Scholars differed over the reports of a mastūr transmitter. Some allowed broad acceptance, while others advocated rejection in the absence of adequate evaluation. A more discriminating approach avoids treating either judgment as absolute before sufficient facts have been investigated.
The disagreement reflects a question about evidence: is an outwardly acceptable appearance, without established criticism, enough for acceptance? Or is affirmative authentication necessary? The positions arise from distinct thresholds for proof.
The contrast between unqualified acceptance and unqualified rejection should not be collapsed into a fictitious consensus. Each approach addresses how much knowledge of a transmitter must be established before his individual report is relied upon.