The first scholar to bring up the issue of rulings being applicable to both the knower and the ignorant was al-Shaykh Al-Anṣārī, and his successors from the Shiite scholars. They cite some arguments and evidence including consensus, conspicuity, and frequent transmission (tawātur). However, these evidences do not suffice to prove the fact that rules are applicable to both the knower and the ignorant (ishtirāk) because the consensus is either based on evidence (madrakī) or it is also transmitted (manqūl). As for the frequency of the reports, late Muḥaqiq Nāʾīnī has replied that he did not find any evidence except for some single reports that the author of Al-Ḥadāʾiq mentioned in the introductions to his book. So there is no way those single reports could be termed as frequent. On the other hand, conspicuity has not been established according to us either.  So, the correct opinion on the subject is related to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shaʿrānī inasmuch as he declared that the ignorant person who is not held accountable is not required to do what is his exact duty. Accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever that the rules are applicable to the knower and the ignorant even if the latter is innocent.  Thus, they are truly relieved of the obligation and not held responsible for what they do not know. The conclusion is that the ruling is applicable to the knower and the one who is guilty of ignorance (culpable).