upon them; as mentioned in the introduction of this preface. then he generally weakens the rest of the ḥadīths due to the weakness of their individual chains, by which he means that he does not consider the scholars' saying: a weak ḥadīth is strengthened by multiple chains unless its weakness is severe. Here is one example of those ḥadīths that he unjustly weakened, which is the first ḥadīth according to him, numbered (109). He said (p. 9) after citing my grading of it and benefiting from its chain defects: "The ḥadīth is weak due to the absence of the condition of justice in the first, second, third, and fourth chains, and the absence of the condition of continuity in the fifth. It is known among the scholars of terminology that the chains of liars, abandoned narrators, unknown individuals, and broken chains do not strengthen each other, even if there are a hundred chains. And Allāh knows best." This statement alone reveals to anyone with some knowledge of this science that he is ignorant and not worthy of discussion; because he equated the chains of liars with other chains that are less weak. This, besides being an error in itself, is a slander against the scholars; because they differentiate between what is slightly weak, thus the ḥadīth is strengthened by it, and what is severely weak. We have adhered to this distinction since Allāh granted us understanding of this science, and on this basis, the authenticity of this ḥadīth was established, because most of its chains do not have severe weakness. Especially since I found another chain from Mujāhid with a chain of trustworthy narrators, and it was authenticated by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, so I added it to the other chains to strengthen them, as you will see in this edition, Allāh willing, and that is from