Thus, a small group of transmitters may convey knowledge because of their evident piety and precision—qualities that preclude both deliberate falsehood and unintentional error—whereas a far larger group drawn from others may fail to impart any certitude at all. This is the incontestable truth, the position of the majority of jurists, hadith specialists, and many theologians.

Some theologians, and a few jurists, have argued that if a given number of narrators produces certainty in one case, then any report conveyed by the same number must necessarily produce certainty in every case. This is categorically false, and this is not the place to detail its refutation.

As for the influence of external indications—those independent of the transmitters—on the knowledge derived from a report, we have not discussed it, because such indications could, even without the report, yield certain knowledge on their own. Since they can independently confer knowledge, they are not to be regarded as automatically subordinate to the report, just as the report is not automatically subordinate to them. Rather, each of the two may at times be a pathway to certainty and at other times merely to probable conjecture. It can occur that the factors producing certainty are present in both together, or that certainty arises from one of them while the other yields only likelihood.

Accordingly, one who is highly versed in the science of reports may reach full assurance about the authenticity of certain narrations, while someone of lesser expertise will not attain that degree of certainty.