“I have already made some headway with it, and I would—briefly—cite the earlier scholars who had preceded him in each issue. My purpose was, on the one hand, to bring jurisprudence that is anchored in proof closer to the reader, and, on the other, to dispel the widespread claim that he is not a jurist or that his opinions are eccentric.” ⦗1⦘ End of quote.
-
“The Fatwas of Shaykh al-Albani and Their Comparison with the Fatwas of the Scholars,” compiled by ʿUkāsha ʿAbd al-Manan.
See the note on “Al-Hāwī: A Compendium of Shaykh al-Albani’s Fatwas” above. -
“Indexes of the Narrators Whom al-Albani Biographed in the Two Series,” by ʿAlawi al-Saqqāf.
The book’s method is simply to list the narrators together with the places where the Shaykh speaks about them. Although it required less effort than the title listed under number 10, it is more useful, for reasons that will be explained there. It is, however, limited to volumes 1–4 of both sections—the Ṣaḥīḥa and the Ḍaʿīfa—so it is incomplete. -
“The Confluence of the Two Seas: A Compilation of the Hadiths al-Albani Declared Authentic According to the Conditions of the Two Shaykhs,” collected and prepared by ʿIṣām Mūsā Hādī.
-
“Dictionary of the Names of the Narrators Whom the Scholar Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albani Evaluated, Whether Disparagingly or Endorsingly,” prepared by Aḥmad Ismāʿīl Shulūkānī and Ṣāliḥ ʿUthmān al-Laḥḥām (four large volumes).
I have seen no benefit in this work—despite its great size—and I wish the authors had not undertaken it. They should have confined themselves to the narrators about whom Shaykh Nāṣir, may Allah have mercy on him, actually voiced an opinion, such as:
• collecting the statements of the leading scholars regarding a particular narrator;
• justifying the criticism or accreditation of a narrator;
• debating one of the earlier scholars concerning the criticism or accreditation of a narrator;
and anything in which Shaykh Nāṣir plays an active role beyond mere quotation and reporting, important as those are.
Instead, the two compilers reproduced everything the Shaykh himself had quoted and reported from the earlier scholars without any intervention. They will write, for example:
“So-and-so son of so-and-so—Shaykh al-Albani said in al-Silsila al-Ṣaḥīḥa (…/…):
al-Dhahabi said in al-Mīzān such-and-such.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb such-and-such.”
And so it continues through most of the book. What, then, is new? Especially when the original sources are available and it is better to consult them directly.