and the Muslim community does not agree upon error. If a hadith were in fact false, yet the community believed and accepted it, they would have reached a consensus affirming something that was actually false. This would constitute consensus upon error, which is impossible. Even if, without consensus, we admit the possibility of error or falsehood in a report, this is comparable to admitting—before learning of a consensus concerning a conclusion established through an apparent textual meaning or a probabilistic analogy—that the underlying truth might differ from what we believe. Once they reach a consensus on the ruling, however, we affirm with certainty that it is established both outwardly and in reality.

For this reason, the majority of scholars across all schools hold that “a solitary report,” when received with acceptance by the Muslim community, whether by affirming its truth or acting upon it, yields certain knowledge. This is the position stated by authors on the principles of jurisprudence among the followers of Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Ahmad, apart from a small group of later scholars who followed a faction of speculative theologians in denying it. Yet many, or most, speculative theologians agree on this with the jurists, hadith scholars, and early generations. It is also the position of most Ash‘arīs, such as Abū Ishāq and Ibn Fūrak.

As for Ibn al-Bāqillānī, he rejected this position and was followed by such figures as Abū al-Ma‘ālī, Abū Hāmid, Ibn ‘Aqīl, Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-Khatīb, al-Āmidī, and others like them. The former position is the one stated by Shaykh Abū Hāmid, Abū al-Tayyib, Abū Ishāq, and other leading Shāfi‘ī scholars like them. It is likewise the position stated by al-Qādī ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and other Mālikī scholars like him.