error. Thus, if the account is of such a kind that it is known that the two reporters did not collude over it, and ordinary experience(1) precludes their giving identical false accounts, whether deliberately or through error—such as(2) when the account is lengthy, contains many statements, and one reporter relates it just as the other does—then it is known to be true.

This is also among the means by which the truthfulness of Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and Moses—peace be upon him—is known. Each of them reported the same as the other concerning Allah, His angels, His creation of the world(3), and the accounts of Adam, Joseph, and other prophets, peace be upon them. It is known that one of them did not acquire this from the other, and that it is ordinarily impossible for two false accounts to coincide in such matters. If someone related numerous detailed and precise reports concerning a particular subject, and his report were false, his account would contain discrepancies, for it is impossible for a fabricator to invent all of that without inconsistency—especially concerning matters to which unaided reason cannot find its way. Rather, this demonstrates that each of them spoke with knowledge and truthfulness.

This is something people know from their own experience. If a man came from one land to another(4) and gave a detailed account of events that had occurred there, involving various words and deeds, and then someone whom we knew had not colluded with him in lying came and related the same account, it would be known with certainty that the events had indeed occurred as described. Falsehood of this kind may occur, but only through collusion and through some people receiving it from others (just as the adherents of falsehood pass down false doctrines, such as the doctrines of the Christians, the Jahmiyyah, the Rāfidah, and others like them. Although the falsity of these doctrines is known by rational necessity, their adherents nevertheless received them from one another)(5).