The Meeting Condition in Muʿanʿan Hadith: Muslim’s Rejoinder and Route Comparison

1. Demanding Evidence for the Added Condition

فَيُقَالُ لِمُخْتَرِعِ هَذَا الْقَوْلِ الَّذِي وَصَفْنَا مَقَالَتَهُ أَوْ لِلذَّابِّ عَنْهُ: قَدْ أَعْطَيْتَ فِي جُمْلَةِ قَوْلِكَ أَنَّ خَبَرَ الْوَاحِدِ الثِّقَةِ عَنِ الْوَاحِدِ الثِّقَةِ حُجَّةٌ يَلْزَمُ بِهِ الْعَمَلُ، ثُمَّ أَدْخَلْتَ فِيهِ الشَّرْطَ بَعْدُ، فَقُلْتَ: حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ أَنَّهُمَا قَدْ كَانَا الْتَقَيَا مَرَّةً فَصَاعِدًا أَوْ سَمِعَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا، فَهَلْ تَجِدُ هَذَا الشَّرْطَ الَّذِي اشْتَرَطْتَهُ عَنْ أَحَدٍ يَلْزَمُ قَوْلُهُ؟ وَإِلَّا فَهَلُمَّ دَلِيلًا عَلَى مَا زَعَمْتَ.
Translation: The author or defender of this view is told: You have conceded, in your overall position, that a reliable narrator’s solitary report from another reliable narrator is evidence requiring action. You then inserted the condition that the two must have met at least once or that one heard something from the other. Can you establish this condition from an authority whose position is binding? If not, produce evidence for your claim.

Point of dispute: whether documented proof of at least one meeting is an additional universal requirement for a trustworthy non-mudallis narrator’s ʿan-transmission, beyond a genuinely possible meeting. Muslim starts from the opponent’s own concession about solitary reports.

In his distinct commentary, al-Nawawī divides reports into mutawātir—transmission by sufficient independent reporters of a sensory fact, precluding normal collusion and yielding knowledge—and āḥād, which lack those conditions even if more than one person transmits them. His preferred definition fixes no universal numerical threshold for mutawātir.

For the majority of hadith scholars, jurists and legal theorists, a solitary report meeting the acceptance criteria is **binding evidence for action** but ordinarily yields **preponderant probability**, not necessary certainty; the obligation to act is established by revelation, not unaided reason. Reliability of transmission, duty to act and certainty of knowledge are separate questions. These are al-Nawawī’s explanations, not unquoted prose by Muslim.

2. Claimed Precedent and Burden of Proof

فَإِنِ ادَّعَى قَوْلَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ السَّلَفِ بِمَا زَعَمَ مِنْ إِدْخَالِ الشَّرِيطَةِ فِي تَثْبِيتِ الْخَبَرِ، طُولِبَ بِهِ، وَلَنْ يَجِدْ هُوَ وَلَا غَيْرُهُ إِلَى إِيجَادِهِ سَبِيلًا، وَإِنْ هُوَ ادَّعَى فِيمَا زَعَمَ دَلِيلًا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ قِيلَ لَهُ: وَمَا ذَاكَ الدَّلِيلُ؟
Translation: If the opponent attributes the additional condition to an early scholar, Muslim calls for proof of that attribution and maintains that none can be found. If the opponent claims an evidentiary argument, he is asked to identify the argument itself.

Al-Nawawī separately records competing theories of solitary reports: the majority require acting upon a qualified reliable report without generally treating it as necessary certainty; some groups disputed its binding authority; some Muʿtazilīs required two-by-two or four-by-four transmissions; certain hadith scholars asserted that such reports yield knowledge, and some made special epistemic claims for reports in the Ṣaḥīḥayn. Nawawī does not equate proof for action with absolute certainty.

Majority’s evidence: the Prophet sent individual envoys whose messages had to be followed, and the Companions acted upon reliable individual testimony in rulings, judgments and legal opinions, at times revising an earlier ruling on its basis. Such practice supports practical authority, not a claim that every āḥād report is as epistemically conclusive as mutawātir evidence despite possible error or forgetfulness.

This is Nawawī’s legal-theoretical discussion, not a speech by Muslim. Muslim’s direct question here concerns the specific **extra proof-of-meeting condition**.

