|abu.abdurrahman||-- 29-11-2002 @ 12:00 AM|
Asalamu Alaykum wa Ramatullahee wa Barakatuhu,
There is a big , big fitnah in my community of Vancouver Canada. Some brother is passing out this horrific book against our Sh.Albani(Raheemullah). I need to know if there is a book in english written in defence of the Shaikh, defending him against this book and it's lies??????? Or if there isn't who will stand up for the shaikh and write a piece in defence of him, and make Jihad against the people of desires and deceptions. I need to distribute this is in my community ASAP!!! Inshaa'ALLAH.
Akhook Fil Islaam
Abu Abdurrahman as Salafee al Kanadi
|Sunnah||-- 29-11-2002 @ 12:00 AM|
This is an old article floating around from a few years back.
PART ONE: EXTRACTS FROM ALI HASAN ALI ABDUL HAMEED'S AL- ANWAAR AL-KAASHIFAH.
Truly All Praise belongs to Allah: we praise Him; we seek His aid; we seek His forgiveness; we seek refuge with Allah from the evils of our souls and from our wicked actions. He whom Allah guides, no-one can misguide him; he whom Allah misguides, no-one can guide. I bear witness that there is no true god except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.
Allah says (translation of the meaning of): "Why do you mix the Truth with Falsehood, and conceal the Truth, knowingly ?" (The Family of 'Imran, 3:71)
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Truly, it is from the signs of the Hour that knowledge will be found amongst the small ones" (i.e. the people of innovation, those on other than the path of the Companions).
He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, also said, "He who defends his brother in his absence, Allah will defend him in this world and in the Hereafter."
SOME PRINCIPLES WHICH MANY PEOPLE ARE UNAWARE OF:
PRINCIPLE ONE: The scholars of Hadeeth have different sayings relating to criticism of narrators and various sayings concerning declaration of authenticity or weakness of narrations (i.e. one scholar may have two or more different sayings about a particular narrator or hadeeth), just as a scholar of Fiqh may have more than one saying about a single matter, as is often the case with Imam al-Shaafi'i and Imam Ahmad. This is due to progressive research and further insight into the evidences - but does this mean that they "contradict themselves" ?!
* Imam al-Dhahabi often agrees with al-Hakim in his Talkhees of the latter's al-Mustadrak; he agrees to his authenticating a narration, but then disagrees in either al-Meezaan or Muhadhdhab Sunan al-Baihaqi or other works.
* Ibn al-Jawzi often includes a hadeeth in his book of fabricated narrations, al-Mawdoo'aat, which he also includes in his book answering charges of weakness against ahaadeeth, al-'Ilal al-Mutanahiyah.
* Ibn Hibbaan often declares a narrator reliable, then we find that he includes him in al-Majrooheen, a book of weak narrators.
* Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani often has different sayings about a particular narrator in his different books: Taqreeb at- Tahdheeb, Fath al-Baari and at-Talkhees al-Habeer.
Are we to say that they contradict themselves ?!! No, rather it is due to progressive research !
'Allaamah al-Laknawi says in his al-Raf' wat-Takmeel (p. 113), "You will often find different sayings about a single narrator from Ibn Ma'een and others, and this may be due either to a change in his judgment arrived at through research (ijtihad), or it may be because the way in which a question was asked was changed."
(i) The hadeeth: "He who uses kuhl (antimony) should apply it an odd number of times - he who does so has done well, and he who does not, then there is no harm ..."
Ibn Hajr declares in At-Talkhees al-Habeer (1/102-103) that it has a weakness since al-Husayn al-Hubraani is unknown, but in Fath al-Baari (1/206) he declares its isnad to be hasan !!
(ii) The hadeeth about the sending down of verse 108 of Surah Tawbah, that it was sent down concerning the people of Qubaa' - Ibn Hajr declares its isnad to be weak in At- Talkhees al-Habeer (1/113), but in Fath al-Baari (7/195) and ad-Diraayah (1/97) he declares its isnad to be saheeh.
(iii) The hadeeth of Ibn 'Umar, "Two dead things and two types of blood have been made lawful for us ...", Ibn Hajr quotes it in Buloogh al-Maraam (no. 11) and says, "It contains weakness", but then he declares it saheeh in At-Talkhees (1/26).
(iv) The hadeeth, "Indeed Allaah and His Angels send blessings upon the first rows" - Imam Nawawi declares it saheeh in Al-Majmoo' (4/301), but he only declares it hasan in Riyaad as-Saaliheen (no. 1090).
(v) The hadeeth, "Remember the destroyer of pleasures: Death" - Ibn Hajr declares it hasan in Takhreejul Adhkaar (as occurs in al-Futoohaat ar-Rabbaaniyyah (4/50)), whereas in At-Talkhees (2/101) he agrees with Ibn Hibbaan, al-Haakim and Ibn as-Sakn that it is saheeh.
(vi) Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajr declares the narrator Idrees ibn Yazeed al-Awdi to be reliable in at-Taqreeb, but in Fath al-Baari ( 2/115), he declares him to be weak.
(vii) About Nawf ibn Fadaalah, Ibn Hajr says in at- Taqreeb, "Mastoor (condition unknown)", whereas in Fath al-Baari (8/413) he says of him, "Sadooq (truthful)".
(viii) About 'Abdur Rahman ibn 'Abdul 'Azeez al-Awsee, Ibn Hajr says in at-Taqreeb, "Truthful, but makes mistakes", but in Fath al-Baari (3/210) he declares him weak.
