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.