3. Opponent’s Evidence: Occurrence of Omitted Links

فَإِنْ قَالَ: قُلْتُهُ لِأَنِّي وَجَدْتُ رُوَاةَ الْأَخْبَارِ قَدِيمًا وَحَدِيثًا يَرْوِي أَحَدُهُمْ عَنِ الْآخَرِ الْحَدِيثَ وَلَمَّا يُعَايِنْهُ وَلَا سَمِعَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا قَطُّ، فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُهُمُ اسْتَجَازُوا رِوَايَةَ الْحَدِيثِ بَيْنَهُمْ هَكَذَا عَلَى الْإِرْسَالِ مِنْ غَيْرِ سَمَاعٍ، وَالْمُرْسَلُ مِنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ فِي أَصْلِ قَوْلِنَا وَقَوْلِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْأَخْبَارِ لَيْسَ بِحُجَّةٍ،
Translation: The opponent may say: Narrators ancient and recent have transmitted from people they neither encountered nor heard from; they thus transmitted with irsāl and no hearing. In the opponent’s basic stated rule, and in the practice attributed to hadith specialists, mursal reports are not evidence.

This is **Muslim reporting his opponent’s reasoning**, not an assertion of unanimous juristic agreement. Irsāl here broadly means a link is omitted despite no hearing. The narrower technical mursal of a Tābiʿī is a Successor’s direct attribution to the Prophet; the two usages must not be collapsed.

As al-Nawawī explains, the familiar hadith-critic view, held by al-Shāfiʿī and other jurists, does not treat the mursal report **on its own** as conclusive evidence because the unnamed intermediary’s status is unknown. In contrast, Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad and many jurists permitted argument from mursal reports under their respective doctrinal conditions; this is **not blanket authentication of every mursal report**. That juristic dispute differs from the opponent’s specific claim that possible irsāl, absent independently established meeting, disqualifies a muʿanʿan chain.

4. The Opponent’s Full Test

احْتَجْتُ لِمَا وَصَفْتُ مِنَ الْعِلَّةِ إِلَى الْبَحْثِ عَنْ سَمَاعِ رَاوِي كُلِّ خَبَرٍ عَنْ رَاوِيهِ، فَإِذَا أَنَا هَجَمْتُ عَلَى سَمَاعِهِ مِنْهُ لِأَدْنَى شَيْءٍ ثَبَتَ عِنْدِي بِذَلِكَ جَمِيعُ مَا يَرْوِي عَنْهُ بَعْدُ، فَإِنْ عَزَبَ عَنِّي مَعْرِفَةُ ذَلِكَ أَوْقَفْتُ الْخَبَرَ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ عِنْدِي مَوْضِعَ حُجَّةٍ لِإِمْكَانِ الْإِرْسَالِ فِيهِ.
Translation: Because of this asserted defect, the opponent says, I investigated whether each narrator had heard from his named teacher. If I found even the slightest amount of hearing, I regarded all later reports from that teacher as established; but if knowledge of such hearing escaped me, I suspended the report as evidence because omission remained possible.

One documented instance of hearing thus suffices for all later unqualified reports, but absence of information is treated as a reason to withhold acceptance. Muslim tests whether that standard can be applied consistently.

Lexical points: «عَزَبَ عَنِّي» means “escaped my knowledge”; both «يَعْزُبُ» and «يَعْزِبُ» are recognized. «أَوْقَفْتُ الْخَبَرَ» is an uncommon linguistic form for “I suspended the report,” while «وَقَفْتُ» is more common. The lām of «لِإِمْكَانِ الْإِرْسَالِ» supplies the stated *reason*—possibility of omission, not proof of an actual break.

5. Muslim’s Consistency Challenge

فَيُقَالُ لَهُ: فَإِنْ كَانَتِ الْعِلَّةُ فِي تَضْعِيفِكَ الْخَبَرَ وَتَرْكِكَ الِاحْتِجَاجَ بِهِ إِمْكَانَ الْإِرْسَالِ فِيهِ، لَزِمَكَ أَلَّا تُثْبِتَ إِسْنَادًا مُعَنْعَنًا حَتَّى تَرَى فِيهِ السَّمَاعَ مِنْ أَوَّلِهِ إِلَى آخِرِهِ.
Translation: Muslim replies: If the reason you weaken and reject the report is simply that an intermediary could be omitted, consistency would require refusing every muʿanʿan chain until hearing is made explicit throughout it.

