:sl:
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.
Conclusion
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?
-----------------------
Footnotes:
{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.