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.