Category Archives: Naseer Ud Deen Albani

Criticism of al-Albani’s Hadith Grading Method

By Muhaddith Sulayman ‘Alwan

The brother says that a group of people say that the authenticating of al-AlbanI isn’t accurate in comparison to the early scholars. And this is True, whether he authenticated the Hadiths or weakened the Hadiths, because the Usul that he follows in his authenticating and weakening is upon the Usul of the Later scholars, upon the Usul of ibn al-Salah, upon the Usul of al-Hafidh al-Iraqi, upon the Usul of ibn Hajr, he doesn’t follow in his Usui, the Usul of Yahya ibn Sa’d al Qattan, the Usul of ibn Mahdi, the Usul of Imam Ahmad, the Usul of al-Bukhari, Usul of Muslim, or upon the Usul of the early scholars, so he goes along the Usul of the later scholars, not the Usul of the Early scholars, and if those were the means that he goes along, it is considered a weak means, so usually the end result would be inconsiderable. So consequently, he has many things that he authenticates which goes against the Methodology of the early scholars, or he weakens that which has a clear difference to the Methodology of the early scholars, because the differences between the early & the later scholars are many, I’ll mention the most important of those differences to clarify the intent and meaning.

So from among that, al-Tadlees [covering up a break in the chain], whenever al-Tadlees is proven in the Hadlth, then it’s a ‘ila (hidden defect), and there’s no dispute in this, whereas the later scholars consider the “an ‘ana” [i.e. narrates by using the term “an” (from)] of the person described with Tadlees as “Tadlees”, and this hasn’t been stated by any of the early scholars, and al-Albani follows this principle, of the Usul of the later scholars, not the Usul of the early scholars. So he says about the hadith that it has ‘an ‘ana of al-Hassan, it has ‘an ‘ana of Qatadah, there is ‘an ‘ana of Abi Ishaq al-Sabi’i, there is ‘an ‘ana of al-A’mash, there is ‘an ‘ana of ibn Jurayj, there is ‘an ‘ana of ibn al-Zubayr and he defects the Hadiths in this way, he has weakened Hadiths in Muslim upon this way, and none of the early scholars were upon this Manhaj, and it’s not known from any of the Imams that they defected a Hadith by ‘an ‘ana of a Mudallis or the person described with Tadlees, rather the early scholars say “Dalas”, and they do not say “an ‘an”, so if it’s proven that he “Dalas” [cheated], we will defect the Hadith because this is a disconnection, and if he says ‘an ‘an and he didn’t “Dalis”, merely a ‘an ‘ana, this doesn’t affec t[the Hadlth], and this is what the early scholars are upon, and this is from the enormous differences between the early and the later scholars.

The second matter: Ziyadat ul-Thiqah [The addition of a trustworthy narrator].

The Madhab of the Fuqaha’ and Mutakalimeen is that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted in all cases, and many of the later scholars have followed this, so ibn Hajr says in al-Nukhba “and the addition of its narrator is accepted, as long as it doesn’t go against that whom is more authentic” and this is not the Manhaj of the [early] Imams, and he has stipulated the Manhaj of the Early scholars in “Kitab al-Nukat ‘ala kitab ibn al-Salah”, and in that book, he has overlooked/
neglected in determining the Usul of the early Imams in this matter, so some of the later scholars or a group of later scholars as it’s the statement of the Fuqaha’ that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted and this is well-known in the authenticating of the later scholars, “This is an addition of a trustworthy narrator, therefore it’s accepted”. The early scholars do not give the addition an absolute/general ruling, so at times they would accept the addition and sometimes they would reject the addition, and they do not give an absolute/
general ruling.

The third matter: Raising weak Hadiths to Hassan by Shawahid (finding supporting narrations), the early scholars do not expand in that, and among the later scholars, there is severe expansion, that most of their authentications & Hassan grading is when the Hadlth comes from different chains. And that is why the authentications by the later scholars have exceeded 50,000 Hadiths, and this is an exaggeration in the authenticating of Hadiths, and many of that is Munkar, it has no basis to it, the issue is not a Hadith or 2 Hadiths, when the Hadiths reach 5,000 hadiths, 4000 are all Munkar. The early scholars did not call a Hadith “Hassan” by Shawahid except by well known conditions and guidelines as a methodology among them, so from that, they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid in the Usul [can’t be the main hadith which Fiqh and rulings are derived from the hadlth] and they do not accept it. And from that, is that they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid if it goes against an authentic Hadlth. And from that, is that they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid if there’s a liar or a person accused of fabricating or a fault or a Nakarah (discrepancy) in the Isnad(chain).

The fourth matter: Al-Tafarrud (singular narrations), the early scholars would consider the issue of Tafarrud a great concern, and they would sometimes not accept the Hadith of the Mutaffarid even if he was Trustworthy (Thiqah), and usually as a methodology that they had, they would reject the Hadith of the Saduq in the Usul, and this isn’t taken into consideration by the later scholars, and they do not differentiate between what is in the Usul [the main hadith which Fiqh and rulings are derived from the hadith & chapter] and what is in other than the Usul, and by the end result of the inability to apply this methodology, they authenticate many Munkar Hadlth. Because the Hadlth of the Saduq or the Hadith of a Thiqah who doesn’t narrate a lot of Hadlths, and isn’t known by many singular narrations, if he makes Tafarrud in an Asl, then this is a place of dispute, so from that, the hadith that was narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud in his Sunan from the chain of Muhammad ibn ishaq from Abi ‘Ubaydah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Zam’ah from his father from his mother from Umm Salamah that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“On this day you have been allowed to take off ihram when you have thrown the stones at the jamrahs, that is, everything prohibited during the state of ihram is lawful except intercourse with a woman. If the evening comes before you go round this House (the Ka’bah) you will remain in the sacred state (i.e. ihram), just like the state in which you were before you threw stones at the jamrahs”

And this report is Munkar, it’s not possible to accept the Tafarrud of ibn ishaq in it, and even if the Tafarrud of ibn Ishaq was accepted, it’s not possible to accept the Tafarrud of Abi ‘Ubaydah, and this is a followed principle among the early scholars, that in such a situation, the Tafarrud of the Saduq is not accepted who is not known with precision/accuracy and itqan (firmness/minimal errors) and a person who narrates many Ahadith, and this is merely an example, for the examples are many. The later scholars do not look except at what seems to be apparent of the chain and what ibn Hajr said in al-Taqreeb “Thiqah” or “Saduq” and in the end he says “its chain is authentic”.

And this is the fifth matter; that the later scholars go by the apparent look of the chains, they make hadith authentic based upon this, as for the early scholars, then no. They look at the chain and look at the matn (text), and when they look into the Isnad (chain), they look at several aspects:

The first aspect: The trustworthiness of the narrators.

The second aspect: Al-Sama’ at [Whether the narrators have met], they stress on the Sama’at a lot.

The third aspect: Al-Tafarrud [the narrator is alone in narrating a hadith], they stress on the chain and the Tafarrud.

The fourth aspect: Al-Mukhalafah [The differences between the narrators], they look at this very deeply.

The fifth aspect: al-Ikhtilaf [inconsistencies in who he’s narrating from], they look into it very deeply, sometimes they would rule upon it with Idtirab (shakiness).

The early scholars would consider this a very great concern; they wouldn’t be heedless to any of these aspects.

The sixth matter: The Majhul (unknown) Hadith, the later scholars weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-‘Ayn, or before that, they settled upon categorising Majhul into two types, Majhul Hal [2 people have narrated from him] and Majhul ‘Ayn [1 person has narrated from him].

So they weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-‘Ayn and some of them weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-Hal, and some of them authenticate it, but as for the early scholars, then no. They mention conditions for a man whenever he would be considered Majhul and whenever he wouldn’t be considered Majhul. So if he narrates from a narrator who’s trustworthy many times, who is not known to narrate from the weak narrators, nor from the Unknown, then this would cause his Jahalah [unknownness] to be raised by the one who he narrated from. And they stipulate that his narrator must be consistent and not make Tafarrud in an Asl [Main Hadith of the chapter/Original Version], and that he doesn’t go against the trustworthy narrators, and this isn’t taken into consideration among the later scholars. And it’s narrated from the early scholars that if a narrator narrates from a group of trustworthy narrators, his Jahalah [unknownness] would be raised from him, and by this, they make the issue of Tafarrud as an issue of Mukhalafah.

So these are the differences or some of differences between the Early & the Later scholars, and by applying these principles, your Usul [Foundations] would become upright, and if the Foundation is upright, the branches would follow, and the end result would be stable/good, and by the deficiency of applying these principles, you will destabilize the Usul, and if you’ve destabilized the Usul, shakiness would be found in the branches, giving the poor end result.

Did Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i say, “A woman does in Salah as a man does?” – A Refutation of Nasir al-Din al-Albani

The late Salafi scholar and preacher, Nasir al-Din al-Albani, wrote in his popular book Sifatu Salat al-Nabi when arguing that the Salah of a woman does not differ in any way from the Salah of a man:

ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺻﻼﺗﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺮﺩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺫﻟﻚ، ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺻﻠﻮﺍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﺘﻤﻮﻧﻲ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻳﺸﻤﻠﻬﻦ، ﻭﻫﻮ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺨﻌﻲ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ . ﺃﺧﺮﺟﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺷﻴﺒﺔ ﺑﺴﻨﺪ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻋﻨﻪ.

“All that has come earlier of the description of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayer, men and women are equal therein, and nothing has come in the Sunnah that demands the exemption of women in any of this. Rather, the generality of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: ‘Pray as you have seen me praying’ includes them. And this is the view of Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i. He said: ‘A woman does in Salah as a man does.’ Ibn Abi Shaybah transmitted it with a sahih chain from him.” [Sifatu Salat al-Nabi, Maktabat al-Ma‘arif, p. 189]

It has already been demonstrated in Differences in the Salah of Men & Women and the Batil Arguments of the La-Madhabiyyah that it is proven from the Sunnah and the practice of the early generations that a woman’s Salah differs slightly from a man’s in the areas that were discussed. Hence, the claim that there is no proof from the Sunnah differentiating between the Salah of a man and woman is incorrect. Moreover, a brief analysis of the hadith “pray as you have seen me praying,” has also been discussed above in light of the background to the hadith and the interpretation of it offered by one of the commentators.

As for the view of Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, al-Albani’s quotation from him is incorrect on two counts.

Firstly, even supposing this narration was authentic, it contradicts the other authentic narrations from him. See reports four and five above under the section, “Reports from the Tabi‘in.” These reports are found in the very same section of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah from which al-Albani quoted it. Yet, overlooking those narrations, he asserted that this report from him is his established “view” (qawl)!

Secondly, this is a baseless narration, as it is not found in any reliable manuscript of Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musannaf. In fact, what is found in the Musannaf is the following narration:

ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻏﻨﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﻘﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ

“Ghundar narrated to us from Shu‘bah from Mansur from Ibrahim, he said: ‘A woman sits in Salah as a man sits.’” [Musannaf, 2:506]

(Note: Al-Nakha‘i is probably asserting the permissibility of this, not that it is preferred. See report five above where it clearly states with an equally authentic chain that al-Nakha‘i said a woman is ordered to sit to one side – that is, unlike a man. Hence, the added emphasis in that narration ought to give it preference.)

Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah, whose critical edition of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah is the best to date, writes in a footnote to this narration:

“This is how the word, ‘she sits’ appears, twice, in all manuscripts. There is a textual corruption in the Zahiriyyah manuscript which is a redaction of the Musannaf, in which is, ‘the woman does.’ This is in opposition to all the manuscripts, and does not accord with the chapter heading (‘on how the woman sits in Salah’), and is contrary to what has passed under number 2798 (from Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i) that a woman has a particular posture in some parts of her Salah in which she differs from a man.

“The author of Sifat Salat al-Nabi has fallen into this textual corruption in the conclusion he wrote to this book of his – p. 207 of the second edition – and he erred in ascribing this statement to the Musannaf. It appears that he believed the manuscript of the redaction is the original?!” (ibid.)
This should serve as a lesson to those who unquestioningly accept al-Albani’s documentation and his conclusions based on them, as he and his book are far from error-free.

Search for:

ﺑَﺪَﺃَ ﺍﻹِﺳْﻼﻡُ ﻏَﺮِﻳﺒًﺎ ، ﻭَﺳَﻴَﻌُﻮﺩُ ﻛَﻤَﺎ ﺑَﺪَﺃَ ﻏَﺮِﻳﺒًﺎ ، ﻓَﻄُﻮﺑَﻰ ﻟِﻠْﻐُﺮَﺑَﺎﺀِ

“ISLAM BEGAN AS SOMETHING STRANGE AND IT WILL RETURN TO BEING SOMETHING STRANGE, SO BLESSED ARE THE STRANGERS!”
[Hadith of Saheeh Muslim]

By Shaykh Zameelur Rahman (from England)

Refutation of Al-Albani’s View on Placing of Hands in Prayer

By Muhammad ibn Ahmad

With regard to the placing of the hands below the navel in Salaah  (see Sifah Salah an-Nabee, appendix 4, pg. 102-103, English ed’n), al-Albani has declared all the Hadith that reached him on this issue to be Daeef, due to the  presence of the narrator Abdar-Rahman ibn Ishaq al-Wasiti al-Kufi. This may be true due to what the scholars of Hadith have said, but he has either overlooked the fact that there are many other Ahadith which order the placing of the hands below the navel, or has deliberately not bothered to mention them to his readers who are usually unaware of this fact! 

Al-Albani claims on page 12 of the same book:

“To place them on the chest is what is proved in the Sunnah,  and all that is contrary to it is either Daeef or totally baseless.”  

But he contradicts himself on page 102-103 of the same book by saying:

“What further points to its  weakness (i.e. the Hadith of  Abdar-Rahman ibn Ishaq) is that contrary to it has been narrated on the authority of Ali (Allah be  pleased with him) with a better Isnad: the Hadith of Ibn Jareer al-Dabbi an (from) his father, who said, ‘I saw Ali holding his left arm with his right on the wrist, above the navel (I say: The statement above the navel, does not mean on the chest, but literally above the navel and below the chest, since this is the opinion of the Shafiyyah scholars like Bayhaqi, Nawawi, Muslim  and so on) – this Isnad is a candidate for the rank of HASAN; Baihaqi (1/301) firmly designated it to be Hasan, and Bukhari (1/301) designated it with certainty while giving it an abridged, ta’leeq form.” 

Is this not a clear contradiction from within the same book? And this is not all my dear reader… 

Al-Albani claimed that it was found in Bukhari (1/301), but when I examined the Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol.1, Chapter. 6, no. 707, pg. 396, English ed’n), I did  not find this narration of Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi (Allah be pleased with him), but instead a Hadith from Sahl ibn Sa’d (Allah be pleased with him) who said: “The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer.” Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (Peace be upon him).”  [see also Muwatta of Imam Malik, section 9.15, no 50, pg 70, English trans’n by A. Abdarahman and Y. Johnson for a very similar narration]. 

Now you have just read above  that al-Albani classified the Hadith of Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi to be HASAN, but when I found this very Hadith in the Sunan of Abu Dawood (1/756, pg. 194, English ed’n) and cross referenced it to the list, “Daeef Ahadith of Abu Dawud’s Sunan.” I found that his followers listed it as being  DAEEF!! Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) said after relating  the Hadith from Ibn Jarir al-Dabbi: “Sa’id ibn Jubair narrated the words: ‘above the navel’. Abu Mijlaz reported the words: ‘below the navel’. This has also been  narrated by Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him). But that is not  strong.” The latter quote is one which al-Albani failed to mention in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee!” 

