Al-Albani's Weakening of Someof Imam Bukhari's and Muslim's Ahadith.
has said in "Sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahaweeah, pg. 27-28" (8th edition,
Maktab al-Islami) by Shaykh Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi (Rahimahullah), that
any Hadith 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. But he clearly contradicts himself, since
he has weakened Ahadith from Bukhari and Muslim himself! Now let us consider
this information in the light of elaboration :-
No. 1: (*Pg. 10 No.1)
Hadith: The Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah says I will be an opponent to 3 persons on the day of resurrection: (a) One who makes a covenant in my Name but he proves treacherous, (b) One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price (c) And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him, but doesn't pay him his wages." [Bukhari no 2114-Arabic version, or see the English version 3/430 pg 236].
Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4/111 No.4054". Little does he know that this Hadith has been narrated by Ahmad and Bukhari from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!
2: (*Pg. 10 No.2)
Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 6/64 No.6222." Although this Hadith has been narrated by Imam's Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nisai and Ibn Majah from Jaabir (Allah be pleased with him)!!
3: (*Pg. 10 No.3)
Al-Albani claims that this Hadith is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/197 No.2005." Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!
4: (*Pg. 10 No.4)
Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 1/213 No.718." Although it is narrated by Muslim and Ahmad from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him)!!
5: (*Pg. 11 No.5)
Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/14 No.1425." Although it has been narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)!!
6: (*Pg. 11 No.6)
Al-Albani claims it is DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/192 No.1986." Although it has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Abu Dawood from Abi Sayyed (Allah be pleased with him)!!
7: (*Pg. 11 No.7)
Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/233 No.5772." NB- The word used by Muslim is MEMORIZED and not READ as al-Albani claimed; what an awful mistake! This Hadith has been narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Nisai from Abi Darda (Allah be pleased with him)!! (Also recorded by Imam Nawawi in "Riyadh us-Saliheen, 2/1021" of the English ed'n).
8: (*Pg. 11 No.8)
But Al-Albani said that this Hadith was DAEEF in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 4/208 No.4489." Although it has been narrated by Bukhari from Sahl ibn Sa'ad (Allah be pleased with him)!!!
Shaykh Saqqaf said: "This is only anger from anguish, little from a lot and if it wasn't for the fear of lengthening and boring the reader, I would have mentioned many other examples from al-Albani's books whilst reading them. Imagine what I would have found if I had traced everything he wrote?"
INADEQUACY IN RESEARCH (*Vol. 1 pg. 20)
9 : (* Pg. 20 No. 1)
Saqqaf said: "Ridiculous! If this al-Albani was any scholar of Islam, then he would have known that this Hadith can be found in "Sunan al-Bayhaqi, 7/121" :- Narrated by Abu Sayyed ibn Abi Amarah, who said that Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqoob who said to us that Ahmad ibn Abdal Hamid said that Abu Usama from Sufyan from Salma ibn Kahil from Mu'awiya ibn Soayd who said, 'I found this in my fathers book from Ali (Allah be pleased with him).'"
10 : (* Pg. 21 No.2)
Saqqaf said: "This is outrageously wrong for surely this is mentioned in 'Fatawa al-Shaykh ibn Taymiyya al-Misriyah (3/295)': 'Harb said Obaidullah ibn Mu'az said to us, my father said to me that Soayd from Jiballa who heard Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) as saying: Kisses are usury.' And these narrators are all authentic according to Ibn Taymiyya!"
: (* Pg. 21 No.3)
Saqqaf said: "The great scholar has spoken! Wrongly as usual. I wish to say to this fraud that if he is seriously interested in finding this Hadith we suggest he looks in the chapter entitled 'Al-Khusama fi al-Qur'an' from Sharh-us-Sunnah (1/262), and narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (No.74), Abu Ya'ala in his Musnad (No.5403), Tahawi in Sharh al-Mushkil al-Athar (4/172), Bazzar (3/90 Kashf al-Asrar) and Haythami has mentioned it in Majmoo'a al-Zawaid (7/152) and he has ascribed it to Bazzar, Abu Ya'ala and Tabarani in al-Awsat who said that the narrators are trustworthy."
: (* Pg. 22 No.4)
Saqqaf said: "Please don't encourage the public to fall into the void of ignorance which you have tumbled into! If you check Mustadrak al-Hakim (2/12) you will find it! This proves that you are unskilled at using book indexes and the memorization of Hadith!"
: (* Pg. 23)
We suggest you look in the book "Hilya , 4/73!"
: (*Pg. 23 No.5)
Shaykh Saqqaf: "That is what you say! It is not like that, for surely he is mentioned in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib of Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (12/19 Dar al-Fikr edition) by the nickname Abu Ayoob al-Maraagi!!
