would write letters to the various regions, thereby establishing binding proof. Even if this did not constitute proof, it is clear that this route shows that the hadith comes from Ibn ‘Ā’ish. When a route such as this is combined with that of Khālid ibn al-Lajlāj, the hadith would, at the very least, merit a grading of good, since it is transmitted through two distinct routes, neither containing anyone accused of lying. Indeed, many regard this as sufficient to yield certain knowledge.

This is why the leading scholars would record, for corroboration and comparison, reports that could not serve as evidence on their own. Ibn Khuzaymah’s statement that no individual route among these has been established is disputed among hadith scholars. They do not, however, dispute that when these routes are combined, they corroborate one another.

But Ibn Khuzaymah followed his usual practice of accepting as evidence only a chain of transmission that was independently established. He frequently includes material for corroboration and comparison in a chapter devoted to establishing a point, without relying on that material as evidence. His statement therefore does not contradict what the scholars have agreed upon. Thus, it is established