View Full Version : In defence of Sheikh al-Albaani....

Ummu Sufyaan
01-01-2009, 09:38 AM


Nine points in Defence of Sheikh al-Albaani
By Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Umar Bazmol
Translated by Ibn Abbas Al-Misri

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful And May His Peace and Blessings be on His Prophet [peace be upon him],

After which [I say]:
Al-Albani [May Allah shower him with mercy] the [great] Scholar of Hadith of this time, known as Muhadith Al-Shaam (Syria/Damascus), and if it was said that he is the Muhadith of the Dunia [during his life], we wouldn’t be far of. He [May Allah shower him with mercy] faced, like many other scholars, many false accusations and allegations. These lies and allegations can be summarized in the following nine points:

1 – That he is a Muhadith not a Faqeeh

2 – That he has no knowledge of the Usool [of Fiqh]

3 – He has no Shyookh (He did not learn under Scholars)

4 – Takes strange opinions, contrary to what people are on

5 – He has no respect for scholars, and does not know their status

6 – He is Zahiri (Dhahiri) in his Mazhab

7 – He is lenient in authenticating traditions

8 – He is self-contradictory when evaluating traditions

9 – He does not give consideration to evaluating the Matn (Text of the tradition)

These issues are, to the most part, what Ahl Alhdeeth (People and Scholars of Hadith) of all time were accused of, and I saw it beneficial to present these accusations and refute them and give a reply to all of them, defending the People of Hadith of all time. This is the least I can do for them [May Allah have Mercy on them all].

1 – Their claim: That he is a Muhadith not a Faqeeh
If what is meant by this statement is to just describe him as one of Ahl Alhdeeth (the People of Hadith), who have excelled and surpassed others in it, and it did not consist of stripping him of any of the blessing of Fiqh, then we would have no objection in that. That is because Al-Imam Al-Albani [May Allah shower him with Mercy] is truly from the [great] scholars of hadith of our time, who was commended for his deep knowledge in this field, and many have attested to this. That – by the Grace of Allah – is something no two can dispute about as far as I am concerned.

If, however, what was meant by this statement is to devalue the Fiqh and understanding of [Shaykh] Al-Albani to Prophetic traditions, and devalue his explanation of its meanings, and his choices and preferences in issues pertaining to knowledge [and Fiqh], then this is a false and rejected meaning, that we can reply to by the following:

We ask them: What is Fiqh according to you? If what you mean by Fiqh is the memorization of different rulings, Mutoon, and dwelling in possibilities, without returning back to the authentic proofs, then this is what we say that Imam Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] is furthest away from.

However, if what you meant by Fiqh is: the [proper] understanding and application of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah in accordance to the understanding of the companions [May Allah be pleased with them and those that followed them] without bias to anyone except to the authentic evidence, then we ask for any proof that shows that the Imam [May Allah have mercy on him] was not like this!

That word: “Muhadith and not a Faqeeh”, with that false meaning is a devilish statement, the purpose behind it is to devalue the status and rank of Ahl Alhdeeth, and [to attempt to establish] that a Faqeeh (Jurist) can do without Hadith.

That statement in its beginning is a flaw and an innovation, and at its end is Zandaqah (heresy/disbelief) and complete rejection of all Islamic rulings. As for it being an innovation is because we did not hear any such statements from the Salaf (Righteous Predecessors of the Ummah). As for it ending in disbelief and heresy is because it can lead to the rejection of all the works and teachings of the people of knowledge, thus the rejection and the dissociation from all Islamic rulings, where someone could say: “that ruling was stated by so-and-so and he is a Muhadith (scholar of hadith) and not a Jurist, thus it can’t be accepted”, and another time it would be said: “that ruling was stated by so-and-so, and he is a Jurist not a Scholar of Hadith thus it can’t be accepted”. Leading finally to the dissociation from and the rejection of all the rulings of the Religion!!!

2 – As for their claim that: he has no knowledge of the Usool [of Fiqh]
That is an allegation, that we ask where is the proof for it? On the contrary, what can be seen in the books of the Shaykh is a strong proof against this claim. That and what is known from the life of the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] is that he used to give two lectures every week, which students of knowledge as well as University professors used to attend, and among the books that he used to teach in his lectures is the book of: “Usool Al-Fiqh” by ‘Abdulwahab Khalaf.

That lie – which is denying the knowledge of the Usool of Fiqh – might be used by some of them to defame Ahl Alhdeeth altogether.

To those we say: It is important here to note the following issues:
1 – The Prophetic Sunnah [and tradition] is the guide to the proper understanding of the Quran, as was mentioned by Imam Ahmad [May Allah shower him with mercy] in his treatise on the Sunnah, the narration of ‘Abdous. Every ruling in the Quran was guided to by the Sunnah, it clarifies it and indicates what is the purpose behind it.

2 – The Science of the Usool is built on the overall guidance [derived from] the Holy Quran, and the Noble Sunnah, in accordance to the Arabic tongue, with the observation of the circumstances present in the time of revelation and the reasons behind the revelation, and that is something that was delivered and observed first hand by the companions, and no one else shared this [knowledge] with them except through them.

If this is established, then know that Ahl Alhdeeth (the people of Hadith) are the happiest of people with all of this, since there is no one that is more knowledgeable than them in what has been transmitted from Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him], and there is no one with more knowledge about what was transmitted from the companions [May Allah be pleased with them] then they are. So in reality they are the People of Usool, and from there manners is to make the Texts of the Quran and the Sunnah a foundation on which they built [everything else], and isn’t this what the Scholars of the Usool aimed for?

From that you should realize that the Scholars of Ahl Alhdeeth are the Scholars of the Islamic Usool and the Scholars of the basis of derivation [of rulings]. They attained this by following and looking after what came and was delivered from the companions and their followers (the Tabi’een).

3 – As for their claim that: He has no Shyookh (He did not learn under Scholars)
That is a haste unfound statement, Shaykh Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] learned under his father some sciences (‘Uloom Al-Ala like Sarf), as well as some books of the Hanafi Fiqh (Mukhtasar Al-Qadouri), and he learned from him the Holy Quran, and completed it under him by the recitation of Hafs.

He also learned under Shaykh Sa’eed Al-Burhani the books “Maraqi Al-Falah” in Hanafi Fiqh, and “Shuzoor Al-Zahab” in Nahw, and some books of Balaghah. He also used to attend the sittings of Al-‘Alamah Muhammad Bahjat Al-‘Ataar [May Allah have mercy on him] with some of the teachers of Al-Magmaa’ Al-‘Ilmi in Damascus, and among those that used to attend these sittings are: ’Izz Al-Din Al-Tanoukhi [May Allah have mercy on him] where they used to read “Al-Hamasah” by Abu Tammam.

Shaykh Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] met during his beginning with Shaykh Muhammad Raghib Al-Tabaakh [May Allah have mercy on him], where Al-Shaykh Al-Tabaakh showed his admiration with Shaykh Al-Albani and gave him “Al-Anwaar Al-Ghaliya fee Mukhtasar Al-Athbaat Al-Hanbaliyah”.

So once you know this, you would realize how baseless their saying that: He had no Shyookh, and how far away from reality it is.
It does not even harm the Shaykh if he did not have a large number of Shyookh. How great a number of Scholars had only a few Shyookh, and that did not affect their knowledge. Rather, even among the narrators of hadith you will see among them narrators that did not narrate except from two or three Shaykhs, [and some] even one, and yet this did not stop the Imams from attesting and declaring their Dabt (ability to preserve the knowledge they gained), Hifz (memorization), and Itqaan (precision), and that did not prevent from listening to them and taking from their knowledge.

From this category is, Abu ‘Umar Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Lakhmi who is known as ibn Al-Baghi (died 400 H) from the people of Ashbilia. He was described as the most unique scholar of his time, and the most knowledgeable scholar of his age, he gathered Fiqh, Hadith, and Virtues. He memorized several books of Sunnah, as well as books of Gharib in a good manner.

4 – As for their claim that he: Takes strange opinions, contrary to what people are on.

That is a very incoherent claim, rather Ahl Alhdeeth and Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] are among the Ghuraba’, who revive what the people abandoned from the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him].

Their saying: “So-and-so is alone in that opinion” does not negate from him Fiqh, and does not attribute him to Shuzooz. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm [May Allah have mercy on him] said in “Al-Ihkam fee Usool Al-Ahkam” (5/661-662): “The boundary [and meaning] of Shuzooz (oddness) is going astray from the Truth, thus everyone that went against what is right in whatever matter then he is the Shaaz in it, whether they were all the people of this world, or a few of them. The Jama’ah are the people of Haqq (Truth), even if there wasn’t among them from the people of the world except one, then he is the Jama’ah. And Abu Bakr and Khadija [May Allah be pleased with them] entered Islam alone, and were at that point [in time] the Jama’ah, and all the other people of the world, apart from them and the Messenger [Peace be upon him], were people of Shuzooz (Strangeness/Oddness) and Firqah (division)”.

Thus Shuzooz is not when someone from amongst the scholars go against what the other group are on. Similarly, Shuzooz is not to go against what is commonly acted on, or what is popular among the people. How many matters did the great Imams Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, and Ahmad take a lone stance on, and that was not counted as something that shames them, and did not take away from their Fiqh, or negate it, or was not a reason to class them [May Allah shower them with mercy] to Shuzooz and loneness (Tafarud)!

How can someone be described as Shaaz and strange when he has restricted his following and imitation to the Ma’soum [peace be upon him]. Rather some great scholars have taken some opinions that were later found to be against the Sunnah and Athar, and no one from the people of knowledge said about them, that they are Shaaz or odd.

And here you see Al-Hafiz Ibn Abi Shaybah (died 235 H) writes a chapter in his Musanaf and titles it “A Reply on Abu Hanifa”, and starts his chapter by saying: “This is where Abu Hanifa went against the traditions that came from the Prophet [peace be upon him]”.

And here is Al-Layth ibn Sa’d [May Allah have mercy on him] saying: “I have counted for Malik seventy issues, all of which are against the Sunnah of the Prophet [Peace be upon him], where Malik gave his own opinion”, and Al-Layth then says: “… and I wrote to him about them”, and that narration is mentioned in “Jami’ Bayan Al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih” (2/148).

Then when were people’s actions an ultimate balance and an absolute criterion in knowing the rulings of Allah, that we can leave the Texts because of it?

What sin did Ahl Alhdeeth and Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] commit when they took by a tradition that they saw its authenticity, and did not find anything that goes against it, so they acted upon it, and called the people to act upon reviving this Sunnah that was found in this tradition.

Subhan Allah!

Rather then being thanked for what they have done they are criticized and blamed, and attributed to Shuzooz (taking strange and odd opinions) and that they are being alone in their opinions!

