The point here is to illustrate the case of a hadith reported in an authentic collection whose authenticity some scholars dispute: the stronger assessment may sometimes favor its authenticity and sometimes oppose it. Such cases allow scope for scholarly judgment in authenticating hadith, just as legal rulings allow scope for scholarly judgment. As for reports whose authenticity the scholars unanimously accept, these are comparable to legal rulings on which the scholars agree. Such reports can only be true. Most of the hadith texts in the authentic collections belong to this category.

These texts are generally transmitted from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, through several routes: one Companion and another relate them without having colluded. This yields certain knowledge. If a narrator relates a lengthy hadith that he heard, and another relates it, stating that he too heard it, and it is known that they did not collude to fabricate it, then it is known to be true. Were it not true, it would be false, whether deliberately or by mistake. For when a narrator reports something contrary to the truth, he is either deliberately lying or making an error. If he neither deliberately lies nor makes an error, his report can only be true.

In the ordinary course of events, it is impossible for two people to happen upon the same fabricated lengthy account without colluding. This occurs frequently in hadith: a report is narrated by Abū Hurayrah and Abū Sa‘īd, or by Abū Hurayrah and ‘Ā’ishah, or by Abū Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Umar or Ibn ‘Abbās, when it is known that neither took it from the other. One example is the lengthy hadith concerning the divine manifestation on the Day of Resurrection. Abū Hurayrah related it while Abū Sa‘īd remained silent, objecting to not a single word. Indeed, he agreed with Abū Hurayrah on the entire report except for a single expression at its end.