(ix) In his Notes on Muqaddimah Ibn-us-Salaah (1/355-6), Ibn Hajr declares a hadeeth narrated through Muhammad ibn 'Ajlaan to be saheeh, whereas in Amaali al-Adhkaar (1/110) he explains that the hadeeth does not rise above the level of hasan.
(x) Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajr quotes in at-Talkhees (4/176) that an-Nawawi said in Rawdah at-Taalibeen about the hadeeth, "There is no vow in disobedience", "It is weak by agreement of the scholars of hadeeth"; however, Ibn Hajr contradicts him by saying, "It was declared saheeh by at-Tahaawi and Abu 'Ali ibn as-Sakan, so where is the agreement?"
(xi) An-Nawawi says in Al-Majmoo' (2/42) about the hadeeth concerning touching the penis, "Is it not but a part of you?", "It is weak by agreement of the memorisers." However, the hadeeth is declared saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Hazm, at-Tabaraani, Ibn at-Turkumaani and others, therefore Ibn 'Abdul Haadi says in Al- Muharrar (p. 19), "And one quoting agreement upon its being weak is mistaken."
* SO THIS PRINCIPLE ITSELF IS ENOUGH TO DEMOLISH WHAT SAQQAF SAYS FROM ITS VERY FOUNDATIONS !
PRINCIPLE TWO: A number of the ahaadeeth about which a scholar may have differing sayings are of the class of the hasan hadeeth, about which it is very difficult to tie down to a single rule.
* Al-Haafiz al-Dhahabi says in his valuable book Al- Mooqizah (pp. 28-29):
"... and we do not aspire to a single rule/principle for the (class of) hasan which will cover all Hasan ahaadeeth, rather I have no hope of that, since how many ahaadeeth there are about which the memorising scholars of hadeeth are undecided as to whether it is hasan or da'eef or saheeh! Indeed a single memorising scholar may change his opinion (ijtihaad) about a single hadeeth, so one day he declares it saheeh and one day hasan and perhaps even declares it to have weakness - and this is true since the hasan hadeeth is declared by the scholar to have a weakness which prevents its rising to the level of saheeh, so in this sense it does have weakness and so the hasan will not be free from some weakness - and if it were not free from it then it would be saheeh by agreement."
* The few ahaadeeth about which the verdicts of our shaykh al-Albani have differed fall into this category, so what is said about him is to be said about the previous scholars and Imams!
PRINCIPLE THREE: The saying of a scholar, "Its isnaad is weak" is not a contradiction of his saying elsewhere, "The hadeeth is hasan" or "The hadeeth is saheeh", since the isnaad may be weak, but the hadeeth itself is saheeh or hasan due to further supporting chains, or other narrations supporting it or attesting to its authenticity.
[see 'Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 35) of Ibn as-Salaah, and An- Nukat (1/473) of al-Haafiz Ibn Hajr]
PRINCIPLE FOUR: "The eloquent speaker is he whose slips of the tongue can be counted, and the noble one is he whose errors can be enumerated" [Tabaqaat of as-Subki 10/52], and "the fully-competent one is he whose mistakes are limited." [Siyar A'lam an-Nubalaa' of al-Dhahabi 4/93]
Ibn al-Mubaarak, may Allah have mercy on him, said, "If the good qualities of a person (greatly) outweigh his bad qualities, then his bad qualities are not mentioned, and if his bad qualities (greatly) outweigh his good qualities, then his good qualities are not mentioned." [as-Siyar 8/352]
Al-Dhahabi says in as-Siyar (16/285), "Completeness is very rare, so a scholar is praised for the many virtues he has, so good qualities are not buried due to a single failing."
Al-Sha'bi (a Successor) said, "If you were right ninety- nine times, and erred once, they would seize the single error and forget the ninety-nine .." [Hilyah al-Awliyaa' of Abu Nu'aim 4/320-321]
So even if, for the sake of argument, we were to accept all the criticisms and attacks made by Saqqaaf against shaykh al-Albaani, then their number, in comparison to the great number of works written by the shaykh and the huge number of ahaadeeth he has checked, the enormous number of isnaads he has researched and commented upon, is insignificant, since the number of works of shaykh al- Albaani printed so far is more than seventy, and the number of his works in manuscript form is as many again if not more, and he has researched and commented upon over 30,000 isnaads, spending sixty years in the study of the books of the Sunnah and being in the company of, and in contact with, its other scholars.
A tiny proportion of Saqqaaf's criticisms are correct and agree with the principle given by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "He has spoken the truth, but is a very great liar" [Sahih al-Bukhaari from Abu Hurairah, in the hadeeth about the devil stealing from the sadaqah], since we find that Saqqaaf's usual currency is merely misguidance, deliberate distortions, twisting of words, lies and falsification.
Nor does it appear that the few occasions on which Saqqaaf is correct are due to any knowledgre or study, and it is clear that he himself has not done much work in composing the book, but rather transcribed from elsewhere. Further, the ideas in the book and the real author of these attacks are (i) one man who is a Shaafi'i (in fiqh) and Ash'ari (in 'aqidah) and (ii) one who is a Hanafi Maatureedi, who are united only in their opposition to the Manhaj of the Salaf and in enmity to those who oppose blind-following.
A certain scholar whom Saqqaaf respects and still visits wrote upon a copy of Saqqaaf's work ("Contradictions of al-Albaani"), "Your errors would only deceive a fool, an ignorant person or a malicious one like yourself, and you O (...) unfortunately have gathered all these three qualities in your book, and the points you have quoted against Shaykh Naasir - may Allaah protect him from ignorant ones like you - show only that you have not read a single book about Hadeeth and its sciences in your life, and I do not find this unlikely since your desire is fame, not knowledge. O Allaah! Do not take us to account for what the fools amongst us have done."