5 – As for their claim that: He has no respect for scholars, and does not know their status
That is a false claim that is lacking any evidence, and the reality is to its contrary. All what is in this matter is that some people got the delusion that since Al-Shaykh Al-Albani [May Allah shower him with mercy], decided to act upon the authentic tradition that has nothing opposing it [or preventing from acting upon it], that he by this wasted and neglected all the scholars who did not act upon this tradition, and did not respect their ranks and status. That is a delusion that has no basis because of the following:

- There is a difference between: setting your imitation solely to the Ma’soum Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] and wasting the teachings and words of scholars.

Having your imitation set to Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] means not to favor anyone else’s words or actions over his own, whoever that might be. Rather, you look at the authenticity of the tradition first, if it happens to be authentic you then look at the meaning, [understanding, and proper application that came with it].

When that is made clear to you, you should not abandon it, even if those between the East and West opposed you.

From the precious words of Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] in “Al-Silsilah Al-Sahihah” commenting on tradition number 321:
“Hold on to it [i.e. the Prophetic tradition], and grip/bite on it with your teeth, and leave the views of men, since once [an authentic] tradition appears, one’s own view and opinion [in the matter] will be void …”

Now for your knowledge: There is not – as far as I know – any matter or issue that Al-Imam Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] chose a view that no one from the scholars before him were on (i.e. he has a predecessor in all the views he holds), and he is always careful to mention who was his predecessor, in what he chose to act upon from the words [and views] that he saw that they are in agreement to the Texts.

The Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] returns back to what scholars have said, and considers what they said and benefits from it, without intolerance [to others] or blind imitations. He said in the introduction of his book “Sifat Salat Al-Nabi [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam]”:

“As for returning back to their (i.e. the scholars) words, benefiting from it, and using it to assist us in properly understand the truth that they differed in, in the cases where there is no Text from the Quran or the Sunnah, or to [go back to their words] to understand what needs explanation, this is a matter that we do not reject. Rather, we order [others] to this, and encourage others to it, since the benefit from it is hoped, for those who took the Quran and the Sunnah as their source of guidance”.

What is left to comment on, is the issue of the roughness attributed to the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] in his replies to his Mukhalifeen. In reality, this is a relative issue that differs from one to another. Some might call it subjectivity in research, and solely seeking what is the Truth without giving compliments, while others call it harshness and a lack of gentleness. In any case, you should always remember the following:

1 – Some ask from the Shaykh to be lenient when replying on them and refuting them, while they do not abide by what they asked the Shaykh to do when replying on and refuting others [that differed with them].

2 – Harshness when declaring the Truth does not mean that it is falsehood.

3 – Gentleness when stating falsehood does not mean that it is the Truth.

4 – Roughness might be in some cases the wiser way in Da’wah.

And the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] gave a comment about the Harshness that was attributed to him, so refer back to “Al-Silsilah Al-Da’eefah” 1/27.

6 – Their claim that: He is Zahiri (Dhahiri) in his Mazhab

That accusation too is lacking any evidence. The reality is that describing the People of Hadith (Ahl Alhdeeth) as people of Zahir, is from the words that we hear from time to time, which is why describing Shaykh Al-Albani by it is not that surprising since he is from Ahl Alhdeeth!

And to get rid of the confusion that might be stuck to the minds of a few, we have to raise the following questions:

Did the Shaykh declare in any of his books that he is a follower of the Zahiri Mazhab?

Is just the fact that the Shaykh references the books of Ibn Hazm enough to mean that he is a Dhahiri?

That and Shaykh Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] in many instances would blame [and refute] Ibn Hazm Al-Dhahiri [for holding certain opinions]. In “Tamam Al-Minah” for example, p. 160, [Shaykh Al-Albani] said: “Contrary to what Ibn Hazm clattered around …”

And in the same book p.162, he said: “And Ibn Hazm took an odd stance as he usually does by clenching to his Dhahiria”.

And from the books of Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] is a book where he replies and refutes Ibn Hazm in the matter of musical instruments.

That is why Ahl Alhdeeth – and Al-Albani from amongst them – are the furthest away from all the flaws that the scholars have recorded on the Dhahiria.

However, as the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] stated in many occasions, among them in his book “Sifat Salat Al-Nabi” that part of his methodology is that he follows the Hadith and the Athaar, and does not abandon them, while having respect for all the scholars and benefiting from their Fiqh and understanding.

7 – Their claim that: He is lenient in authenticating traditions.

That too is something relative, which differs depending on people, so whoever was strict would view others as being lenient, and whoever was lenient would view others as being strict. The reference to arriving to the Truth [in this matter] is Istiqraa’ (comprehensive reading and research), and comparing [him] to others. As for the matters that led to attributing the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] to leniency [in authenticating]:

1 – Tahseen (Ranking as Hasan) the weak tradition that came through multiple ways (T’adud Al-Turuq).

2 – Accepting the narrator whose reliability is unknown (Majhoul Al-Hal), and depending on the declaration of reliability of Ibn Hiban.

3 – Accepting some weak narrators.
All the different types of weak traditions are acceptable for consideration and mending, and can be strengthened if they came through multiple ways, with the exception of those whose chain contains a narrator who is a liar (Kazab) or a fabricator (Wadaa’), the narration of he who is accused of lying (Mutaham Bi Al-Kazib), the narration of a narrator whose in the rank of those who are left (Fee Martabat Al-Tark), like those whose memory worsened a lot, and the Shaaz and Munkar tradition.

Now as for accepting the narration of a narrator of unknown reliability (Majhoul Al-Hal), and depending on the declarations of reliability given by Ibn Hiban, that is one of the issues that were attributed to Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] without a correct proof on it! Since, in reality the shaykh replied in many places on those who depended on Ibn Hiban’s declaration of reliability, and described them as being too lenient! He also set in the introduction of his book (Tamam Al-Minah) p.20-26 a rule that he called: “Not depending on the Tawtheeq (Declaration of Reliability) of Ibn Hiban”.

[Finally,] as for him accepting some weak narrators, then that is [only] a claim, since they cannot produce one narrator that there is an agreement that he should be left, and then Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] came and accepted him!

8 – As for their claim that: He is self-contradictory when evaluating traditions
This claim came either from ignorance or from ignoring the reality of the matter. Know – my respected brother [& sister] [May Allah preserve you] – that from the basics according to Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah that ‘Ismah (infallibility) is not for anyone of this Ummah apart from the Prophet of Allah [Peace be upon him], and we – By the Grace of Allah – are followers to that basic foundational principle, and do not believe in or even say that Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] is infallible, just as we do not declare it to any other from the People of Knowledge.

Is the fact that a mistake was done by a scholar, or a contradiction occurred a reason to drop him and a reason to strip him from the description of knowledge?

I do not think that anyone unbiased would say such a thing!

Yes, whoever his mistakes were too much, and what he got wrong was more than what he got correct, we would not use him as a reference, and we would drop from him the attribute/description of Dabt.

Once this has been established, know that all the traditions that Al-Albani [May Allah have mercy on him] was attributed to contradiction in his ruling over, does not by the Grace of Allah affect his reliability or knowledge, to whoever was unbiased, since the percentage of traditions that Al-Albani was attributed to contradiction because of, when compared to those that he was not attributed to contradiction because of is very small, that are not worth noticing, since it does not affect his ocean of knowledge.

Now this accusation of contradiction is an envious allegation, and an evil deception for its most part, and does not even pass after proper examination except for very little, rather very very little, it is usually one of the following cases:

1 – Traditions that the Shaykh’s ruling on changed after new circumstances and stipulations appeared, that he was unaware of.

2 – Traditions that the Shaykh ruled on by looking at one way (chain), and then he discovered a different way (chain).

3 – Traditions that he ruled on based on what he believed the reliability of the narrator was, and then he renewed his Ijtihad in the status of that narrator, so he changed his ruling.

4 – A Tradition that he was unaware of the ‘Ilah (hidden flaw or defect), which he later became aware of.

5 – Traditions that he was unaware of another Mutabi’ or Shahid, and then became aware of.

And I wish to reference you, O dear reader, to the book: “Al-Anwar Al-Kashifah Li Tanaqudat Al-Khasaf Al-Zaifah, wa Kashf Ma Feeha min Al-Zaygh wa Al-Tahreef wa Al-Mughazafah”.

9 – As for their claim that: He does not give consideration to evaluating the Matn (Text of the tradition)
This claim as they say has horns and is a void [claim] that has no basis, and what can be seen in his books [May Allah have mercy on him] contradicts it.

Which is why I will just deliver one tradition and point out how the Shaykh [May Allah have mercy on him] evaluated the Text of the tradition, after evaluating the Chain. From that is the second tradition in “Silsilat Al-Ahadeeth Al-Da’eefa” (Whosoever Prayer does not prohibit him from the excessive and the disapproved, has no increase from Allah except of distance), after evaluating the Shaykh the chain of this tradition, he [May Allah have mercy on him] started evaluating the Matn (text), and said:

“As for the Text of the tradition, it is not correct either, since its apparent meaning also includes those who prayed a prayer fulfilling its conditions and pillars, in such a way that it is acceptable. So if that worshipper is in anyway still committing some disapproved act, how can it be said that because of it he will not increase because of that prayer except of distance? That is from what does not make sense, and cannot be proven in this religion etc …” to the end of what he said [May Allah shower him with mercy].

And with this, the purpose behind [why we wrote] this has been fulfilled, and All Thanks is due to Allah who by His Grace righteousness is completed

Original Arabic

more to come, inshallah...

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ummu Sufyaan
01-02-2009, 07:27 AM
Unveiling the Lies of Saqqaaf Part 1:
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

The following is a point by point analysis of the slanders contained in 'al-Albani Unveiled'. The format is as follows:

The first number given is the numbering of this article, the second number given is the number of the point in question as found in the book 'Albani Unveiled'. The point begins by the claims of Hasan Saqqaaf, followed by the actual quotes as found in the works of al-Albaanee, followed by a conclusion.

About Shaykh Al-Albaani's Weakening of Ahadith In Shaeeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim
Saqqaaf states that the very fact of al-Albaanee weakening these ahaadeeth contradicts his statement in his takhreej of 'Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah' (pp.'s 27-28) "that any hadeeth coming from the Sahih collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim is Sahih, not because they were narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, but because the Ahadith are in fact correct." (See 'Albani Unveiled' pg.7)

This is not what the shaykh says, rather he explains on those pages that whenever he says in takhreej to a hadeeth that is related by Bukhaaree or Muslim, "saheeh", this is not a new ruling from him, but rather informing of the reality of that hadeeth. Five pages before this he explains that the basic principle used by the scholars of hadeeth is that the statement, 'related by the Two Shaykhs (Bukhaaree and Muslim)' or 'related by Bukhaaree' or 'related by Muslim' is sufficient in saying that the hadeeth is authentic.

