Hadīs mursal shi ne hadīs wanda aka cire sahabin da ya ruwaito shi. Misali shi ne lokacin da Tabi'i ya ce Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi kaza ko ya faɗi kaza, ko kuma an yi kaza a gabansa ﷺ. Misali kuma shi ne hadīsin wani Tabi'i wanda ya haɗu da sahabbai da dama kuma ya zauna don koyo daga gare su, kamar 'Ubaydullah ibn 'Iddi ibn al-Khayyar, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab da irinsu, lokacin da suka ce kai tsaye cewa:

The mursal hadīth is the hadīth from which the Sahābi has been omitted. Such as when the Tabi’says that the Messenger of Allah  said or did such and such a thing, or such and such thing was done in his presence. An example would be the hadīth of a tabi'i who has met a number of companions and has sat down to learn from them like 'Ubayd Allah ibn 'Iddi ibn al-khayyar, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and their likes when they say (directly) that:

Ana san da cewa dukkan Tabi'in ana daidaita su, watau abin da Tabi'i ya ruwaito daga Manzon Allah ﷺ ba tare da ya ambaci Sahabi ba. Babu bambanci tsakanin babban Tabi'i da karamin Tabi'i, domin an san cewa ana daidaita su. Muhaddithai, malaman usul (usuliyyun) da Imamai sun sabanya game da amfani da hadisin mursal a matsayin hujja. Akwai wadanda ba su amfani da shi, suka dauke shi a matsayin mardudi kamar hadisin munqati', kuma akwai wadanda suka karɓi amfani da shi. Wadanda ba su karɓa ba sun ki shi saboda wani dalili, wato cewa an fadi wani mai ruwaitowa wanda ba a san shi ba a cikin isnadi, wanda watakila ba amintacce ba ne. Abin la'akari a cikin ruwaya shi ne amintattu da tabbaci; mai ruwaitowar da ba a sani ba ba hujja ba ne. Wannan shi ne dalilin kin hadisin mursal. Dalilin nan daidai ne, kuma kin hadisi bisa gare shi daidai ne, amma bai shafi hadisin mursal ba, domin mai ruwaitowar da aka cire daga cikinsa Sahabi ne. Ko da yake ba a san shi ba ta fuskar sunansa, sananne ne cewa Sahabi ne. Kuma Sahabbai duka adalai ne (‘udul), ba za su iya zama marasa amana ba; ma dai tabbas amintattu ne. Don haka dalilin da ake kin hadisi da shi bai shafi mursal ba, kuma babu wani dalili na kin shi. Tun da ya cika sharuddan matn, sanad da mai ruwaitowa, babu laifi a cire Sahabi matukar an san cewa Sahabi ne, don haka shi amintacce ne. Wannan yana nuna cewa hadisin mursal hujja ne, kuma ana iya cire hukunci daga cikinsa a matsayin shaida. Ana iya cewa dalilin shi ne akwai yiwuwar wani Tabi'i ya ruwaito daga wani Tabi'i kamarsa wanda ya ruwaito daga Sahabbai. Cire Sahabi ba yana nufin cire mai ruwaitowa guda daya kawai ba. Amma katsewar silsila tana nufin cewa yana yiwuwa an tsallake mutum biyu, ɗaya daga cikinsu ya cika sharaɗin adalci, wato Sahabi, shi kuma ɗayan mutumin shakku ne a kansa, wato tabi'i. Ana iya samun jarhi (ɓata suna) ko rashin daidaito (dabt) a cikin hadisin, don haka a ƙi shi. Ana iya cewa irin wannan abu. Amsar ita ce, ma'anar hadisin mursal shi ne cewa:

It is well known that all of the Tabi’een are treated equally i.e, what the tabi'i narrated about the Prophet  without mentioning the Sahabah. There is no difference between the senior or junior tabi'i because it is well known that they are treated equally. The muhaddithin, scholars of usul (usuliyyin) and the imams have differed over the use of the mursal hadīth as proof. There were those who did not use it and considered it to be rejected like the munqati' hadīth and there were those who did accept its use. Those who do not accept it reject it for a reason, which is that a transmitter who is not known has been omitted from the isnād who might not be trustworthy. The consideration in narration is reliability and certainty, an unknown transmitter is not a proof. This is the reason for rejecting the mursal ahadīth. The reason is correct and the rejection of a hadīth according to it is correct but it does not apply to the mursal hadīth because the transmitter who has been omitted is a Sahābi. Even though he is not known in terms of his identity but he is known as a Sahābi. And the Sahabah are all trustworthy ('udul). They cannot be unreliable. Rather, they are definitely trustworthy. Thus, the reason by which they reject the hadīth does not apply to the mursal and nor is there any other reason to reject it and since he fulfils the conditions of the matn, sanad and transmittor, no harm is done by omitting the Sahābi as long as it is known that he is a Sahābi and so he is trustworthy. This indicates that the mursal hadīth is a proof and should be educed as an evidence. It might be said that the reason is that there is a possibility that a tabi'i narrated from a tabi'i like himself who narrated from the Sahabah. The ommision of a Sahābi does not mean the ommision of only one narrator. But the break in the chain means that it is possible that two narrators have been omitted, one of them satisfies the condition of integrity, which is the Sahābi and the case of the other narrator is dubious, who is a tabi'i. There is a possibility in the hadīth of a jarh (invalidation) or lack of accuracy (dabt) and therefore it is rejected. Such a thing might be said. The response is that the definition of the mursal hadīth is that:

Narration of a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i who is not known does not come under this definition. Even if we accept this illustration, that is, the possibility that the Tabi'i omitted mentioning the Sahabi, the possibility of his omission is only by way of suspicion. Rather, it is a suspicion which does not reach the level of possibility. Because he suspects the Tabi'i of narrating from another Tabi'i whom he did not mention, nor did he mention the Sahabi; i.e., he assumes that a Tabi'i has been omitted. There is no evidence for this hypothetical assumption. It is merely a suspicion. A suspicion has no value, and the hukm (ruling) of a hadith is not based on it. It should not be said that an unknown narrator (majhul) has transmitted it, since the narration is not predicated on anything such that it can be said that the narrator is majhul (unknown). Therefore, the mursal hadith is not considered among the rejected ahadith; rather, it is accepted and used as proof.

The narration of a Tabi’ from a Tabi’ who is not known does not come under this definition. Even if we accept this illustration i.e the possibility of the Tabi'i's ommision without mentioning the Sahābi, the possibility of his ommision is by way of suspicion. Rather it is a suspicion which does not reach the level of possibility. Because he suspects the tabi'i of narrating from another tabi'i who he did not mention and nor did he mention the Sahābi i.e, he assumes that a Tabi'i has been ommited. There is no evidence for this hypothetical assumption. It is merely a suspicion. A suspicion has no value and the hukm (value) of hadīth is not based on it. It should not be said that an unknown narrator (majhul) has transmitted it since the narration is not predicated on anything such that it can be said that the narrator is a majhul (unknown). Therefore, the mursal hadīth is not considered to be from the rejected ahadith, rather it is accepted and used as proof.