Some noble brothers also mentioned a saying appropriate to Saqqaaf's book, "If you wish to become known, then urinate in the well of Zamzam!" - Likewise with Saqqaaf, could he find no other route to fame than by writing what he has against the scholar of Hadeeth of this age, and by calling Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah a Kaafir ?!!
Saqqaaf attempts to attack Shaykh al-Albaani for what he falsely claims - due to his own ignorance of the Arabic language - are mistakes in the language:
(i) He says (p. 6 of Tanaaqudaat) that "ansahu li ..." (I advise ...) is incorrect and should be without the following particle li, whereas a look in any of the dictionaries of the language show that al-Albaani's usage is the correct and pure language [see Mukhtaar as-Sihaah (p. 662) and Al-Misbaah al-Muneer (p. 607) for example], and this in fact occurs in the Qur'aan [Al-A'raaf 7:62, 79, 93; at-Tawbah 9:91; Hood 11:34].
(ii) He also tries to correct Shaykh al-Albaani in places where he has made no error at all in the language, and himself in doing so produces laughable errors - making mistakes in simple grammar! [see pp. 32-35 of Ali Hasan's book for details]
ABOUT SHAYKH AL-ALBAANI'S WEAKENING OF AHADITH IN SAHEEH AL-BUKHAARI & MUSLIM
Saqqaaf attempts to give the impression that Shaykh al- Albaani is alone in declaring some ahaadeeth reported by al-Bukhaari or Muslim to be weak, whereas he is preceded in that by scholars of the past, e.g.
(i) The hadeeth of Jaabir, "Do not sacrifice except a grown animal, unless .." [Muslim, eng. trans. vol. 3 no. 4836, cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 7 no. 2]
Saqqaaf merely says that Shaykh al-Albaani declares it weak in Da'eef al-Jaami' al-Sagheer. He fails to mention that he also quotes it in as-Silsilah al-Da'eefah (1/93), since here the shaykh fully discusses its chain and text and quotes Ibn Hazm's declaration of its weakness.
(ii) The hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri, "The most wicked of people before Allaah on the Day of Resurrection is a man who goes to his wife and she to him, then he divulges her secret." [Muslim, eng. trans. vol. 2 no. 3369, cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 8 no. 3]
Saqqaf, in order to increase his total of the shaykh's alleged errors repeats this hadeeth on following pages, then again later in the book. He again quotes the reference as only Da'eef al-Jaami', and avoids mentioning where shaykh al-Albaani speaks about it in detail, i.e. Aadaab az-Zifaaf (p. 63, 142), where he explains its weakness at length and shows that al-Dhahabi declared its weakness due to the narrator 'Umar bin Hamzah an-Nukri.
(iii) Part of the hadeeth, "You will be the ones distinguished by white marks and blazes on the Day of Resurrection due to completion of the ablution, [so whoever amongst you can increase his mark and blaze then let him do so]."
Saqqaaf again merely quotes Da'eef al-Jaami' and fails to indicate that shaykh al-Albaani fully explains in ad- Da'eefah (1030) that scholars of the past (e.g. Ibn Hajr, al-Mundhiri, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibraaheem an-Naaji) have shown how the last part is mudraj, i.e. the interpolated words of the narrator only. [Al-Bukhaari eng. trans. 1/102 no. 138, Muslim nos. 477-8, cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 8 no. 5]
The rest of the ahaadeeth which Saqqaaf quotes in this section - not to mention other sections - are quoted in a manner involving twisting of wordings and falsification.
Next, comes the heading, "His self-contradiction in declaring a hadeeth to be saheeh in one place but hasan elsewhere" !
This itself indicates that Saqqaaf does not even understand the most basic principles, not to mention its finer points, since as we have mentioned, the level of hasan is one so fine that opinions will vary, even from the same scholar. This is indicated by Imam al-Dhahabi in as-Siyar (7/338), "... and with this it will become clear that the hasan is a class within the saheeh, and that the Prophetic ahaadeeth really fall into two categories only: saheeh, which is of different levels, or da'eef, which is of different levels, and Allaah knows best."
Hence, to quote Saqqaaf himself (p. 15) we say, "So all that is upon us, O brothers, is to waken and not to be prevented from accepting the truth by the fact that we are not pleased with the one who speaks it, since attention is given to correctness of the saying and its closeness to the truth, and it is Allaah who grants success."
Saqqaaf, who attempts to show contradictions of the shaykh, himself says (p. 16), "Know that al-Albaani criticises or says that al-Haafiz as-Suyooti, not to mention other great scholars of Hadeeth, has made mistakes in attributing some hadeeth to particular books ..." Then he says (p. 18), "And know that Shaykh al- Albaani in many places attributes ahaadeeth to books and reference works in which they are not to be found, particularly in Saheeh al-Jaami' and Da'eef al-Jaami', copying and blindly-following therein al-Haafiz al- Suyooti and Shaykh an-Nabahaani without any correction or checking ..." !!
So here are examples where Saqqaaf accuses the shaykh of error when in fact it is he who is in error:
(i) Shaykh al-Albaani says in Sifat-us-Salaah that the hadeeth for moving the finger reported by Waa'il bin Hujr is reported by Abu Daawood. Saqqaaf says (pp. 18-19), "That is not the case, the hadeeth is not reported by Abu Daawood, but by others." However, the hadeeth is indeed reported by Abu Daawood, in the Chapter of Raising the Hands.
(ii) Saqqaaf (p. 19) quotes eight ahaadeeth from shaykh al-Albaani's Da'eef al-Jaami' which are attributed to Ibn Maajah, and claims that none of them are to be found in Ibn Maajah; however, every single one is indeed reported by him!!