Then the Shaykh continues, "but this does not mean that every word and letter or sentence in the Two Saheehs is of the station of the Qur`aan and that it is not possible that there be an error or misinterpretation in there from the part of the narrators. And we do not believe, in principle, that any book after the Book of Allaah is perfect...."

Not only this but a few pages after the quote from 'al-Albani Unveiled', in the same introduction, Shaykh al-Albaanee defends his weakening of the isnaad of a hadeeth related by Bukhaaree!

So with this it will become clear to the reader that the first eight examples of 'self-contradiction' in 'al-Albani Unveiled' are actually not contradictions at all, but are in total conformity with what the shaykh writes in his introduction to 'Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah'. It will also become clear to the reader how Saqqaaf plays around, and distorts the statements of al-Albaanee to suit his own ends, and this will become concrete in what follows.

All there remains now is to quote examples from the first eight points mentioned in 'al-Albani Unveiled' to show other types of errors that Saqqaaf falls into, and to show to the reader that al-Albaanee has not done anything new by weakening ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, but that in each and every case he has a precedent in the great scholars of the past.

For example:

1/2: The hadeeth of Abu Zubair from Jaabir,
"Do not sacrifice except a grown animal, unless it is difficult for you in which case sacrifice a ram" [Muslim, Eng. trans. vol. 3 no. 4836]

Saqqaaf merely says that Shaykh al-Albaanee declares it weak in 'Da`eef al-Jaami` al-Sagheer'[1] He fails to mention that he also quotes it in 'as-Silsilah al-Da`eefah' (1/160), since here the shaykh fully discusses its chain and text and quotes Ibn Hazm's declaration of its weakness. [2]

2/3: 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]

Saqqaaf, 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-Albaanee speaks about it in detail, i.e. 'Aadaab az-Zifaaf' (p. 63, 142), where he explains its weakness at length and shows that al-Dhahabee declared its weakness due to the narrator `Umar bin Hamzah an-Nukri.

3/5: 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]." [Al-Bukhaaree Eng. trans. 1/102 no. 138, Muslim nos. 477-8.]

Saqqaaf again merely quotes 'Da`eef al-Jaami`' and fails to indicate that shaykh al-Albaanee 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 (i.e. in []) is mudraj, i.e. the interpolated words of the narrator only. The rest of the ahaadeeth that Saqqaaf quotes in this section - not to mention other sections - are quoted in a manner involving twisting of wordings and falsification.

4/7: The hadeeth related by Muslim,
"One who reads the last ten verses of Surah al-Kahf he will be saved from the mischief of the Dajjaal." [Muslim no.809]

Saqqaaf states al-Albaanee made a mistake in the narration of the hadeeth, in his 'Da`eef Jaami` as-Sagheer' (no.5772), and the correct wording is "One who memorises the last ten verses".

But if one were to refer to 'Da`eef al-Jaami` as-Sagheer' then the deception of Saqqaaf would become clear for the mistake here seems to lie with as-Suyuti, the original compiler of 'Jaami` as-Sagheer', not al-Albaanee. For al-Albaanee brings a footnote, "and I say: what is preserved is the wording, 'The one who memorises the first ten verses of Surah al-Kahf....' and it is in 'Saheeh al-Jaami`' (no.6021)" [3]

5/11: Under the heading, "Shortcomings of al-Albaanee in his research in innumerable places and examples of this",
he attacks shaykh al-Albaanee's saying concerning the narration of Ibn Mas`ood in marfoo` [5] 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-Baghawee[6] in 'Sharh-us Sunnah', so Shaykh al-Albaanee 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 of the Arabic) 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') ..."

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-Albaanee indeed said. As for the chapter and page number 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`ud !

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 'Ahaadeeth 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)." {7 - important fn!}

6/13: The hadeeth,"Abu Bakr is from me, holding the position of my hearing".

Al-Albaanee states in as-Saheehah (2/476) that he could not find this hadeeth in the indexes of 'Hilya al-Awliyaa'. Saqqaaf states that this hadeeth is in the indexes and in the book (4/73).

Shaikh Khaalid al-Inbareee says in reply to this point in his, "Iftiraa`aat as-Saqqaaf al-Atheem" (pg.18), "and the Shaykh is truthful and precise in his saying, 'I did not see it in the indexes of 'al-Hilya'.' For I, by Allaah, did not find this hadeeth in the three indexes of 'al-Hilya'. And Saqqaaf lied in affirming (its presence) for what is in 'al-Hilya' in the place which he indicates, and is also present in the indexes, is the hadeeth, 'Abu Bakr and Umar are indispensable to me. Indeed Abu Bakr and Umar are in Islaam of the station of the hearing and seeing of man.'

Shaykh al-Albaanee discusses both the above narrations in 'as-Saheehah' (2/476) and declares the first to be irregular or rejected due to the fact that a group of narrators relate the second hadeeth in which is the mention of both Abu Bakr and Umar.

So in trying to criticise al-Albaanee, Saqqaaf has actually outlined one of the excellent qualities of al-Albaanee, and that is his extreme precision in his takhreej of ahaadeeth!

I do not have the necessary references to crosscheck the rest of the points (9-14 excluding 11,13) which contain the accusation of insufficient research on the part of al-Albaanee. But in the two examples mentioned so far should be sufficient for the open-minded reader. And Allaah is the One Who grants success.

/15: Saqqaaf states that al-Albaanee criticised Ghumaari for mentioning a hadeeth in his book 'al-Kanz al Thameen' from Abu Hurayra,

'Spread the salaam and feed the poor...'.

He says in 'ad-Da`eefah' (3/492) after referring the hadeeth to Ahmad (2/295)....'I say this is a weak sanad....' and contradicts himself in 'al-Irwaa'{8} (3/238) where he authenticates the same sanad.

al-Albaanee said in 'ad-Da`eefah' (3/492), ".....the hadeeth has another route related from Qataadah from Abu Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra.....I say, this isnaad is da`eef. Daaruqutni said, 'Qataadah from Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra, it is unknown and to be left'...."

And he said in 'al-Irwaa' (3/238), "...from Qataadah from Abu Maymoonah from Abu Hurayra... I say, the isnaad is saheeh, its narrators are the narrators of the Two Shaikhs except for Abu Maymoonah and he is thiqah (trustworthy) as occurs in 'at-Taqreeb'. And al-Haakim said, 'saheeh sanad' and adh-Dhahabi agreed."

So the criticism here seems to be correct, in that al-Albaanee has changed his verdict on the isnaad without indicating that he has done so. Allaah knows best.

7/17: Saqqaaf claimed that al-Albaanee contradicted himself regarding the hadeeth,
'Is he playing with Allaahs Book whilst I am still amongst you?...'

by saying in 'Mishkaat' (2/981) that it is da`eef and in 'Ghayatul Maraam'{9} (no.261 pg. 164) that it is saheeh.

al-Albaanee said in 'al-Mishkaat' (2/981 fn.1), "its narrators are trustworthy, but it is from the narration of Mukhrima from his father, and he did not hear from him." (Note that the shaykh does not say the isnaad is da`eef and neither does he give a verdict to the hadeeth!!)

And he said in 'Ghayatul Maraam' (no.261), "Saheeh...I say its narrators are trustworthy despite the difference over the hearing of Mukhkrima, and he is ibn Bakeer, from his father..."

(There occurs a footnote: 'Shaykh Naasir retracted this saying and declared it weak as in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasa`ee' no.221, pg122)

So even if we were to concede the point, then there still could not be a contradiction as al-Albaanee himself retracts the saying.

8/18: Saqqaaf said that al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the hadeeth,

'If one of you was sleeping under the sun, and the shadow covering him shrank, and part of him was in the shadow and the other part in the sun, he should get up.'

by saying "Saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (1/266/761) and saying "da`eef" in 'Mishkaat' (3/1337 no.4725)

Albaanee said in 'Saheeh al-Jaami ' (no.748) [not 761 as claimed above]: "Saheeh, related by Abu Daawood from Abu Hurayra" and refers it to as 'Saheehah' (no.737.)

And in 'Mishkaat' (no.4725): "its isnaad (i.e. of Abu Daawood) is weak."

Note that the shaykh has not declared the hadeeth to be da`eef but rather the isnaad, so observe the way that Saqqaaf seeks to deceive the reader!

And this deception becomes all the more apparent if we were to actually refer to 'as-Saheehah' as directed by the shaykh: "Related by Abu Daawood (4822)...via the route ibn Munkadir... who said: 'someone who heard Abu Hurayra informed me...'. This isnaad is saheeh were it not for the unnamed man."

Then he mentions the same hadeeth in Ahmad with his sanad, which omits the unnamed man, states that the isnaad is still linked, and then declares this sanad saheeh according to the criteria of the Two Shaykhs (Bukhaaree and Muslim).

So where is the contradiction?

9/19: Saqqaaf claims yet again that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over a hadeeth,
'Friday prayer is an obligatory duty upon every Muslim '[10]

by saying "da`eef" in 'Mishkaat' (1/434) and says, 'its narrators are discontinuous[11] as is indicated by Abu Daawood' and by saying "saheeh" in 'al-Irwaa' (no.592)

al-Albaanee says in 'Mishkaat' (1/434), "its narrators are trustworthy being the narrators of Muslim, except that Abu Daawood indicated its being Munqati` by saying, 'Taariq bin Shihaab saw the Messenger (SAW) but did not hear anything from him.'"

And yet again nowhere has the shaykh said that the hadeeth is da`eef!

And in 'Irwaa' (no.592), "Saheeh...Abu Daawood said, (1067),...'Taariq bin Shihaab saw the Messenger but did not hear anything from him.' az-Zayla`i said, 'an-Nawawee said: this does not make it inauthentic, for it is the mursal[12] of the Companion and constitutes a proof, and the hadeeth fulfils the criteria of the Two Shaykhs.'"

So again where is the contradiction as al-Albaanee merely reiterates what he stated briefly in 'Mishkaat' and adds to it in 'al-Irwaa' and then gives a verdict.

/20: Saqqaaf said al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Muharrar ibn Abu Hurayra because in 'Irwaa' (4/301) he declares him "thiqah" {13} and in 'Saheehah' (4/156) he declares him "maqbool" {14}

al-Albaanee said in 'Irwaa' (4/301), "and its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators are of the Two Shaykhs except al-Muharrar bin Abu Hurayra, and ibn Hibbaan in 'ath-Thiqaat'....and he is thiqah insha`Allaah and the saying of al-Haafidh, 'maqbool' is not maqbool (accepted)."

