and similarly in his book Irshād Ṭullāb al-Ḥaqāʾiq (1/185–189).

1—This view, which al-Nawawī judged sound in his two aforementioned books, was adopted by a number of hadith masters and authors on hadith principles and terminology, including al-Ṭībī in his al-Khulāṣah fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth (p. 47), and al-ʿAlāʾī in al-Taḥṣīl (p. 210).

2—Al-Dhahabī, in his brief and beneficial treatise al-Mūqiẓah, mentioned both views—actual meeting and mere contemporaneity—yet endorsed Muslim’s refutation of his opponent. This is from one perspective. From another, in his biography of Muslim in Siyar al-Nubalāʾ (12/573), he indicated that Muslim’s position was correct and strong, while explicitly stating that al-Bukhārī’s position was stronger. But that is one matter; its being a condition for authenticity is another, as is apparent upon the slightest consideration.

3—The hadith master Ibn Kathīr, in Mukhtaṣar ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth.

4—Ibn al-Mulaqqin, in al-Muqniʿ fī ʿIlm al-Ḥadīth (1/148) and in his brief treatise al-Tadhkirah (16/11).

5—The hadith master Ibn Ḥajar. He preferred al-Bukhārī’s condition, much as has been related above from al-Dhahabī, while conceding the soundness of Muslim’s position. In al-Nukat ʿalā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (1/289), he explained his preference as follows: “For even if we grant what Muslim stated—that the chain is to be judged continuous—it remains clear that al-Bukhārī’s condition makes continuity more evident.” He said the same in the introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī (p. 12), and similarly in his treatise Nuzhat al-Naẓar fī Tawḍīḥ Nukhabat al-Fikar (p. 171/61—with al-Akh al-Ḥalabī’s notes on it).

I say: That it makes continuity more evident is beyond doubt; likewise, that it is stronger, as was explicitly stated by