FURTHER EXAMPLES OF AL-ALBANI'S CONTRADICTIONS
: (* Pg. 7)
Al-Albani said in "Silsilah al-Daeefa, 3/492", after referring this Hadith to Imam Ahmad (2/295) and others: "I say this is a weak sanad, Daraqutni has said 'Qatada from Abu Maymoona from Abu Hurayra: Unknown, and it is to be discarded.'" Al-Albani then said on the same page: "Notice, a slapdash has happened with Suyuti and Munawi when they came across this Hadith, and I have also shown in a previous reference, No.571, that al-Ghimari was also wrong for mentioning it in al-Kanz."
But in reality it is al-Albani who has become slapdashed, because he has made a big contradiction by using this same sanad in "Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/238" where he says, "Classified by Ahmad (2/295), al-Hakim . . . from Qatada from Abu Maymoona, and he is trusted as in the book 'al-Taqreeb', and Hakim said: 'A Sahih sanad', and al-Dhahabi agreed with Hakim!
So, by Allah glance at this mistake! Who do you think is wrong, the Muhaddith al-Ghimari (also Suyuti and Munawi) or al-Albani?
: (* Pg. 27 No.3)
The truth is that Abu Haatim al-Razi said in the book 'al-Jarh wa-Taadeel, 8/45': "A good narrator but not that strong. . ." So note that al-Albani has removed the phrase "A good narrator !"
NB-(al-Albani has made many of the Hadith which forbid Gold to women to be Sahih, in fact other scholars have declared these Hadith to be daeef and abrogated by other Sahih Hadith which allow the wearing of gold by women. One of the well known Shaykh's of the "Salafiyya" - Yusuf al-Qardawi said in his book: 'Islamic awakening between rejection and extremism, pg. 85: "In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani has come out with an opinion, different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold, which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only believes that the isnad of these Ahadith is authentic, but that they have not been revoked. So, he believes, the Ahadith prohibit gold rings and earrings."
So who is the one who violates the ijma of the Ummah with his extreme opinions?!)
: (* Pg. 37 No.1)
Al-Albani declared this Hadith to be Daeef in his checking of "Mishkat al-Masabih, 2/981, 3rd edition, Beirut, 1405 A.H; Maktab al-Islami", where he says: "This man (the narrator) is reliable, but the isnad is broken or incomplete for he did not hear it directly from his father."
Al-Albani then contradicts himself in the book "Ghayatul Maram Takhreej Ahadith al-Halal wal Haram, No.261, pg. 164, 3rd Edn, Maktab al-Islami, 1405 A.H"; by saying it is SAHIH!!!
: (* Pg. 37 No.2)
: (* Pg. 38 No.3)
So beware o wise men!
: (* Pg. 38 No.4)
He then contradicts himself in "Sahihah 4/156" where he makes the sanad DAEEF by saying: "The narrators in the sanad are all Bukhari's (i.e.; used by Imam al-Bukhari) men, except for al-Muharrar who is one of the men of Nisai and Ibn Majah only. He was not trusted accept by Ibn Hibban, and that's why al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar did not trust him, Instead he only said 'accepted!'"
So beware of this fraud!
: (* Pg. 39 No.5)
: (* Pg. 39 No.6)
Al-Albani stated that this Hadith was DAEEF in his checking of "Mishkat, 1/64", but he then contradicts himself by saying that this Hadith is HASAN in "Ghayatul Maram, pg. 141"!!
(* Pg. 40 No.7)
Al-Albani said that this sanad was DAEEF in "Mishkat 1/117." He then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 1/345 No.201"!!!
So take a glance dear reader!
: (* Pg. 40 No.8)
Al-Albani corrected this Hadith in "Sahih al-Jami al-Sagheer wa Ziyadatuh, 3/71 No.3056" by saying it was HASAN in the checking of "Al-Targhib 1/91" [Also said to be hasan in the English translation of 'The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding, pg. 11]. He then makes an obvious contradiction by saying that the same Hadith was DAEEF in his checking of "Mishkatul-Masabih, 1/144 No.464" and says that the narrators are trustworthy but the chain is broken between al-hasan al-Basri and Ammar (Allah be pleased with him) as al-Mundhiri had said in al-Targhib (1/91)!!
: (* Pg. 42 No.10)
Al-Albani has weakened it in "Mishkat, 1/426 No.1351", and then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in "Irwa al-Ghalil, 3/14"!!
: (* Pg. 43 No.12)
An example of al-Albani praising someone in one place and then disparaging him in another place in his books
: (* Pg. 32)
Al-Albani thus praises Shaykh al-Azami in the above mentioned book; but then makes a contradiction in the introduction to 'Adaab uz Zufaaf (The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding), new edition page 8', where he said: "Al-Ansari has used in the end of his letter, one of the enemies of the Sunnah, Hadith and Tawhid, who is famous for that, is Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-Azami. . . . . For his cowardliness and lack of scholarly deduction. . . . ."
