The methodological disagreement over the hadith between Sheikh Ater and Al-Albani

I made a fleeting reference in an article last week to the systematic dispute between our sheikh, the scholar Nur al-Din Atar and Sheikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani, may God Almighty have mercy on them. Some scholars asked me to elaborate on this point.

Because of its importance in understanding Sheikh Ater's approach first, and in understanding part of the intellectual and religious history in the second half of the 20th century Second;

This disagreement illustrates one of the trends of thinking in the hadith of the Prophet on the one hand, and its relationship with jurisprudence and the conflict that raged decades ago between doctrinal and non-sectarianism on the other hand.

As the hadith was the main arena for this conflict between the confessional and non-sectarian, and in my opinion this ancient conflict paved the way for the current struggle over the hadith.

However, the first struggle was for the sake of leaving the doctrine under the pretext of following the hadith (which they believe is correct), while the current struggle is for the exclusion of the hadith completely in preparation for getting rid of jurisprudence, and in both cases the hadith was the main entrance to jurisprudence regardless of the situation.

Although the sources of jurisprudence are multiple, historically they were not based on hadith alone.

The first methodological difference between Sheikh Ater and Al-Albani is the perception of the code of the hadith.

Sheikh Ater follows the path of assimilation, while Sheikh Al-Albani follows the path of selection and exclusion.

As I showed in an article last week, our sheikh’s vision is reflected in his advice to the hadith science student to take care of the six main collections of hadith which are Sahih al-Bukhari (256 AH), Muslim (261 AH), Sunan Abi Dawood (275 AH), al-Tirmidhi (279 AH) and al-Nasa’i (303 AH) ) And Ibn Majah (273 AH).

Two sources are added to it: Masnad Ahmad (241 AH) and Muwatta Malik (179 AH), so it becomes 8.

In addition to these eight books, two books are added to collect the appendices of other hadith records (called al-Masanid and dictionaries) on the six books. Two main books took care of these additions:

The first of them is

"The Collector of Zawaid and the Source of Benefits" by Nur al-Din al-Haythami (807 AH). In it his author compiled in it Zuaid 3 Musanid which are Masanid Ahmad, Abu Ali (307 Hijra), Abu Bakr al-Bazar (292 AH), and Zawaid 3 dictionaries by al-Tabarani (360 AH) which is the great And middle and small.

And the second of them is

“The High demands in Zuaid Al-Eight Al-Masanid” by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (852 Hijra) in which he compiled in it the Zuadâd of 10 Masānid: 8 complete and 2 incomplete. (243 AH), Masdad bin Mashad (228 for migration), Ahmad bin Manea (244 for migration), Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah (235 for migration), Abd bin Humaid (249 for migration) and Al Harith bin Abi Osama (282 for migration).

As for the two incomplete Musnads, they are: (1) What Nur al-Din al-Haythami had missed in his previous book "Majma 'al-Zawaid" from the Musnad of Abi Ali;

Because his copy was not complete, (2) and the found fragment from the Musnad of Ishaq bin Rahwayh (238 AH).

In contrast to this approach, we find the behavior of Sheikh Al-Albani, which we called the path of selection and exclusion, and it can be attributed to two central ideas: the first is to respond to the work with the weak hadith at all (especially the hadith which he thinks is weak), and the second: excluding what he considers is weak from the collections of the Sunnah. It is necessary to separate and distinguish the correct from the weak;

To present to the people what he calls "refined jurisprudence", and his project was called "bringing the Sunnah closer to the hands of the Ummah," and it is a project based on two things: deleting the isnads, and distinguishing the authentic ones from the weak ones according to his methodology and rules in which he does not abide by the rules of the modern critics as he is not bound by the work of the jurists .

It is noteworthy that most of these collections of origins were classified in the third century AH, "it is preceded by Muwatta Malik (179 AH), and al-Tabarani's dictionaries (360 AH) lag behind it.

But the sacredness of the books took place later after these sources gained acceptance from the scholarly community, and among the first among the six sextants was the Hafiz Muhammad bin Taher bin al-Qaysarani (507 AH) who gathered the edges of the six books, and Ibn al-Atheer al-Jazari (606 AH) who compiled the “six principles” In a book he called "Jami 'al-Usul fi Ahadith of the Messenger."

