Sheikh Al-Albaani – may Allah be pleased with his soul and bless him – was a phenomenon and a scholar who tried his best in the field of knowledge. Despite, some set of Muslims equate his views and opinions as the only legitimate representation of the Salaf(the righteous predecessors of the first three generations).
Hence, I will love to use some of his opinions as a case study in this article. Not to disparage him, not to vilify him, but to call to order those who use his, and Sheikh Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaimin ijtihādi opinions as a yardstick to judge other Muslims and take their opinions as the only correct opinions as if they are divine(wahy) from Allah.
I will cite 3 of Al-Albaani’s opinions:
1: Sheikh Al-Albaani in his book “Siffatu Solatu Nabiyy” page 120, said he is not in doubt that to place the hands on the chest after rukuu’ is a misguided innovation(bid’atun dolaalah)
و لست أشك في أن وضع اليدين على الصدر في هذا القيام (يعني بعد الرفع من الركوع) بدعة ضلالة.
The problem is usually in the application of Albaani’s statements by the so called Salafis. They mis-apply its practicality to cause problems.
For Sheikh Al-Albaani to claim it is bid’ah dolaalah without appreciating the difference of opinions on the matter is extreme; meanwhile, Al-Albaani did not accuse Ibn Baaz of bid’ah for placing the hands as such after rukuu’, but I have seen Salafis who accused other of bid’ah for placing his hand on chest after rukuu’ using this same sifatu solaat as evidence.
2: Sheikh Al-Albaani did not agree to the categorization of bid’ah into Mufassiqah(minor bid’ah) and Mukaffiroh(major bid’ah that is kufr) which is an indication that all bid’ah are kufr. He rejected the categorization into Mufassiqah and Mukaffiroh and said it is a baatil(false) categorization. Check his silsilatu Hudaa Wan Nuur, tape number 666.
Alfa Jabata of Ilorin and some Salafis have relied on this to refute those who divide bid’ah, and they failed in it’s application.
3: Sheikh Al-Albaani in his book “Aadaabu Zifaaf” also has the opinion that Gold is haram for female. Which this view is in opposition to the Ijmaa’u(consensus) of scholars of the past 1400 years. Whereas, the Albanists vilify Qaradaawi upon fiqh issues that no Ijmaa’u was made upon.
The Albanists – Salafis claimed he did tarajuu'(retraction) because they feel embarrassed by this his opposition to the view of the scholars, but Albani himself came out and debunked the claim of retraction.
Infact, Sheikh Ibn Baaz in his programme Nuur ala Darb had to refute the Albani claim publicly and said he based his opinion upon weak ahadeeth and that is a blunder from him.
He said:
“هذا الذي ذكره أخونا الشيخ العلامة الشيخ محمد ناصر الدين الألباني من تحريم المحلَّق من الذهب قول ضعيف، وغلط منه -عفا الله عنا وعنه- وقد دلت الأدلة الشرعية على حل الذهب للنساء, وحكى جماعة من أهل العلم إجماع العلماء على ذلك, وقد دلت الأحاديث الصحيحة على حل المحلق من الأسورة والخواتم, أمَّا الأحاديث التي ذكرها فبعضها ضعيف وبعضها منسوخ بالأحاديث الصَّحيحة، بعضها ضعيف وبعضها منسوخ بالأحاديث الصَّحيحة…”
Upon these 3 opinions I cited, you will see the Salafis claim Sheikh Al-Albaani had retracted from these stances; which is obviously a lie.
His Sifatu Solaatu Nabiyy which was published since 1381AH was republished with several editions running to almost 14, and was republished shorty before he died without any taraaju'(retraction) by Maktabah Al Ma’arif Riyadh of Sa’eed bn AbdulRahmaan after a financial misunderstanding between Albani and his former freind and publisher – Sh. Zuhair Shawish to which they took themselves to court over.
Infact, of recent, Sheikh Muhammad Bazmuul of Saudi did the sharhu(further explanation) of the book and still maintain the same Albani stance.
So, if there should be any taraaju’, it must be proven with facts and not assumptions. I have virtually all the editions of his publications.
These people are hypocrites; when Albani actually did taraaju’ from calling Ikhwanul Muslimeen a deviant sect, they still cling to his old view despite there is clear evidence for his retraction. When Sheikh Qaradaawi who is still alive did taraaju’ from his fatwa of suicide bombing, upon clear evidence, they still cling to his old view. But whenever they feel embarrassed by some of Albani’s views with which he oppose Ibn Baaz, Uthaimin and Saudi scholars, they claim he did taraaju’. Let them bring the facts.
My dear Salafi brother, who is that infallible scholar? You all rush to quote Imam Maalik that no scholar is infallible, but in actions, you regard your own chosen scholars of sunnah as infallible and use their mere opinions as a yardstick to judge others. Tell me an infallible scholar whose opinion is a yardstick and I will list many of his errors to you.
You project your Sheikhs as the symbol of sunnah. You accord them honour you do not give the true salaf. If an individual qoutes Imam Malik, Shafi’i, Abu Haneefah, and any other scholar against their views, they will quickly tell you they are not infallible, referring you to the preface of Sifatu salatul Nabiyy, but when you fault the mistakes of their so called Sheikh, they will claim one is an enemy of sunnah and Taoheed.
The basic acceptable standard by you all has been attached to individuals and certain committee you regard as “Senior scholars of Sunnah”. So, if any idea is attached to your revered personality then it could not be wrong. But fortunately, the Prophet had only set the standard in Qur’an and sunnah alone. ALHAMDULILLAH .
One Response
جزاكم الله خيرا يا شيخنا