Is it true that Al-Albani criticized the Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab?

Al-Halabi : My question is related to a treatiseThe Shaykh : by Isma'il al-Ansari, al-Intisar,

The Shaykh : What is it related to?
Al-Halabi : The treatiseThe Shaykh : by Isma'il al-Ansari, al-Intisar. The question is somewhat long, so that the listener may be aware of the issue from the very beginning, with the question and the answer, if Allah wills. So, with your permission, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace upon the noblest of messengers, and upon his family and all his Companions. As for what follows: It was mentioned in the book *Nadwat al-Ittijahat fi al-Fikr al-Islami al-Mu'asir* (The Symposium on Contemporary Islamic Thought), page 205, a topic titled "The Salafi Call and Its Position Toward Other Movements," spanning approximately twelve pages in large format. It included a definition of the Salaf and the Khalaf, and the meaning of Salafism. Then, with a historical introduction, it argued that Salafism is the call of Islam itself, and not a call attributed to certain imams or scholars, such as the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah or the Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, or others. Then it spoke about the fundamental principles on which the Salafi call focuses, namely tawhid (the oneness of Allah) in its three categories, following the Sunnah, purification, and warning against religious innovations, weak and fabricated hadiths. Then, at the end of the topic, it mentionedThe Shaykh : 'Id Abbas, stating that there is a continuation that does not fit in this context, which is the Salafi position toward other calls, and he did not address it at all, which is the conclusion of the topic. Then, immediately after that, a comment by your eminence regarding the previous topic appeared, taking up approximately five pages, in which you mentionedThe Shaykh : the Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and praised him with high praise. Among your words was: "So the Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab..."

The Shaykh : Whose words are these?

The questioner : This is all the words ofThe questioner : ... Now the words of

The Shaykh : ... .

The Shaykh : The first words are his words.

The questioner : My words, so among your words now... Shall I complete it?

The Shaykh : Complete it, but there is a problem here, I do not know if you addressed it later?

The questioner : Yes, and I will mention the question, if Allah wills. And whatever you want me to repeat, I will repeat it.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Then, immediately after that, a comment by your eminence regarding the previous topic appeared, taking up approximately five pages, in which you mentionedThe Shaykh : the Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and you praised him with high praise. Among your words was: "The Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab has a status in the call among us after the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him)." But you mentioned among what you mentioned that he has no knowledge of the difference between authentic and weak hadiths. Then you said: "And among the proofs that indicate this is that he has a printed treatise circulating among his followers in Najd to this day, titled *Adab al-Mashy ila al-Masjid* (The Etiquette of Walking to the Mosque). He cited at the beginning of this recent treatise, which is known to Muslims in general except for a few of them, its weakness. It is the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, which the Imam Ibn Majah cited in his Sunan through the route of al-Fudayl ibn Marzuq, from 'Atiyyah al-Sa'di or al-'A'ifi, and it is more famous as al-'A'ifi, from 'Atiyyah al-'A'ifi. Here, my Shaykh, the attribution appeared in the book *al-'Awni* three times. And some people mentioned it or drew attention to it. From Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, he said: "When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would go out from his house to the mosque, he would say: . So first, he cited it without drawing attention to its weakness, even though it has two defects; if one of them were alone, it would suffice to declare the hadith weak, so how much more so with both defects together? And secondly, the apparent meaning of this hadith contradicts what he called for in terms of belief, and the singling out of tawhid and the call to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which is tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means) through created beings. So, my Shaykh, some scholars understood this word from you as an oblique criticism ofThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, so he wrote a treatise in which he authenticates this hadith and refutes you, titling it *Al-Intisar li-Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wa al-Radd 'ala al-Albani fi ma Janna fihi al-Sawab* (The Defense of the Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and the Refutation of Al-Albani in Where He Deviated from the Truth). So what is your opinion regarding the original wordThe Shaykh Eid Abbasi : and the place of your comment on it, and the words in which you criticized it? Also, we want a clear and explicit opinion regarding the Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab so that we may cut off the path for some malicious people who may exploit your aforementioned words. May Allah reward you with good, bless you, and make you beneficial.

