Have you come across two recent treatises by Mahmoud Sa'id Mamdouh, the first titled "Alerting the Muslim to Al-Albani's Transgression Against Sahih Muslim" and the second "
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Have you come across two treatises recently published by the one called Mahmoud Sa'id Mamdouh, the first being "Alerting the Muslim to Al-Albani's Transgression Against Sahih Muslim," and the second being "... Greetings: Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha and a Response to Al-Albani"... If he seeks your advice, then advise him. What is your opinion of this man from the perspective of scholarship, his creed, his methodology, and his two aforementioned treatises?
The Shaykh : I have looked into both treatises. The first treatise, "Alerting the Muslim," recently received a response to some of its points in the new edition we published of the book "The Etiquettes of the Sunnah in the Pure Sunnah." I dedicated many pages of the introduction of this book to responding to this man. I also looked into the other treatise and wrote some comments on it, though I have not yet been able to fully respond to it, as I naturally do not have the time to respond to every envious, ignorant, and hateful person. However, I await suitable occasions. The first occasion presented itself, as I mentioned earlier, to respond to him regarding some of the deviations he leaned toward from what the science of hadith terminology requires. He is not a scholar; rather, he is a scavenger, if that expression is correct, a picker-up, meaning he gathers from here and there but cannot reconcile what he has gathered because he is ignorant of the fundamental rules of knowledge, whether these rules pertain to 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. It became clear to me that his criticism was not, as is said in the language of the present day, for the sake of knowledge; that is, his refutation was not for the sake of knowledge, and in our Islamic terminology, not for the face of Allah the Exalted. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the things he criticized me for were committed by many contemporary scholars whom he holds in high regard and for whom he wrote biographies in his book titled "Tashnif al-Asma'." In this book, he wrote biographies of many contemporary scholars he met, some of whom he considers his teachers in terms of ijazah, and they committed the denial of hadiths from the two Sahihs. I, praise be to Allah, have not reached that depth of error into which those sheikhs fell. Nevertheless, he remained silent about them and directed the arrows of his criticism at me because I relied on the scientific rules of hadith to point out errors in some of the hadiths narrated by Imam Muslim in his Sahih. Among 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 mudallis. His narration from Jabir comes in two forms: sometimes with the 'an expression, in which case its authenticity is suspended, and sometimes with explicit narration, such as saying "Jabir narrated to us." This narration is authentic because the man is trustworthy.
This distinction is what he rejects, and he strains himself in his rejection as much as he wishes, then he does not care about the statements of the scholars who described Abu al-Zubayr as a mudallis and those who came after him and adopted this description, building upon it the suspension of accepting Abu al-Zubayr's narrations with the 'an expression where explicit narration was not stated. This is regarding the first book. As for the second book, we have some writings as a draft, and the summary of the response is that some of the reports he relies on, even if their authenticity is conceded to him, do not prove the long and broad implications he expressed in the title of the treatise. The title of the treatise is "Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha." Glory be to Allah, did he moderate the title? Is it enough for you that it is titled "The Permissibility of the Misbaha" rather than "Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha"? Where does the Sunnah status of counting on the fingers stand in that case? This indicates to the researcher, even if he is not a specialist 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 innovation and opposing the Sunnah, even in the title. As they say: the title is sufficient for you regarding the intended meaning. This is what comes to my mind now in answer to this question.
The questioner : His creed and his methodology?
The Shaykh : As for his creed, in reality, I have not come across anything indicating that he is, for example, a Salafi. I would exclude a man who opposes the followers of the Salaf with such intense hostility from being a Salafi in creed!
The questioner : ... He is a Khalaf in skin ... .
The Shaykh : Did you hear something from him, meaning?
The questioner : The discussion was direct... regarding the attributes and so on, besides matters of innovations and leniency in them ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, he is on the madhhab of his teacher al-Manari and his like.
The Shaykh : I have looked into both treatises. The first treatise, "Alerting the Muslim," recently received a response to some of its points in the new edition we published of the book "The Etiquettes of the Sunnah in the Pure Sunnah." I dedicated many pages of the introduction of this book to responding to this man. I also looked into the other treatise and wrote some comments on it, though I have not yet been able to fully respond to it, as I naturally do not have the time to respond to every envious, ignorant, and hateful person. However, I await suitable occasions. The first occasion presented itself, as I mentioned earlier, to respond to him regarding some of the deviations he leaned toward from what the science of hadith terminology requires. He is not a scholar; rather, he is a scavenger, if that expression is correct, a picker-up, meaning he gathers from here and there but cannot reconcile what he has gathered because he is ignorant of the fundamental rules of knowledge, whether these rules pertain to 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. It became clear to me that his criticism was not, as is said in the language of the present day, for the sake of knowledge; that is, his refutation was not for the sake of knowledge, and in our Islamic terminology, not for the face of Allah the Exalted. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the things he criticized me for were committed by many contemporary scholars whom he holds in high regard and for whom he wrote biographies in his book titled "Tashnif al-Asma'." In this book, he wrote biographies of many contemporary scholars he met, some of whom he considers his teachers in terms of ijazah, and they committed the denial of hadiths from the two Sahihs. I, praise be to Allah, have not reached that depth of error into which those sheikhs fell. Nevertheless, he remained silent about them and directed the arrows of his criticism at me because I relied on the scientific rules of hadith to point out errors in some of the hadiths narrated by Imam Muslim in his Sahih. Among 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 mudallis. His narration from Jabir comes in two forms: sometimes with the 'an expression, in which case its authenticity is suspended, and sometimes with explicit narration, such as saying "Jabir narrated to us." This narration is authentic because the man is trustworthy.
This distinction is what he rejects, and he strains himself in his rejection as much as he wishes, then he does not care about the statements of the scholars who described Abu al-Zubayr as a mudallis and those who came after him and adopted this description, building upon it the suspension of accepting Abu al-Zubayr's narrations with the 'an expression where explicit narration was not stated. This is regarding the first book. As for the second book, we have some writings as a draft, and the summary of the response is that some of the reports he relies on, even if their authenticity is conceded to him, do not prove the long and broad implications he expressed in the title of the treatise. The title of the treatise is "Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha." Glory be to Allah, did he moderate the title? Is it enough for you that it is titled "The Permissibility of the Misbaha" rather than "Proving the Sunnah Status of the Misbaha"? Where does the Sunnah status of counting on the fingers stand in that case? This indicates to the researcher, even if he is not a specialist 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 innovation and opposing the Sunnah, even in the title. As they say: the title is sufficient for you regarding the intended meaning. This is what comes to my mind now in answer to this question.
The questioner : His creed and his methodology?
The Shaykh : As for his creed, in reality, I have not come across anything indicating that he is, for example, a Salafi. I would exclude a man who opposes the followers of the Salaf with such intense hostility from being a Salafi in creed!
The questioner : ... He is a Khalaf in skin ... .
The Shaykh : Did you hear something from him, meaning?
The questioner : The discussion was direct... regarding the attributes and so on, besides matters of innovations and leniency in them ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, he is on the madhhab of his teacher al-Manari and his like.