وَزَعَمَ الْقَائِلُ الَّذِي افْتَتَحْنَا الْكَلَامَ عَلَى الْحِكَايَةِ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ وَالْإِخْبَارِ عَنْ سُوءِ رَوِيَّتِهِ، أَنَّ كُلَّ إِسْنَادٍ لِحَدِيثٍ فِيهِ فُلَانٌ عَنْ فُلَانٍ، وَقَدْ أَحَاطَ الْعِلْمُ بِأَنَّهُمَا قَدْ كَانَا فِي عَصْرٍ وَاحِدٍ، وَجَائِزٌ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْحَدِيثُ الَّذِي رَوَى الرَّاوِي عَمَّنْ رَوَى عَنْهُ قَدْ سَمِعَهُ مِنْهُ وَشَافَهَهُ بِهِ، غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ لَا يُعْلَمُ لَهُ مِنْهُ سَمَاعًا، وَلَمْ نَجِدْ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّهُمَا الْتَقَيَا قَطُّ أَوْ تَشَافَهَا بِحَدِيثٍ،
Translation: The proponent whose view we began by recounting, and whose poor judgment we set out to describe, maintains that every hadith chain saying “So-and-so from So-and-so,” even when it is known that the two lived in the same age and it was possible for the transmitter to have heard this very report from his source and spoken with him face to face, remains one in which no hearing from that source is known and no report has been found showing that the pair ever met or conversed about a hadith.
This is the opening of the opposing claim as quoted by Muslim; the sentence continues with the criterion for probative use in the next passage. Failure to document meeting is not itself evidence that meeting never occurred.