It is said too...
It is said too: It (mutawatir) signifies ‘ilm al-yaqin (certain knowledge), even if produced by unrighteous persons and rather by the infidels. In al-khabar al-mutawatir there should be equivalence between the two parties — i.e. the first class and last class — and the medium, which comes in between them.
What is intended by equivalence is the mentioned multiplicity not equivalence in the number that it be equivalent in every class, which can never be harmed by disagreement, if multiplicity is present in every and each number, as when the number of the first class be a thousand and of the second one be nine hundred and of the third one be one thousand and nine hundred. Ibn al-Salah and his Opponents.
Al-Nawawi, in al-Taqrib, says: Whey they say, it is sahih and upon it or its veracity there is agreement, they mean the agreement of the Shaykhan (al-Bukhari and Muslim). Al-Shaykh 518 is reported to have said: What is narrated by both or one of them is definitely veracious and regarding which definite knowledge is attained.
He was contradicted by the investigators and most of `ulama of hadith, who said: It would denote surmise unless it be mutawatir (reported through chain of authentic narrators).
In his exposition of Sahih Muslim: He said: The words uttered by al-Shaykh in these places never agree with those uttered by the researchers and majority of ulama, who told: The traditions cited in the two Sahihs that are not mutawatir, only signify conjecture, hence they are ahad, which — as concurred by all — denote only conjecture, with no difference between al-Bukhari and Muslim and others in this regard. The Ummah's approval of these traditions makes us obliged to act according to them...
and unanimity of the Ummah 519 to adopt them in life never necessarily indicates their concurrence that they being definitely uttered by the Prophet (S). Ibn Burhan disapproved of that who agreed with al-Shaykh, exaggerating in reproaching him. Large was the number of both the opposers and supporters of Ibn al-Salah.
Those opposing him say that he contradicted the Jumhur, the leaders of kalam and usul who were of the opinion that akhbar al-ahad never signifying certain knowledge but indicating only conjecture, while he believed that akhbar al-ahad cited in al-Sahihayn — with some exceptions — indicated knowledge.