As for the attempts to collect the saaids, they were delayed until the eighth century AH, and Imam al-Hafiz al-Iraqi (806 AH) played a prominent role in this.

He directed his students to collect appendices on the six books, among them was Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami referred to previously, and Al-Hafiz Al-Busiri (840 AH) who wrote the book “Ihf Al-Kheirah Al-Mahra Al-Mahara Al-Mahara with Zuadat Al-Tenanid”, and Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar referred to.

Our Sheikh Ater followed the Sunnah of these imams, who were inclined to the idea of ​​collecting and comprehending.

So that hardly any of the existing origins of the hadiths are isolated from them (the origins here mean the meaning of the chain of narrators or books of the novel with the isnads), and if we look at the paths of this collection, we will find that it has taken three forms of classification: (1) Combining multiple books, (2) Collecting and indexing the ends of books hadiths Multiple "as did the Hafizan Ibn al-Qaysarani and al-Mazzi (742 AH), (3) Za'id collected multiple books on the six books that he settled down.

In contrast to this approach, we find the behavior of Sheikh Al-Albani, which we called the path of selection and exclusion, and it can be attributed to two central ideas: the first is to respond to the work with the weak hadith at all (especially the hadith which he believes is weak), and the second: excluding what he considers is weak from the collections of the Sunnah. It is necessary to separate and distinguish the correct from the weak;

To present to the people what he calls "refined jurisprudence", and his project was called "bringing the Sunnah closer to the hands of the Ummah," and it is a project based on two things: deleting the isnads, and distinguishing the authentic ones from the weak ones according to his methodology and rules in which he does not abide by the rules of the modern critics as he is not bound by the work of the jurists .

If we took the first issue - which is the response of the weak at all - we would find it twofold:

The first part: that the doctrine of the great imams of jurists and modernists - including Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Dawud and others - saw that the absolute weak hadith is not accepted, and that some of it is invoked by conditions and considerations that are not detailed here, and that some of it is "considered" - in their term - That is, it remains a place of pause, consideration, study and comparison with other narrations in the discussion of what they call the ills of hadith, especially since the doctrine of Ahmed and others is that the weak is stronger than the abstract opinion, just as the imams among the jurists and hadiths differ in ways of strengthening the weak hadith and what is strengthened.

Because these issues are discretionary.

And from here we found our Sheikh, the Allama Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah, saying that the imams “used the weak hadith in their books of action and protest, and they did not shy away from it or see it as negligent and abandoned, as some claimants claim today ... So rejecting the weak other than the proposition and the extreme weakness is a departure from the avenue of the first hadiths.”

The second part: when we talk about working with the weak, we mean the weak that the imams themselves judge as weak.

Because the ruling on the hadith is a matter of ijtihaad, and it differs from one imam to another based on the rules and methodology, it may be true for an imam that someone weakens him, and then the weak they are looking for is the weak based on their judgment, not on the judgment of al-Albani and his students.

The ruling of Al-Albani does not bind the previous imams, let alone us.

If with regard to the second issue - which is to divide and divide the collections of hadiths - then we find that Al-Albani's work in the books and records of the hadith, including the four Sunnahs, is contrary to the intentions of its compilers and to the behavior of the previous imams, who were keen on collecting (the compilation of the six, the collection of appendices, the books of the mosques, the collection of Sunan on the chapters ...) ;

It is like an encroachment on the books of others, especially since Al-Albani was able to comment on these books without tearing them apart through his personal diligence. That is why some of the great scholars of his time, including our Sheikh Abu Ghuddah, may God have mercy on him, said: “Some people in our time continued cutting the four books of the Sunan and subtracting them. What its authors, the outstanding imams, wrote down ... and severed the ties of those great books, while he thinks and claims that he has done well and miserably what he did!

If we look at the books of the Sunnah - in particular - we would see them based on a central idea, which is the early jurisprudential work and its protest (we are talking about the third century AH), and that is why our Sunnah was called. Abu Dawud, for example, stated this and said in a letter to him: “As for these issues, the revolutionary issues Malik and Al-Shafi’i, these hadiths are their origins. "

That is, the issues of the jurisprudence of these imams are based on these hadiths that he collected in his book

The second methodological difference between Sheikh Ater and Al-Albani is in jurisprudence and its methodology, so our Sheikh Ater - like the most modern scholars of this era - adheres to the jurisprudence schools and their approaches.