And in 'as-Saheehah' (4/156), "Muharrar ibn Abu Hurayra is from the narrators of ibn Majah and an-Nasa`ee only. He was not declared thiqah except by ibn Hibbaan....and ibn Hajr said, 'maqbool' i.e. accepted with follow-ups....and the isnaad has another defect...."

So here the criticism seems to be correct. Allaah knows best.

11/21: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth of 'Abdullaah 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'.

In Mishkaat (no.1375) al-Albaanee says to the hadeeth, whose source is given as Abu Daawood, "its isnaad (i.e. of Abu Daawood) is da'eef, in it is Qudaama bin Wabra, and he is unknown."

In 'al-Irwaa' (no.593) the shaykh declares that its isnaad is weak, giving the same reason as in 'Mishkaat' but he quotes further support for it and says, "therefore, the hadeeth is hasan if Allaah wills." [15]

So where is the contradiction for saying that the isnaad is weak is different from saying that the hadeeth is weak!

12/22: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth of Anas,

"Do not make things difficult for yourselves, lest Allaah makes them difficult for you When a people were hard on themselves, Allaah was hard on them."

and declares that the shaykh has contradicted himself by declaring it da`eef in 'Mishkaat' but hasan elsewhere (e.g. 'Ghayat al-Maraam')

Again, there is no contradiction since he begins his note in 'Ghaayat al-Maraam' (no. 207) by giving it the ruling: da`eef, 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 that affirms its authenticity (Silsilah as-Saheehah, 3694 ms.)

13/23: About the hadeeth of Aa`ishah,

"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'.

In 'Mishkaat' (1/117 no.365), the shaykh declared the narration of at-Tirmidhi weak due to the poor memory of Shareek an-Nakha`i, and he did the same in 'as-Saheehah' (no.201), except that he found a further support for it and so authenticated it.

The shaykh himself explains in 'as-Saheehah' that the notes in 'Mishkaat' were done in haste as has preceded and that he had depended upon the words of at-Tirmidhi, al-I`raaqi, al-Suyooti and others in declaring it weak due to Shareek. [16] 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 as quoted on (page 150) of 'al-Albani Unveiled', "We have left out whatever he had 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..." !!

14/24: 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 isnaad weak in 'Mishkaat'.

The shaykh referred it in both cases to 'at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb' of al-Mundhiri, except that in the case of declaring it weak in 'Mishkaat' (no.464), 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. [17] And therefore he declared it hasan in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no. 3061).

15/25: The report from Ibn `Abbaas "that he used to shorten Prayer for the like of the distance between Makkah and Taa`if."

Saqqaaf claims contradiction between the shaykh's saying in 'Mishkaat' (no.1351), "It is a report without an isnad, and so is not authentic", and what he reports in 'al-Irwaa' (3/14 under no.525) 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..."

These are two different texts!

One is a report of Ibn `Abbaas' action while the second is his saying!

16/26: Saqqaaf claimed that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,

"Leave the Ethiopians alone as long as they leave you. For none will take out the treasure of the Ka`ba except for Dhul Sawayqayain from Ethiopia" [18]

by weakening the hadeeth in 'Mishkaat' (3/1495 no. 5429 ) saying, "the sanad is da`eef" and by authenticating in 'as-Saheehah' (no.772)

al-Albaanee said in 'Mishkaat', after the hadeeth is referred to Abu Daawood, (4/1495 no.5429: ), "....with a da`eef sanad" and gives no verdict on the hadeeth.

And in 'Saheehah' (no.882), "related by Abu Daawood...al-Haakim said, 'saheeh sanad' and adh-Dhahabee agreed. I say they erred for Zaheer (a narrator) has weakness as will follow, and Abdul Haqq referred this in 'al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa' (1/110) to ibn Abee Shaybah, then he said, 'Zaheer bin Muhammad has bad memory - he is not depended upon' I say: Musa bin Khabeer (another narrator) has some anonymity...."

See how yet again Saqqaaf tries to deceive the reader by giving only half the story! For al-Albaanee gives the same verdict on the isnaad of the hadeeth in 'Mishkaat' as he does in 'as-Saheehah'. And in 'as-Saheehah' he gives the verdict of the hadeeth to be authentic due to witnesses.

17/27: 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

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 others errors and flatter one another so that the tie of innovation remains between them!

18/28: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth of Abu Barza,

"By Allaah you will not find a man more just than me."

By saying "saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.6978), and by saying "da`eef" in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa`ee' (pg.164 no.287)

al-Albaanee declares the hadeeth of Abu Barza saheeh in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.7101) and refers the reader to 'as-Saheehah' (no.2406)

In 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa'ee' (no. 278 not 287 as above) he says 'da`eef' to a long hadeeth related by Shareek bin Shihaab in which this statement occurs, although the wording of the two is different.

In 'Saheeh al-Jaami' the wording is (transliteration), "wallaahee laa tajidoonee ba`dee a`dala alaykum minnee", and in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa'ee', "wallaahee laa tajidoonee ba`dee rajulun huwa a`dalu minnee."

In 'as-Saheehah' (no.2406) he declares the hadeeth saheeh, and in his discussion relates another hadeeth from Shareeq bin Shihaab, also related in 'Sunan an-Nasaa`ee' which is similar in wording to the one in 'Da`eef Sunan an-Nasaa`ee', containing the same wording as that of 'Saheeh al-Jaami' and declares it saheeh.

So again there is no contradiction here, just deception on the part of Saqqaaf, may Allaah cure him.

19/29: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,
'Throw pebbles at the Jimar by putting the extremity of the thumb on the forefinger.'

by saying in 'Ibn Khuzaimah', "da`eef sanad" and by saying "saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami'

al-Albaanee said in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.910) to the hadeeth,"throw pebbles at the Jimar of the size of a sling shot" [This is the closest wording to the above quoted hadeeth that I could find.]

"saheeh - (related by) Ahmad, ibn Khuzaimah and ad-Diyaa" and refers to 'as-Saheehah' (no.1437).

In 'as-Saheehah' (no.1437) al-Albaanee brings five isnaads to the hadeeth. The first isnaad he declares da`eef. The second, fourth and fifth saheeh, and the third hasan.


20/32: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,

"Let each one of you ask Allaah for all his needs, even for his sandal thong if it gets cut"

by saying "Hasan" in 'Mishkaat' (no. 2251,2252) and saying "da`eef" in 'al-Jaami' (no.4947, 4948)

al-Albaanee state in 'Mishkaat' (no.2252 fn.3), "and it is a hasan hadeeth"

In 'Da`eef al-Jaami' (no. 4945, 4946) [not 4947, 4948] he says, "da`eef" and refers the reader to 'ad-Da`eefah' (no.1362)

Again Saqqaaf is guilty of quoting only half the story for if we were to refer to 'ad-Da`eefah' as directed we find the following words, "da`eef, related by at- Tirmidhee...and I declared this hadeeth hasan in my checking to Mishkaat (2251, 2252), and the checking was hurried due to little time...and Allaah is the One that is asked to forgive me my mistakes, and all of them are from me!"

So where is the contradiction if the shaykh himself retracts his verdict on the hadeeth?

{1} This is his checking to as-Suyuti's 'al-Jaami as-Sagheer', being divided into two sections, 'Da`eef' and 'Saheeh'

{2} Most of the ahaadeeth that are declared da`eef in Muslim are due to the narrator Abu Zubair, upon whom there is a difference of opinion over. Shaykh al-Albaanee says in 'ad-Da`eefah' (1/160) while explaining the weakness of the above hadeeth, "this (i.e. the weakness) is because Abu Zubair is a Mudallis and he has related via an`ana. And it is established in the science of hadeeth that the ahaadeeth of a mudallis are not depended upon when he does not make clear who he is narrating from. As was done by Abu Zubair here, for he relates via an`ana and does not make clear who he is narrating from......

al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee says in the biography of Abu Zubair - and his name is Muhammad bin Muslim bin Tadrus - after mentioning the defamation of some of the Imaams of him which does not impair his integrity, '....and as for Muhammad ibn Hazm, then he rejects his ahaadeeth in which he said "from (an) Jaabir" and the likes. Because he is from those who do tadlees. So if he said, "I heard" and "he related to us (akhbaranaa)" then he is depended upon. And ibn Hazm depended upon him when he said, "from (an) Laith bin Sa'd specifically. And that is because Laith bin Abu Maryam said, 'Laith bin Sa`d narrated to us, "I went to Abu Zubair and he presented to me two books (of hadeeth). So I scrutinised them and I said to myself: maybe I should verify them with him, So I asked him, 'did you hear these from Jaabir?' and he replied, 'some of them I heard and some of them I narrate (haddathtu).' I said, 'let me know which ones you heard' so he told me."'

Then adh-Dhahabee said, "and in Saheeh Muslim are a number of ahaadeeth in which Abu Zubair did not make clear his hearing from Jaabir, and neither are they via the route of Laith bin Sa`d. So there occurs in the heart some (aversion to them)."

Ibn Hajr said in 'at-Taqreeb', about Abu Zubair, "trustworthy, except that he was a mudallis". And he lists him amongst the third degree of mudalliseen in his book, 'Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen' (pg.15) and said, "famous for tadlees....and an-Nasaa`ee and others declared him as a mudallis." And in the introduction to this book he said, in explanation of the categories, "third: those who frequently relate via tadlees. So the Imaams do not rely upon their ahaadeeth except when they make clear that they heard what they narrate. And from the Imaams of hadeeth are those that reject their ahaadeeth altogether, and from them are those that accept all of their ahaadeeth. For example, Abu Zubair."

I say: and what is correct is the first opinion, and that is accepting what they make clear that they heard, and upon this are the majority of the scholars....

So in conclusion: every hadeeth that Abu Zubair narrates from Jaabir or others with the wording 'an' and the likes, and it is not from the relation of Laith bin Sa`d - then it is necessary to stop depending upon it, until his hearing of the hadeeth is made clear, or we find a witness to the hadeeth in which case it is depended upon."

Then while reading the biography of Imaam Ahmad in 'Siyar A`laam an-Nubalaa' (11/234) with its footnotes by the Muhaddith Shu`ayb al-Arna`oot, he comments on an isnaad containing Abu Zubair, "Its narrators are trustworthy, but in it is the tadlees of Muhammad bin Muslim Abu Zubair....and despite this al-Haakim declared it saheeh (4/96) and adh-Dhahabee agreed."

{3} After what had preceded I would like to make clear to the readers the hypocrisy of Hasan Saqqaaf, where he criticises Shaykh al-Albaanee for weakening ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, even though he has a precedent in this from the early muhadditheen., and then goes and himself weakens tens of ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim, which contradict his corrupt belief, having no precedent in most of them except with his shaykh in misguidance, Zaahid al-Kawtharee.

