In a cassette titled (الإنصاف عند الإمام الألباني), “Justice with Shaykh al-Albānī” someone wishes to play some audio clips he had compiled from the lectures of one of the Ḥarakiyyīn (activists) to receive some commentary on the contents as to the correctness of the speech.
The cassette is from 1992, following the fitnah of the first Gulf War, after which the Ḥarakiyyīn (activists) appeared on the scene and began to speak about affairs of war, revolutions, demonstrations and the likes. They were rightfully criticised by scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, however, their condition remained unclear to many people until years later, towards the end of the 1990s.
The cassette recording is interesting as it demonstrates how scholars take great caution and care when evaluating people’s words and statements, to ensure that honesty, integrity and justice is maintained and that their subsequent speech (in judging or criticising) is strong and incontestable.
Questioner:
Today we are pleased to be sitting with our shaykh, ʿAllāmah, Muḥaddith, Shaykh Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī. Today is the 10 Jumādā al-ʾŪlā 1413H (4 November 1992).
In this sitting we wish to play to our shaykh from another recording, some tapes that we have collected from the speech of some callers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, specifically in the city of Jeddah. These are the words of Dr. Safar bin ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥawālī (taken) from a collection of his tapes, lectures and lessons which were from before and after the Gulf tribulation. We believe they contain violations of methodology, which oppose the methodology of the Salaf of this ummah.
They will also help the listener to form an opinion about the speaker’s methodology that he proceeds upon. Does he proceed upon the Salafī methodology as we have learned from our shaykh and others, may Allāh protect them, or does he proceed upon another methodology which has Salafiyyah along with other affairs that oppose the methodology of the Salaf?
So we hope our shaykh permits us to listen to some clips and that he comments on them with what he is able, whether to correct them or otherwise, as his eminence sees fit, may Allāh protect him.
Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله):
I believe, first and foremost, that even if I were to listen to these clips, it is not appropriate to extract a clip from the words of the speaker and then comment on it, because it is known among the scholars that the context (siyāq) and preceding part of a discourse (sibāq) are the indicators that make (the intent and meaning) clear (mubayyināt).
Therefore, I believe it is correct to judge the tape by taking (all of) its content from its beginning to its end.
As for taking a clip, we could comment upon it by stopping (only) at this clip, (but) the context and prior part would stand between us and this judgement, and from it being a correct judgement.
So if you see, meaning, you are sure about the necessity of listening to the clip and answering about it, then I have no objection, but I believe that what I have just mentioned is what is correct.
We find in the speech of great scholars such as Imām al-Albānī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) and others who were known for truthfulness and integrity in their writings and refutations, much emphasis on criticism, correction and refutation being based on honesty and justice.
In this clip above, Imām al-Albānī (رحمه الله) makes it clear that with respect to clips taken from cassettes (lectures), that it is appropriate to incorporate the context (siyāq) and the preceding part of a discourse (sibāq) because these are the real indicators which make clear the meaning and intent of a person’s speech.
These types of clarifications and important indications in the speech of these great scholars help us to distinguish between objective, dependable criticism against which there can be no comeback and dispute, and criticism founded upon clipping, twisting and distortion of speech, which only leads to confusion and further disputation and controversy.
From this, we learn the difference between a) the dependable refutations, criticisms and disparagements of these great scholars, based on truthfulness, integrity and justice, free of whims, made with intellectual and academic honesty, with meaningful discussion and evaluation of speech, where people are advised to follow the evidence and b) what is passed off as disparagement (jarḥ) but is often revilement devoid of integrity and justice, without any meaningful discussion of speech, and people are demanded to accept it by argument of status and authority, without making clear how the presented evidence justifies the claims, criticisms and warnings.
The point here is that it is necessary for us to return to the great scholars of this era—those who are the renowned specialists in these fields—so that we do not lose sight of the standards and principles they operated upon, and on the basis of which, criticisms and refutations are always justified, solid, incontestable and serve their legislated purpose.