Muslim’s reductio: a meeting established in another report does not logically eliminate an intermediary in this particular report. If every abstract possibility invalidates a report, the opponent’s one-meeting threshold cannot be sufficient. Muslim is **not** himself imposing universal explicit hearing in each report.

Nawawī’s response: he distinguishes a **strong probability of omission** from a merely conceivable possibility. Where no hearing between a pair has been established, he judges the risk materially greater; where credible meeting/hearing is demonstrated, the ordinary usage of a non-mudallis and inductive experience can make continuity more probable, without proving that this individual hadith cannot have an intermediary. This is Nawawī’s counterargument, not an unqualified statement of Muslim’s own rule.

6. Reasoning: Possibility versus Proof

Two arguments: Muslim’s reductio and Nawawī’s reply

1. Muslim: If an abstract possibility of omission invalidates a chain, Hishām’s well-established hearing from his father ʿUrwah cannot guarantee that *every particular* report was heard without an intermediary. The opponent’s one-meeting threshold thus fails by his own stated rationale.
2. Nawawī: The probabilities are not equal. Established hearing between Hishām and ʿUrwah gives a non-mudallis ʿan-report a strong presumption of connection; where no prior hearing is established, the possibility of disconnection is stronger, not merely conceivable.

Application: alongside Hishām → ʿUrwah there is a Hishām → ʿUthmān ibn ʿUrwah → ʿUrwah route. It demonstrates a possible fuller pathway but does not independently falsify every shorter route. Narrator reliability, exact wording, documented hearing and comparative routes must still be assessed.

7. Hishām, ʿUrwah and ʿĀʾishah: A Known Link Still Permits an Omission

وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ الْوَارِدَ عَلَيْنَا بِإِسْنَادِ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، فَبِيَقِينٍ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّ هِشَامًا قَدْ سَمِعَ مِنْ أَبِيهِ، وَأَنَّ أَبَاهُ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِنْ عَائِشَةَ، كَمَا نَعْلَمُ أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ قَدْ سَمِعَتْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَقَدْ يَجُوزُ إِذَا لَمْ يَقُلْ هِشَامٌ فِي رِوَايَةٍ يَرْوِيهَا عَنْ أَبِيهِ: سَمِعْتُ أَوْ أَخْبَرَنِي، أَنْ يَكُونَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ أَبِيهِ فِي تِلْكَ الرِّوَايَةِ إِنْسَانٌ آخَرُ أَخْبَرَهُ بِهَا عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَلَمْ يَسْمَعْهَا هُوَ مِنْ أَبِيهِ، لَمَّا أَحَبَّ أَنْ يَرْوِيَهَا مُرْسَلًا وَلَا يُسْنِدَهَا إِلَى مَنْ سَمِعَهَا مِنْهُ.
Translation: For a report arriving with the chain Hishām ibn ʿUrwah → his father → ʿĀʾishah, we know with certainty that Hishām heard from his father, his father heard from ʿĀʾishah, and she heard from the Prophet. Yet if Hishām did not say “I heard” or “he informed me” when relating a particular report from his father, it remains conceivable that another person stood between them in that report—someone who informed Hishām from his father, though Hishām had not heard that report himself—because he might choose to narrate it in mursal form, without naming the person from whom he actually heard it.

This is Muslim’s **hypothetical logical test**, not a historical accusation that Hishām or his father practiced tadlīs.

The final source clause expressly describes the imagined **choice to narrate mursal and not attribute the report through the actual intermediary**. That distinct step is part of the literal translation, not merely a general warning that an extra link might exist.

