The speaker who we introduced by way of speaking on the account of his opinion and the reports of the evil of his thinking, alleged that every chain for Ḥadīth which has in it ‘so-and-so narrated on authority of so-and-so’ [Mu’an’an], and he has knowledge that they were contemporaries, and the probability that the Ḥadīth which the narrator transmitted from whom he transmitted, had heard it from him, and spoke face to face with him; without our knowing [for certain] that the narrator heard from the one who transmitted to him, and without finding in any of the transmissions that they ever met and spoke face to face for the purpose of Ḥadīth- that the proof is not established according to him in any report which comes in this manner until he has knowledge of both transmitters meeting in their era one or more times and speaking face to face for the purpose of narration, or he wants a report in which their meeting is clarified, their having met once in their era, or more than that; then if he does not have knowledge of that and there does not come to him an authentic transmission reporting that this transmitter [who relates] on authority of his companion met him once AND heard from him something- [there] will be no [proof] of his relating the report from whom he transmitted on authority of. The matter just as we described is a proof [transmitters being contemporaries and the possibility of having met existing] and the report according to him is unresolved until there arrives [the transmitters] hearing from him something from Ḥadīth, a little or a lot, in a transmission [clarifying the ‘hearing’] equal to what he narrated [with Mu’an’an].