Al-Ghazali was more precise in dealing with this difficulty; because in the context of inferring the obligation to act on a single report, he said: "Allah Almighty has made it obligatory to act on a single report, and has made the sign of the obligation to act on it what we gain from the certainty of its truth. So, is there any impossibility in Allah saying to His servants: If a bird flies to you and you think it is a crow, then I have made such and such obligatory upon you, and I have made your certainty a sign of the obligation to act, just as I have made the setting of the sun a sign of the obligation to pray. . . . This is what we believe regarding analogy, a single report, and a ruling based on a witness." He made certainty a sign of the obligation to act, avoiding the ambiguity that occurred. Al-Mahdi, by making the report itself the sign, and when we add to this what Al-Ghazali says about the suitability of certainty to be a basis for a ruling, the consistency in Al-Ghazali's presentation appears. A single report, and the certainty of its truth, is a sign that requires the ruling to be implemented. However, it is not unlikely that Ibn Tumart took his aforementioned idea from Al-Ghazali, and intended by a single report, in making it a sign, the certainty obtained in the soul of its truth, as a consequence of the inseparable. And then the ambiguity of the duality of ruling and sign in a single report is removed. But the question remains: What is the origin of the rulings contained in single reports, which must be acted upon, while those reports are not their origins due to their uncertainty? The Origin and the Sign: In order to further clarify the reality of the origin and to define it, and to further investigate the correct origins and the proof that they alone are the origins of rulings, Ibn Tumart resorted to comparing the origin and the sign, as there may be confusion between them that leads to the sign replacing the origin. Thus, the belief arises that some of the origins of rulings are uncertain, and this leads to error in them. The direct motive for this was what actually happened when he debated his opponents in Aghmat.