It combines jurisprudence with hadith in the manner of the previous imams, especially since the imams such as Ramhurmzi, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ibn Abd al-Barr and others insisted on this combination in their compilations, and the most senior imams of the term were among the later scholars, most of them Shafi’i.

As for Al-Albani, he made the criticism of hadith an entry point for a departure from the doctrines of the jurists.

Rather, accusing some of their imams of contradicting hadith, and this is why he wanted to establish what he called “filtered jurisprudence” based on obliging others to do what he deems correct, and rejecting what he deems weak, and he does not care after that if he disagrees with the previous imams of scholars and modernists, even if he stops at the limits of commitment to that in particular Itself would be easy;

But it went beyond that to oblige Muslims and their scholars to its provisions.

And if we look at the four books of Sunnah - in particular - we see them based on a central idea, which is the early jurisprudential work and its protest (we are talking about the third century AH), and that is why it was called our Sunnah. Abu Dawud, for example, stated this and said in a letter to him: “As for these issues, the revolutionary issues Malik and Al-Shafi’i, these hadiths are their origins. "

That is, the issues of the jurisprudence of these imams are based on these hadiths that he collected in his book, and for this he said that "the hadiths that I put in the Book of Sunan are the most famous of them."

That is, between the scholars of jurisprudence and hadith, as he indicated that the hadith (which is a type of weak hadith) is invoked.

If there is no other one, and he does not oppose the related chain of transmission hadiths, and he clarified that what he is silent about in the Book of Sunan is valid for him, and many scholars understood that it is valid for protest.

As for al-Tirmidhi, he also compiled the hadiths of his book, investigating the inherited work of the ummah until his time, and that is why he called his book “The Compendium of the Compendium of the Sunnahs and Knowing the Right and the Meaning and What to Do”, and he clearly indicated that all the hadiths in this book are applicable, and he has taken Some scholars have it except for two hadiths. This is just a summary of the aims of the authors of two books of the four Sunnahs that clarify the overlap between jurisprudence and hadith on the one hand, and that these hadiths are the subject of acceptance, action and protest by the Mujtahid scholars in the first time on the other hand, then came the Hafiz Ibn Hajar He said, “Souls are left to the one who brought out some of the six imams more than others because of their majesty in the souls and their fame, and because the origin of the classification of the hadith is in the chapters [meaning the Sunnah]: that it is limited to what is suitable for protest or martyrdom, unlike those who arranged on the supports. Absolute plural. "

It is clear from the above that these popular collections of Sunan collections were only collected after the demise of the imams who were followed by the owners of the four schools of thought.

Their jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of others, some of which have reached us.

Rather, it was the fruit of the Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet as represented by generations of scholars, imams and narrators in the early centuries, and the advanced were more knowledgeable about it than we are.

Despite all the blogs provided to us;

That is why Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “If the hadith of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, was imposed on it (meaning the well-known blogs), then not everything in the books the world knows, and that hardly happens to anyone. Rather, a man may have many departments and he does not surround what they contain. Rather, those who were before the collection of these collections were much more knowledgeable in the Sunnah than the later ones, because much of what they were told and authenticated with them may only inform us from an unknown, or with an interrupted chain of transmission, or not to inform us completely, so their collections were their chests that contain many times what is in the diwans, and this is not a matter. He doubts about the science of the issue, "and he pushes the illusion that the availability of modern technologies requires more knowledge and wider knowledge, and it is the result of a foreign perception of the prophetic hadith, its sciences and methods of criticism of the previous imams.

