Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (1/945)

Silsilat al-Ahadith al-SahihahNasir al-Din al-Albani

The answer is: when he authenticated it, he did not notice that it was among the proofs of the supporters of the Sunnah in this matter—those whom he had dubbed “the Albanists” out of injustice, envy, and hostility. Otherwise, he would have fabricated a hidden defect for it, as he did in “The Discussion,” and included it in his collection of weak hadiths, which he appended to his Riyad; or he would simply have omitted it, as he did with some authentic hadiths that conflicted with his whims when he could find no defect with which to feign an objection. The examples are many, but one example suited to the present discussion will suffice:

Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) cited, no. 1094, the hadith of Anas, attributed to the Prophet: “Straighten your rows and stand close together…” to the end of the hadith. He said:

“Al-Bukhari transmitted it with this wording (1), and Muslim transmitted it in meaning. In one version recorded by al-Bukhari: ‘One of us would press his shoulder against his companion’s shoulder and his foot against his foot.’”

Yet “the one who declares hadiths weak” omitted this version of al-Bukhari from his Riyad, no. 837, because he deemed it weak, as he explicitly stated in the introduction, p. 15—not because of any weakness in its chain of transmission, for otherwise he would not have retained the first version, but because in meaning it supports the three hadiths that he declared weak, as is evident. For the contact mentioned in it cannot be achieved when a mosque column separates a man from his brother!

This Sunnah is observed only by the supporters of hadith and the Sunnah in every land of the world. I do not think that the man in question joins them in acting upon it and placing his foot against his companion’s foot when praying in congregation. How could he, when he wages war against it, writes a treatise refuting those who adhere to it, and accuses them therein, on p. 13, of having “abandoned imitation of the Imams for imitation of one whose name cannot be mentioned in their presence”?! I say: Yes, I consider myself unworthy of being mentioned alongside them, because of the vast difference between me and them,

(1) The one who declared it weak attributed it to (Kh 718), but this is an error: that version is abridged and does not contain the words “close ranks.” Rather, it is found in (719). I therefore fear that this wording, too, is inauthentic in his view, since it is similar in meaning to the other narration that he omitted while declaring it weak! I ask Allah to inspire him to act in a manner that gives us reason to think well of him.

والجواب: لم يتنبّه حين صححه أنّه من حججِ أَنصارِ السّنةِ هنا الذين لقّبهم -بغيًا وحسدًا وعدوانًا- بـ (الأَلبانييّن) ، وإِلاّ لاختلقَ له علّةً كما فعلَ في "المناقشةِ"، ولأَوردَه في "ضعيفتِه" الّتي ذيّلَ بها "رياضَه"، أَو اكتفى بحذفِه كما فعلَ ببعضِ الأَحاديثِ الصحيحةِ لتعارضِها مع هواه حين لا يجدُ له علّةَ يمكنُ أَن يتظاهرَ بها، والأَمثلةُ كثيرةٌ، وحسبُنا الآنَ مثالٌ واحدٌ يناسبُ المقامَ: أَوردَ النوويُّ ﵀ (رقم ١٠٩٤) حديثَ أَنسٍ مرفوعًا: "أَقيموا صفوفَكم وتراصّوا.." الحديث، وقال: "رواه البخاريُّ بلفظه (١) ، ومسلمٌ بمعناه، وفي رواية للبخاريِّ: وكانَ أَحدُنا يلزقُ منكبَه بمنكبِ صاحبِه، وقدمَه بقدمِه". فحذفَ (المضعّفُ) من "رياضِه" (رقم ٨٣٧) روايةَ البخاريّ هذه لضعفِها عنده كما نصَّ على ذلك في "المقدمة" (ص ١٥) لا لضعفٍ في سندِها، وإلاّ لما أَبقى الروايةَ الأُولى، وإنّما لأنّها تؤيّدُ من حيث المعنى ما ضعفَه من الأحاديثِ الثلاثةِ كما هو ظاهرٌ، لأنّ اللزقَ المذكورَ فيها لا يمكنُ تحقيقُه مع تفريقِ الساريةِ بين المرءِ وأَخيه! وهذا السنّةُ لا يحافظُ عليها إلاّ أَنصارُ الحديثِ والسنّةِ في كلِّ بلادِ الدنيا، ولا أَظنُّ المذكورَ يشاركُهم في العملِ بها، ويلزقُ قدمَه بقدمِ صاحبِه إِذا صلّى مع الجماعةِ، كيفَ وهو يحاربُها ويؤلفُ رسالةً للرَّدِّ على المتمسكين بها، ويتهمهم فيها (ص ١٣) بأنّهم "خرجوا من تقليدِ الأَئمة إِلى تقليد من لا يذكرُ أَمامَهم"؟! فأَقولُ: نعم، إِنّي أَرى أَن لا أُذكرَ معهم، للفرقِ الشاسعِ بيني وبينهم،

(١) عزاه (المضعف) إِلى (خ ٧١٨) ، وهو خطأ، فإنّه فيه مختصرٌ، وليس فيه "تراصّوا"، وإنّما هو (٧١٩) ، فأخشى أَن كونَ هذا اللفظُ عندَه غيرَ صحيح أيضًا؛ لأنّه في المعنى مثلُ الروايةِ الأُخرى الّتي حذفها مضعفًا! أَسالُ اللهَ أَن يلهمَه العملَ بما يحملُنا على حسنِ الظنِّ به!