Many of these ahaadeeth are related by both Bukhaaree and Muslim! These type of ahaadeeth being considered by the Scholars of Hadeeth as being the most authentic type of hadeeth. Not only this but he goes to the added length of declaring 3 ahaadeeth in Muslim maudu' (fabricated)! So here are examples taken from Saqqaafs footnotes to 'Daf` Shubah at-Tashbeeh':

"1) The hadeeth of the slave girl related by Muslim in which the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, asks the question, 'where is Allaah?'. Saqqaaf states (pg.187), 'I am totally sure and supremely confident that the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, did not say, "where is Allaah?"'

The hadeeth of Abu Musa (RA) related by Muslim, 'Indeed Allaah does not sleep and does not need to sleep' uptil the point the he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, 'his veil is light, if he were to unveil it....'. Saqqaaf says (pg.102), 'this is a shaadh (irregular) relation.'

The hadeeth of Abu Hurayra in Saheeh Muslim, "Allaah created the dirt on Saturday...". Saqqaaf says (pg.51), 'and this hadeeth contains these feeble sentences which indicate that our Master, the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, did not speak them.'!

The hadeeth of ibn Mas`ud in Bukhaaree and Muslim, 'a man from the Jews came to the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, and said, "O Muhammad! Indeed Allaah will place the heavens upon one Finger...."' And in some of it's wording, 'so the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, laughed in amazement and affirmation of what he said.' Saqqaaf says, 'this is an invalid mistake' (wahm baatil)

The hadeeth of ibn Umar in the Two Saheehs, 'Allaah, Azza wa Jal, will fold up the the heavens on the Day of Judgement with His Hand...' And the hadeeth of Abdullaah bin Umru in Muslim, '...and Both His Hands are Right Hands...'. Saqqaaf says (pg. 208), 'These two narrations destroy each other, because they are from the work of the narrator.'

The hadeeth of Abu Sa`eed al-Kudree (in Bukhaaree), 'Allaah says, "O Adam!" So he says, "Labbaik wa Sa`daik". So He calls with a Voice.....' Saqqaaf says (pg.250), 'it is from the work of the narrator' and discredits it because it is 'a singularly narrated hadeeth (khabr aahaad)'

The hadeeth of ibn Abbaas in Saheeh Muslim, 'the Muslims did not use to look at Abu Sufyaan or sit with him.' Saqqaaf says, 'this is a fabricated hadeeth, and is one of three fabricated ahaadeeth in Saheeh Muslim'!

The hadeeth in the Two Saheehs, 'until The Lord of Honour/Glory places His Foot (on the Hellfire)' Saqqaaf says, 'from those that have been ruled to be irregular (shaadh) and the rejected wording, "until He place His Foot"'

The hadeeth of Anas in Saheeh Muslim, 'a man asked the Prophet: O Messenger of Allaah! Where is my father? He said, "in the Fire" So when the man made ready to leave the Prophet called him and said, "indeed your father and my father are in the fire.' Saqqaaf says in 'Ilqaam al-Hujr' (pg. 74), 'this hadeeth with this wording is shaadh'

The hadeeth of Abu Hurayra in Saheeh Muslim, 'I sought permission from my Lord that I may seek forgiveness for my mother, but He did not allow me....' Saqqaaf says in 'Ilhaam al-Hujr' (pg.71), 'it is not possible from any perspective to seek evidence with this shaadh hadeeth,'"

[Taken from "as-Sawaa`iq wa ash-Shuhub" (pg. 199+) of Shaikh Abu Wadaa`ah al-Atharee, summarised]

So beware of these people that play about with the religion of Allaah, and twist and distort the texts to suit there own deviant desires. And we seek refuge with Allaah from them, and their recompense lies with Him.

{5} Marfoo' (raised) - it means a hadeeth that attributed back to the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, as opposed to Mawqoof - meaning a hadeeth attributed back to the Companion only.

{6} He is...

{7} At this point I would like to make clear a very subtle point in the Science of Hadeeth. And that is that a hadeeth which is related as mu`allaq in a book of hadeeth (i.e without an isnaad, or with the isnaad at the end of the collector missing) is not said to be 'reported' by that collector.

So the above hadeeth in question IS found in 'Sharhus Sunnah' (1/263), but it is found as a mu`allaq narration with the isnaad at the end of the collector missing, so it is not 'reported' in Sharhus Sunnah' as Shaykh al-Albaanee originally said and Shaykh Ali endorses above. All that is 'reported' in 'Sharhus Sunnah' is the mursal hadeeth of Hasan al-Basri as mentioned above. For this reason Shaykh Ali Hasan says in 'al-Eeqaaf' (pg.11), "...so how is it said for something that does not have an isnaad: 'reported by (rawaahu)..'?" and then adds a footnote,

"And in this is a reply to what has troubled some of the brothers, over the hadeeth of ibn Mas`ud: 'and every verse has an inward and outward aspect' where I made clear in 'al-Anwaar al-Kaashifah' (pg.45) over the issue of it being reported in 'Sharhus Sunnah', and our Shaikh not coming across it, that this was correct. For he (al-Baghawee) mentions it without his isnaad, so is this called 'reporting' (riwaaya)? And as for the ta`leeq of Bukhaaree then its condition is different...

And Allaah the Most High knows best.

{8} This is his in depth checking to the ahaadeeth contained in 'Manar as-Sabeel' one of the standard works of Hanbali fiqh. Printed in 9 volumes.

{9} This is his checking to the ahaadeeth contained in 'the Lawful and Prohibited in Islam' by Yusuf al-Qaradhawi which contains many da`eef ahaadeeth.

{10} The full hadeeth is, "The Friday prayer is an obligatory duty upon every Muslim in congregation, except for four: a slave, a woman, a child, and an ill person."

And it is saheeh as stated in 'al-Irwaa' (3/54 no.592). See also 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.3111) and 'Saheeh Abu Daawood' (no.978).

{11} Munqati` (discontinuous) - that type of isnaad in which a link is missing, usually the missing link being before a Taabi`ee.

{12} Mursal - that type of isnaad in which a link is missing, usually the missing link is between the Taabi`ee and the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.

{13} Thiqah - refers to that type of narrator who is both precise and reliable.

{14} Maqbool (accepted) - refers to that type of narrator whose narration is accepted only of what he narrates is supported by other narrations, or isnaads.

{15} See 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.3112) where al-Albaanee gives the hadeeth the verdict of hasan, and refers the reader to 'Mishkaat' (no.1375) and 'al-Irwaa' (no.593)!!

{16} See 'as-Saheehah' (no. 201) where he says, "and I got deceived by their verdicts on this hadeeth when I did the ta`leeq upon 'Mishkaat' - and the ta`leeq was done in haste..."

{17}See 'Adaab az-Zifaaf' (pg.43 fn.1) where Shaikh al-Albaanee says while discussing this hadeeth, "Hasan hadeeth, related by Abu Daawood in his 'Sunan' (2/192-193) via two routes. And Ahmad, at-Tahaawee, and al-Bayhaqi relate one of them, and at-Tirmidhee and others authenticate it. And in this is a problem as I have explained in 'Da`eef Sunan Abu Daawood' (no.29). But the text of the first hadeeth, and it is this one, has two witnesses which al-Haythami relates in 'al-Majma`' (5/156), and due to this I declared it hasan...."

{18}And it is saheeh. See 'as-Saheehah' (no.772) for detailed documentation.

Ummu Sufyaan
01-04-2009, 09:43 AM

Unveiling the Lies of Saqqaaf Part 1:
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

21/33: Saqqaaf tries to show that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth of Abu Dharr,
'If you want to fast, then fast in the white shining nights of the 13th, 14th and 15th'

by saying "Da`eef" in 'Da`eef an-Nasa`ee' (pg.84) and his notes upon 'ibn Khuzaimah' (no.2127) saying "Saheeh" in 'Saheeh al-Jaami' (no.1448) and also 'Saheeh an-Nasaa`ee' (no.4021)

(The author of 'Albani Unveiled states: "NB al-Albani mentioned this hadeeth in 'Saheeh' and 'Da`eef an-Nasa`i', which proves he is unaware of what he is classifying, how inept!")

But if we were to investigate the works of al-Albaanee we would find that only the accusers are the ones guilty of ineptitude!

al-Albaanee said in 'Saheeh an-Nasaa`ee' (no.4021), "from Umar (RA), (transliteration), 'fa ayna anta `anil beedi al-garri thalaatha ashrata....'...."
And in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa`ee' (pg84 no.145), "from ibn Hawtaqiyyah who said, 'my father said, "and Arab came to the Prophet....(transliteration), 'in kunta saa'iman fa `alayka bil garril beedi, thalaatha ashrata...'.." And refers the reader to his footnote upon 'ibn Khuzaimah' (no.2127). Then he explains that the statement in the isnaad "from my father" is incorrect and the correct statement is "from Abu Dharr".

And in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa`ee' (pg84 no.146), "from Musa bin Talha, (transliteration), 'fa hallaa thalaatha al-beedi, thalaatha ashrata...'...."
Consider this blatant slander! For these three hadeeth in 'Saheeh' and 'Da`eef an-Nasaa`ee' are three different texts, with three different isnaads from three different companions. Also the context surrounding this statement are worded very differently in all three hadeeth!

22/36: Saqqaaf claimed al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,
'Whoever buys a carpet to sit on, he has three days to keep it or return it with a cup of dates that are not brownish in colour.'

by weakening the '3 day' part in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa`ee' (pg.186) and by correcting the hadeeth including the '3 day' part in 'Saheehul Jaami' (no.5804)

al-Albaanee said in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa'ee' (pg.186 no.307), "saheeh - the likes (of it is related in Bukhaari and Muslim) without the '3 days'" and refers the reader to 'Ahaadeeth al-buyu'
And he said in 'Saheehul Jaami' (no.5928), "saheeh" and refers the reader to 'Ahaadeeth al-Buyu'

So there is no contradiction here whatsoever!

23/37: Saqqaaf claimed that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth,
"Whosoever catches a single rak`ah of the Friday prayer has caught (the whole prayer)"

by saying in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa`ee' (pg.49 no78), "shaadh[ 1] where Friday is mentioned." and by saying in 'al-Irwaa' (3/84 no. 622), "saheeh" to whole hadeeth.

al-Albaanee said in 'Da`eef an-Nasaa'ee' (pg 49, no.78), "shaadh with the mention of Friday, and what is preserved is 'prayer' (in the place of Friday) as in 'Saheeh an-Nasaa`ee' (539-542). [2]"

And in 'al-Irwaa' (3/84 no.622), "Saheeh.....but the saying 'Friday', is shaadh, and what is preserved is 'Prayer' as I shall explain insha`Allaah..." (what follows is 6 pages of explanation)

So again there is no contradiction.

