وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْقَوْلَ الشَّائِعَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ بَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْأَخْبَارِ وَالرِّوَايَاتِ قَدِيمًا وَحَدِيثًا، أَنَّ كُلَّ رَجُلٍ ثِقَةٍ رَوَى عَنْ مِثْلِهِ حَدِيثًا، وَجَائِزٌ مُمْكِنٌ لَهُ لِقَاؤُهُ وَالسَّمَاعُ مِنْهُ، لِكَوْنِهِمَا جَمِيعًا كَانَا فِي عَصْرٍ وَاحِدٍ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَأْتِ فِي خَبَرٍ قَطُّ أَنَّهُمَا اجْتَمَعَا وَلَا تَشَافَهَا بِكَلَامٍ، فَالرِّوَايَةُ ثَابِتَةٌ وَالْحُجَّةُ بِهَا لَازِمَةٌ،
Translation: For, according to Muslim, the widely known opinion agreed upon among the scholars of reports and transmission, of earlier and later times, is this: whenever a trustworthy man transmits a hadith from another trustworthy man, and meeting and hearing between them were permissible and possible because they lived in the same age, then—even if no report has ever reached us that they met or spoke to each other—the transmission stands established and adducing it as proof is incumbent.
«الْقَوْلَ الشَّائِعَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ ... قَدِيمًا وَحَدِيثًا» is Muslim’s **explicit claim of agreement** among earlier and later hadith specialists, not merely a description of a familiar approach. Al-Nawawī subsequently disputes the breadth of that claimed agreement and reports several stricter conditions. Translation must reproduce Muslim’s claim faithfully; commentary must distinguish it from a verified historical consensus. Muslim’s discussion presupposes reliability, genuinely feasible contact, and no proof of disconnection; a known mudallis raises a separate issue.