Have you come across two recent treatises by "Mahmud Sa'id Mamdouh," the first being: "Alerting the Muslim to Al-Albani's Transgression Against Sahih Muslim"

The questioner : Have you come across two treatises recently published by the one called "Mahmud Sa'id Mamdouh," the first titled: "Alerting the Muslim to Al-Albani's Transgression Against Sahih Muslim," and the second: "Arrival of Congratulations in Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha and Responding to Al-Albani"? So, in the spirit of advising one who seeks advice, what is your opinion of this man from the perspective of his scholarship, his creed, his methodology, and in his two aforementioned treatises?

The Shaykh : I have come across the two treatises. As for the first treatise, "Alerting the Muslim," it was possible for me to respond to some of its aspects in the new edition we published of the book "Etiquettes of the Wedding in the Pure Sunnah." I dedicated many pages of the introduction of this book to responding to this man. I also came across the other treatise and wrote some comments on it, but it has not yet been possible for me to respond to it fully, because naturally I do not have the time to respond to every hateful, ignorant, and envious person; however, I await the opportunities.
The first opportunity arose, as I mentioned earlier, to respond to him regarding some of the deviations he leaned toward from what knowledge requires in terms of hadith terminology. He is a man who is not a scholar, but rather a compiler—if the expression is correct—a gatherer; meaning he collects from here and there, but he cannot reconcile what he has collected because he is ignorant of the fundamental rules of knowledge, whether these rules are from the sciences of hadith or the principles of jurisprudence. The man took offense at me because I criticized some of the hadiths in "Sahih Muslim," and it became clear to me that his criticism was not, as is said in the language of the present age, for the sake of knowledge; meaning his refutation is not for the sake of knowledge, and in our Islamic expression, not for the face of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); as evidenced by the fact that many of the things he criticized me for, many contemporary scholars whom he holds in high regard and respects, and for whom he wrote biographies in a book of his, have fallen into more of these errors than he has.

Another questioner : "Tashnif al-Asma'" (Delighting the Ears).

The Shaykh: Yes.

Another questioner : "Tashnif al-Asma'" (Delighting the Ears).

The Shaykh : "Tashnif al-Asma'" (Delighting the Ears).
He wrote biographies in this book of many contemporary scholars whom he met, some of whom he considers his teachers by license, who have denied hadiths from "the two Sahihs." I, and praise be to Allah, have not reached that depth of error into which those sheikhs fell, and yet he remained silent about them and directed the arrows of his criticism at me; because I relied on the scientific hadith rules in correcting some of the hadiths that Imam Muslim narrated in his "Sahih." The most famous of these is what he narrates through Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir; the scholars of hadith say that Abu al-Zubayr was a practitioner of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), and that his narration from Jabir comes in two forms: sometimes with the en'ana (he told us) formula, which is held back from being declared authentic, and sometimes with explicit narration; such as saying: "Jabir told us"; this narration is authentic because the man is trustworthy.
This detail is what he refutes, and he strains in his refutation as much as he wishes to strain, then he does not care about the statements of the scholars who described Abu al-Zubayr as a practitioner of tadlis and those who came after them and adopted this description and built upon it the holding back from accepting the en'ana narrations of Abu al-Zubayr in which he did not explicitly state the narration. This is with regard to the first book.
The second book has some of our writings as a draft, and the summary of the response is that some of the reports he relies on, even if we concede their authenticity, do not prove his long and far-reaching claim which he expressed in the title of the treatise. The title of the treatise is in proving the Sunnah status of the misbaha. Glory be to Allah! Why did he not moderate the title, and the title is sufficient for what is titled? Did he moderate and say: "The Permissibility of the Misbaha"?! Instead of proving the Sunnah status of the misbaha; where does the Sunnah status of counting with the fingers go then? This indicates to the researcher, even if he is not specialized in the science of hadith and the principles of jurisprudence, that the man does not want to reach the truth, but rather wants to attack the supporters of the truth and the followers of the Sunnah by supporting religious innovation and opposing the Sunnah, even in the title, and—as is said—"the title of the written work is sufficient for you."
This is what comes to my mind now in answer to this question.

The questioner : ... his creed and his methodology?

The Shaykh : As for the creed, in reality, I have not come across anything that leads me to understand that—for example—he is a follower of the Khalaf (the later generations); he is a Salafi. I find it unlikely that a man who opposes the followers of the Salaf with such strong opposition would be Salafi in creed!

The questioner : ... I met him in Makkah about five years ago, and he discussed with me.

The Shaykh : And what is it?

The questioner : He is a follower of the Khalaf; meaning, he is thick-skinned.

The Shaykh : Like that, did you hear something from him?

The questioner : The discussion was direct, regarding the issues of tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means), the issues of the attributes, and so on, in addition to matters of religious innovation and leniency in them...

The Shaykh : Meaning, he is on the school of his teacher al-Manar and his like.

The questioner : Exactly.