NB - (The above quotation from Adaab uz Zufaaf is not found in the English translation by his supporters, which shows that they deliberately avoided translating certain parts of the whole work).
So have a glance at this!
SELECTED TRANSLATIONS FROM VOLUME 2
: (* Pg. 143 No.1)
Al-Albani said that this Hadith was SAHIH in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 6/105 No.6978", and then he astonishingly contradicts himself by saying it is DAEEF in "Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, pg. 164 No.287."
So beware of this mess!
: (* Pg. 144 No.2)
Al-Albani acknowledged its weakness in "Sahih Ibn Khuzaima" by saying that the sanad was DAEEF, but then contradicts himself by saying it is SAHIH in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 1/312 No.923!"
: (* Pg. 144 No.3)
Al-Albani has admitted its weakness in his comments on "Ibn Khuzaima, 1/108 No.217", but then contradicts himself by correcting the above Hadith in "Sahih Ibn Majah, 1/96 No.482 "!!
: (* Pg. 145 No.4)
Al-Albani said that it was SAHIH in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/13 No.1462", but then contradicts himself in "Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, No.263 pg. 157", by saying it is DAEEF!!!
: (* Pg. 145 No.5)
Al-Albani said that the above Hadith was HASAN in his checking of "Mishkat, 2/696 No.2251 and 2252", but then contradicts himself in "Daeef al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/69 No.4947 and 4948"!!!
: (* Pg. 146 No.6)
Al-Albani declared it to be DAEEF in "Daeef al-Nisai, pg. 84" and in his comments on "Ibn Khuzaima, 3/302 No.2127", but then contradicts himself by calling it SAHIH in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 2/10 No.1448" and also corrected it in "Sahih al-Nisai, 3/902 No.4021"!!
So what a big contradiction!
NB- (Al-Albani mentioned this Hadith in 'Sahih al-Nisai' and in 'Daeef al-Nisai', which proves that he is unaware of what he has and is classifying, how inept!)
: (* Pg. 147 No.7)
Al-Albani said in "Daeef al-Nisai, pg 190": "Sahih, except for the part al-Dunya." Then he contradicts himself in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/156", by saying that the whole Hadith is SAHIH, including the al-Dunya part. So what an amazing contradiction!
: (* Pg. 147 No.8)
: (* Pg. 148 No.9)
Al-Albani has weakened it with reference to the '3 days' part in "Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, pg. 186", by saying: "Correct, except for 3 days." But the 'genius' contradicts himself by correcting the Hadith and approving the '3 days' part in "Sahih al-Jami wa Ziyadatuh, 5/220 No.5804".
So wake up (al-Albani)!!
: (* Pg. 148 No.10)
Al-Albani has weakened it in "Daeef Sunan al-Nisai, No.78 pg. 49", where he said: "Abnormal (shadh), where Friday is mentioned." He then contradicts himself by saying SAHIH, including the Friday part in "Irwa, 3/84 No.622 ."
May Allah heal you!
AL-ALBANI AND HIS DEFAMATION AND AUTHENTICATION OF NARRATORS AT WILL!
: (* Pg 157 no 1)
: (* Pg. 158 No.2)
Al-Albani then made a contradiction in his "Sahihah, 1/613" by saying: "His men (the narrators) are trusted except for Maja'a who is a good narrator of Hadith."
An amazing contradiction!
: (* Pg. 158 No.3)
Al-Albani then makes an obvious contradiction in "Sahihah, 2/432", where he said about a sanad which mentions Utba: "And this is a good (hasan) sanad, Utba ibn Hamid al-Dhabi is trustworthy but has hallucinations, and the rest of the narrators in the sanad are trusted." !!
: (* Pg. 159 No.4)
So what an amazement!!
: (* Pg. 160 No.5)
So what an amazement !!!
: (* Pg. 160 No.6)
So beware !!!
: (* Pg. 165 No.13)
: (* Pg. 161 No.8)
: (* Pg. 162 No.9)
: (* Pg. 163 No.10)
: (* Pg. 67-69)
Al-Albani said in "Silsilah al-Sahihah, 3/229" : "And so the sanad is good, because Rashid ibn Sa'ad is trustworthy by agreement, and who is less than him in the men of Sahih, and there is also Abdullah ibn Salih who has said things that are unharmful with Allah's help!!" Al-Albani also said in "Sahihah, 2/406" about a sanad which contained Ibn Salih: "a good sanad in continuity." And again in "Sahihah, 4/647": "He's a proof with continuity."
NB- (Hasan al-Saqqaf then continued with some important advice, this has been left untranslated for brevity but one may refer to the Arabic for further elaboration).