1. DJ (6204) = IM (715)
2. DJ (6146) = IM (2982)
3. DJ (5964) = IM (1749)
4. DJ (6013) = IM (2262)
5. DJ (6094) = IM (419)
6. DJ (6103) = IM (2945)
7. DJ (6124) = IM (4043)
8. DJ (6351) = IM (342) !!
Under the heading, "Shortcomings of al-Albaani in his research in innumerable places and examples of this", he attacks shaykh al-Albaani's saying concerning the narration of Ibn Mas'ood in marfoo' form, "The Qur'aan was sent down upon seven modes, each verse of them having an inner and an outer meaning ..." It is quoted by the compiler of al-Mishkaat (1/80) as being reported by al- Baghawi in Sharh-us-Sunnah, so Shaykh al-Albaani added the footnote, "It should be looked into as to where he reports it in Sharh-us-Sunnah, since I have searched through the chapters of Knowledge and Virtues of the Qur'aan and have not seen it."
Saqqaaf attacks this saying (p. 22) with, "This is what you say!! But if you had really checked the chapters of knowledge you would have found it in the Chapter of Argumentation about the Qur'aan in Sharh-us-Sunnah (1/262), and it is reported by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh (no. 74), Abu Ya'laa in his Musnad (5403), at-Tahaawi in Sharh Mushkil al-Aathaar (4/172) and al-Bazzaar (3/90 of Kashf al-Astaar) ..." cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, pp. 10-11, no. 11.
Thus spoke this ignorant person, making it seem as if he has come up with valuable research, and hiding the truth:
(i) He gives the impression that when the shaykh referred to Sharh-us-Sunnah, it was in printed form, but this is not the case for it was still in manuscript form then, as shown by a number of his quotes from it in the footnotes.
(ii) The hadeeth is NOT reported by al-Baghawi in Sharh- us-Sunnah, as our shaykh al-Albaani indeed said. As for the chapter and page no. quoted by Saqqaaf, it is again from his falsehood, since all that is reported there is a mursal narration of al-Hasan al-Basri, with similar wording to the hadeeth of Ibn Mas'ood !
(iii) He gives the impression that the shaykh could not find any reference for the hadeeth and therefore himself quotes a list of references, whereas shaykh al-Albaani has fully researched it in ad-Da'eefah (no. 2989 ms.), as he indicated in Da'eef al-Jaami' (no. 1338), and the shaykh attributes to a whole list of reference works, many of which I'm sure Saqqaaf has never even heard of, let alone seen! The shaykh, may Allaah protect him, said, "... It is reported by Ibn Jareer in his Tafseer (1/23), Abu 'Umar ar-Raqqi in Ahadith of Zaid bin Abi Unaisah (32/2), Abul Fadl al-Raazi in Meanings of Revelation of the Qur'aan in Seven Modes (64/1), Abu Ya'laa in his Musnad (3/1309), Ibn Hibbaan (1781), al- Bazzaar in his Musnad (226), Ibn Makhlad in Al-Muntaqaa (2/81/2) and Abu Bakr al-Kalaabaadhi in Miftaah al- Ma'aani (297/2)."
Under the heading (p. 24), "A glimpse of his quoting the sayings of the noble scholars, and his distorting their words or cutting them up to remove what does not suit him", he quotes what shaykh al-Albaani reports from Ibn 'Adi who says concerning 'Aa'idh bin Habeeb, "He reported ahaadeeth which are declared to be contradictory to what is correct." Saqqaaf then criticises him, saying that this is different to what Ibn 'Adi has actually said in Al-Kaamil, but Saqqaaf knew that the shaykh was quoting the saying from Imaam al-Dhahabi in Al-Meezaan (2/363), so whatever charge he makes against the shaykh will have to be made against al-Dhahabi also! Exactly the same is the case with Muhammad bin 'Umaarah. So would Saqqaaf say that al-Dhahabi was guilty of distorting the words of the scholars and cutting them up to remove what did not suit him?!
Another alleged contradiction: Shaykh al-Albaani placed a footnote regarding a hadeeth in Mukhtasar al-'Uluww (p. 98) stating that it was declared by al-Dhahabi to have reliable narrators, and by Ibn al-Qayyim to have a saheeh chain to the standard of al-Bukhaari. Later, when the shaykh came across its isnaad himself and commented upon an additional wording in it, he declared in ad-Da'eefah (no. 755) that it was munkar with this wording.
Saqqaaf tries to use this as a grave example of contradiction (although al-Albaani clearly never declared it saheeh himself, only quoted other scholars' verdicts), and himself declares the hadeeth to be fabricated. However, all its narrators are indeed those of Saheeh al- Bukhaari (as stated by al-Dhahabi), and the reason for its weakness is just Fulaih bin Sulaimaan, about whom the scholars differ, some authenticating him, others disparaging him, with al-Bukhaari and Muslim relying upon him. Hence al-Albaani concludes that he is truthful with mistakes, so the isnad has some slight weakness; however, the unacceptability of an additional wording of the hadeeth leads to the verdict of munkar.
About criticism that shaykh al-Albaani sometimes praises a person and yet elsewhere attacks them, e.g. Habeeb-ur- Rahmaan al-A'zami al-Hanafi (Saqqaaf, p. 32, cf. Al- Albaani Slandered, p. 16, no. 27). The shaykh had previously spoken in his favour due to his work in the field of Hadeeth and based upon the principle of assuming good about one's brother until one knows otherwise. Later, when it became clear that this person was a blind- follower who distorts and plays with texts, the shaykh criticised him, so where is the contradiction?! However, the people of innovation ignore each other's errors and flatter one another so that the tie of innovation remains between them!
