The tadlīs qualification: A transmitter known for tadlīs may conceal an intermediary behind ʿan. The ordinary inference from a non-mudallis’s usage cannot be applied to such a narrator without separate investigation of hearing. This does not imply that every report of a mudallis is fabricated.
The absolute-rejection position: Al-Nawawī also reports a minority claim, «لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِالْمُعَنْعَنِ مُطْلَقًا لِاحْتِمَالِ الِانْقِطَاعِ»: no muʿanʿan report should be adduced as proof at all because disconnection is possible. He rejects it by appeal to early scholarly practice and the dominant probability furnished by induction. This position is **not** the view requiring evidence of meeting; the latter still accepts eligible muʿanʿan links once its condition is satisfied.
“Anna” compared with “ʿan”: Take «حَدَّثَنِي الزُّهْرِيُّ أَنَّ سَعِيدَ بْنَ الْمُسَيَّبِ قَالَ». The majority treats anna like ʿan for purposes of continuity, **subject to the prior conditions**. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah, and Abū Bakr al-Bardījī do not automatically infer continuity from anna even where the ordinary ʿan-link can qualify. Al-Nawawī prefers the majority ruling, and brings analogous forms such as «قَالَ»، «حَدَّثَ»، «ذَكَرَ» under the same qualified approach. A reporting verb alone cannot override established disconnection, known tadlīs, or other defects.