion

وَهِيَ أَسَانِيدُ عِنْدَ ذَوِي الْمَعْرِفَةِ بِالْأَخْبَارِ وَالرِّوَايَاتِ مِنْ صِحَاحِ الْأَسَانِيدِ، لَا نَعْلَمُهُمْ وَهَّنُوا مِنْهَا شَيْئًا قَطُّ، وَلَا الْتَمَسُوا فِيهَا سَمَاعَ بَعْضِهِمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ؛ إِذِ السَّمَاعُ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ مُمْكِنٌ مِنْ صَاحِبِهِ غَيْرُ مُسْتَنْكَرٍ، لِكَوْنِهِمْ جَمِيعًا كَانُوا فِي الْعَصْرِ الَّذِي اتَّفَقُوا فِيهِ.
Translation: These are sound chains in the judgment of hadith specialists; Muslim knows of no weakening on this ground or a demand for independently documented hearing, because hearing between these contemporaries was possible and not implausible.

Muslim’s approach combines reliable non-mudallis transmission with genuinely possible contact and absence of contrary evidence. Bare overlap of calendar years is not a substitute for assessing location, dates, tadlīs and specific counterevidence. The stricter contact-establishment view recorded by Nawawī remains a distinct scholarly position.

17. Muslim’s Rejection of the Additional Condition

وَكَانَ هَذَا الْقَوْلُ الَّذِي أَحْدَثَهُ الْقَائِلُ الَّذِي حَكَيْنَاهُ فِي تَوْهِينِ الْحَدِيثِ بِالْعِلَّةِ الَّتِي وَصَفَ أَقَلَّ مِنْ أَنْ يُعَرَّجَ عَلَيْهِ وَيُثَارَ ذِكْرُهُ؛ إِذْ كَانَ قَوْلًا مُحْدَثًا وَكَلَامًا خَلْفًا لَمْ يَقُلْهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ سَلَفَ وَيَسْتَنْكِرُهُ مَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ خَلَفَ، فَلَا حَاجَةَ بِنَا فِي رَدِّهِ بِأَكْثَرَ مِمَّا شَرَحْنَا.
Translation: In Muslim’s assessment, the view put forward by the person he has described—weakening reports for the stated reason—is so slight that it scarcely deserves to be turned back to or even raised for discussion. He calls it a newly introduced position and worthless speech that no earlier scholar had maintained and that later scholars regard as objectionable. He therefore sees no need to add more to his preceding refutation.

Nawawī glosses “kalāman khalfan” as unsound or worthless speech. The severity belongs to Muslim’s own polemic and should not be represented as erasing the separate scholarly positions documented by later commentators.

18. Conclusion of the Original Argument

إِذْ كَانَ قَدْرُ الْمَقَالَةِ وَقَائِلِهَا الْقَدْرَ الَّذِي وَصَفْنَاهُ، وَاللَّهُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَى دَفْعِ مَا خَالَفَ مَذْهَبَ الْعُلَمَاءِ، وَعَلَيْهِ التُّكْلَانُ.
Translation: The standing of this opinion and its author is as Muslim has explained; he seeks God’s help against what contradicts the scholars’ method, and relies on Him.

“ʿAlayhi al-tuklān” expresses reliance on God. The conclusion rejects a particular blanket evidentiary requirement; it does not set aside the other conditions for authentic transmission.

19. Closing Invocation

وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَحْدَهُ، وَصَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَآلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
Translation: Praise belongs to God alone; may God bless our master Muḥammad, his family and his Companions.

The substantive argument closes with reliance upon God, followed by a final invocation of praise and blessing. This marks the conclusion of the introduction.

This praise and blessing appear at the close of the printed edition; their attribution as Muslim’s own final words is not independently established here. His argumentative conclusion ends immediately before them at «وَعَلَيْهِ التُّكْلَانُ».