8. Intermediaries Despite Established Hearing

وَكَمَا يُمْكِنُ ذَلِكَ فِي هِشَامٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ فَهُوَ أَيْضًا مُمْكِنٌ فِي أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ. وَكَذَلِكَ كُلُّ إِسْنَادٍ لِحَدِيثٍ لَيْسَ فِيهِ ذِكْرُ سَمَاعِ بَعْضِهِمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ. وَإِنْ كَانَ قَدْ عُرِفَ فِي الْجُمْلَةِ أَنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِنْ صَاحِبِهِ سَمَاعًا كَثِيرًا، فَجَائِزٌ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ أَنْ يَنْزِلَ فِي بَعْضِ الرِّوَايَةِ فَيَسْمَعَ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ عَنْهُ بَعْضَ أَحَادِيثِهِ، ثُمَّ يُرْسِلَهُ عَنْهُ أَحْيَانًا وَلَا يُسَمِّيَ مَنْ سَمِعَ مِنْهُ، وَيَنْشَطَ أَحْيَانًا فَيُسَمِّيَ الرَّجُلَ الَّذِي حَمَلَ عَنْهُ الْحَدِيثَ وَيَتْرُكَ الْإِرْسَالَ.
Translation: The same possibility applies to ʿUrwah reporting from ʿĀʾishah and, in principle, to any chain that does not expressly mention every hearing. Even where every narrator is known to have heard extensively from the next, someone may hear certain reports about his teacher through another person, then sometimes attribute them to that teacher without naming the intermediary, but at other times feel inclined to identify the person from whom he took the report and thus abandon the mursal form.

Nuzūl and ṣuʿūd here describe an increased or reduced number of intermediaries, not an automatic grade of personal virtue or hadith reliability. Muslim explicitly contrasts **sometimes leaving the intermediary unnamed** with **sometimes naming that same transmitter**.

Comparative routes can reveal those possibilities. Actual disconnection or connection still depends on case-specific narrator and historical evidence, not mere imagination.

9. Muslim Introduces Examples from the Critics

وَمَا قُلْنَا مِنْ هَذَا مَوْجُودٌ فِي الْحَدِيثِ مُسْتَفِيضٌ مِنْ فِعْلِ ثِقَاتِ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ وَأَئِمَّةِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ. وَسَنَذْكُرُ مِنْ رِوَايَاتِهِمْ عَلَى الْجِهَةِ الَّتِي ذَكَرْنَا عَدَدًا يُسْتَدَلُّ بِهَا عَلَى أَكْثَرَ مِنْهَا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى.
Translation: This variation is attested among trustworthy hadith scholars, so Muslim introduces a selection of cases as evidence for the broader phenomenon.

An extra transmitter is not automatically proof that the shorter route is mistaken. The cases call for comparison of what each narrator actually transmitted.

10. Example 1: Perfume Report, Short Route

فَمِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ أَيُّوبَ السَّخْتِيَانِيَّ وَابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ وَوَكِيعًا وَابْنَ نُمَيْرٍ وَجَمَاعَةً غَيْرَهُمْ رَوَوْا عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا قَالَتْ: كُنْتُ أُطَيِّبُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِحِلِّهِ وَلِحُرْمِهِ بِأَطْيَبِ مَا أَجِدُ.
Translation: Among the illustrations, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, Ibn al-Mubārak, Wakīʿ, Ibn Numayr and others report from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, who said: “I used to perfume the Messenger of Allah with the finest perfume I could find for his lawful state and his iḥrām.”

The shorter route is Hishām → ʿUrwah → ʿĀʾishah; another version inserts ʿUthmān ibn ʿUrwah after Hishām. These are competing transmission paths for the same report.

Juristic point in Nawawī: «لِحِلِّهِ وَلِحُرْمِهِ» concerns being outside and entering the state of iḥrām. On applying perfume before entering iḥrām, al-Shāfiʿī and many jurists recommend it, whereas Mālik and others regard it as disliked. This is a **distinct legal disagreement**, not automatically decided by the number of links in these chains.

11. Example 1: Same Report via ʿUthmān ibn ʿUrwah

فَرَوَى هَذِهِ الرِّوَايَةَ بِعَيْنِهَا اللَّيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ وَدَاوُدُ الْعَطَّارُ وَحُمَيْدُ بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ وَوُهَيْبُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ وَأَبُو أُسَامَةَ عَنْ هِشَامٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
Translation: Al-Layth ibn Saʿd, Dāwūd al-ʿAṭṭār, Ḥumayd ibn al-Aswad, Wuhayb ibn Khālid and Abū Usāmah transmitted this very report from Hishām, who said: “ʿUthmān ibn ʿUrwah informed me,” reporting from ʿUrwah, from ʿĀʾishah, **from the Prophet, peace be upon him**.