Next (p. 34), Saqqaaf seeks to criticise shaykh al- Albaani for dividing the ahaadeeth of the 4 Sunan into two classes: Saheeh and Da'eef. Why does he not consider the scholars of the past who did the same thing with Hadeeth books compiled by previous scholars, e.g. Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Daawood of al-Mundhiri, Al-Ahkaam al- Sughraa of Abdul Haqq al-Ishbeeli, At-Tajreed of az- Zubaydi, etc. ... ?!!
REFUTATION OF THE ACCUSATION OF CONTRADICTION
Saqqaaf then gives a number of ahaadeeth from shaykh al- Albaani's works, and makes the accusation of contradiction. After explaining two principles, one which we have already referred to regarding the science of Hadeeth, the second about our shaykh's works, I will give some examples of the distortions and deceptions of Saqqaaf.
FIRST PRINCIPLE: "Declaration of the weakness of a chain of narration does not contradict the hadeeth's being declared as hasan or saheeh."
Imaam al-Suyooti says in Al-La'aali al-Masnoo'ah (1/114), "Know that the practice of the scholars of Hadeeth such as al-Haakim, Ibn Hibbaan, al-'Uqaili and others was that they would judge a particular hadeeth to be baseless with respect to a particular chain, due to the fact that its narrator(s) had falsely attached that chain to a certain text, whereas the text itself is well-known from other chains ..."
So, is this regarded as contradiction?!
Imaam Abu 'Amr Ibn as-Salaah says in 'Uloom al-Hadeeth (pp. 92-93), "If you find a hadeeth with a weak isnaad, then you may say, 'This is weak', meaning that it is weak with this isnaad but you may not say, 'This is weak', meaning that its text is weak based merely upon the weakness of that chain, since it may be reported by another authentic chain by which the hadeeth is established ..." !
So Saqqaaf is either ignorant of these facts and does not know what he is talking about, or he knows but is a liar who conceals the truth! The sweeter of these two possibilities is bitter, the better of the two is evil! So how about when he combines the pair of them?!
SECOND PRINCIPLE: Many of Saqqaaf's accusations of contradiction refer to two books: a) Mishkaat-ul- Masaabeeh and b) Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, both with the shaykh's footnotes.
It is not permissible to use these as examples in the first place since the shaykh, as any scholar or student of knowledge should know, due to various circumstances and well-known reasons, did only a small amount of checking and footnotes upon these books.
(a) As for Mishkaat, then the publisher wrote in its Introduction, "We requested that the great scholar of Hadeeth, Shaykh Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen al-Albaani should help us in the checking of Mishkaat and take responsibility for adding footnotes for any ahaadeeth needing them, and researching and reproducing their sources and authenticity where needed, and correcting any deficiencies, so he agreed to that, may Allaah reward him well. That was done in the first part of the book, but then his time, which is filled with other necessary services to the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, became restricted and he excused himself from its continuation, except that we requested that he should provide whatever benefit he was able from his vast knowledge and examine the rest of the book quickly, and add any notes that he found to be necessary and had time to do; he did this, and this was the cause of many points of benefit ..."
The Shaykh also explained this himself in Silsilah as- Saheehah (1/346), "It was a case of hurried footnotes due to circumstances which did not allow us to follow up fully the chains of narration of the ahaadeeth which is our usual practice."
All of this is known to Saqqaaf, and he has quoted from it in his book !!
(b) Likewise as regards Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, the work of checking was not by shaykh al-Albaani but rather by Dr. Muhammad Mustafaa al-A'zami, who then requested that shaykh Naasir have a general look at his checking and do a general revision, adding anything necessary - such that it would not be a new checking. Therefore, many of the shaykh's notes are extremely abbreviated, or merely the completion of something unfinished by al-A'zami ..
Now, many of the alleged contradictions quoted by Saqqaaf are to be found in these two books, their nos. in Saqqaaf's alleged book of al-Albaani's contradictions being: 1-3,5-16,19,20,21,26,32-49,51,52,54-69,72,73,75-78,81- 85,87-90,95,103,143,144,147,153,158,164,185- 189,198,199,240-250 !!
These in fact constitute nearly half the book!
Further, in order to increase the number of apparent errors and the size of his book, Saqqaaf has repeated a number of the ahaadeeth and his points of criticism in various places with different numbers, for example:
What he quotes on p. 7 he repeats on p. 70 & p. 161 !
Similarly, p. 9 pp. 114, 136 & 140 !
p. 10 p. 98 !
p. 10 p. 11 & p. 140 !
p. 64 p. 105 !
p. 96 p. 145 !
And likewise in many other places!
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE DECEPTION OF SAQQAAF
1) He quotes (p. 39) the hadeeth of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, "Friday Prayer is upon the one who hears the call", and claims that shaykh al-Albaani's declaration of its being hasan in al-Irwaa' contradicts his declaring its isnaad weak in al-Mishkaat. [cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 14, no. 21]
There is no contradiction at all since even in al-Irwaa' the shaykh declares that its isnaad is weak, but he quotes further support for it and says, "Therefore, the hadeeth is hasan if Allaah wills."
2) He quotes (pp. 39-40) the hadeeth of Anas, "Do not make things difficult for yourselves, lest Allaah makes them difficult for you ..." and declares that the shaykh has contradicted himself by declaring it weak in Mishkaat but hasan elsewhere (e.g. Ghayat al-Maraam, a checking of Dr. Qaradawi's Al-Halaal wal-Haraam, cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 15, no. 22).