24/38: Saqqaaf states that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Qanaan bin Abdullaah an-Nahny
by saying in 'as-Saheehah' (3/481), 'Qanaan is hasan' and saying in 'ad-Da`eefah' (4/282), 'there is weakness in him.'

al-Albaanee said in 'ad-Da`eefah' (4/282), ".....and this isnaad is weak, Abu Ubaidah did not hear from his father.

And in this Qanaan is weakness."

So what is clear is that the Shaykh did not use Qanaan as the (sole) reason for declaring the sanad weak

And in 'as-Saheehah' (3/481), "...and Qanaan is hasan in hadeeth."

Again where is the contradiction as Hasan means that there is weakness. And al-Albaanee did not use Qanaan as the (sole) reason for declaring the sanad weak in 'ad-Da`eefah'.

25/40: Saqqaaf states that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Utba ibn Hamid al-Dhabi, by declaring a sanad containing him da`eef in 'al-Irwaa' and hasan in 'as-Saheehah'.

al-Albaanee states in 'al-Irwaa' (5/237), "this isnaad is weak having three weaknesses:
1) Yahya bin Abee Yahya al-Hunaa`ee who is unknown...
2) The weakness of Utba al-Dhabi - al-Haafidh said, 'truthful but has errors (lahu awhaam)'
3) Isma`eel bin Ayaash is weak except for when he narrates from the narrators of Shaam...."
And declares the sanad da`eef.

In 'as-Saheehah' (2/432) he says about Utba bin Hamid, "truthful, but he has errors (lahu Awhaam)" and declares the sanad containing him as being hasan.
So again where is the contradiction as declaring the sanad as hasan due to Utba bin Haamid in 'as-Saheehah' is a clear statement that there is a weakness in him that prevents the sanad from being saheeh. And in 'al-Irwaa' this weakness added to the other two weaknesses makes the sanad there da`eef!

26/41: Saqqaaf claims contradiction over the narrator Hishaam bin Sa`d with the following statements of the shaykh:
al-Albaanee says in 'as-Saheehah' (1/325), "trustworthy, hasan in hadeeth"
And in 'al-Irwaa' (1/283) he says, "but in this Hisham is weakness, arising from his memorisation"

So again where is the contradiction, as saying hasan means that there is a weakness that prevents the narrator from being saheeh.

27/43: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the narratorAli bin Sa`eed al-Raazi, by saying in 'Irwaa' (7/13), "they have said nothing good about al-Raazi" and by saying in 'as-Saheehah' about a sanad containing al-Raazi, "this is a good sanad and the narrators are trustworthy."

al-Albaanee said in 'Irwaa' (7/13), "I say: and as for al-Raazi they have spoken about him (takallamoo feehee), and between him and al-Munkadir (a narrator) are three people for whom I have not found a biography."

Compare this with the translation given above!

And in 'as-Saheehah' (4/25) he said, "...and this sanad is hasan, its narrators are trustworthy, and Ali al-Raazi has speech (kalaam) about him arising from his memorisation." (he uses this sanad as a support for the sanad of the main hadeeth and says), "in conclusion the hadeeth is affirmed by the gathering of the two routes and its least state is hasan, and Allaah knows best." [3]
So see again how Saqqaaf quotes only half the statement...cutting up the words of al-Albaanee to try and force a contradiction where there is no contradiction, for in both the quotes above the Shaykh reiterates the same criticism for Sa`eed al-Raazi.

28/47: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the narrator al-Ijlaa bin Abdullaah al-Kufi
by saying in 'al-Irwaa' (8/7), "ibn Abdullaah al-Kufi who is truthful" and by saying in 'ad-Da'eefah' (4/71), "ibn Abdullaah has a weakness" and made him the reason for declaring the sanad weak.

al-Albaanee said in 'ad-Da`eefah' (4/71), "Ijlaa ibn Abdullaah has a weakness and in 'at-Taqreeb', 'he is truthful'...." And he mentions him as one of three reasons for declaring the sanad weak.

So see how again Saqqaaf quotes only half the statement, as is his habit! And see how he exaggerates trying to make the (non-existent) contradiction seem more severe by saying, "and made him the reason for declaring the sanad weak", when he is only one of three!

And in 'al-Irwaa' (8/7), "ibn Abdullaah al-Kufi who is truthful" [4]
Again there is no contradiction here whatsoever!

29/48: Saqqaaf claims that al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Abdullaah ibn Saalih by saying in 'Da`eefah' (4/302), "How could ibn Saalih be alright and his hadeeth be good, even though he made many mistakes and is of little awareness, which also made some fraudulent ahaadeeth enter his books, and he narrates them without knowing about them!". He did not mention Ibn Ma`een trusted him, or that he is one of Bukhaaris men.

And by saying in 'as-Saheehah' (2/406), "a good sanad in...." to a sanad containing ibn Saalih. And by saying in 'as-Saheehah', (3/229), "...ibn Saalih has said things which are unharmful with Allaahs help". And by saying in 'as-Saheehah' (4/647), "he is a proof with continuity"

The quote from 'ad-Da`eefah' (4/300) is correct, but yet again Saqqaaf lies for on the same page, al-Albaanee mentions that ibn Ma`een trusted him, by quoting from 'ad-Dua`faa' of adh-Dhahabee, "...and as for ibn Ma`een, then he had a good opinion of him."

The Shaykh said in 'as- Saheehah' (2/406), "a good sanad with follow-ups, (fee al-mutaabi'aat{5}) for its narrators are of Bukhaaree" And again Saqqaaf quotes only half the statement for the second half of the quote shows that the Shaikhs various statements are in conformity with one another. And here again the second lie of Saqqaaf become apparent for al-Albaanee did say that ibn Saalih is one of Bukhaarees men!

And in 'as-Saheehah' (3/229), "the isnaad of the hadeeth is good...and about Abdullaah ibn Saalih are words (said about him) that do not matter here insha`Allaah for the hadeeth has a witness....". Compare this with the translation of the same statement as presented above!

And in 'as-Saheehah' (4/647), "Abdullaah bin Saalih is from the Shuyukh of Bukhaaree and he is a proof with follow-ups (huwa hujjah `inda al-mutaabi'a)"

Then, while reading from 'ad-Da`eefah' (1/62 no.6) I came across another biography of ibn Saalih, through which any doubts that remain are cleared up, "as for ibn Saalih, then in him is a weakness - even though Bukhaaree narrates from him - for ibn Hibbaan said, 'he, in and of himself is truthful. But rejected things occurred in his hadeeth due to his neighbour. For I heard ibn Khuzaimah say, " there was between the two enmity. And his neighbour used to fabricate hadeeth against Shaykh ibn Saalih, and write them in handwriting that resembled the handwriting of ibn Saalih, and throw them into his house amongst his books. And Abdullaah (ibn Saalih) thought that it was his handwriting and therefore narrated them!"'"

This would explain why ibn Saalih is regarded as a proof only when what he narrates is followed up. And this explains why al-Albaanee declared the sanad in 'ad-Da`eefah' (3/229) to be good containing ibn Saalih because the hadeeth had a witness. And this also explains why al-Albaanee declared the sanad containing him as da`eef due to him in the aforementioned quote from 'ad-Da'eefah' (4/300 no.1821) for he begins the analysis by quoting the words of ibn Adee, "I do not know anyone other than Mu`aawiyah relating (this) from Raashid bin Sa`d and from him Abu Saalih (Abdullaah bin Saalih)". Meaning ibn Saalih is alone in this narration, having no follow-ups.

Again there is no contradiction here, just a lot of slanders! And in fact the above example shows the precision of the science of hadeeth, and the precision combined with the depth of understanding of Shaykh al-Albaanee in hadeeth, as compared to the total ignorance of Saqqaaf and his disciples!

Ummu Sufyaan
01-14-2009, 12:52 PM
Some Miscellaneous Points Taken From the First Volume of ‘Tanaaqadaatul Albaanee’ of Hasan Saqqaaf
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

Attacks on The Shaykh’s Literary Skills
Saqqaaf attempts to attack Shaykh al-Albaanee 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-Albaanee 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!

More Examples of The Shaykh’s Alleged Contradictions in Hadeeth Classification:
Saqqaaf brings 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 Imaam al-Dhahabee 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-Albaanee criticises or says that al-Haafidh as-Suyutee, 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-Albaanee 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-Haafidh 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:

30: Shaykh al-Albaanee 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.’[7]

But Abu Dawood reports in a summarised form. Abu Dawood says after mentioning one of the narrations of Wail bin Hujr, "al-Hasan bin Alee related to us, from Abu Waleed, from Zaa`ida from Aasim bin Kulaib, with its isnaad and its meaning. He said in it, ‘then he placed his right hand upon the back of his left hand and forearm’. And he said in it, ‘then I came after that at a time when it was very cold, and I saw the people with cloaks upon them moving their hands beneath their clothes due to the cold.’"

So you see that the hadeeth is via the route of Zaa`ida and he is ibn Qudaama. And the mention of the moving of the finger is well known in his relation.

And the one who knows the methodology of the scholars in summarising ahaadeeth and their narrations, and contents - specifically Imaam Muslim - knows the correctness of Shaikh al-Albaanee referring this hadeeth to Abu Dawood, and the invalidity of the saying of the ignoramuses!

And Imaam at-Tabaraanee related this hadeeth in its entirety in ‘al-Mu`jam al-Kabeer’ (no.82) via the route of Abu Dawood at-Tayaalisee from Zaa`ida. And in it is the mention of moving the finger. [8]}

31: 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) !!

32: Another alleged contradiction: Shaykh al-Albaanee placed a footnote regarding a hadeeth in ‘Mukhtasar al-`Uluww’ (p.98) stating that it was declared by al-Dhahabee to have reliable narrators, and by Ibn al-Qayyim to have a saheeh chain to the standard of al-Bukhaaree. 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 Albaanee 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- Bukhaaree (as stated by al-Dhahabee), and the reason for its weakness is just Fulaih bin Sulaimaan, about whom the scholars differ, some authenticating him, others disparaging him, with al-Bukhaaree and Muslim relying upon him. Hence al-Albaanee concludes that he is truthful with mistakes, so the isnaad has some slight weakness; however, the unacceptability of an additional wording of the hadeeth leads to the verdict of munkar.

Accusation of The Shaykhs Innovative Hadeeth Classification:
Next (p. 34), Saqqaaf seeks to criticise shaykh al-Albaani for dividing the ahaadeeth of the Four 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...?!!

33: Saqqaaf quotes (p. 46) the hadeeth of Ibn 'Umar,
"Allaah's Messenger, may Allaah bless him and grant him peace, forbade two kinds of eating: sitting at a table upon which wine is drunk, and that a person eats lying upon his face."
and the shaykh's declaration of its being weak in ‘al-Irwaa', and claims that it contradicts the shaykh's declaration of its being hasan in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’.