Note also that al-Albani said with regard to the placing of the  hands on the chest (see Sifah Salah an-Nabee, pg. 12, in the footnote):  

“In fact, Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwaih  acted on this Sunnah, as Marwazi  said in ‘Masaa’il (pg 222): ‘Ishaq used to pray witr with us….he would raise his hands in qunoot, and make the qunoot before bowing, and place his hands on his breast or just under his breast.'”  

But when I read the footnote to  Abu Dawood’s Sunan (vol. 1, pg. 194, fn. 345, English ed’n), I noticed that the author of Awn al-Mabood (1,275), Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi, claimed that  both Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi and al-Hafiz Ishaq ibn Rahwaih (one of Imam al-Bukhari’s teachers)  held the position that the hands should be folded below the navel! In his Sahih Muslim sharif-Mukhtasar Sharh Nawawi (vol. 2, pg. 28, fn. 23), Wahid az-Zaman (a late scholar of the ‘Salafiyya’  in Pakistan) also affirmed that the Imam’s Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and  Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi (Allah’s mercy be upon them) all used to place their hands below the navel! So who do you think is quoting correctly, al-Albani or al-Azimabadi and az-Zaman? 

Here is the full quote from Abu Dawood’s Sunan: 

“The question of folding hands in prayer below the navel is disputed amongst the jurists. According to  Abu Hanifah, Sufyan al-Thawri,  Ishaq ibn Rahwaih, Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi (I say: others who held  the same view include the  Mujtahid’s like Ibrahim al-Nakhai, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu  Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaybani,  Zufar ibn Hudayl and many other scholars, Allah’s mercy be upon them), the hands should be folded below the navel. This tradition is followed by them (I say: it is not just this tradition which lends support to placing the hands below the navel, but others as well). According to al-Shafi’i, the hands should be placed below the chest (I say:  this is also the opinion of Imam  Muslim, according to the chapter  heading used by him: ‘The placing  of the right hand over the left  hand after the first takbir in prayer below the chest and above  the navel and then placing them  opposite the shoulders in prostration’ (see Sahih Muslim,  vol.1, pg. 220, English ed’n). Al-Nawawi says that this is the view of the majority of the jurists (this may have been in Imam Nawawi’s day, but it is well known that through out the centuries of Islam in aggregate, most of the  Ulama as well as the common folk have been placing their hands below the navel, by Allah’s decree and will). Two statements have been attributed to Ahmad ibn Hanbal (see al-Albani’s Sifah  Salah an-Nabee, footnote on pg. 51). According to the third view ascribed to him he does not give any preference to any of these  two views. One has the choice of placing the hands. Malik is also reported to have held two different views. According to the  second, he held that one should leave the hands in their natural  position without folding them. One should not fold them placing one on the other.”

NB- The most authoritative position of Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) has been  recorded in al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, by Qadi Sahnoon (d. 240  AH). This book contains the most authentic positions of al-Imam  Malik and his illustrious disciples, namely Imam ibn al-Qasim and Imam ibn Wahb. Qadi Sahnoon recorded the declarations of Imam Malik directly from Imam  ibn al-Qasim, hence there is no real doubt in my mind that  whatever has been recorded in  this book is the Madhhab of al-Imam Malik, and usually the amal  (practise) of the people of Madinah in his day. In al-Mudawwana (vol.1, pg.75-76), Imam Malik has been recorded to  have said, “Putting the right  hand on the left in salah, I have no knowledge of it in the compulsory (fard) prayer, it is thus disliked (makrooh). But in the supererogatory (nafl) prayer there is no harm (in folding the hands), it is left to the individual to decide.” This statement from  Imam Malik is a strong proof against those who claim that Imam Malik only prayed with his hands at his sides, after he received a severe beating (see. The Evolution of Fiqh, pg. 70, by A.A. Bilal Philips)!
 