Collection, comprehension, work, and broad or open methodological ijtihad are 3 central issues here that distinguish the method of our Sheikh Ater from Sheikh Al-Albani, and this helps us to understand how hadith formed a tool in the hands of non-sectarians to break into established jurisprudence schools over extended centuries in order to establish their reference in contrast to it and accuse the former imams Violating the Sunnah

I add to that that correction and weakening is a matter of jurisprudence, and it is based on various experiences and knowledge in contrast to what some of them may fancy of the curricula that we apply today, or the late modernists theorized about which Sheikh Al-Albani refers to their books and does not go beyond them, and perhaps he and his students deluded that their judgment on the hadith is Ruling on the truth of the matter and its interior, and from here we find the insistence of scholars of the term hadith in general that their judgment on the hadith is based on what it appears on the face of the matter and not in its reality, and then they tolerated the dispute and approved pluralism in curricula and opinions, which was proven extensively in my book “The Hadith Response In terms of the text "and my other book" Acceptance of hadith ", unlike the school of Al-Albani. If Al-Albani believed that his judgment on hadith is an Ijtihad according to his knowledge and according to what it appears to him on the surface of the matter, he would not have given these lenient labels as" weak Sunan al-Tirmidhi "and" weak Sunan Abi Dawood "and others. If he adhered to scientific accuracy and honesty, then he would have the right to call him" Weak Al-Albani ", not Weak Al-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud.

Imam al-Nawawi referred to this methodological difference in the criticism of the hadith in the context of his response to al-Daraquti's criticism of the two Sahihs, saying that “this appeal is based on very weak rules of some hadith scholars in contravention of the majority of scholars of jurisprudence, foundations and others.”

Rather, the Imam al-Muhaddith, the Mafsir, the mujtahid jurist, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (310 AH) used a unique path in his book “Tahdheeb al-Athar”, and he adhered to it with validity according to his method. It is true for ills, "then he mentions those ills with a broad mind and good knowledge.

Where is this from the way of al-Albani and his students?

Imam Al-Hafiz Al-Mundhi made the difference of hadith scholars as different jurists, and that all of this is required by ijtihad, for “to preserve in the men doctrines, each one of them did what his diligence led to in terms of acceptance and response.” If Al-Albani was fair and consistent with his approach, he would have the right to distinguish in the jurisprudence of Ahmed Bain. Halal Ahmad and “Haram Ahmad”, as well as with the rest of the imams, to bring out his refined jurisprudence before his death, may God have mercy on him.

Collection, comprehension, work, and broad or open methodological ijtihad are 3 central issues here that distinguish the method of our Sheikh Ater from Sheikh Al-Albani, and this helps us to understand how hadith formed a tool in the hands of non-sectarians to break into established jurisprudence schools over extended centuries in order to establish their reference in contrast to it and accuse the former imams In contradicting the Sunnah, and this is why we found Ater's attention to the hadiths of rulings to confront the claims of non-sectarianism, and to undermine the archeologists ’argument in claiming to follow the hadith as an alternative to the sects, so try to return the matter to its rightful place by liberating the subject of discussion, and that it is not in“ not inferring the hadith ”.

Rather, it is about (how to infer it) and extracting rulings from its words, just as the scholar Sheikh Muhammad Awamah wrote his important book in this context on “The Impact of the Noble Hadith on the Difference of Imams and Jurists” to confront Al-Albani’s approach and defend what he called “the line of the nation’s predecessor and behind it.” These pages were written only in defense of the noble hadith, the bond of the honorable Shariah that tampering with it in the name of the noble hadith and the purified Sunnah. ”His book was well received by some scholars of his time, such as the talker Muhammad Zakaria al-Kandahlawi, the modernist Habib al-Rahman al-Azhami, and Sheikh Abu Ghuddah, who described the book as coming To respond to the deviants from the crowd by calling those who call to confuse the imams who follow.

Sheikh Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, formed himself, and therefore he was free from the scientific traditions and their rules, and books were written in his criticism, contradictions and contradictions, and this is a central point for which he was criticized by the general public of scholars of his time who have lineage, ancestors, ascendants, and traditions that they adhere to, and he was highly critical and attacking many previous imams Of modern scholars and scholars.

Whereas our Sheikh Ater was otherwise very revered and revered for the previous imams, and very loyal to his sheikhs, reminding them and praying for them, which reminds us of one of the degrees of justice as explained by Imam Ragheb Al-Isfahani;

It is that he uses "justice between himself and his past predecessors in condoning their commandments and praying for them."

So, God forgive us and our brothers who preceded us by faith, and give our imams and sheikhs the best reward for us.