Addendum of reasoning on Arwa' Al-Ghaleel Volume 2

Authorship Dr. Ahmed Al-Khalil Part of the introduction Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions all together. To proceed: This is the second and final part of my book: "Al-Mustadrak Al-Ta’leel," and it includes a study of the hadiths in "Irwa Al-Ghaleel" from the beginning of the hadiths on sales to the end of the book. It is a pleasure and I am pleased, in front of this part, to thank all the scholars and the virtuous students of knowledge who contacted or sent inquiries about this part and urged me to publish it. They are all deserving of my thanks and appreciation, as they were among the reasons for my dedication to completing this part, in response to their repeated requests. O gathering of India, I also thank the scholars who sent their valuable notes regarding the first volume of "Al-Mustadrak Al-Ta’leel," which I paid attention to and benefited from. And I do not want in this introduction to repeat what I mentioned in the introduction of the first volume, in which I discussed the following issues: 1- The importance of hadiths of rulings and scholars’ care for them. 2- The most famous books that cared for authenticating hadiths of rulings. 3- The importance of the book "Irwa Al-Ghaleel" in authenticating hadiths from "Manar Al-Sabeel," and the acceptance it received among scholars. 4- The efforts of Sheikh Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, in the field of hadith, and its good impact on the scientific movement in our time. 5- That the virtue and precedence of the scholar do not prevent discussing him in scientific issues, and this has been the practice of scholars — may Allah have mercy on them. 6- Then I mentioned the most important issues in which the method of the early scholars differed from that of the later ones. 7- Then I clarified my purpose in this book, which is: to demonstrate the accuracy of the imams, their far-sightedness, and their leadership in knowledge, through explaining the flaws they identified in the hadiths, so that it becomes clear from this their deep understanding and thorough examination, so that their status and their precedence over others in this matter are recognized. 8- After that, I pointed out two issues: the first is the issue of difference between the methodology of the early and late scholars, and the second is the importance of paying attention to the words of the early imams. 9- Then I concluded with an explanation of my approach in the book. These points are mentioned in the introduction of the first volume of "Al-Mustadrak," so there is no need to repeat them here; I only referred to them for their importance and as an introduction to this book. As for the introduction of this part, I would like to point out some issues that I find appropriate to discuss, as follows: First: After the publication of the first volume, I received many messages praising the applied aspect that the book addressed in a significant science like the science of flaws (Al-‘Ilal). In these messages, there was repeated mention that the impact of applied studies in clarifying the methodology of the imams and correcting the approach is much greater than theoretical studies. Therefore, I say that it is essential for specialists to pay attention to the applied aspect of this science and to lighten the theoretical side, which has been heavily studied and diversified. Or at least to give equal attention to both sides, because understanding this science properly and knowing the methods of the imams in it cannot be achieved except through applied studies on hadiths of rulings and others. But here, the focus is on hadiths of rulings specifically, due to their importance and the intense care of the imams for them, as I mentioned in the introduction of the first volume of "Al-Mustadrak" from Imam Ahmad and others. Second: One of the major issues I noticed while studying the hadiths in this part is the authentication of the hadith through its chains and supporting evidence, as the discrepancy between the method of the early scholars and