By the grace of Allah, this is enough from the books of Shaykh Saqqaf to convince any seeker of the truth, let alone the common folk who have little knowledge of the science of Hadith. If anyone is interested for hundreds of other similar quotes from Shaykh Saqqaf, then I suggest you write to the following address to obtain his book Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat (The Clear Contradictions of al-Albani).
Allah knows best.
This has been just 48 selected contradictions from the works of al-Albani, as derived by Shaykh Saqqaf. During the course of my own research into al-Albani's works which have been translated into English by his followers in England, I myself came across some startling errors. I was given some publications coming from his supporters in England [Jami'at Ihyaa Minhaaj al-Sunnah]; one by the title: "Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud's Sunan (according to Shaikh al-Albaanee, No's according to the English Translation of Professor Ahmad Hasan, published in 1411/1991 C.E.)", and the other by the title: "Daeef Ahadith of an-Nawawi's Riyaad-us-Saaliheen (according to the checking of Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albani, No's according to the English Translation of S. M. Madni Abbasi)".
I found some serious contradictions when I cross-referenced the above named publications; but I content myself by quoting just two of the contradictions, so that a round figure of fifty errors is achieved! Besides these errors there are others which will be displayed in the following pages, from the one who claims to be giving us the most 'authentic' Sunnah through his 'classifications of Ahadith'! The main aim in carrying out the latter exercise is for the benefit of those believers who do not and can not read the Arabic works of al-Albani for one, and secondly to give the opportunity to any doubting "Thomas"; who may or may not be one of al-Albani's supporters at the time of reading this short exposition, to actually go along and check the references I have quoted from (mainly in English). By doing this, Insha'Allah, all doubts about the authenticity of this exposition will be alleviated and the hearts of those who doubt may become content! Allah knows best.
When I checked the authenticity of the above Hadith by using the list "Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud's Sunan", it was not counted amongst the daeef ones, which means to the user of this list that the above Hadith is SAHIH (or at least HASAN) according to the checking of al-Albani!
But, when I found the same Hadith in Riyadh-us-Saliheen, it was declared to be DAEEF by al-Albani. The actual words used by the author of "Daeef Ahaadith of an-Nawawi's Riyadh-us-Saliheen", was:- "Al-Albaanee brings a long note. . . . . . The wording ('upon those on the right rows') is Shaadh or Munkar - the correct narration being : ('upon those who join the rows') - see Mishkaat, No.1096, 'Daeef Abi Daud', No.153. . ."!!!
NB- al-Imam Nawawi (Allah's mercy be upon him) said that the above Hadith has been cited on the terms of Imam Muslim by Imam Abu Dawood (see the above reference in 'Riyadh').
When I checked the authenticity of the above Hadith by using the list 'Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud's Sunan', it was not listed as being DAEEF, hence it has been declared to be SAHIH (or at least HASAN) in al-Albani's checking of Abu Dawood! But when I found the above Hadith in Riyadh-us-Saliheen, al-Albani declared it to be DAEEF. The actual words used by the author of 'Da'eef Ahaadith of An-Nawawi's Riyaad-us-Saaliheen' was: "Its isnad contains al-Waleed ibn Muslim-a-mudallis - and he has used 'an'anah here('from. . .'). See 'at-Ta'leeq-ur-Ragheeb', 2/200."
NB- Imam an-Nawawi said that the above Hadith has been related with a Sahih isnad, besides that, according to Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arnaoot's checking of the above Hadith in his edition of Riyadh-us-Saliheen, the above Hadith is not daeef (this information has been derived from another publication of 'Jami'at Ihyaa Minhaaj al- Sunnah, by the title "List of daeef ahadiths in Riyaad-as-Saliheen according to Shuaib Arnaoutt," but as for the lists authenticity, I say: it needs to be checked). I leave you to decide whose checking you will adopt.
Now that I have quoted you 50 mistakes of al-Albani in Hadith, I wish to delve into some rather important issues of fiqh, especially by comparing al-Albani's declarations with the views of other authors! For the record let me say at the outset, that most of the opinions that I will be quoting from al-Albani are sound and acceptable to one school of fiqh or another. But if the reader may sometimes get the feeling that I have inclined too much towards one particular school, then I have only done so to defend other sound and acceptable views which have been and are still being practised by large sections of the Ummah, indifference to the views of al-Albani and others. To all of us, more than one view should be acceptable if a Mujtahid has used his personal reasoning to extract a ruling from the sources of the Shari'ah; since this was the attitude of the glorious Salaf as-Salihin (pious predecessors of the first three generations of Islam), may Allah be pleased with them all. But as for al-Albani and the generality of his supporters they have adopted the tactless way of ejecting/criticising all other ways 'unacceptable' to their deductions from the Qur'an and Sunnah as you shall see below.
Allah knows best.