LessonsThe Meeting Condition in Muʿanʿan Hadith: Muslim’s Rejoinder and Route ComparisonQuiz

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.

Opening interactive controls...

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

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

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.