Again, there is no contradiction since he begins his note in Ghaayat al-Maraam by giving it the ruling: Weak, but then he quotes a mursal narration in support of it and says that it is perhaps hasan due to this. Later, he found a further support which affirms its authenticity (Silsilah as-Saheehah, 3694 ms.)
3) About the hadeeth of 'Aishah, "Whoever narrates to you that the Prophet, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, used to urinate standing then do not believe him ...", Saqqaaf claims that the shaykh declared its isnaad weak in Mishkaat, but declared the hadeeth saheeh in as- Saheehah. [cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 15, no. 23]
(i) In Mishkaat, the shaykh declared the narration of at- Tirmidhi weak due to the poor memory of Shareek an- Nakh'i, and he did the same in as-Silsilah, except that he found a further support for it and so authenticated it.
(ii) The shaykh himself explains in as-Silsilah that the note in Mishkaat was done in haste as has preceded and that he had depended upon the words of at-Tirmidhi, al- 'Iraaqi, al-Suyooti and others in declaring it weak due to Shareek. Then, when he found that the supporting narration was from other than Shareek, he declared it authentic.
This example (let alone many others), is enough to show the fallacy of what Saqqaaf says on the final page of his book, "We have left out whatever he has indicated that he previously declared weak and then declared authentic, for example, and we have considered him to be excused with regard to those ahaadeeth, and have overlooked them .." !! [cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 150]
4) The hadeeth of 'Ammaar, "There are three whom the angels will not approach: the infidel, the one smeared with dye and the one requiring purification due to intercourse until he makes ablution." Saqqaaf claims contradiction between the shaykh's declaring it hasan in Saheeh al-Jaami' and his declaring its isnad weak in Mishkaat. [cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 15, no. 24]
The shaykh referred it in both cases to at-Targheeb wat- Tarheeb of al-Mundhiri, except that in the case of declaring it weak, he was following al-Mundhiri in that, then when he himself did a checking of at-Targheeb, he agreed to al-Mundhiri's saying that its isnaad was munqati' (broken), but he also found two supports to strengthen it.
5) The report from Ibn 'Abbaas "that he used to shorten Prayer for the like of the distance between Makkah and Taa'if." He claims contradiction between the shaykh's saying in Mishkaat, "It is a report without an isnad, and so is not authentic", and what he reports in al-Irwaa' from the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah from Ibn 'Abbaas that he said, "Do not shorten up to 'Arafah and the valley of Nakhlah, but shorten when going to 'Usfaan ..." [cf. Al-Albaani Slandered, p. 16, no. 25]
(i) These are two different texts!
(ii) One is a report of Ibn 'Abbaas' action while the second is his saying!
6) The hadeeth of 'Ubaadah, "Allah's Messenger, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, when he followed a funeral procession, would not sit until it was placed in the grave ..."
The hadeeth occurs in Mishkaat and was declared weak by at-Tabrizi due to the weakness of one of its narrators, so shaykh al-Albaani corrected this due to the fact that he found another chain, saying, "But it is reported by Abu Daawood through another chain which contains 'Abdullaah ibn Sulaimaan ibn Junaadah ibn Umayyah reporting from his father, and they are both weak."
Saqqaaf declares this to be a contradiction of the shaykh's declaring it hasan in Sunan Ibn Maajah, whereas anyone can see that what the shaykh is saying above is the same, i.e. that the hadeeth is hasan due to the other supporting weak narration!
7) The same is the case with he quotes (pp. 44-45) with regard to the hadeeth of 'Urwah ibn az-Zubayr.
8) Saqqaaf quotes (p. 46) the hadeeth of Ibn 'Umar, "Allaah's Messenger, may Allaah bless h
|Sunnah||-- 29-11-2002 @ 12:00 AM|
Its continued ...
MORE LIES OF SAQQAAF
On page 79, Kabbani yet again launches into yet another attack against the Shaykh and Muhaddith Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee, may Allaah preserve him, with the chapter heading, "Nasir ad-Din al-Albani?s Tampering of Bukhari, His Attacks on the Scholars, and His Innovations in Doctrine."
And what has he as a reference? The book, ?Dictionary of Albaanee?s insults and heinous words he uses against the scholars of the Community? of the Arch-Liar (kadhdhaab) and the Deceiver, Hasan Alee as-Saqqaaf who has blackened the pages of all of his books with lies, accusations, lack of research, and a sectarianism which is blind to truth and justice. We have presented a separate section which discusses his infamous and revealing work ?Tanaaqadaat al-Albaanee? (the Self-Contradictions of al-Albaanee), and others, which will show to any just reader how Allaah has misguided this individual. Suffice now to deal with what Kabbani blindly quotes due to it suiting his whims and desires.
1) al-Albaanee ?tampering with Bukhaaree?: the falsehood of this will be seen in the aforementioned section and it will also be seen that it is Saqqaaf, Kawtharee and other Ash?arees who are the true people who tamper with al-Bukharee, but will Kabbani attack these people? Never! Because they belong to his sect, and sectarianism is blind to justice!
2) As regards to his ?insults and heinous words he uses against the scholars of the Community?: We would challenge Saqqaaf and Kabbani to write a book on the vile and heinous words that were used by Zaahid al-Kawtharee against the Scholars of this community if they are truly just, and to direct their unjust attacks against al-Albaanee to Kawtharee!