Al-Albani has only ‘checked’ six Hadith which allow the placing of the hands below the navel (see his ‘Sifah’, pg.102, Appx. 4). But  there are more than 6 other  Hadith (which allow the placing of the hands below the navel) which  he has not bothered to mention/check; may be he has not come across them! One of such Hadith  is very  similar to what al-Albani  mentioned in “Sifah Salah an-Nabee,” pg.11: “We, the company  of Prophets, have been commanded to hasten the  breaking of the fast, to delay the meal before the fast, and to place our right arms on our left arms  during prayer [from Ibn Hibban and Diyaa’, with a Sahih Isnad according to al-Albani]. The version I have is related by  Sayyidina Ali (Allah be pleased  with him): “Three things are from the habits of Prophethood: To hasten the breaking of the fast,  to delay the Sehri (pre-fast meal) as late as possible, and to place one’s right hand on top of the  left hand below the navel  (transmitted by Hafiz Ibn Shaheen).” 

To finish, As-Sayyid Sabiq quoted Imam Tirmidhi (Rahimahullah) as saying in Fiqh-us-Sunnah (vol. 1, pg 132): “Knowledgeable  Companions (Allah be pleased with them all), their followers and those that came after them  believed that one should put his right hand over the left during prayer, while some say above the  navel and others say below the  navel.”  

Pray as you see me pray – Albani’s deceptive work

Naseer-ud-deen Albani wrote a book titled, “Sifaat Salatun Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)”. However, what Albani failed to answer, despite his attempt to discredit the research of the four Imaam’s of fiqh, is the following:

Does the Quran explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sahih Bukhari explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sahih Muslim explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Nisa’i explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Jami At-Tirmizi explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Abu Dawud explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Does Sunnan Ibn Majah explain sequentially and in a detailed manner the method of performing Salaat (prayers)?

Please name one single Muhaddith (Scholar of Hadith) amongst those listed above who has written a complete / comprehensive book on how to perform salaat?

Did the messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) order any of the 125,000 companions to record or write a book on “pray as you see me pray”?

Did any of the four Khulafaa Rashideen write a book on how to perform salaat in their lifetime? Especially Umar Ibn Khattab (known for establishing Fiqh) and Usmaan Ibn Affan (who compiled the Qur’an)?

Bilal Phillips, Albani, Madkhali, Salih al-Fawzan, Zakir Naik & Farhat Hashmi can not teach the ummah the complete way of salaat if they answered “No” to all the 10 Questions above. Then how on earth did they learn the right method of Salaat? The answer is that they (the Salafi’s) generated their method of Salaat by carefully studying and copying the candid research of Aimma-e- Mujtahideen; especially Imaam Shafi’i (rahmatullahi alayhi).

Allah Ta’ala has given the order in the Quran to “Establish Salaat” but the details have been left out. It is funny that Imaam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alayhi) is accused of knowing only 6-Ahadeeth. Interestingly, with “6-Ahadeeth” he was able to teach people the full methodology of Salaat. So, shouldn’t one go to the person who out of 6-hadeeth can teach the ummah how to pray, rather than Imaam Bukhari who collected over 600,000 ahadeeth, yet he didn’t teach anyone the full method of salaat?

Albani’s book “Sifaat Salaatun Nabi” is nothing more than a deceptive attempt at confusing the Ummah. In his book he could not produce a single sahih hadith that gives one the complete method and details of salaat. Even Albani’s book is incomplete despite the cut-and-paste that he did to mislead people. But the Salafi’s are blind followers of Albani so there is not much I can say. Albani has also commited injustice by hiding the following facts from the Ummah:

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Faraaid (Obligatory Acts of Salaat)

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Waajib acts of Salaat

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Sunnah’s of the Salaat

He does not give from the Quran and Sahih Hadith only the Makrooh acts in Salaat

Why didn’t Albani tell the Ummah that even the greatest Imaam of Hadith; Imam Bukhari (rahmatullahi alayhi) did not provide ALL the SAHIH hadeeth to substantiate each and every act of Salaat; unless Albani learnt a better way to pray than Imaam Bukhari – because not All hadith reached Imaam Bukhari??

source