The Shaykh : Before answering the question, I want to clarify the words of the brotherEid Abbasi : May Allah relieve him and all the Muslims. And my comment was not in that symposium, especially since the symposium was held andEid Abbasi : I was in prison, and I was not present there. Therefore, I consider the publication of this word in that book mentioned to be a form of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) by some of the organizers of the symposium and those who oppose our call, the call of the Book and the Sunnah. They misled the readers into thinking that this word attributed toEid Abbasi : was delivered there, and that my comment on it was also there. This is undoubtedly a tadlis that is not permissible in the Shari'ah, because it resembles lying to all the people who read this book. A question like this had come to me from some of our brothers, students of knowledge, during my last 'Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) that I performed about two years ago, there in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah. And I answered it, andThe questioner : was, of course, one of our brothers, students of knowledge, and one of the enthusiastic supporters of the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. And the summary of my answer there, which is my answer now, and I have nothing new, is that it is not from Islam to exaggerate and go to extremes regarding scholars. And to give them what they were not involved in and did not verify. So Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) undoubtedly has the greatest merit in spreading the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) in the lands of Najd first, and then in the rest of the other Islamic lands, which were greatly influenced by his blessed call. And perhaps the Syrian lands, and others, are among the effects of that good call. But this does not mean thatThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) was an imam in every science. He was an imam in tafsir, an imam in hadith, an imam in fiqh, and so on. So, in my opinion—and I say this with complete frankness—he was not like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, who, according to his biography, was among the great scholars of knowledge. It is reported that when he would sit in a gathering with scholars from various fields and specializations in every science, whenever he spoke about any science, the specialist in that field would think that Ibn Taymiyyah was a specialist in that science. So Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was a rarity of his time, and women rarely give birth to someone like him. Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was not like Ibn Taymiyyah in his responses and verification in many sciences, especially the noble Prophetic hadith. From what we have seen in the books, two things do not appear: first, that he was a critic of hadith, and second, that he was like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, who moved through the fiqh of the four schools and others, critiquing many of the opinions therein and preferring some over others. Rather, he was predominantly following the Hanbali school. This is the case with all scholars in all eras and all schools, in that they predominantly follow a school to varying degrees. Some hardly deviate from their school by a hair's breadth, some move a little, and some move a lot, all according to their knowledge and breadth of understanding of the evidence that scholars have presented in disputed issues. So, what we quoted in this book was not written in a book, but was a lesson delivered in some old years, very old indeed, and recorded on a tape. Some of the organizers of this seminar took advantage of this and recorded the words of our brother 'A'id 'Abbas (may Allah have mercy on him) and my commentary on them. I commented on them at that time to clarify the truth, so that we give every person his due without excess or deficiency. So, there is no doubt that Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was a knowledgeable and virtuous man, especially in his call to tawhid (the oneness of Allah), for its impact is not denied even by enemies. As for the other sciences, and specifically the science of hadith, he does not have those effects that would place him in the company of the preservers of hadith. If there were someone today who compiled a book on the preservers of hadith, as Imam al-Dhahabi did in his time, followed by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, and then al-Suyuti and others came after them, each completing the course that his predecessor had undertaken, then if we suppose that a person today compiled a book on the preservers of hadith throughout the centuries and wanted to give Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab his due, he would not place him in the rank of these preservers, let alone describe him as being in the rank of the authenticators and weakeners. Because we know by experience that there is no necessary connection between memorizing hadith and critiquing hadith by authenticating and weakening it. Therefore, this science must be valued at its true worth, and at the same time, we must know the right of the specialists in it, and not wrong these people, just as we do not elevate to their rank those who are not like them. This is based on the principle of the saying of our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He): . This is my opinion and my answer to this question.

The questioner : Did the message from Isma'il al-Ansari that we were discussing reach you?

The Shaykh : No, by Allah.

The Shaykh : The one I started about thirty years ago, or perhaps more, which is Sahih Abu Dawud and Da'if Abu Dawud. Unfortunately, the book is now considered lost.

The questioner : Do you mean you were detailing it, meaning you were tracing the hadiths in it, and not just giving a brief summary?

The Shaykh : No, there was no detailing like al-Silsilah, no, but rather it was brief.