3) As regards the examples that are given, then in general: We would say that Saqqaaf has done well in cutting up, semi-quoting, and misquoting the Muhaddith if this age, al-Albaanee, and he has presented the following statements as if they were attacks on the very scholarly nature of the Imaams in question when in truth they are far from that! So here are what Saqqaaf and Kabbani quote followed by what al-Albaanee really says:
He says of Imam Abu Hanifah: "The imams have declared him weak for his poor memorisation" (in his commentary of Ibn Abu `Asim?s ?Kitaab al-Sunnah? 1:76) although Ibn Hajr Asqalani reports no such position in his ?Tahdib al-tahdhib?
We are reluctant to discuss this topic with regards to this great Imaam, but since Saqqaaf has made the accusation we reply by saying: that fact that he was da?eef was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal Asmaa), Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa), ibn Adee (al-Kaamil 2/403), ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat 6/256), al-Uqailee (ad-Du'afaa p.432), ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh wat Tadil), Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan p132), al-Haakim (Ma'rifa Ulum al-Hadeeth), Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee (al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa q.17/2), adh-Dhahabee (ad-Du'afaa q.215/1-2), and Bukharee (at-Taareekh al-Kabeer).
Saqqaaf cuts up the words of al-Albaanee, here are his full words, "it?s isnaad is da?eef, it?s narrators are trustworthy being the narrators of Bukhaaree, except Abu Haneefah for he, despite his excellence in fiqh, the Imaams have declared him weak for his poor memorisation, and I have mentioned the names of these Imaams in ?ad-Da?eefah? (pg. 86)?"
Al-Albaanee says, following, the discussion in ?ad-Da?eefah? concerning Abu Haneefah, those Imaams that praised him and those above that disparaged him:
He describes Suyuti as a ?loud mouth? (ja?ja- Da?eefah 3:189) who ?contradicts himself? (4:386) and he asks of Suyuti ?has he no shame?? (Da?eefah 3:479)
I have not been able to find the first quote at all, and I am sure that this quote is a blatant lie. What confirms this was that I was able to find Saqqaaf?s page references for other quotes from vol. 3 of ?ad-Da?eefah?. In fact while searching for this quote I read pp 185-192 and Suyutee was mentioned only twice (pages 186, 187).
As for the second quote: after mentioning a hadeeth containing a narrator about which ibn Hajr said, "the Nuqqaad (precise scholars) are agreed that he is a liar" he says, "and it is an amazement from as-Suyutee that he is not embarrassed to blacken his book ?al-Jaami as-Sagheer? by including this hadeeth in it." Now this phrase is worlds apart from the statement ?has he no shame?!! One statement related to a specific example, the other is quoted such that it seems that al-Albaanee is giving a verdict on the very character of as-Suyutee!
As for the third quote: al-Albaanee discusses a fabricated hadeeth (no.1913) and says, "and as-Suyuti includes the hadeeth in ?Dhail al-Mawdoo?aat? (pg. 53)...." [his collection of fabricated narrations] Then later on he states, "...then as-Suyutee contradicts himself (tanaaqada -singular)) by including it in ?al-Jaami as-Sagheer? from the same narration" [and in the introduction to the ?al-Jaami? as-Suyutee made clear that he included only authentic ahaadeeth]. So I ask you, is this an example of a heinous word or an insult, or a statement of fact and a clear case of exaggeration from Saqqaaf?
He blames al-Hakim, al-Mundhiri, and al-Dhahabi's "poor scholarliness and proneness to imitation" because they all declared a hadith sound and he -- Albani -- disagrees with them (?ad-Da?eefah? 3:416).
In ?ad-Da?eefah? (3:416) Al-Albaanee says about a sanad to a hadeeth: "al-Haakim said saheeh sanad! and adh-Dhahabee agreed! and al-Mundhiree endorsed this in ?at-Taqreeb? (3/166)! And all this is from neglect in research and submitting to taqleed. And how could it be otherwise? For how is it possible for a Researching Scholar to authenticate the likes of this isnaad. For Muhammad bin al-Farraat (one of it?s narrators) is weak by agreement... [and he mentions the Imaams verdicts on him].... and adh-Dhahabee himself includes him in ?al-Meezaan? due to these texts (of declaring him weak), and he mentioned this hadeeth of his [i.e. the hadeeth to the isnaad as an example of a weak hadeeth that he narrated]. And Boosayree said in ?az-Zawaa?id? (2/146) ?it?s isnaad is da?eef. Muhammad bin al-Farraat is agreed upon as being weak...?"
So look to this great exaggeration! Generalising a phrase which mentions a specific occurrence of error of these Imaams to one that seems to attack their scholarship.
Of Ibn Hajr Asqalani: "Self-contradictory" (?Da?eefah? 3:267).
In ?Da?eefah? (3:267) al-Albaanee discusses the difference of opinion over whether or not Ja?da (who is ibn Hubayra al-Asjalee) is a Companion, "and ibn Hajr?s opinion over him was self-contradictory (tanaaqada ra'i ibn Hajr feehee) for in ?at-Tahdheeb? he agrees with the saying of ibn Abee Haatim that he was a Taabi?ee. But in ?at-Taqreeb? he is certain that he is a Lesser Companion. And it is not hidden from the student of knowledge that this contradiction from the likes of this Haafidh does not occur except that there is no definite evidence that Ja?da is a Companion..."
Is there a clearer misquote than this?! And this sums up the approach of the contemporary (and some classical) Ash?arees when attacking the Salafiyyah - lies, misquotes, semi-quotes, and exaggerations, some of which you have read already and more you will read. And this is typical of the type of attacks that were launched against al-Albaanee in particular by the likes of Ghumaree, Abu Ghuddah, al-Bootee, Mahmud Sa?eed, Ismaa?eel al-Ansaaree, and al-A?dhamee. And it was because of their blatant lies that al-Albaanee spoke harshly against them. Insha?allaah the above few examples are enough to show the trend of this section (not to speak of others), the interested reader is asked to refer the rest of the quotes mentioned therein to the works of al-Albaanee.
