The Shaykh's (may Allah have mercy on him) response to those who criticized his book "A Summary of the Description of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) Prayer" for lacking evidence, except for a few
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Eid Abbasi : Here is a question: It has become widespread among the Salafi brothers to criticize the book "A Summary of the Description of Prayer" for lacking evidence, except for a few, especially since this comes from our Shaykh Al-Albani (may Allah reward him with good). They say that it does not differ from the thought of the later generations of the Khalaf, who adopt this style and say, "There is no time... for the evidence," while the evidence exists in other books, which are...?
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive the questioner. There is a very big difference. First, regarding the followers of a specific school of thought (mقلids), when they say that there are books that clarify the evidence, this is a referral to opinion, or even to something nonexistent. This is because the general masses of students of knowledge cannot access those books. And even if they did access them, they would not find evidence for every issue in them. So where does this stand in comparison to the author of "The Description of Prayer"? He composed "The Description of Prayer" entirely from the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and then summarized these hadiths in a small treatise to help people who do not have a scholarly background and to make it easy for them to understand the subject of the book "The Description of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) Prayer." So the analogy the questioner made is, unfortunately, an analogy with a difference. Because "The Description of Prayer" was summarized; the description of the Messenger's (peace be upon him) prayer itself was summarized in this small book. Shaykh Al-Albani did not bring any words from his own mind that a reader of "A Summary of the Description of Prayer" would not know where they came from. This is from one aspect.
From another aspect: The general Muslims and the scholars of today do not have the desire, and even if they have the desire, they do not have the time to devote to studying "Sahih al-Bukhari" as it is, with "So-and-so narrated to us, he said, so-and-so narrated to us," and so on. Often, they read more of the chain of narration than the text. They do not have this time. So we, of course, followed in the footsteps of the Imams who preceded us, such as al-Nawawi who summarized Muslim and the like, and al-Mundhiri. So we summarized "Sahih al-Bukhari." We preserved the hadiths of al-Bukhari as they are. Can it be said that there is any deficiency or criticism in this?
We did exactly the same in "The Description of Prayer." We removed the cross-references (takhrij) that even many students of knowledge cannot bear, let alone what? The scholars of knowledge. "So-and-so narrated it, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated it, and so-and-so." We removed all these things, and then we summarized the hadiths that came in the upper section in this small book. So we did not bring anything from our own minds, so that what was said earlier would be valid.
Yes.
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive the questioner. There is a very big difference. First, regarding the followers of a specific school of thought (mقلids), when they say that there are books that clarify the evidence, this is a referral to opinion, or even to something nonexistent. This is because the general masses of students of knowledge cannot access those books. And even if they did access them, they would not find evidence for every issue in them. So where does this stand in comparison to the author of "The Description of Prayer"? He composed "The Description of Prayer" entirely from the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and then summarized these hadiths in a small treatise to help people who do not have a scholarly background and to make it easy for them to understand the subject of the book "The Description of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) Prayer." So the analogy the questioner made is, unfortunately, an analogy with a difference. Because "The Description of Prayer" was summarized; the description of the Messenger's (peace be upon him) prayer itself was summarized in this small book. Shaykh Al-Albani did not bring any words from his own mind that a reader of "A Summary of the Description of Prayer" would not know where they came from. This is from one aspect.
From another aspect: The general Muslims and the scholars of today do not have the desire, and even if they have the desire, they do not have the time to devote to studying "Sahih al-Bukhari" as it is, with "So-and-so narrated to us, he said, so-and-so narrated to us," and so on. Often, they read more of the chain of narration than the text. They do not have this time. So we, of course, followed in the footsteps of the Imams who preceded us, such as al-Nawawi who summarized Muslim and the like, and al-Mundhiri. So we summarized "Sahih al-Bukhari." We preserved the hadiths of al-Bukhari as they are. Can it be said that there is any deficiency or criticism in this?
We did exactly the same in "The Description of Prayer." We removed the cross-references (takhrij) that even many students of knowledge cannot bear, let alone what? The scholars of knowledge. "So-and-so narrated it, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated it, and so-and-so." We removed all these things, and then we summarized the hadiths that came in the upper section in this small book. So we did not bring anything from our own minds, so that what was said earlier would be valid.
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.