Classical scholars of ḥadīth differed regarding the extent and existence of tawātur (mass transmission). Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ held that mutawātir reports were rare, while Ibn Ḥibbān denied their existence altogether, claiming that all reports were essentially āḥād. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī refuted this view, asserting that such denials stemmed from limited exposure to the vast transmission networks of ḥadīth. Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī reconciled these views by distinguishing between verbal tawātur (lafẓī), which is scarce, and meaning-based tawātur (maʿnawī), which is abundant—framing the debate as largely semantic. Later scholars like Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī and Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that tawātur exists in degrees: some reports yield self-evident certainty (ʿilm ḍarūrī), while others produce inferential certainty (ʿilm naẓarī) accessible only to specialists in ḥadīth transmission.

Following this, Ibn Ḥajar classifies al-mashhūr as narrations transmitted through more than two chains, though not reaching tawātur. These include reports well-known relative to a narrator (mashhūr al-nisbī), across all or most levels of transmission, or through popular circulation among scholars and the public—such as “Actions are judged by intentions.” Works like al-Sakhāwī’s Al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasanah and al-ʿAjlūnī’s Kashf al-Khafāʾ document such reports. Ibn Ḥajar also notes the related term al-mustafīḍ, which some equate with mashhūr and others reserve for narrations with consistently numerous chains. These classifications—tawātur, mashhūr, and mustafīḍ—reflect the nuanced gradations of transmission and certainty that form the epistemological foundation of ḥadīth studies.