4) With regards to the next section concerning the points of fiqh which commences (pg. 81), "it is no wonder that Albani shows everybody who doesn?t agree with him such enmity, considering the extent of his innovations in religion?"
Then suffice it to know that each opinion of his is backed by authentic ahaadeeth, and held by Imaams of the past (even if in a minority). With this in mind, it is impossible, even according to the definition that the likes of Kabbani hold to, to call such opinions ?innovations?. Again this declaration is merely a case of untruths and exaggerations - as such we will not delve into these, but again the interested reader can refer to any book of fiqh written by a Researching Scholar. We will deal, however, with two points:
"He compares the Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel as mentioned above (In his commentary to Mundhiri?s ?Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim? 3rd ed?.)"
Saqqaaf repeats in his book (on pg.26), "that he likens the fiqh of Islaam as exemplified in the 4 madhhabs and others to the Corrupted Gospel!"
al-Albaanee brings a footnote to the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim concerning Jesus? (AS) descent to this earth at the end of which occurs, "and he will lead you with the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Prophet." - ?This makes it clear that Jesus will rule by our Sharee?ah, and pass verdicts based upon the Qur?aan and Sunnah, not upon the Gospel or the Hanafee fiqh or the likes."
So it is clear that Saqqaaf has added the statement of the 4 madhhabs from himself as is his habit, then he understands from this phrase of the Shaykh that al-Albaanee has abused the Hanafee madhhab and this far from the truth. Rather this phrase has been mentioned by a number of scholars of the past because it is mentioned in some of the works of the Hanafees that when Jesus returns, he will rule by the Hanafee madhhab, hence the origin of the above statement from al-Albaanee.
Al-Albaanee says in a footnote to his ?Mukhtasar Saheeh al-Bukhaaree? (2/443), "and some of the partisan Hanafees have capitalised on this (statement) and have brought to public notice that I have abused the Hanafee madhab! The truth is that I pointed to a refutation of some of the partisan People of Knowledge from amongst them who made clear that Jesus (AS) shall rule by the Hanafee madhhab! And this is widely believed in some of the non-Arab lands. Shaykh al-Barzanjee said in ?al-Ishaa?a li Asraat as-Saa?a?, "it has occurred that some of the ignorant Hanafees claimed that both Jesus and the Mahdee shall follow the Madhhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah, and I came across the work of Shaykh Alee al-Qaaree called ?al-Mashrab al-Wardee fee Madhab al-Mahdee? in which he quoted this saying and he refuted it completely and declared the one who said it to be ignorant?.""
In the introduction to later editions of ?Mukhtasar Saheeh Muslim? (New Print, 1411H pp 5-11) al-Albaanee replied in full to this accusation. This indicates the fallacy of what Kabbani writes as a footnote (pg. 79), "the comparison was removed from later editions."
"He claims it is lawful to eat in Ramadan before Maghrib as is defined by the law, and similarly after the true dawn."
By Allaah this is a grievous lie! In ?Tamaam al-Minnah? (pp?s425+) [This is his work of commentary, forming a separate volume, to ?Fiqh as-Sunnah? of Sayyid Saabiq in which he has outlined any fiqh or hadeeth errors that occurred in this book. Therefore any point of fiqh that al-Albaanee did not highlight as being an error means that he agrees with it.] after agreeing with the author of ?Fiqh as-Sunnah? that eating deliberately breaks one?s fast [this is indicated by his not following up this statement with anything] he follows with the statement, "the author does present the opinion for the one who breaks his fast of Ramadaan deliberately, does he have to make it up (Qadaa) or not? The clear opinion is the second (option)?."
So the only thing that al-Albaanee says of the one who breaks his fast deliberately is that he cannot make it up with the exception of the one who breaks it due to sexual intercourse because of the evidence that occurs concerning that. This is the opinion reported from the Four Caliphs, ibn Mas?ud and Abu Hurayra. [Refer to ?al-Muhalla? (2/180-185) of ibn Hazm, and ?al-Ikhtiyaaraat? (pg. 65) of ibn Taymiyyah.]
This is from one perspective, then from the other Shaykh Alee Hasan says in his superb refutation to the aforementioned book of Saqqaaf, ?al-Eeqaaf? (pg. 53), "the words of Our Shaykh (al-Albaanee) are directed towards the permissibility of eating before the Adhaan (of Maghrib) if the sun has set, and is observed to have set, yet the adhaan is said late." As for the second half of the accusation then "the truth of the opinion of our Shaykh is that it concerns the adhaan which is said before the true dawn (al-Fajr as-Saadiq) so he allowed eating (after this adhaan)?" And al-Haafidh ibn Hajr indicated in ?al-Fath al-Baaree? (4/199) to the practice of some people of delaying the adhaan of Maghrib, and being early with the Adhaan of Fajr and that this was a rejected innovation
|muhammad.rather||-- 29-11-2002 @ 12:00 AM|
There is a 57 page refutation on the said book at www.troid.org titled
A Reply to the Slanderous Book of Falsehood: Al-Albani: Unveiled
It can be downloaded Here
This message was edited by muhammad.rather on 11-29-02 @ 11:31 PM
|Husayn_El_Sharif||-- 06-03-2008 @ 3:53 PM|
The troid website has been redesigned since this post, the updated link is
|dksadiq||-- 06-01-2011 @ 7:39 AM|
The book is now available here: http://www.troid.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=417&Itemid=332