The mursal narration, according to the most widespread meaning, is that in which a Tabi`i attributes something directly to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).  [Sharh al-Alfiyyah, by al-`Iraqi, p. 80]  Scholars have differed about the authority of the mursal narration, and there are three major views:
[See Sharh al-Manzumat al-Bayquniyyah, by Shaykh `Abdullah Siraj al-Din,  p. 106-108]`

1. That it is permissible to cite the mursal of a reliable narrator as evidence or proof

This is the view of Imam Abu Hanifah, and the more famous view of Imams Malik and Ahmad. Imam Malik cites mursal narrations abundantly in his "Al-Muwatta'."

Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman al-Ghawiji says,
"Citing the mursal as evidence was a handed-down practice (sunnah) practised by the ummah in the distinguished generations, so much so that Ibn Jarir [al-Tabari] said, as reported by [Abu'l-Walid] al-Baji [al-Maliki], Ibn `Abdi'l-Barr [al-Maliki] and Ibn Rajab [al-Hanbali], 'Unconditional denial of the mursal is a bid`ah, introduced two hundred years [after the Prophet].'  In fact, you [will] see al-Bukhari citing mursal narrations as evidence in his 'Sahih.'  Whoever weakens [a report] on account of its being mursal is discarded half of the implemented sunnah." [Abu Hanifah, by al-Ghawiji, p. 188]

The proponents of this view cited in their favor the fact the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) praised the Tabi`in.  Also, had there been an unreliable chain in the missing part of the chain (one or more individuals), that omission would constitute a discrediting of the narrator who reported the mursal (since deliberately neglecting to name an unreliable narrator in the chain is dishonest).  Some went further, to say that the mursal is stronger than the musnad (contiguous narration), because the narrator of the mursal is taking the responsibility for the hadith himself, indicating his great trust in its being a true hadith, whereas in the musnad, the narrator is placing the responsibility on the narrator before him.

2. That the mursal is weak, and may not be cited a evidence or proof

This is the view of the majority of the non-affiliated scholars of hadith after al-Shafi`i.  Imam Muslim says, in the introduction to his "Sahih,"
"The marasil (plural of mursal) of the narrations, according to our fundamental verdict and [that of] people knowledgeable about reports, is not a proof."

The reason for their judging it weak is due to the anonymity of the missing narrator(s), for although all of the Sahabh are morally upright and reliable, it is possible that the Tabi`i narrating the mursal actually heard it from another Tabi`i, who is potentially a weak narrator.

3. That the mursal maybe cited as evidence under some conditions

This is the view of Imam al-Shafi`i, as he discusses in "Al-Risalah".  According to him, the mursal is acceptable if: