40 Nawawi
Hadiths
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.
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.
{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.