Request for the Shaykh to debate al-Khalili the Ibadi.

Al-Halabi : Shaykh, on the occasion of mentioning the Ibadis, some people say: If al-Khalili, who is challenging and requesting a debate in the Sacred House of Allah, with a live broadcast on television, and mutual imprecation, and so on, were to propose a debate to Shaykh Al-Albani, giving people the impression that he is upon the clear truth...

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
Al-Halabi : ...with his decisive argument, and if he requested it from you, and we know your soundness and so on, nevertheless, what is your opinion?

The Shaykh : As you know, I am always ready to meet with any person. However, due to my knowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the people of the Sunnah and the people of innovation, whether the innovation encompasses the Ibadis, the Shi'ah, or others, it is necessary to first present the principles upon which agreement must be reached, and then discuss the differences that branch out from these principles. As long as we are still differing on the principles, sitting to discuss what branches from this disagreement in the principles is like striking cold iron or fighting in the air; it is of no benefit. This is how I used to answer the Shi'ah when I was in Damascus. I would say to them: For example, you do not rely on Sahih al-Bukhari, and we do not rely on al-Kulayni. So if we argue with you using al-Bukhari, you do not accept the argument. Therefore, we need to establish the correct methodologies after the Book of Allah, upon which we have agreed on its authenticity. How is it interpreted? And upon what hadiths does it rely, and so on. These principles must be researched before the branching of disagreement, or before agreeing on these principles. For example, if we agree that a hadith of a single narrator (ahad) is a proof, then we must submit to any issue where ahad hadiths appear, as long as they are authentic. Or, God forbid, if we agree on the opposite, then we do not argue for ourselves, let alone argue against others, with ahad hadiths, because it has been established in the hypothesis we are discussing that they are not suitable for argumentation. And so on. I am ready to meet with any person, only with this condition, and not to dive directly into the subject while we are differing on the principles. They claim, and this is a very serious matter, that there is no disagreement among Muslims on the principles. Many Islamic preachers today say that the disagreement among Muslims is only in the branches. This is what led a group of Muslim youth into trouble when Khomeini declared his state; they rushed to pledge allegiance to him and support him, and so on. This is because they assume that there is no disagreement between us and the Shi'ah except in the branches, because they are ignorant of what is in the bellies of the books of the Shi'ah regarding disagreement on the principles. What principle, for example, is valid for them after the Qur'an, if they believe that the Qur'an in our hands is a quarter of the Musnad of Fatimah? What principle after that can be said to be valid? Before researching in creedal issues, one must research the scientific rules upon which we rely when we may differ in an issue, whether it is creedal or jurisprudential.