Shorter route: Hishām → ʿUrwah → ʿĀʾishah → Prophet ﷺ
Longer route: Hishām → ʿUthmān ibn ʿUrwah → ʿUrwah → ʿĀʾishah → Prophet ﷺ

Both retain the final Prophetic attribution. The added transmitter must be studied on the evidence; it is not a self-executing verdict on either route.

12. Example 2: The Iʿtikāf Report, Short Route

وَرَوَى هِشَامٌ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا اعْتَكَفَ يُدْنِي إِلَيَّ رَأْسَهُ فَأُرَجِّلُهُ وَأَنَا حَائِضٌ.
Translation: Hishām reports from his father, from ʿĀʾishah: When the Prophet was in iʿtikāf, he would bring his head close to me and I would comb his hair while I was menstruating.

Urajjiluhu means to comb or arrange the hair. According to al-Nawawī, the report supports the purity of a menstruating woman’s hands and body and the permissibility of grooming a person in iʿtikāf; menstruation does not itself make her hands impure.

Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ invoked it in discussing whether slight bodily touching nullifies wuḍūʾ. Nawawī objects: this text does not show that the Prophet touched her skin, that he was in wuḍūʾ then, or that he subsequently prayed without renewing it. Only hair-combing is explicit; touching hair is not nullifying in the Shāfiʿī view. The report alone therefore cannot prove every proposed legal inference.

The isnād example remains Hishām → ʿUrwah → ʿĀʾishah, with an added ʿAmrah link in the next route.

13. Example 2: An Added ʿAmrah Link

فَرَوَاهَا بِعَيْنِهَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
Translation: Mālik ibn Anas related this very report from al-Zuhrī, from ʿUrwah, from ʿAmrah, from ʿĀʾishah, **from the Prophet, peace be upon him**.

Shorter chain: ʿUrwah → ʿĀʾishah → Prophet ﷺ
Longer chain: ʿUrwah → ʿAmrah → ʿĀʾishah → Prophet ﷺ

Muslim uses this to illustrate possible intermediate transmission, not to assert a proven break or a necessary verdict against either route.

14. Example 3: The Fasting Report, Short Route

وَرَوَى الزُّهْرِيُّ وَصَالِحُ بْنُ أَبِي حَسَّانَ عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُقَبِّلُ وَهُوَ صَائِمٌ.
Translation: Al-Zuhrī and Ṣāliḥ ibn Abī Ḥassān reported from Abū Salamah, from ʿĀʾishah, that the Prophet kissed while fasting.

Avoiding narrator confusion — Nawawī: The transmitter here is **Ṣāliḥ ibn Abī Ḥassān**, whom al-Bukhārī described as trustworthy in the assessment relayed by al-Tirmidhī; other critics also authenticated his reliability. A manuscript reading “Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān” is described by Abū ʿAlī al-Ghassānī as erroneous.

**Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥassān, Abū al-Ḥārith**, is a different narrator with widely recorded severe weakness in retention and precision. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī reports critics’ agreement not to rely on him independently. Both narrated from Abū Salamah and were narrated from by Ibn Abī Dhiʾb, making precise identification essential: the weak namesake’s jarḥ must **not** be transferred to Ṣāliḥ ibn Abī Ḥassān.

The following route then introduces additional intermediaries after Abū Salamah.

15. Example 3: A Longer Chain for the Same Topic

فَقَالَ يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ فِي هَذَا الْخَبَرِ فِي الْقُبْلَةِ: أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ عُرْوَةَ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ أَخْبَرَتْهُ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يُقَبِّلُهَا وَهُوَ صَائِمٌ.
Translation: Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr said of the report about kissing: **“Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān informed me** that **ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz informed him**, that **ʿUrwah informed him**, that **ʿĀʾishah informed him** that the Prophet used to kiss her while he was fasting.”

