An objection arises: if numerous reports generate certainty, why are there opposing historical and doctrinal claims within different communities? The response distinguishes mere popularity from transmission meeting the conditions of tawātur.
A widespread claim may trace back to a narrow original source. The occurrence of an event can also be confused with a later interpretation, and doctrinal conviction may be treated as if it were direct historical observation.
The existence of conflicting claims therefore does not by itself refute the possibility of genuine tawātur. Each claim must be evaluated with respect to its precise content and chains of information. The religious identity of reporters is not a substitute for examining the evidence.