أَنَّ الْحُجَّةَ لَا تَقُومُ عِنْدَهُ بِكُلِّ خَبَرٍ جَاءَ هَذَا الْمَجِيءَ، حَتَّى يَكُونَ عِنْدَهُ الْعِلْمُ بِأَنَّهُمَا قَدِ اجْتَمَعَا مِنْ دَهْرِهِمَا مَرَّةً فَصَاعِدًا، أَوْ تَشَافَهَا بِالْحَدِيثِ بَيْنَهُمَا، أَوْ يَرِدَ خَبَرٌ فِيهِ بَيَانُ اجْتِمَاعِهِمَا وَتَلَاقِيهِمَا مَرَّةً مِنْ دَهْرِهِمَا فَمَا فَوْقَهَا.
Translation: Under this position, the report is not probative until there is evidence of at least one encounter, conversation concerning hadith, or another reliable indication that such meeting occurred.
The disputed condition is prior evidence of an actual meeting or hearing between the pair—not necessarily explicit “I heard” within each separate narration. This distinction matters for understanding Muslim’s later rebuttal.