of the refutation of this wrong-doer and of the purpose he pursues in maligning al-Albani.

Second: His catalogue of “contradictions” possesses no scholarly value whatsoever. Even were he right about some of the inconsistencies he alleges, all that would prove is that al-Albani is a human being who, like others, sometimes errs. Pointing that out brings the readers no benefit—especially since al-Albani himself openly acknowledges this whenever the occasion arises, as has been shown and will yet be shown.

Third: What truly benefits the readers is to determine which of those supposed contradictions are in fact sound and which are not. This the critic has entirely failed to do, for his aim is merely to slake the rancour of his heart by defaming al-Albani, undermining confidence in his learning, and turning people away from profiting by him: “Perish in your rage” (Qur’an 3:119) (1). Giving sincere advice to his readers is not his object; had he attempted it, his ignorance and lack of rigorous scholarship would have been exposed—as will become clear from the following examples he censures in this volume.

Hadith no. (201): In that place I reported my earlier verdict that its chain is weak because of Shurayk, as stated in my commentary on the hadith in Mishkat, noting that in so doing I had followed a number of eminent hadith critics. I later graded it authentic through another route to which they had not had access. Is there any contradiction in that, dear readers? So what are we to think of this aggressor who cites this (1/40) as an instance of contradiction and yet does not bother to inform the readers of the correct ruling on the hadith—whether it is authentic or weak?

He has acted likewise with other narrations in which he claims contradiction, such as the upcoming hadiths (113 and 114); the contradiction exists only in his own imagination!