conditions of evidentiality. One of these is that a tradition should not be known to be false, fcir it makes no sense to give a false tradition the status of evidentiary proof. Accordingly, the traditions that are contrary to the consensus, or to the well-established sunna, or to the Quran, or to a sound rational conclusion, cannot qualify for admis- sion as evidential documentation, even if they meet all the remaining conditions that are taken into consideration, in establishing sound ~yidence. In this regard, it makes no difference whether or not traditions explain a legal ordinance.
An underlying consideration in admitting a document as evidence is that the-nar- rator,no matter how trustworthy, is not immune from reporting something different from the facts. As such,-there is always, however minimal, a possibility of his having made an error, more so when the intermediaries are many in number. Therefore, one needs to cling to the criteria of evidentiary proof to eliminate this possibility, and to assume it to be almost nonexistent. As for the assumption that there is a discrepancy, and that the tradition does not accord with reality, it makes no sense to follow its non- conformity, because that which renders a thing absolute is its essence, and its evi- dentiary status is established in accordance with the necessary rational verdict.
It is therefore necessary that the criteria of evidentiary proof be restricted to tradi- tions other than those whose falsehood is incontrovertible, and whose narrative de- parts from the real state of affairs. The same applies to the accepted methods, other than the traditions, that assist a researcher in discovering the truth of a matter. This discussion leads us to consider many other situations and to respond to a number of problems and objections that arise from the admission of a communication reported, in the form of a single narration, as proof.
Particularization of the Quranic Ordinances thr:ough a Single Narration
If the evidentiary nature of a single narration is established by means of definitive proof, can one use it to particularize the general injunctions that have been stated in the Quran? The prevalent view is that this is permissible, but a group of Sunni scholars has differed with it. Some of them have rejected it in absolute terms. According to Isa b. _Aban, if a general injunction of the Quran has already been particularized through an established proof, then it is permissible to particularize it by means of a single narration; otherwise, it is not. However, al-Karakhi maintains that if a genenil injunction of the Quran has been particularized by a proof outside it, then it is per- missible to particularize it after that by means of documentation provided by a single narration; otherwise, not. On the other hand, al-Qac:a AbU Bakr has maintained that a final decision should be withheld -i~ the matter.٢
We have followed the well-established opinion in this matter because the incon- trovertible tradition, as we have assumed, necessitates that one would follow its terms, as long as there is no reason to reject them.
Nevertheless, we should consider the objections that some scholars put forward
against relying on single narrations, although these objections are baseless. These
objections, moreover, are prompted by their error in the following matters. .