However, the view that became widespread among the later scholars is that an ʿazīz report is one transmitted by only two narrators.
They further hold that a mashhūr report is what is conveyed by three or more narrators. On this basis, the author’s inclusion of the phrase “or three” is considered weak; the correct position is that an ʿazīz report is one related by exactly two narrators from the beginning of the chain to its end.
If, however, the report is transmitted by two narrators, then by one, then by two, then by two, until the end of the chain, it is not called ʿazīz, for one of the required layers has failed to meet the condition. Whenever a condition is breached—even in a single layer—the classification that depends on it collapses.
Is ʿazīz status a prerequisite for a report to be ṣaḥīḥ (sound)?
We say: ʿazīz is not a condition for soundness.
Some scholars, though, maintained that it is.
They argued: testimony is not accepted unless it comes from two witnesses, and there is no doubt that a report about the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—is the highest form of testimony. Hence, whoever deliberately fabricates something about the Prophet should take his seat in the Fire.
Yet we have already seen from the author’s own words that this is not a stipulation, for he said, “…whose chain is continuous and is neither irregular nor defective,” and he did not require that it be ʿazīz.1
Those who claim that testimony is only accepted from two witnesses can be answered as follows: this is information (khabar), not formal testimony, and a single transmitter suffices for information. The proof is that when the muezzin gives the call to prayer people break their fast at his announcement, even though he is only one person, because this is a religious report for which one narrator suffices. Another indication is the scholarly consensus on accepting the hadith of the Commander of the Believers, ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb—may Allah be pleased with him—in which he stated that he heard