An isnād subtlety noted by al-Nawawī: This chain contains **four successive Tābiʿīs narrating from one another**:
1. Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr — a later-generation Tābiʿī narrating from Abū Salamah.
2. Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf — an early senior Tābiʿī narrating from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.
3. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz — a younger Tābiʿī in age and generation, narrating from ʿUrwah.
4. ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr — a Tābiʿī narrating from ʿĀʾishah, a Companion.

This also illustrates **an older-generation narrator reporting from a younger-generation narrator**: Abū Salamah from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Two extra links occur between Abū Salamah and ʿĀʾishah. Neither a longer nor shorter chain is automatically authentic just because of its length.

16. Example 4: Horse Meat and Domestic Donkey Meat

وَرَوَى ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ قَالَ: أَطْعَمَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لُحُومَ الْخَيْلِ وَنَهَانَا عَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْأَهْلِيَّةِ.
Translation: Ibn ʿUyaynah and others transmit ʿAmr ibn Dīnār → Jābir: the Messenger of Allah gave them horse meat and forbade the meat of domestic donkeys.

The methodological comparison concerns the ʿAmr ibn Dīnār → Jābir route, not a new independent legal inquiry into permissible meat.

17. Example 4: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī in the Longer Route

فَرَوَاهُ حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ عَمْرٍو عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ جَابِرٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ. وَهَذَا النَّحْوُ فِي الرِّوَايَاتِ كَثِيرٌ، يَكْثُرُ تَعْدَادُهُ، وَفِيمَا ذَكَرْنَا مِنْهَا كِفَايَةٌ لِذَوِي الْفَهْمِ.
Translation: Ḥammād ibn Zayd transmits this report through ʿAmr → Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī → Jābir → the Prophet. Muslim says that many analogous examples exist and those cited suffice for attentive readers.

Short route: ʿAmr → Jābir.
Long route: ʿAmr → Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī → Jābir.

The evidentiary status of each route and Muslim’s logical critique of a universal threshold are distinct analytical questions.

18. Comparing Routes Without Overclaiming

What do the route variations establish?
1. A known teacher–student relationship does not exclude a further link in a particular report.
2. An added link does not by itself invalidate the other route: both hearings may be genuine, or one version may reflect an omission/insertion requiring examination.
3. Explicit hearing, narrator precision, other pupils’ transmissions and supporting circumstances guide adjudication.

Muslim’s examples support an argument about the coherence of a general criterion; the status of individual routes needs its own source criticism.

19. Muslim’s Conclusion from the Route Evidence

فَإِذَا كَانَتِ الْعِلَّةُ عِنْدَ مَنْ وَصَفْنَا قَوْلَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ فِي فَسَادِ الْحَدِيثِ وَتَوْهِينِهِ إِذَا لَمْ يُعْلَمْ أَنَّ الرَّاوِيَ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِمَّنْ رَوَى عَنْهُ شَيْئًا إِمْكَانَ الْإِرْسَالِ فِيهِ، لَزِمَهُ تَرْكُ الِاحْتِجَاجِ فِي قِيَادِ قَوْلِهِ بِرِوَايَةِ مَنْ يُعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِمَّنْ رَوَى عَنْهُ إِلَّا فِي نَفْسِ الْخَبَرِ الَّذِي فِيهِ ذِكْرُ السَّمَاعِ، لِمَا بَيَّنَّا مِنْ قَبْلُ عَنِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الَّذِينَ نَقَلُوا الْأَخْبَارَ أَنَّهُمْ كَانَتْ لَهُمْ تَارَاتٌ يُرْسِلُونَ فِيهَا الْحَدِيثَ إِرْسَالًا وَلَا يَذْكُرُونَ مَنْ سَمِعُوهُ مِنْهُ، وَتَارَاتٌ يَنْشَطُونَ فِيهَا فَيُسْنِدُونَ الْخَبَرَ عَلَى هَيْئَةِ مَا سَمِعُوا فَيُخْبِرُونَ بِالنُّزُولِ فِيهِ إِنْ نَزَلُوا وَبِالصُّعُودِ إِنْ صَعِدُوا، كَمَا شَرَحْنَا ذَلِكَ عَنْهُمْ.
Translation: If the sole reason for rejecting a report without documented prior hearing is the possible omission of a link, the same reasoning would compel rejection even where the narrator is known to have heard from the teacher—except in a report explicitly stating its own hearing. Trustworthy scholars sometimes give abbreviated or fuller chains, with higher and lower routes.

This exposes the inconsistency of treating bare possibility as uniformly disqualifying while exempting cases of known general hearing. It does not assert that all trustworthy narrators actually omit links at every point.

20. Appeal to the Practice of Early Critics

وَمَا عَلِمْنَا أَحَدًا مِنْ أَئِمَّةِ السَّلَفِ مِمَّنْ يَسْتَعْمِلُ الْأَخْبَارَ وَيَتَفَقَّدُ صِحَّةَ الْأَسَانِيدِ وَسَقَمَهَا، مِثْلَ أَيُّوبَ السَّخْتِيَانِيِّ وَابْنِ عَوْنٍ وَمَالِكِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ وَشُعْبَةَ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ وَيَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْقَطَّانِ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ مَهْدِيٍّ وَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ، فَتَّشُوا عَنْ مَوْضِعِ السَّمَاعِ فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ كَمَا ادَّعَاهُ الَّذِي وَصَفْنَا قَوْلَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ.
Translation: Muslim says he does not know these leading earlier critics—Ayyūb, Ibn ʿAwn, Mālik, Shuʿbah, Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī and their successors—to have applied the opponent’s general per-link hearing search.

This is not a denial that critics investigated chains. It targets the claimed universal requirement to verify an actual hearing occasion for every non-mudallis ʿan-link.

21. The Known Mudallis Exception

وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ تَفَقُّدُ مَنْ تَفَقَّدَ مِنْهُمْ سَمَاعَ رُوَاةِ الْحَدِيثِ مِمَّنْ رَوَى عَنْهُمْ إِذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي مِمَّنْ عُرِفَ بِالتَّدْلِيسِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَشُهِرَ بِهِ، فَحِينَئِذٍ يَبْحَثُونَ عَنْ سَمَاعِهِ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ وَيَتَفَقَّدُونَ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ كَيْ تَنْزَاحَ عَنْهُمْ عِلَّةُ التَّدْلِيسِ.
Translation: The early critics were particularly concerned to verify hearing when a narrator was known for tadlīs, so that the risk of a concealed intermediary could be eliminated.

A known mudallis creates a specific risk of concealing the actual source of a particular report. That individualized risk differs from treating every merely possible indirect route as a proven or disqualifying omission.

22. Meeting evidence, tadlīs and textual readings

فَمَا ابْتُغِيَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ غَيْرِ مُدَلِّسٍ عَلَى الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي زَعَمَ مَنْ حَكَيْنَا قَوْلَهُ، فَمَا سَمِعْنَا ذَلِكَ عَنْ أَحَدٍ مِمَّنْ سَمَّيْنَا وَلَمْ نُسَمِّ مِنَ الْأَئِمَّةِ.
Translation: The kind of hearing-investigation demanded concerning a non-mudallis narrator, in the manner claimed by the opponent whose position Muslim has recounted, has not, Muslim says, been sought by the earlier imams he named or left unnamed.

Edition readings: Al-Bushra prints «فَمَا ابْتُغِيَ»: negative *mā* with the passive past verb (ḍamma on tāʾ and kasra on ghayn). Al-Nawawī says this is the reading in most manuscripts and records alternatives «فَمَا ابْتَغَى» (active past) and «فَمَنِ ابْتَغَى» (conditional *man*). Their grammatical constructions differ, though each is read in the argumentative context of a demand for this type of investigation; an alternative recension must not silently displace the primary edition’s words.

Apply the method to four cases:
1. No meeting is recorded, but one was possible for reliable non-mudallises: Muslim does not reject solely for lack of a recorded encounter; Nawawī gives greater weight to a demonstrated meeting.
2. Historical meeting was impossible: the claimed direct continuity fails.
3. The narrator is a known mudallis: specific hearing requires special investigation.
4. Multiple routes differ by an intermediary: compare precision and corroborating evidence; chain length alone is no verdict.