If Saqqaaf had actually quoted the wording of Ibn Maajah (no, 2716), everyone would have seen his fraudulence, since Ibn Maajah's wording is abbreviated, being only, "Allaah's Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade that a man should eat while lying upon his face" ! Further, the shaykh himself referred the reader of ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’ to the second checking of ‘Irwaa' al-Ghaleel’ (no. 1982), which shows clearly that there is no contradiction. In order to cover his tracks, instead of quoting the vol. and page no. of ‘al-Irwaa’ for the reader to compare, Saqqaaf quotes the reference as ‘as-Saheehah’ (no. 2394), i.e. a manuscript, so that the reader cannot compare the two texts and see the difference between them!

34: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth (pp. 46-47),

"One who repents from a sin is like one who has no sin"
and claims that shaykh al-Albaanee declares it weak in ‘ad-Da`eefah’, then contradicts himself by quoting it in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’.

However, what the shaykh quotes in ‘ad-Da`eefah’ (no. 615) is the hadeeth, "One who repents from a sin is like one who has no sin, and if Allaah loves a servant, then no sin harms him", then he says after speaking about its isnaad, "The first half of the hadeeth has witnesses from the hadeeth of 'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood and Abu Sa'eed al-Ansaari ..." and he says in conclusion, "... the hadeeth mentioned above is weak with this full wording, but its first part is hasan due to its combined chains ..."
And from the completeness of the deception of Saqqaaf is that he also fails to mention that in ‘Saheeh ibn Maajah’ (no.3467) the Shaykh declares the above hadeeth hasan and refers the reader to ‘ad-Da’eefah’ (no.615)!

35: He quotes the hadeeth (pp. 47-48),

"The accounts are three: an account which Allaah will not forgive..."
and says, "Al-Albaanee declares it weak in his checking of ‘Mishkaat’, ... then how strange and amazing that we find that he has mentioned it in his ‘as-Saheehah’ (4/560 no. 1927) !"

This is not strange at all since shaykh al-Albaanee does not declare it authentic in ‘as-Saheehah’ (no.1927), but rather uses it as a support for another hadeeth which begins, "Oppression is of three types: oppression which Allaah will not leave alone ...". Further, when the shaykh mentions the hadeeth of the accounts he says, "I have quoted it in ‘ad-Da`eefah’ (collection of weak ahaadeeth) and ‘Mishkaat’ (no. 5133)."

36: He quotes the hadeeth,
"Whoever cuts off from his brother for a year, it is like spilling his blood",
and mentions that shaykh al-Albaani declares its isnaad to contain weakness in ‘Mishkaat’ but declares it saheeh in ‘as-Saheehah’ (no. 928), and then Saqqaaf says, "And there he makes an excuse, where excuses will not benefit him" !! He has thus contradicted himself when he said on his final page that the shaykh had an excuse for ahaadeeth about which he changed his mind, and that he has overlooked these instances!! Hence, he is a liar in both these claims.

As for shaykh al-Albaanee, he says in ‘as-Saheehah’ (no. 928) after quoting the authentication of the hadeeth by al-Haakim, al-Dhahabee, al-I`raaqee and Ibn al-Wazeer, "It now appears to me to be like that, since all of its narrators except for the Companion are those of Muslim, and I had said in my notes on ‘Mishkaat’ (5032), ‘Its isnaad is weak’, and this was based upon the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in the biography of al-Waleed in ‘at-Taqreeb’, ‘Weak in hadeeth’. But the saying of Ibn Abi Haatim{9} in ‘Al- Jarh wat-Ta'deel’ (4/2/20) escaped him, `Abu Zur`ah was asked about him and he said, 'Reliable'.' So when I found this statement of his reliability from the like of this Imaam I relied upon it ... and based upon that I declared the hadeeth to be saheeh, and I turned back from my previous declaration of its weakness, and I have indicated this in my second checking of ‘Mishkaat’. Allaah knows best."

37: Saqqaaf quotes (p. 53) the hadeeth,
"It is enough sin for a person that he abandons one whom he feeds",
then claims that shaykh al-Albaanee contradicts himself by declaring it weak in ‘Ghaayat al-Maraam’ (no. 245), saying, "da`eef with this wording" and declaring it hasan in ‘al-Irwaa' (3/407) by saying, "so the hadeeth is hasan."
However, shaykh al-Albaanee quotes the hadeeth with its previous wording in ‘al-Irwaa' (no. 894) and says, "saheeh with other than this wording" and in ‘Ghaayat al-Maraam’, "da`eef with this wording", so where is the contradiction?!

Next, the shaykh, after quoting the hadeeth of Muslim, "It is enough sin for a person that he withholds from one whose provision he is in charge of", concludes what he says in ‘al-Irwaa' by providing a support for the narration and saying, "... so it may be used as a support, and the hadeeth is hasan."
Further, the shaykh himself, may Allaah protect him, says in ‘Ghaayat al-Maraam’ (no. 245) that a detailed discussion occurs in ‘al-Irwaa’, so how is there a contradiction between the two?

38: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth (p. 55),
"Most of the fasting of Allaah's Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was done on Saturday and Sunday ...",
and claims that the shaykh contradicts himself by declaring it saheeh in his (!) checking of ‘Ibn Khuzaimah’, and declaring it weak in ‘ad-Da`eefah’, whereas the shaykh himself explains in the last two lines of his words in ‘ad- Da`eefah’, "... and I did not notice this weakness in my notes upon ‘Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah’, so I declared its isnaad hasan, but what is correct is what I have established here, and Allaah knows best."

39: Saqqaaf quotes (pp. 56-57) the hadeeth,
"The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sacrificed two horned rams on the Day of Sacrifice, so when he turned them he said: I turn my face to the One who created the heavens ...",
and quotes the shaykh's declaration of its weakness in ‘Mishkaat’ and claims that what occurs in ‘al-Irwaa’ contradicts this saying, "He contradicts himself and declares the hadeeth hasan in ‘Irwaa' al-Ghaleel’ (4/351) ...!"
This is what the liar says, however they are two different ahaadeeth, both in text and isnaad, since the first is about five lines long and is narrated through Abu `Ayyaash from Jaabir, whereas the second is shorter, about two lines long, narrated through 'Abdur Rahmaan ibn Jaabir from his father.

40: He quotes (p. 34) the hadeeth of Abu Sa`eed al- Khudri,
"That the people will follow you and that men will come to you from the different areas of the earth seeking knowledge of the Religion, so when they come to you, treat them well",
and claims that the shaykh declared it saheeh in ‘as-Saheehah’ but contradicted himself by declaring it weak in ‘Mishkaat’.
Again, they are two separate hadeeth with different chains and wordings: the first, "The people will follow you ..." is declared weak by the shaykh in ‘Mishkaat’ (no. 215) and is reported by way of Abu Haaroon al-'Abdi from Abu Sa'eed; the second, "The Messenger of Allaah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised us regarding you ...", which the shaykh declared saheeh in ‘as-Saheehah’ (no. 280) is reported by way of Abu Nadrah from Abu Sa`eed.

41: Saqqaaf does the same with the hadeeth,

"This is the prayer for the houses",
claiming (p. 62) that shaykh al-Albaanee declares it weak in ‘Mishkaat’ but hasan in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’.
He does not, however, quote the text of the hadeeth in Ibn Maajah, and again they are two separate hadeeth, both in isnaad and text: the first (‘Mishkaat’ no.1182), "This is the prayer for the houses", is from Ka`b ibn `Ujrah; the second (‘Saheeh Sunan’ no.956), "Pray these two rak`ahs in your houses" is from Raafi` ibn Khadeej. The first has an unknown narrator in its chain while the second has a hasan chain, so where is the contradiction?!

42: He quotes (p. 65) the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah,
"He who catches a rak`ah of the Friday Prayer, let him join another one to it...",
quoting it in abbreviated form like this, then mentions that shaykh al-Albaanee declares it weak in ‘Mishkaat’ but saheeh in ‘al-Irwaa'.
However, the hadeeth with the full wording is not authentic, and the only part declared weak by the shaykh is the first part, i.e. the only part quoted by Saqqaaf. The shaykh clearly states in ‘al-Irwaa' (3/84-90), "In conclusion, the hadeeth with the mention of the Friday Prayer is saheeh from the hadeeth of Ibn `Umar, in marfoo` and mawqoof form, but not from the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah, and Allaah the Most High is the One who grants success."

43: He quotes the hadeeth (p. 69) of Mu`aadh,
"There are no two Muslims for whom three (children) die, except that Allaah enters them into Paradise ...",
and quotes that shaykh al-Albaanee says in ‘Miskhaat’, "It is reported by Ahmad in ‘al-Musnad’ and Ibn Maajah, and their isnaad is weak ...", then Saqqaaf declares that the shaykh contradicts himself by reporting it in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’.
However, shaykh al-Albaanee said directly after the previous quote, "... and there is a witness for the narration of Ibn Maajah in ‘al-Musnad’ (5/329) from `Ubaadah ibn as-Saamit" ! This is why the shaykh quotes it in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’ !

44: He quotes (pp. 69-70) the hadeeth of Shaqeeq ibn Salamah Abu Waa`il,
"I saw 'Uthmaan ibn `Affaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, making ablution ...",
and quotes shaykh al-Albaanee’s declaration of the weakness of the isnaad of this particular wording in his note on ‘Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah’, then says that the shaykh declares it authentic in ‘al-Irwaa’ and ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’ …..
... Whereas again, they are two different hadeeth in isnaad and text:
That of Ibn Khuzaimah, being reported from 'Aamir ibn Shaqeeq, who is somewhat weak, from Shaqeeq ibn Salamah from 'Uthmaan;
The narration in ‘al-Irwaa’ is by way of Humraan ibn Abaan from 'Uthmaan and is the narration of the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim.
The narration of Ibn Maajah is also different and is reported by way of 'Abdah ibn Abi Lubaabah from Shaqeeq ibn Salamah from 'Uthmaan in abridged form. Further, each of the three texts contains parts which are not found in the others.

45: Saqqaaf quotes the hadeeth of Ibn Mas`ood (p. 71),
"When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stood upon the minbar, we turned our faces towards him",
and quotes the shaykh as saying in ‘Mishkaat’, declaring the hadeeth weak due to Muhammad ibn al-Fadl, "... because he is accused of lying, he is accused of that by Imaam Ahmad, Ibn Ma'een and others ...", then says that the shaykh contradicts himself by quoting it in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami`’.
However, he fails to quote the completion of what the shaykh said in Mishkaat, "However, it appears that the meaning of the hadeeth is saheeh, refer to Fath al-Baari (332-333)." Further, what is referred to in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami' is a different isnaad and is reported in ‘Sunan Ibn Maajah’ from Thaabit !

