"مرسل"圣训是指省略了圣门弟子（Sahābi）的圣训。例如，再传弟子（Tabi'i）说"安拉的使者ﷺ说了或做了某事"，或"某事在他面前发生了"。例如，某位曾遇见多位圣门弟子并曾坐下向他们学习的再传弟子，如'Ubayd Allah ibn 'Iddi ibn al-Khayyar、Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab等人，直接说道……

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:

众所周知，所有的塔比尔（Tabi'een，再传弟子）都是平等对待的，即塔比尔所叙述的关于先知ﷺ的内容，不论是否提及圣门弟子（Sahabah）。高级塔比尔与初级塔比尔之间没有区别，因为众所周知他们是被平等对待的。 圣训学家（muhaddithin）、法源学家（usuliyyin）以及伊玛目们对于以马尔赛圣训（mursal hadīth）作为证据存在分歧。有些人不采用它，并将其视为应被拒绝的，如同断续圣训（munqati'）一样；也有人接受其作为证据。不接受它的人拒绝它是有理由的，即在圣训的传述链（isnād）中省略了一位身份不明的传述者，而此人可能不可信。在传述中所考虑的是可靠性与确定性，身份不明的传述者不能作为证据。这就是拒绝马尔赛圣训的原因。 这一理由是正确的，依此拒绝圣训也是正确的，但它并不适用于马尔赛圣训，因为被省略的传述者是一位圣门弟子。尽管就其身份而言他并不为人所知，但他作为圣门弟子是为人所知的。而圣门弟子都是可信的（'udul），他们不可能是不可靠的，而是确定地可信。因此，拒绝圣训所依据的理由并不适用于马尔赛圣训，也没有其他理由去拒绝它。既然它符合正文（matn）、传述链（sanad）和传述者的条件，那么只要确知被省略的是圣门弟子，省略他就无碍，因为他是可信的。这表明马尔赛圣训是可以作为证据并据以推论的。 也有人可能会说，理由在于存在这样一种可能：一位塔比尔从与他同级的另一位塔比尔那里传述，而那位塔比尔又从圣门弟子那里传述。省略一位圣门弟子，并不意味着只省略了一位传述者。 但是，链条中断意味着可能遗漏了两位传述人：其中一位符合公正（'adāla）的条件，即圣门弟子（Ṣaḥābī）；而另一位传述人的情况则不明，他是再传弟子（Tābi'ī）。这段圣训可能存在受到质疑（jarḥ）或准确性不足（ḍabṭ）的问题，因此被拒绝。有人可能会这样说。对此的回答是：枉顿圣训（Mursal）的定义是：

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:

一个不为人知的再传弟子（Tabi'）对再传弟子所作的传述，并不属于这一定义的范畴。即便我们接受这一例证，即再传弟子可能省略了圣门弟子（Sahābi）而未提及，这种省略的可能性也只是一种怀疑。而且这种怀疑甚至没有达到可能性的程度。因为他怀疑这位再传弟子是从另一位他既未提及、也未提及圣门弟子的再传弟子那里传述的，也就是说，他假设有一位再传弟子被省略了。而这一假设性的推断没有任何证据。它只是一种怀疑。怀疑没有任何价值，圣训的裁定也不建立在怀疑之上。不能说这段传述是由一位不为人知（majhul）的传述人所传，因为这一传述并不依赖于任何东西，以至于可以说该传述人是不为人知的。因此，有中断的圣训（Mursal）并不被视为被弃的圣训，而是被接受并作为证据使用。

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.