So, when those followers are unanimous and absolutely certain about what they transmit from their exemplar, such that it can only be true, then these hadith authorities—who are equally resolute and united in affirming a narration—are even more entitled to have whatever they decisively declare to be true accepted as nothing but the truth.

The bulk of the reports contained in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs are of this kind: the hadith scholars have unanimously endorsed them and categorically affirmed their authenticity, differing only over a very small number of narrations. Most of the prophetic signs we have cited from the authentic collections belong to the well-known area of their widespread consensus, over which they have unshakeable certainty; they are not among the points over which they disagree. This is a path pursued by the scholars who understand it, and its foremost exponents are recognised by those who are versed in their craft.

Accordingly, there are two avenues for establishing the truth of these signs: (1) general tawātur (mass-transmission) and (2) specific tawātur.

The third avenue is semantic tawātur, a form whose recognition is acknowledged by all groups. People often hear separate reports and anecdotes whose cumulative import converges on a single reality—just as they have heard scattered stories portraying the bravery of ʿAntarah, Khālid ibn al-Walīd, and others like them, and stories depicting the generosity of Ḥātim.