46: He quotes (p. 73) the hadeeth,
"Have you not passed the valley of your people in drought, then passed by when it was springing up greenery?"
and says, "Al-Albaanee declares it weak in the checking of ‘Mishkaat’, saying, 'Its isnaad contains weakness, and some scholars declare it hasan.' Then the man contradicts himself and quotes the hadeeth in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami' ... so SubhaanAllaah!"
Where is the contradiction, since in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami', shaykh al-Albaanee declares it hasan - is a hasan hadeeth free from weakness? Furthermore, does the saying, "It contains weakness" mean necessarily that the hadeeth is weak ? May Allaah have mercy on Imaam al-Dhahabee who said, "... since the hasan is not free from some weakness, and if it were free from that, then it would be saheeh by agreement." [Not only this but the Shaykh when he discusses this hadeeth in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami’ refers the reader to ‘al-Mishkaat’ (no.5531)!]

47: The hadeeth of Samurah,
"Whoever associates with a polytheist and lives along with him, he is like him",
Saqqaaf declares it to be the subject of a contradiction, saying, "Al-Albaanee declares it saheeh in one place, putting it in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami', ... then I found that he declared it weak in another place in ‘Irwaa' al-Ghaleel’ (5/32 - 7 lines from the bottom of the page), saying, 'Abu Daawood reported it. I say: Its isnaad is weak' ..."
The truth is that it is actually declared hasan in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami' [and refers the reader to ‘as-Saheehah’ (no.2330)], and in ‘al-Irwaa' it is quoted as a support and the Shaykh declares it’s isnaad da’eef but quotes witnesses for it.
[In ‘as-Saheehah’ the shaykh quotes the hadeeth, declares it’s isnaad da’eef, mentions some witnesses for the hadeeth and concludes that the hadeeth is hasan. So there is again no contradiction here,]

48: Saqqaaf quotes (p. 97) the hadeeth,

"When one of you does an action, let him perform it well..."
This is all that he quotes from it, abridging it, then says, "Al-Albaanee declares it saheeh, quoting it in ‘Saheeh al-Jaami' with the wording, 'Indeed Allaah loves that when one of you does an action, he does it well.' Then he contradicts himself and judges it to be weak in ‘Da'eef al-Jaami' ... so complaint is only to Allaah"!!!
The truth is that this person who accuses shaykh al-Albaanee of abridging sayings of the scholars to take what suits him is himself the true culprit. In this case he omits words from the beginning of the hadeeth first quoted to give the impression that the two are a single hadeeth, whereas they are two separate hadeeth in wording and in chain of narration.
Regarding the isnaad, the hadeeth declared to have weakness is reported in mursal form from 'Ataa' in ‘Tabaqaat Ibn Sa'd’, and the other hadeeth has a number of chains and supports which strengthen it, as has been fully explained by the shaykh in ‘as-Saheehah’ (no. 1113).
Regarding the text, the narration declared weak has an addition, "... since it is something which will console one who suffers misfortune", which has no support. Saqqaaf cuts out these words in order to make his false allegation.

49: Saqqaaf quotes (p. 112) the hadeeth of 'Uqbah,

"Whoever learns archery and then abandons it has disobeyed me" and says, "In one version: 'then he is not from us.'
It is reported by Ibn Maajah, and al-Albaanee declares the hadeeth saheeh in ‘Saheeh Ibn Maajah’, saying, 'Saheeh with the wording: then he is not from us.' Then I find him declaring the hadeeth weak in ‘Da'eef al-Jaami', saying: "da`eef..."
What is very clear from the shaykh's words, "Saheeh with the wording: 'then he is not from us'" is the weakness of the wording, "then he has disobeyed me", which is just what the shaykh says in ‘Da`eef al- Jaami', so there is no contradiction!
This is a mere glimpse of Saqqaaf's distortions ignorance and false statements.
"Woe to you, O ignorant innovators! You have wasted our time in having to follow up your foolishness and deceptions! Has not the time come for you to repent and turn back?"
May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad, His Messenger and slave, and his family and companions, and all those who follow his way after him.

{1} Shaadh (odd/irregular) according to ash-Shaafi’ee it means, "a hadeeth reported by a trustworthy person, but goes against the narration of a person more reliable than him. It does not include a hadeeth which is unique in it’s contents and is not narrated by someone else."
{2} And in ‘Saheeh an-Nasaa`ee’ (no.543), "the one who catches a rak`ah of the Friday prayer or other than it, then his prayer is completed"
{3} In ‘as-Saheehah’ (4/650) al-Albaanee says about Sa`eed al-Raazi, "and he is a well known haafidh, biographies of him are found in ‘al-Meezaan’ and ‘al-Lisaan’ and others. And he has speech about him that does not lower his hadeeth from the ranking of hasan."
{4} For similar biographies of him see also, ‘as-Saheehah’ (3/85, 4/211,247,296)
{5} "al-Mutaabi`aat" (follow-ups). Meaning other chains of narration are sought to support the chain of narration in question. In this case research is made into the sanad to see if someone else reports from the same narrator that ibn Saalih reports from, and hence strengthen his report.
{6} Many scholars have refuted this work and other works of Saqqaaf quoting many, many examples of his lies and distortions. We will provide a list of these books at the end inshaa`Allaah. This section is taken entirely from ‘Anwaar al-Kaashifah’ of Shaykh Ali Hasan with some alteration in the order of points and some summary based upon a translation by Daawood Burbank. The footnotes have been added by myself.
{7} Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee refers this hadeeth of Wa`il bin Hujr to Abu Dawood (no.772 in the chapter of ‘Raising Hands’) in his takhreej to the book, ‘Blind Following of Madhabs’ and the text was, "…then he closed his fingers and made a ring, then he raised his finger and I saw him moving it and making du’a with it; then I came at a time when it was cold and so I saw the people with cloaks upon them moving their hands beneath the clothes due to the cold."
Then I looked in the takhreej to ‘Zaad al-Ma`aad’ of Ibn al-Qayyim by the scholars Shu`ayb and Abd al-Qaadir al-Arna`oot (1/255 fn.2) and they referred the hadeeth to Abu Dawood amongst others (no.957).
Then I looked into ‘Awn al-Ma`bood’ (commentary to Abu Dawood) of al-Adheemabaadee under the chapter of pointing the finger, and he to stated this hadeeth to be related by Abu Daawood.
{8} Likewise see a similar discussion by Shaykh Khaalid al-Inbaree in his ‘Iftiraa`aat as-Saqqaaf al-Atheem’ (pp16-17).
{9} He is His work ‘Jarh wat Ta`deel’ is a large biographical work.

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Silver Pearl
01-14-2009, 01:21 PM

Jazaakillaah khayran.

Did Abu Rumaysah write to Shaykh Saqaaf addressing this? And is this refutation in answer to the 4 volume book he wrote?

Ummu Sufyaan
01-15-2009, 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by Silver Pearl

Jazaakillaah khayran.
wa iyyaki

Did Abu Rumaysah write to Shaykh Saqaaf addressing this?
im not sure

And is this refutation in answer to the 4 volume book he wrote?
no, not all of it. most of what ive posted is a refutation to the book 'al-Albani Unveiled' where (as far as i have understood) the author of that book quotes parts of hasan shaqqafs four volume book that your referring too...i hope that makes sense lol :-[

Ummu Sufyaan
01-15-2009, 08:26 AM

Some Miscellaneous Examples of Errors Taken From ‘Albani Unveiled
by Brother Abû Rumaysah

50: Over the hadeeth,
"The Prophet (SAW) used to point with his finger (in tashahhud) and he would not move it" [Abu Daawood]
The author concludes his ‘analysis’ by saying, "Also according to Jamal Zarabozo’s quotation from al-Albani’s checking of Mishkaat ul-Masabih this same hadeeth was of the rank of hasan, and not da`eef as he said in ‘Da`eef Abi Dawood (no.175); is this not a grave contradiction?...."(pg.30 of ‘Albani Unveiled’)

In ‘Da`eef Abu Dawood’ (no. 207 of my edition), al-Albaanee says about the hadeeth, "Shaadh with the wording, ‘and he did not move it’. See ‘Mishkaat’ (912), and ‘Da`eef Sunan an-Nasa’ee (67/1270)"

So where is the contradiction as al-Albaanee refers the reader to his comments upon ‘al-Mishkaat’ and in al-Mishkaat he says, "the wording ‘he would not move it’ is shaadh in my view."!!

51: In the chapter on ‘The placing of hands in prayer’ the author of ‘Albani Unveiled’ mention the hadeeth of ibn Jareer al-Dabbi from his father who said,

"I saw Ali holding his left arm with his right on the wrist, above the navel"
and quotes al-Albaanee saying in ‘The Prophets Prayer Described’ (pg 102-103), "this isnaad is candidate for the rank of hasan. Bayhaqi (1/301) firmly designated it to be hasan, and Bukhari (1/301) designated it with certainty while giving it an abridged, ta’leeq form."

The author then goes on to say (pg.31), " al-Albani claimed it was found in Bukhari (1/301), but when I examined the Sahih al-Bukhari (vol1, chapt 6, no 707, pg, 396, English ed.), I did not find the narration of ibn Jarir al-Dabbi (May Allaah be pleased with him) but instead a hadeeth from Sahl ibn Sa`ad....."

This is what the author states, betraying his ignorance of the science of hadeeth! For he looks for a hadeeth in the main text of Bukhaaree, but had he known what the term "ta`leeq" meant he would have found the statement al-Albaanee was referring to!

The ta’leeq form of a hadeeth is when the collector omits the whole isnaad or part of the isnaad on his end and quotes only the text of the hadeeth. This type of narration is commonly found in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree in his chapter headings. Secondly al-Albaanee said that Imaam Bukhaaree mentioned it in abridged form. So what we are looking for is a summary of the above hadeeth, occurring in a chapter heading or the likes.

The statement of Ali occurs in the Book of ‘Actions While Praying’ (2/160) in the first chapter that "Ali used to place his right hand upon his left...."

In ‘Fath al-Baaree’ (2/93) ibn Hajr makes clear that this statement is abridged from the hadeeth of ibn Jarir ad-Dabbi from his father, "that when Ali stood for prayer, he would make takbeer and place his right hand upon his left, and he remained like that until he made ruku’..." related by Muslim.
And as al-Albaanee states the wording of this hadeeth with al-Bayhaqi (1/301) is as given at the beginning of this point.

Ummu Sufyaan
01-15-2009, 08:29 AM
for related topics, check this link out too...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2011, 06:24 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2011, 09:02 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 09:02 PM


Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!